James Pietragallo

Now, no one testified that Karen was raped by a non-secreter or the seminal material came from a non-secreter. Only the prosecutor said that. So the prosecutor simply made up that piece of evidence. The appeals court finds the made up evidence was doubly devastating because not only was it false, but it reduced the pool of possible assailants from a substantial percentage of the male population.

Now, no one testified that Karen was raped by a non-secreter or the seminal material came from a non-secreter. Only the prosecutor said that. So the prosecutor simply made up that piece of evidence. The appeals court finds the made up evidence was doubly devastating because not only was it false, but it reduced the pool of possible assailants from a substantial percentage of the male population.

or even the entire population, to just the males in 20% of the population. The defendant being a non-secreter is within that 20% group created by the prosecutor and his argument to the jury. Okay, so there's also testimony about pubic hair. According to the state's evidence, the pubic hair was found on the carpet, and several head hairs were found on the bed sheet were from a black person.

or even the entire population, to just the males in 20% of the population. The defendant being a non-secreter is within that 20% group created by the prosecutor and his argument to the jury. Okay, so there's also testimony about pubic hair. According to the state's evidence, the pubic hair was found on the carpet, and several head hairs were found on the bed sheet were from a black person.

or even the entire population, to just the males in 20% of the population. The defendant being a non-secreter is within that 20% group created by the prosecutor and his argument to the jury. Okay, so there's also testimony about pubic hair. According to the state's evidence, the pubic hair was found on the carpet, and several head hairs were found on the bed sheet were from a black person.

They're both white. According to the testimony, race can be determined by hairs, but neither sex nor age can be determined by hairs. OK, so they do a lot about the hair stuff that hairs are not. Hairs are not reliable.

They're both white. According to the testimony, race can be determined by hairs, but neither sex nor age can be determined by hairs. OK, so they do a lot about the hair stuff that hairs are not. Hairs are not reliable.

They're both white. According to the testimony, race can be determined by hairs, but neither sex nor age can be determined by hairs. OK, so they do a lot about the hair stuff that hairs are not. Hairs are not reliable.

Then they're terrific. So, yeah, they go on. He says you must. This is in the closing rebuttal argument that the prosecutor said. He says you must ask yourself, where's the link? The link is the semen matching the non secretor. Yeah. Non secretor and semen in the same sentence is rough.

Then they're terrific. So, yeah, they go on. He says you must. This is in the closing rebuttal argument that the prosecutor said. He says you must ask yourself, where's the link? The link is the semen matching the non secretor. Yeah. Non secretor and semen in the same sentence is rough.

Then they're terrific. So, yeah, they go on. He says you must. This is in the closing rebuttal argument that the prosecutor said. He says you must ask yourself, where's the link? The link is the semen matching the non secretor. Yeah. Non secretor and semen in the same sentence is rough.

Very, very gross. So the appeals court said not only did the prosecutor in his rebuttal closing argument reinforce his prior misrepresentation to the jury, that there was evidence that the seminal material on the vaginal swab was from a non-secreter. Well, we just made it grosser. We just found a way to make it grosser.

Very, very gross. So the appeals court said not only did the prosecutor in his rebuttal closing argument reinforce his prior misrepresentation to the jury, that there was evidence that the seminal material on the vaginal swab was from a non-secreter. Well, we just made it grosser. We just found a way to make it grosser.

Very, very gross. So the appeals court said not only did the prosecutor in his rebuttal closing argument reinforce his prior misrepresentation to the jury, that there was evidence that the seminal material on the vaginal swab was from a non-secreter. Well, we just made it grosser. We just found a way to make it grosser.

But the prosecutor also told the jury that there was evidence that the defendant's pubic hairs and pubic hairs that were combed from the victims matched and were identical. They said they did not. The expert did not testify and he certainly did not intend his testimony to mean that the hairs that he had compared matched or were identical when he said they were consistent. It's not what they do.

But the prosecutor also told the jury that there was evidence that the defendant's pubic hairs and pubic hairs that were combed from the victims matched and were identical. They said they did not. The expert did not testify and he certainly did not intend his testimony to mean that the hairs that he had compared matched or were identical when he said they were consistent. It's not what they do.

But the prosecutor also told the jury that there was evidence that the defendant's pubic hairs and pubic hairs that were combed from the victims matched and were identical. They said they did not. The expert did not testify and he certainly did not intend his testimony to mean that the hairs that he had compared matched or were identical when he said they were consistent. It's not what they do.

So also the defense hair guy, the cross on him, they said that was also prosecutorial wrong. They go on to say that we believe the prosecutor's misrepresentations relating blood and his comparisons were egregious. And they overturn the decision, overturn the conviction.

So also the defense hair guy, the cross on him, they said that was also prosecutorial wrong. They go on to say that we believe the prosecutor's misrepresentations relating blood and his comparisons were egregious. And they overturn the decision, overturn the conviction.

So also the defense hair guy, the cross on him, they said that was also prosecutorial wrong. They go on to say that we believe the prosecutor's misrepresentations relating blood and his comparisons were egregious. And they overturn the decision, overturn the conviction.