I'm not sure about that. It would be a judgement call for the CCRC and ultimately appeal court judges not the likes of us. Had the jury known SC's fingerprints were on or around the trigger, including many other areas of the rifle, this might have caused them to think differently about the case overall. Many posters on the forums want to know why only one of SC's fingerprints was on the rifle and see this as evidence of a guilty JB wearing gloves.
I wonder if the magazine is also coated?
The COA would view even more prints as meaningless. They viewed the efforts to overcome the blood evidence as meaningless on numerous separate grounds one of which was that the jury already heard there was a slight chance the blood wasn't Sheila's. Sure Fletcher said there was a very slight chance it wasn't Sheilas blood but his full testimony was he tested if there was a way for blood to not intimately mix and thus be a mixture of blood from other victims and said such was not possible. So what he said is effectively like saying well in theory anything is possible even God existing but there is no reasonable possibly that it could be anyone's blood but Sheila's. The COA ignored that and said swell he admitted it could be their blood mixed though he really didn't in actuality and that the jury knew this possibility and rejected it so they will reject it no matter what unless you come up with solid proof it was in fact a mixture.
What they would hold with regard to prints is that the jury already knew her prints were on the weapon and in their view would change nothing the defense needs to come up with evidence to prove she fired the weapon not simply that she touched it and that it was possible for her to shoot herself.
Where there would be a true judgment call would be a situation for instance if on appeal they tested her hair and head samples and found PGSR in a quantity supportive of her having fired a weapon. The jury heard she tested negative for PGSR. More PGSR gets on the hair and head than the hands. Would this rise to the level of warranting a new trial? On the one hand such doesn't refute the evidence that she can't have killed herself or Julie's testimony and the COA can simply decide that unless that is overcome they won't vacate the verdict. On the other hand they could decide that since the jury heard testimony clearly wrong- that she had tested negative for firing a weapon- then give a new trial because evidence of whether she fired a weapon could have influenced their decision.
That is the kind of situation where you don't know what they will do because different judges will do different things in those circumstances. If the main evidence at the trial revolved around whether someone had PGSR and the jury incorrectly heard that there was none then in that instance the court for sure would vacate. But where there is other evidence it is a more thorny issue and the mentality of the judges takes on greater significance.
The case where the defendant was convicted on the basis of a single grain of PGSR is a good example. The key evidence in the case was a single grain of PGSR found in his pocket. His lawyer did a horrible job challenging the significance at trial. His appellate lawyer was more competent and recognized the flaw in the argument that it proved he fired a weapon very recently. They relaxed the rule of requiring the scientific evidence to not exist at the time of the trial and effectively ruled the jury heard blatantly wrong evidence. He was convicted based on false science. On retrial the defense had experts who testified far more PGSR would be deposited on his clothing and his body from firing a weapon and that a single grain is very easy to be the result of contamination. he was acquitted because the defense had no real evidence he had committed the crime. The defense noted he was picked up by police too quickly after the crime to wash himself or change his clothes.
So you have to look at it in the context of the overall case. That is how you determine whether "an error" is harmless or not.
The key testimony in this case apart from Julie was:
1) Evidence Sheila can't have killed herself because the moderator was used
2) Evidence Sheila didn't load a weapon because she lacked elevated lead levels and visible deposits that would be present had she done so
3) Evidence Sheila didn't beat Nevill because she lacked spatter that would have been present
4) Evidence Sheila didn't fire a weapon because her clothing and body lacked various residues that would have been on her clothing and body had she done so.
The defense needs to rebut one of the above just to have a chance of getting the COA to vacate the conviction and one might not be enough they still could decide that one is not enough to overcome all of the other evidence and thus overcoming one still doesn't create reasonable doubt.
Anyone serious about trying to get the conviction vacated needs to concentrate on the above. Julie's testimony is another way to attack but nothing short of evidence she lied such as her having admitted to someone she lied or recanting her testimony would work so far as that avenue is concerned; so all that can be done investigative wise is to try to ask people who know her if she ever told them anything or wait for someone to publicly declare she did so.
The defense physically inspected her gown and found no sign of anything that could be spatter.
The defense saw nothing that could be residues on her gown
The defense experts found no basis to challenge the assessments of her hand swabs
The defense chose not to test her hair and head swabs for whatever reason and they were never used by anyone hence never an exhibit and were destroyed. If they had been saved that would be something that could have been tested for PGSR.
So the defense has no way to try challenging anything except the moderator evidence which was the most important evidence anyway because it proves she can't have killed herself.
We have discussed already how they found no way to challenge that effectively. Short of someone coming forward to say they planted blood and concealed the finding of blood in the rifle or knows for a fact someone else did such the moderator evidence can't be impeached. That's really the only way it could happen.
So realistically the only way Jeremy's conviction will be overturned is if Julie recants and admits lying or some cops admit they doctored evidence to pretend the moderator was used.
Even if Jeremy were as rich as can be and thus would pay me a fortune to try to find a way to help him I would be ethical instead of milking him for all he is worth and tell him the only way he was getting out would be if one of those 2 things were to happen so the only thing I could do for him would be to hire investigators to try to find ways to interview police or friends of police to try to get them to talk and admit wrongdoing or the same for Julie and her friends but the chance of the finding anything is very slim so he has to make the choice to spend such money knowing that and his best bet would simply be to wait and if someone did decide to come forward with such claims on their own then at that point something could be done.
