Crime/Safety

Grads: Honor yours   Photos: Canes' 2002 run | Doughman Durham | Day's Best | Nightlife | High school sports | At Cannes

Published Wed, Dec 07, 2011 02:25 PM
Modified Fri, Jan 27, 2012 03:26 PM

Peterson's team works to discredit Deaver's testimony

cliddy@newsobserver.com
Attorney David Rudolf continues his questioning of SBI assistant director Erik Hooks at the Durham County Courthouse in Durham on Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2011, during the Michael Peterson hearing.
Email Print Order Reprint
Share This
Text

tool name

close x
tool goes here
- jneff@newsobserver.com
Tags: Durham | Michael Peterson | SBI | Duane Deaver | hearing | testimony | possible bias

Former SBI agent Duane Deaver showed a strong bias for the prosecution early in his career, according to SBI documents introduced in the Michael Peterson hearing today.

Peterson, a Durham novelist convicted of the 2001 murder of his wife, has said he deserves a new trial because Deaver, a key expert witness at his 2003 trial, had a history of tailoring his testimony to whatever the prosecution wanted him to say.

A training document from 1988 lent support to that theory this morning. That year, Deaver and Michael Budzynski, a fellow scientist at the State Bureau of Investigation crime lab, went through a mock court training session. The agents reviewed a set of facts and testified as if they were in court, subject to direct and cross examination.

According to the SBI evaluation by Mark Nelson, their supervisor, Budzynski has a number of strengths, including the observation that he presented the material impartially. Deaver won points for good public speaking and comfort in front of an audience. One of his weaknesses: “A strong bias toward the prosecution.”

The pro-prosecution bias was a huge concern for Tim Palmbach, a lawyer and forensic scientist who chairs of the forensic science department at the University of New Haven and the former director of the Connecticut State Crime lab. Palmbach, who testified as a defense witness in Peterson’s 2003 trial, said he was alarmed by the report that Deaver, an expert witness, had a pro-prosecution bias.

“They have a horse in the race,” Palmbach testified today. “The expert coming into a courtroom shouldn’t care about the results, whether it’s guilt or innocence.”

Kathleen Peterson, a Nortel Networks executive, died in a pool of blood at the bottom of a blood spattered staircase in the Peterson’s Forest Hills mansion in December 2001. The case was nationally televised and was the subject of books, documentaries and a feature film.

Deaver was a critical witness in the case. Jurors have said his testimony was critical to their deliberations and verdict, and in particular his opinion that a blood stain in the crotch of Peterson’s shorts could only have been put there during an assault.

Over the past two years, a stream of damaging information has emerged about Deaver: -- the exoneration of a Wake County man based in large part on Deaver's work in the case; -- a damning audit by former senior FBI officials; -- the suspension and disbanding of a bloodstain analysis team that Deaver trained and led; and -- a finding by a federal judge that Deaver gave misleading testimony in a 1993 murder case.

Read more about this hearing and prior trials involving Deaver with the Related Content links on the right side of this page.

Get the biggest news in your email or cellphone as it's happening. Sign up for breaking news alerts.

Email Print Order Reprint
Share This
Text

tool name

close x
tool goes here
We welcome your comments on this story, but please be civil. Do not use profanity, hate speech, threats, personal abuse, images, internet links or any device to draw undue attention. Read our full comment policy.
More Crime/Safety

Get local news updates

Keep up with the latest stories with our free local news e-mail newsletters, delivered straight to your inbox!

- it's free!

- it's free!

- it's free!

- it's free!

- it's free!

- it's free!

- it's free!

Hot Deals View All
Find a Car
Go
Top Jobs View All

Find a Job
Go
Featured Homes View All
Find a Home
Go

Multimedia

Images

  • Durham DA Tracey Cline ponders a question as she cross-examines SBI assistant director Erik Hooks Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2011, at the Durham County Courthouse.
    CHUCK LIDDY - cliddy@newsobserver.com
  • SBI Assistant Director Erik Hook watches a video of Duane Deaver at Michael Peterson's 2003 trial.
    cliddy@newsobserver.com
  • Michael Peterson listens as his attorney, David Rudolf, makes his opening statements Tuesday.
    CHUCK LIDDY - cliddy@newsobserver.com
  • SBI agent Duane Deaver makes a point about blood splatter evidence at the murder trial of Michael Peterson in Durham in August 2003.
    2003 NEWS & OBSERVER FILE PHOTO
  • Kathleen Peterson's sister, Candace Zamperini, makes an emotional appeal to delay Tuesday's hearing because District Attorney Tracey Cline was unprepared. Judge Orlando Hudson denied Cline's delay request.
    Photos by CHUCK LIDDY - cliddy@newsobserver.com
Hudson, Cline spar

Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline got a quiet but firm lecture from the judge she tried to oust from hearing criminal cases.

Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson questioned Tuesday why Cline had publicized the fact that she had filed a complaint against Hudson with the state Judicial Standards Commission, which disciplines judges. By law, such complaints must be confidential until the commission puts them in the public realm.

"I have looked at documents that bear your signature, documents I do not understand nor understand why you filed them," Hudson said. "I don't understand how you can file documents knowing that matters before the Judicial Standards Commission are confidential and you cannot make public."

Cline had made her complaint public in her court filings asking that Hudson be disqualified from hearing Durham cases, including Michael Peterson's.

"The court believes because you are a district attorney, you know that matters at the Judicial Standards Commission are confidential, just like matters filed in front of a grand jury. They are secret for the same reason. If the public were to know you filed an indictment of the individual, and know the nature of the evidence and the grand jury decided not to indict, that opens that person's reputation up to being destroyed."

Hudson asked Cline to explain.

She responded that she had not made the Judicial Standards Commission filing public, only the court filings against Hudson.

"It is my understanding you have filed almost the exact same information with the Judicial Standards Commission," Hudson replied.

"I don't know where you got that from, Judge," Cline said.

Said Hudson: "I got it from you."

The judge took no action Tuesday beyond asking for Cline's explanation.

Joseph Neff


Print Ads