DNA was match to Stephen Hopkins, court hears
Defendant objects to court questioning DNA expert’s qualifications, saying, ‘I think the evidence speaks for itself’
Stephen Hopkins didn’t make another attempt to plead guilty when his trial resumed in St. John’s Tuesday, May 10, but he did attempt to stop the court from challenging a forensic DNA expert on her qualifications.
Prosecutor Jennifer Standen had called the DNA analyst to testify about the results of swabs collected during a sexual assault exam undergone by a 17-year-old girl after she reported being attacked in her own home in September 2020.
Hopkins is charged with sexual assault, break and entry, forcible confinement, uttering threats and breaching a court order in connection with the attack and has pleaded not guilty, choosing — despite repeated discouragement from the court — to represent himself at trial, which began a week ago.
The teenager testified via video from another room in the courthouse that she had been sitting on the front step of her family home one morning when Hopkins walked by and asked her for a glass of water. When she returned with the water, he pushed her back inside the house, pulled off her clothes and carried her over his shoulder to a bedroom, where he sexually assaulted her and threatened to burn the house down if she told anyone, she said. Hopkins did not cross-examine the complainant himself: lawyer Robert Roach was appointed by the court to do it on his behalf.
The DNA analyst, who testified by video from Ottawa, indicated the national forensic lab had received several swabs from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary related to the investigation. A swab from inside a drinking glass seized from the complainant’s home provided genetic material that was too weak to test, she explained, while a swab from the outside of the glass did not contain enough DNA for analysis. A swab identified as having been taken from Hopkins’ hand contained the DNA profiles of two people, but both were too weak for testing.
A swab taken by a sexual assault examination nurse who met with the complainant after the attack was also found to contain DNA from two sources, the expert testified: one of them was the teenager herself and the other was too weak to compare, but enough to identify as a male. She sent the sample for further testing.
While the expert did not testify about the results of the more detailed forensic analysis, a report by her colleague, called later to testify, indicated it had proved a match for Hopkins. The probability rate of the sample coming from someone else in the population was one in 9,742, the report indicated.
Hopkins laughed aloud when the expert explained her use of a statistical calculation to determine probability rates of DNA profile matches, causing Newfoundland and Labrador Justice Donald Burrage to tell him to stop.
On cross-examination, Hopkins focused on testing methods and limits, as well as the process by which the lab chooses which exhibits to test. He asked the expert if there had been any indication of improper protocol at any point in the swab collection and analysis process; she said no.
When lawyer John Brooks, — appointed by the court as amicus curiae, providing information and impartial advice to Hopkins on issues of law as needed — questioned the expert on her qualifications, Hopkins interjected.
“Objection,” he said. “Mr. Brooks is pandering. I think we’ve established the witness is well-qualified.”
“You don’t object to her qualifications as a DNA specialist?” the judge asked.
“I think they’ve been established at this point,” Hopkins replied. “I think the evidence speaks for itself.”
Hopkins’ self-representation so far at trial has been marked by lengthy and complex lines of questioning, some with no immediately apparent relevance to the case, often causing witnesses and the court some confusion. A registered sexual offender, he has repeatedly suggested RNC investigators conspired against him based on his previous charges, though he has not yet provided any details.
Last week, Hopkins told the court he wanted to change his pleas to guilty, despite the Crown’s evidence having “no merit,” so Burrage could order an inquiry into what Hopkins alleged was police misconduct during the investigation that led to his charges.
Burrage told him that he couldn’t accept his guilty pleas in light of those comments.
“Guilty pleas mean acceptance of each and every element of the offences and must be given freely and voluntarily and with no motivation but acceptance of the facts,” the judge explained.
“I’m not satisfied that you fully comprehend what that entails,” the judge said, postponing the trial to allow Hopkins time to chat with the amicus.
Hopkins indicated he wasn’t willing to speak with Brooks and asked for him to be dismissed from the role. During a break in proceedings Tuesday, Hopkins told Brooks, “I’m sorry if I offended you last week.”