How have courts treated blood evidence in a capital murder trial?

Solano also cites Duncan v. Ornoski (9th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 1222. Defense counsel in a capital murder trial failed to investigate and present evidence that the blood samples from the crime scene that did not belong to the victim also did not belong to the defendant. (Id. at p. 1225.) That was deficient performance, but because other evidence showed defendant participated in the robbery, he was not prejudiced with respect to his conviction for felony murder. (Ibid.) But the blood evidence could have shown that defendant was not the actual murderer, and so defendant was prejudiced with respect to the special circumstance, which required a finding the defendant intended that the victim be killed. (Id. at pp. 1240-1241.) If counsel had investigated the blood evidence, tested the defendant's blood, and presented the accomplice theory to the jury, it was reasonably likely that at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one who killed the victim and intended for her to die. (Id. at p. 1244.) Counsel did not explain why he failed to consult a serology expert or investigate the potentially exculpatory blood evidence, and his explanations for not testing the defendant's blood were unpersuasive and showed

Page 26