A Second Look Leads to a Triggering Discovery

In forensic DNA work, how you collect and examine evidence can matter as much as the testing itself. In a 2018 Portland homicide, a second look at a single pistol revealed a previously unknown DNA contributor and shifted the direction of the case.

A downtown homicide and a discarded pistol

On January 21, 2018, a man was shot and killed while seated in his parked vehicle in downtown Portland, Oregon. Among the items recovered at the scene was a HiPoint .40 caliber pistol found in a nearby planter. Witnesses identified two individuals referred to here as Male 1 and Male 2 as possible shooters.​The firearm was first examined by the state crime laboratory using a single swab of the entire pistol. DNA testing on that swab produced a complex mixture from at least four people. Male 1 was excluded, but the results were inconclusive for Male 2, leaving important questions unanswered.​Male 2 continued to insist he was not involved in the shooting. His defense team suggested that an alternate suspect not yet identified by law enforcement (Male 3) was responsible and requested independent DNA testing of the firearm.

​A second look with targeted sampling

In 2020, the HiPoint pistol was submitted to Forensic Analytical Crime Lab (FACL) for reanalysis. FACL used a different, more targeted sampling approach: the slide, grip, trigger, and magazine were each sampled with separate swabs rather than just a single swab.Next, the team took a step that is not routinely taken for firearms samples: microscopy.  The cell debris from each swab was examined under the microscope and in the trigger sample they noticed something unexpected: sperm cells.

An unexpected DNA profile

DNA testing showed that the sperm fraction from the trigger swab was primarily from a single male contributor. The non-sperm fraction was a mixture largely made up of a female contributor and the same male sperm donor. Both Male 1 and Male 2 were excluded as the sperm donor. When this profile was compared to other reference samples, Male 3 – who the defense fingered as the actual shooter – was identified as the sperm donor.

What this did and did not prove

Finding Male 3’s DNA on the firearm did not by itself prove that he fired the gun or was responsible for the homicide. It did, however, provide important new information about who had contact with the weapon and supported the defense's claim that another person was involved. Just as importantly, it showed that the original single sample approach had missed a highly probative DNA source that only became visible with targeted sampling and microscopic review.

Why this matters 

This case is a clear reminder that how we collect and process evidence can change what the DNA “story” looks like. A more detailed, component-based sampling strategy paired with a simple microscopic check led to the identification of a new, relevant DNA profile and shifted the investigative landscape. For forensic practitioners, it underscores the value of staying flexible, thinking critically about sampling strategies, and remembering that an occasional extra step in the lab can make a real difference.