• Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
  • Bookmark and Share
  • email
  • |
  • print
  • |
  • rss

tool name

close
tool goes here

None of Trayvon Martin's DNA found on George Zimmerman's gun, test results show

George Zimmerman bond hearing

Defendant George Zimmerman, accused of shooting Trayvon Martin, at the Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., on June 29, 2012. | Joe Burbank/MCT

email this story print this story jump to comments

More on this Story

Detailed forensics reports in the Trayvon Martin killing show the victim’s DNA wasn’t on the gun that killed him and very little of it landed on the shooter’s clothes, according to evidence released Wednesday.

While the Miami Gardens teenager’s supporters saw the state’s crime lab blood-work results as proof that an innocent teen was attacked, experts say the evidence won’t produce any courtroom bombshells for either side.

Duval County State Attorney Angela Corey’s office released a batch of Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab reports, emails, photos, drawings, recordings and witness statements Wednesday as part of its ongoing prosecution of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer charged with second-degree murder. Zimmerman claims he killed Trayvon in self defense.

Among the highlights from Wednesday’s release:

• Although the DNA of at least three people was found on the gun’s holster, only Zimmerman’s DNA was identified.

• Trayvon was excluded from being one of the two people who left DNA on the gun’s grip.

• Zimmerman’s DNA was not found under Trayvon’s fingernails, although a bit of his blood was located on the bottom part of the sweatshirt Trayvon wore under his hoodie.

• Former Sanford police chief Bill Lee received an avalanche of nasty emails in the weeks after Trayvon’s death, with subject lines such as: “Step down, you incompetent jerk” and “you are a racist.”

Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon’s family, said the forensic evidence was an important boost for the prosecution.

“I think it’s very significant that there doesn’t seem to be anything from Trayvon on Zimmerman to suggest they had this altercation, and it seems there should be more of Zimmerman on Trayvon,” Crump said. “The evidence seems to suggest that it contradicts Zimmerman’s assertion that Trayvon was struggling for the gun. If Trayvon was grabbing Zimmerman, slamming his head on the ground, why isn’t his DNA on his fingernails? His hair?

“We don’t have Trayvon here to ask him, so we have to rely on objective evidence.”

Zimmerman told police that he killed the unarmed teen when, during a struggle, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman’s gun.

Photos showed Zimmerman suffered injuries to the back of his head, which was shaved very short.

The reports showed none of Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon’s sleeves or cuffs.

Although most of the blood on Zimmerman’s jacket was his own, at least one stain was Trayvon’s.

The forensic experts noted that Trayvon’s clothes were damp and reeked of mold or ammonia.

Experts who reviewed the reports for The Miami Herald said it’s not unusual to find several people’s DNA on a firearm, particularly if the owner shared it at a gun range.

They also agreed that Trayvon wouldn’t necessarily get DNA under his fingernails, even if he had punched Zimmerman.

“What prosecutors want to prove is not going to be proven or supported by DNA findings,” said Lawrence Kobilinsky, a forensics professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “I don’t see anything that differentiates between Trayvon being the aggressor or vice versa.”

He was, however, surprised there was not more of Trayvon’s blood on Zimmerman’s clothes, particularly if Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman when he was shot, as Zimmerman and witnesses described to police. Florida International University biologist Martin Tracey, a DNA expert who often testifies for the prosecution in criminal cases, said that for Trayvon’s DNA to wind up on the weapon, he would have to have handled it “for a reasonable amount of time.” The absence of his DNA doesn’t mean much for the case, Tracey said.

“My suspicion is that the defense and the state will present the DNA, because jurors expect to see it, but neither will make anything of it,” Tracey said. “It doesn’t say, ‘He did it!”

  • Bookmark and Share
  • email
  • |
  • print
  • |
  • rss

tool name

close
tool goes here
JOIN THE DISCUSSION

We welcome comments. To post one, you must sign in using either your McClatchyDC login or your login for Facebook, Twitter or Disqus. Just click the appropriate box below.

Please keep your comment civil, short and to the point. Obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. If you find a comment abusive or inappropriate, please flag it for the moderator by placing your cursor on the comment, then clicking the "flag" link that appears. Thanks for your participation.

Stay Connected

Sign up for email newsletters RSS
Follow us on your iPhone Follow us on your Android device
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us using Google Currents

LEGAL AFFAIRS BLOG

Suits & Sentences

"Suits & Sentences" is written by Mike Doyle, who covers the Supreme Court for McClatchy's Washington Bureau. Send a story suggestion.