Must defense counsel investigate underlying DNA files in criminal cases? State v. Gourdin Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed when defense counsel’s failure to investigate DNA evidence constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel in State v. Gourdin. The case provides important guidance for criminal defense practitioners handling cases involving complex DNA evidence.

Background and Facts

Gourdin was convicted of murdering a sixty-year-old woman during an apparent burglary. The State’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including testimony about Gourdin’s erratic behavior on the day of the murder and DNA evidence from a cigarette butt found in the victim’s backyard. The DNA testing yielded “inconclusive” results—the State could not definitively link Gourdin to the cigarette, but argued the evidence didn’t exclude him either. Defense counsel chose not to request the underlying laboratory files or consult with a DNA expert, relying instead on the State’s summary reports.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington by failing to: (1) request underlying DNA files from the State’s experts, and (2) consult with a DNA expert to interpret those files. The court applied the two-prong Strickland test requiring both deficient performance and prejudice.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished between strategic decisions not to seek additional DNA testing versus failing to understand existing evidence. While counsel’s decision not to pursue new probabilistic genotyping was reasonable, the failure to request underlying files was deficient. The court emphasized that defense attorneys have a “duty to investigate” and must understand evidence the State will present. The underlying files contained two crucial documents: a handwritten note excluding Gourdin from the cigarette butt and a worksheet showing the major DNA profile was female. These documents were incomprehensible to laypeople without expert assistance. The court found prejudice because the State emphasized the cigarette evidence extensively at trial, and excluding Gourdin completely from this evidence could reasonably have changed the outcome.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that adequate investigation is fundamental to effective assistance. When DNA evidence is central to the prosecution’s case and consists of complex “inconclusive” results, defense counsel should request all underlying laboratory files and data. The court noted that most attorneys lack the scientific training to interpret DNA documentation without expert assistance, citing ABA standards recommending expert consultation in DNA cases. The decision serves as a reminder that strategic decisions must be made after thorough investigation of existing evidence, not just consideration of whether to generate new evidence.