A justice group says it is helping individuals have their convictions for serious crimes independently assessed after the completion of a review into cases potentially tainted by flawed DNA evidence.

The Bermuda Equal Justice Initiative insisted the official review conducted by Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions into hundreds of criminal cases involving evidence from American forensics expert Candy Zuleger was inadequate.

It claimed Ms Clarke did not carry out the review — which identified two “unsafe” convictions among 273 matters — in the way she told the Privy Council last year that it would be done.

In particular, it criticised that an independent forensic examination took place only in cases where it was concluded that without evidence from Ms Zuleger, a jury or magistrate might not have convicted the defendant.

BEJI founder Eron Hill told The Royal Gazette that such a development “beggared belief” in light of the findings about Ms Zuleger’s DNA profiling methods by Barbara Llewellyn, the DPP’s independent forensic expert.

Dr Llewellyn, in a statement filed with the Court of Appeal as evidence regarding one of the unsafe convictions, described those methods as “bad science” and “not allowed in any reputable and accredited forensic DNA laboratory”.

Dr Llewellyn said Ms Zuleger, of Florida-based Trinity DNA Solutions, was “very biased in her interpretation” of samples and “demonstrated a lack of training on how to interpret a mixed DNA profile and calculate the frequency of that evidence DNA profile in the population”.

Mr Hill argued that all cases involving Ms Zuleger which led to convictions should have involved forensic review — regardless of the other evidence in the case — with priority given to those where the accused was incarcerated.

He said: “The findings of Dr Llewellyn should, in reality, mean that all affected individuals are notified …

“At worst, BEJI’s view is that defendants whose convictions followed evidence given by Ms Zuleger and Trinity DNA Solutions should be given an opportunity to obtain their own independent expert evidence and legal advice in light of the flaws found in the way Ms Zuleger/Trinity conducted analyses and the prejudicial way in which Ms Zuleger testified.”

The DPP’s review was launched after the murder and attempted murder convictions of Julian Washington, who spent ten years in jail, were quashed by the Privy Council last year because DNA evidence from Ms Zuleger linking him to the crimes was inaccurate.

The Privy Council panel, in its judgment, said it was informed by counsel for the DPP that the first stage of her review established the number of other cases in which Trinity DNA Solutions carried out forensic analysis.

It added: “ … the second stage of the review will be to identify whether any cases resulted in a prosecution and conviction.

“If so, then the third stage of review involves sending all relevant documentation, including the trial transcript, to Dr Llewellyn, who will assess whether any of the flaws identified … in the appellant’s case are present.”

The panel wrote that it was later told: “The DPP will not await the identification of flaws before informing a convicted person of the existence of a review into DNA evidence.

“Rather, as soon as it becomes apparent that any individual … has been convicted then that individual will immediately be informed that a review is being conducted by Dr Llewellyn.

“Once informed, the individual can make their own submissions to Dr Llewellyn and instruct their own expert.

“Dr Llewellyn’s report will be disclosed to the individual as well as being provided to the DPP … Any case in which the individual is in prison will be prioritised.”

In August, after completing the review, Ms Clarke explained her methodology.

She said in a statement: “All cases which led to convictions that involved DNA analysis done by Trinity DNA Solutions were reviewed first, prioritising the cases of defendants in custody.”

Ms Clarke looked at each individual case anew without reference to the DNA evidence “to determine the viability of the conviction against each suspect on each charge” and then “considered what the defence case was in assessing the prospects of conviction”.

She said: “The finding of whether a realistic prospect of conviction existed was based on an objective assessment of the evidence, guided by established legal principles.

“What was considered was whether an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or magistrate, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, was more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged, without the DNA evidence.

“If the conclusion was that the jury or magistrate would so convict, then the conviction was considered safe. If the conclusion was that the jury or magistrate may not have convicted, the DNA evidence was sent to the independent expert to be reviewed.”

The first “tainted” case to be identified by the review involved Anwar Muhammad, who had his 2012 convictions for attempted murder and using a firearm overturned in the Court of Appeal in June. He had denied the charges, but was found guilty by a jury.

The second case involved Kofi Dill, whose conviction for handling a gun is expected to be quashed in the Court of Appeal on November 6. He had pleaded guilty to the charge in 2011.

Mr Hill sent a letter to Ms Clarke last week, saying: “Dr Llewellyn’s report [in Mr Dill’s matter] reveals serious scientific and ethical deficiencies in Ms Zuleger’s work and in the operations of Trinity DNA Solutions which extend well beyond any one particular case …”

He wrote: “BEJI is assisting a number of affected individuals with securing legal representation and expert evidence to have their convictions independently reviewed.

“This initiative serves the public interest, particularly given the way your office’s DNA review was conducted.

“We reiterate our concern that incarcerated individuals whose convictions were obtained using the evidence of Ms Candy Zuleger were not contacted, contrary to the Crown’s express undertakings to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in The King v Julian Washington.”

Ms Clarke was asked for comment.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem may inflame sensitivities. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers