Is DNA on a gun enough to prove possession? Sometimes

Photo: Neighborhoods Organizing for Change

A decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals earlier this year on an unrelated case, adds more grist to the analysis mill of why Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman hasnt charged Navell Gordon with possession of a handgun by a felon.

KMSP suggested last night that Gordon, the get-out-the-vote volunteer who allegedly flashed gang signs with Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges in October, hasnt been charged because the case has become too hot to handle in the light of its pointergate fame.

The station said Gordons DNA was on a gun used in a robbery at West Broadway and Penn Avenue in August. That, the station said, connects Gordon to possession of a gun. It didnt reveal the source of the information.

Is it enough evidence?

In February, the Minnesota Court of Appeals said it was in the case of a felon who was convicted of possessing a handgun after police executed a search warrant in October 2011.

In that case, the court ruled that the DNA evidence was enough to prove that Lamont Jiggetts possessed the handgun.

The predominant DNA material on the gun was Jiggettss and testing of this evidence excluded virtually all the rest of the worlds population. And the parties stipulation that Jiggetts was prohibited from possessing a firearm is supported directly by Jiggettss convictions of controlled-substance crimes (in 2005, 2006, and 2008) and fourth-degree assaults (in 2006), Judge Kevin Ross wrote in February in an unpublished opinion.

But his ruling had an important clause. The DNA evidence was corroborated by other evidence that the felon possessed the gun.

We hold that, in a gun-possession case, physical evidence that the defendants DNA is on the gun corroborated by uncontested scientific testimony that the DNA likely got there by the defendants handling of the gun is direct evidence of possession. On our direct-evidence review, we are satisfied that the jury reasonably found that Jiggetts actually handled the gun, Ross wrote.

Read the original post:
Is DNA on a gun enough to prove possession? Sometimes