Supreme Court affirms Jerry Burns' conviction in 1979 Michelle Martinko murder
The man convicted in the 39-year-old cold case murder of Michelle Martinko has lost his bid to overturn his conviction.
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday denied the appeal of Jerry Lynn Burns, now 69, who argued police violated his constitutional rights in obtaining the DNA sample that ultimately tied him to blood found at the murder scene.
In a 5-2 decision, the majority found police followed the law in obtaining Burns' DNA from an abandoned drinking straw, and did not violate his rights either under the federal or Iowa constitutions.
"After careful consideration of the case before us, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment did not require police to obtain a warrant before collecting the straw or before analyzing DNA on the straw to determine whether it matched DNA found on Martinko’s dress," Justice David May wrote for the majority.
Burns' attorney Nick Curran said in an email his client is "deeply disappointed" in the decision.
"The decision undermines an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy in their genetic makeup, and subjects every Iowa citizen’s DNA to collection and analysis by law enforcement without probable cause," Curran wrote. "Mr. Burns asserts that he is innocent of the murder of Michelle Martinko, and he will continue to fight against his unjust conviction."
Who was Michelle Martinko?
For four decades, the slaying of the 18-year-old Martinko haunted her family and the Cedar Rapids community.
Martinko, a senior at Kennedy High School who planned to attend Iowa State University, was last seen alive at the Westdale Mall after a school choir banquet on Dec. 19, 1979, where she was shopping for a new winter coat. At 4 a.m. on Dec. 20, her body was found in her car in the mall parking lot, with numerous stab wounds on her face and chest.
Full coverage: The Michelle Martinko slaying, DNA evidence and 2020 murder trial of Jerry Lynn Burns
The killing sparked outrage and hundreds of tips poured in to police, who offered rewards and followed "countless" leads. Although police identified more than 80 potential suspects, the case eventually went cold.
Who is Jerry Burns?
The break in the case came via new advances in DNA technology. In 2006, investigators were able to identify a male DNA profile for the suspect, who they believed had cut his hand and had left blood on Martinko's clothing and in her car.
Comparing that DNA profile to genealogical research databases narrowed the investigation to "a specific pool of suspects," according to court filings. One person on that list was Burns, who lived in the town of Manchester, about 45 minutes north of Cedar Rapids.
Burns, who would have been 25 at the time of Martinko's death, owned a powder-coating company and had previously co-owned a truck stop. Although he'd been married, his wife had died in 2008.
Soda straw provides crucial evidence
To confirm their suspicious, investigators turned to a tactic that lies at the core of Burns' appeal. A Cedar Rapids investigator watched Burns eating at a Pizza Ranch in 2018 and, after he left, retrieved the straw Burns had used in his drink. State analysts found DNA on the straw consistent with the blood found on Martinko's dress.
When questioned, Burns told investigators he could not offer a "plausible explanation" for why his DNA was found at the scene. He was arrested Dec. 19, 2018.
Investigators did not obtain a warrant for the restaurant search of Burns' DNA, arguing in subsequent court hearings that he had no right to privacy in an item he left behind to be thrown away.
Trial and sentencing in 2020
Burns denied any role in Martinko's death, and in 2020 went to trial at the Scott County Courthouse on the charge of first-degree murder. The jury heard nearly two weeks of testimony and deliberated less than three hours before returning the verdict of guilty.
The conviction was greeted with tears and relief from Martinko's family. Although her parents had both died decades before Burns' arrest, her sister Janelle Stonebraker was in the front row with her family when the verdict was read.
Burns, still maintaining his innocence, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Appeal argues warrant needed for DNA search
On appeal, Burns' attorneys raised several issues where they claimed investigators overstepped. Most notably, they argued, collecting Burns' DNA from the soda straw violated not just his Fourth Amendment rights, but those of more than 100 other potential suspects whose DNA was surreptitiously tested.
"The manner in which police invaded the privacy of countless other individuals holds constitutional significance," attorneys argued in Supreme Court filings. "… Here, law enforcement disregarded the Fourth Amendment’s protections by surreptitiously obtaining and/or comparing countless individuals’ DNA profiles to the suspect profile without applying for any warrants."
From 2020: Judge allows Jerry Burns' DNA evidence at trial, excludes 'violent' internet search history
A number of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed a brief supporting Burns' appeal. They argued that the trial court was wrong to rule Burns had no privacy rights in the discarded drinking straw, noting that people constantly shed DNA everywhere they go and, by this standard, their DNA could be collected and tested by police at any time, for any reason.
Burns additionally argued in his appeal the court erred in how it instructed the jury regarding the credibility of a jailhouse informant who testified Burns had made incriminating statements about the case while awaiting trial.
Majority finds no expectation of privacy in straw
Although May's decision notes there may be some circumstances in which surreptitious surveillance and analysis of DNA violates a suspect's Fourth Amendment "reasonable expectation of privacy," the court held that's not the case here.
"Although it is true that humans distribute DNA continually and unconsciously, the same is true of latent fingerprints," May wrote. "… No one suggests that police would have needed a warrant to collect fingerprints from the cup that Burns left behind at the Pizza Ranch — or to use those fingerprints to determine whether Burns wasin Martinko’s car on the night of her murder. We think the same is true of the DNA that Burns left on the straw — and that ultimately connected him with Martinko’s dress."
The court separately analyzed state law and the Iowa Constitution's protections against warrantless searches, and found those restrictions too do not apply to Burns' case. A state law limiting how police can perform DNA testing has an exception for tests "to identify an individual in the course of a criminal investigation," and the court also found the trial judge was not required to give a jury instruction, sought by the defense, advising the jury that Burns' former cellmate might be seeking a reduced sentence on his own charges in exchange for his testimony.
Dissenters: DNA searches implicate privacy
Justices Dana Oxley and Matthew McDermott wrote dissenting opinions, with Oxley also joining the majority of McDermott's opinion. Both wrote that they find stronger constitutional limits on DNA "involuntarily and unavoidably shed" by people going about their daily lives, as Oxley put it.
From 2018: Iowa community tries to reconcile a cold case arrest and its long history with a neighbor
Oxley wrote that DNA contains far more information about a person than simple identity, and collecting it should accordingly be treated as a substantial breach of privacy, regardless of whether police actually seek or test for any of the other medical and familial data they might obtain.
McDermott, in his dissent, argued that DNA, human genetic material containing vast amounts of information, must be included under the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons (and) papers." He noted that just as the U.S. Supreme Court has treated blood draws for drunk drivers as more intrusive than breath tests, so DNA analysis should be considered uniquely intrusive, and be regulated by the courts accordingly.
In a statement, ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen echoed McDermott and Oxley's concerns.
"Nobody consents to turn over our full genetic code to the government just because we involuntarily shed our DNA on items we touch. Our DNA can reveal incredible details about us, from our proclivity to genetic diseases, to our ancestry and paternity, to our appearance," she said. "As the dissent points out, the majority opinion's analysis leaves Iowans vulnerable to government collection of their DNA upon a police officer’s merest whim. We think this goes against the common sense and values of most Iowans."
Prosecutor: 'our hearts are with' Martinko family
Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks called the decision "an absolute relief" to residents and law enforcement.
"This case has loomed over our community for over 43 years. This opinion confirms the ground-breaking and superb work of law enforcement and acknowledges the hard work and dedication that generations of officers and this prosecuting team put into this case," Maybanks said in an email. "Our hearts are with the surviving members of Michelle’s family and her friends today as this stage of the case comes to a close and justice was served once again."
This article has been updated to correct Jerry Burns' middle name.
William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com, 715-573-8166 or on Twitter at @DMRMorris.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court affirms Michelle Martinko killer's conviction
