Multi-Media - Non Webinar
Protected: Forensics TTA Calendar of National Events
This content is password protected. Enter the password to view it.
April 2025
© 2025 All rights reserved
This year’s virtual meeting will offer a series of educational case studies and sessions, covering key topics of significant interest to grantees across the BJA Forensics Programs. These include the application of forensic genetic genealogy in wrongful conviction investigations, innovative strategies for solving long-term missing and unidentified person cases, the evolving legal landscape for forensic evidence in light of Smith v. Arizona, implementing Rapid DNA technology in accordance with upcoming standards updates, the impact of turnaround times on death investigations, essential grant management practices, and more.
Program-specific breakout discussions will also be featured to provide grantees with a unique opportunity to learn more from respective BJA staff and other grantees.
“After the first trial ended in a hung jury, with 11 out of the 12 jurors [who] believed Cordeiro to be innocent, the State chose to rely on four additional…witnesses, who were all jailhouse informants,” the petition stated.
Prosecutors disagreed with the ruling. The prosecution alleged that Gordon robbed the victim by sticking his hands in the victim’s pockets and pulling out $800. The defense presented evidence that Gordon’s DNA was not in the pockets, but someone else’s DNA was. The judge determined that the new evidence surrounding DNA and lack of physical evidence linking Gordon to the scene, had a probability of changing the result if it proceeded to another trial.
Now at the age of 51, Gordon’s long-awaited homecoming has finally arrived. On February 21, 2025, Gordon was exonerated through the dedicated efforts of the Hawai’i Innocence Project supported in part by a Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Postconviction Testing of DNA Evidence (Postconviction) Program grant. Gordon called it “Freedom Friday” as he answered questions from media about his thoughts getting back to a world and community that is much different than what he knew in his 20s.
1) The defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a knife sheath located at the scene where DNA found on the sheath was associated with the DNA of the defendant. The sheath was also determined to be abandoned by the defendant.
2) A “trash pull” was conducted by law enforcement from waste bins set for pick up outside the residence of the defendant’s parents. The contents of which revealed DNA from the defendant’s father. The trial court ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the search and seizure during the “trash pull” in question.
3) The defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the shared common DNA segments of a relative who had uploaded his DNA into a commercial database available to consumers.
4) The fact that law enforcement took certain steps “outside” of the United States Department of Justice Interim Policy Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching does not necessarily require suppression of the evidence as they are not of constitutional dimension and are “internal” guidelines.
© 2025 All rights reserved