Court denies Duquesne man’s motion to examine DNA program in homicide trial |

Court denies Duquesne man’s motion to examine DNA program in homicide trial

Michael Robinson was acquitted Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2017, on all counts related to a 2013 double homicide.

Pennsylvania Superior Court has denied defense attorneys a look inside a computer program used to link their client’s DNA to a death-penalty double-murder case.

Attorney Kenneth Haber, representing Michael Robinson, 29, of Duquesne, wanted Superior Court to compel Oakland-based Cybergenetics to release the source code for its “TrueAllele” program, which is used to calculate the probability that a particular person contributed to a mixed sample of DNA. Prosecutors say Robinson’s DNA was found on a bandana connecting him to the murders of Tyrone Coleman and Lawrence Short in Duquesne in 2013.

The Allegheny County District Attorney’s office, which hires Cybergenetics to assist on cases in which the county Medical Examiner’s office is unable to sort out mixed samples of DNA, is seeking the death penalty if Robinson is convicted of first-degree murder.

Common Pleas Judge Jill E. Rangos denied the defense access to the TrueAllele source code in February, in part because she said revealing it could expose Cybergenetics to copying by competing firms.

In March, Haber appealed that decision to Superior Court, which denied his request in a ruling issued late Thursday.

Another judge denied the same source code in the case of East Liberty double-murder suspect Allen Wade, but his attorneys dropped their appeal with the intention to try again if he is convicted. Wade’s trial begins May 2.

Haber was not available to comment Friday about whether he intends to appeal the Superior Court decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Robinson is scheduled for a jury trial June 6.

Matthew Santoni is a Tribune-Review staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.