CNN is currently broadcasting the retrial of a Florida man named Fred Cooper, which took place earlier this year. Today I watched the testimony of two DNA experts carefully.

This is no Joshua-Rosa-style dubious DNA evidence.

Most impressive was the testimony of Dr. Julie Heinig from the private, independent DNA lab, DNA Diagnostics Center, headed by Dr. Michael Baird, a fellow alum of the University of Chicago. I recommend you visit their website to learn about forensic DNA analysis—the way it should be done.

Both the state’s criminalist, Robyn Ragdale, and Dr. Heinig clearly explained the tests they ran and what the numbers on the charts meant. This was clear, concise, and rhetorically effective testimony.

The most important take-away from Dr. Heinig’s testimony in the Cooper trial is that no results should be reported from a sample of DNA when tests cannot identify at least 4 “markers” or “loci” in a DNA sample at a specific “threshold.” (She did not tell the jury what the threshold was, only that their lab has a standard below which they will not report results. This is intellectually honest—exactly as testimony before a jury should be.)

In the Joshua Rosa case, the DNA tests identified only 3 such markers, and they were apparently “weak” at that.

Also laudable is that the prosecution in the Cooper case did not rely only on the state’s crime lab, but paid the extra bucks to send some of the DNA to an impeccable, private lab for analysis. I doubt that this was done in the Rosa case.

I wonder if the Rosa appellate team has contacted the Innocence Project for assistance. Shouldn’t the shoddy DNA evidence in the Rosa trial be reason enough for a retrial?