Trinity DNA is once again in the news for all the wrong reasons.
Jay Dill, was jailed for life in 2013, convicted of fatally shooting Randy Robinson. He is seeking a judicial review of a decision taken by Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions who apparently refused to disclose material relating to her review of convictions involving expert evidence from Trinity DNA Solutions and its founder Candy Zuleger.
Ms Zuleger was first hired to work on cases by the Bermuda Police Service in 2006 but described in 2025 as an ‘Analyst at centre of miscarriages of justice‘.
Disclosure, Review Procedure and Legal Context
A recent Royal Gazette article reports that Jay Dill, convicted of murder in 2013, is seeking permission to pursue judicial review of a decision by Bermuda’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) relating to the Trinity DNA case review. The report states that the DPP:
‘refused to disclose material relating to her review of convictions involving expert evidence from Trinity DNA Solutions and its founder Candy Zuleger, and refused to refer his murder conviction for independent expert review.’
More about the legal context of the Trinity DNA review, the normal rules governing disclosure in Bermuda, and the public-law questions raised by the refusal, can be read here.
Transparency and the Trinity DNA Review
‘In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice.” “Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial’
Lord Shaw who turned to Jeremy Bentham.
The quote reflects the idea secrecy can lead to corruption and injustice. It emphasizes publicity is essential for justice, as it prevents the misuse of power and ensures accountability. In a society where information is not shared, the potential for evil and corruption can thrive, undermining the principles of fairness and transparency that are fundamental to justice.
Some observers may ask a straightforward question.
If the purpose of the review is to ensure confidence in past convictions, why does there appear to be limited transparency about how the review conclusions were reached in individual cases?
Associated articles:
- Trinity DNA and the Privy Council ruling
- Open Justice and the Question of Disclosure – Transparency and the Trinity DNA Review
17/05/2024, the Royal Gazette reported that Mr Jabbar of the Death Penalty Project said:
it was not sufficient or appropriate for the Department of Public Prosecutions to review its own work to see if there were other cases when Ms Zuleger may have given inaccurate DNA evidence that led to criminal convictions. “It could have really wide implications because obviously [flawed DNA evidence] should never be used at the trial level,” he said. “Right now, in Bermuda, there should be some serious concerns about whether this evidence has been used in other matters.”