The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of Raymond Rowe’s motion to have additional evidence from the 1992 rape and murder of Christy Mirack tested for touch DNA.

Rowe, also known as DJ Freez, remains in prison following his guilty plea in Jan. 2019, and subsequent sentence of life in prison plus 60 to 120 years.

Rowe requested post-conviction DNA testing of five additional items from the crime scene, with the hope of using the results within a PCRA petition to establish new fact of the case and prove his claims of innocence. These items were:

-A cutting board found near the victim’s head

-A toaster that is known to have been on top of the cutting board

-A pair of pants found next to the victim

-The victim’s sweater

-The victim’s undershirt

In order to obtain Post-Conviction DNA testing, a defendant must establish that (1) the evidence was not tested because the technology was not in existence at the time and counsel did not request testing; (2) “the evidence was subject to the testing, but newer technology could provide substantially more accurate and substantially probative results[;]” or (3) counsel sought and was denied funds for testing.

DNA expert testimony during the three-day PCRA hearing revealed that the purported new DNA collection method was a combination of traditional methods of touch DNA collection that “was being utilized effectively in cases” in 2018 and 2019, when Rowe pleaded guilty. It would’ve been available to Rowe and his defense team at that time.

The body fluid DNA sample found at the murder scene produced a good STR (short tandem repeat) analysis result and full independent profile that matched Rowe’s DNA surreptitiously obtained from chewing gum and a water bottle he used while working as a DJ at an event in May 2018, as well as subsequent confirmation samples taken after his arrest. Rowe was charged in July of that year.

In its opinion, the Superior Court discerned “no error with the PCRA court’s determination that [Rowe] failed to meet the threshold requirement of establishing the unavailability of effective DNA collection and testing capable of producing probative results under the circumstances at the time he pleaded guilty. STR technology for testing Touch DNA samples inarguably was in existence, effective, and know to [Rowe] and his team of defenders at the time of [Rowe’s] plea.”

The Superior Court also stated the appellant failed to show that Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology would have produced more reliable results than STR technology since both testifying experts at the PCRA hearing indicated that they could only speculate about the quantity and quality of the Touch DNA samples capable of collection from the requested items since testing hadn’t been attempted.

Chief of Legal Appeals & Legal Services Ande Gonzalez represented the Commonwealth in post-conviction litigation.

MEDIA CONTACT: Sean McBryan, semcbryan@co.lancaster.pa.us; Twitter: @SeanMcBryanLanc.