So I am not a lawyer and this is certainly conjecture, but as someone who has been a juror multiple times and a foreman once, sometimes jurors can get stuck in the weeds when there's confusing or misleading testimony and I think Kansas' DNA expert could indeed fit that bill and TSJ'S defense team may look at them as someone best to be avoided.SIGH, I need to correct myself once again. The penultimate paragraph of the TSJ motion seems to say that the profiles were not developed, and that because they were not developed, we do not know if the "foreign" DNA was male or female. At this point I am not sure I understand the point of the motion at all. TSJ says both that samples containing such low ng/uL amounts cannot be reliably profiled, and that the samples should be excluded from evidence because they failed to conduct that unreliable profile.
What am I missing?
Reason I say that is that I'd assume Kansas' forensic expert would state that they found trace amounts of male DNA, that this is "typical" for these type of touch cases, that there often is no smoking gun in these circumstances, and that in their experience, this does help to affirm the accusers testimony and does not preclude TSJ from committing said assault. Now the expert in reality is saying absolutely nothing, but it is misleading and it may actually play to some jurors, especially jurors who may be bringing their own biases or even racism the courtroom.
Whether you as a dependent can get it out there that there are trace amounts of male DNA but none yours, it may not be all that different than making sure no DNA is discussed in the trial making it a very flimsy he said she said case. That's my thoughts as to maybe why they're going this route