Judge allows DNA evidence at Burton trial

A Delaware Superior Court judge has ruled that DNA evidence linking accused murderer Matthew Burton to the 2012 killing of Nicole Bennett may be presented at trial.

Judge E. Scott Bradley said Delaware State Police had a reasonable probability to suspect that Burton’s DNA would be found on Bennett’s body when they sought a search warrant.

Burton is accused of killing Bennett June 14, 2012. Bennett’s body was found June 15 in a ditch along a road near Whaleyville, Md., where police said her body had been dragged across the edge of a dirt road and dumped.

Bennett was reported missing when she did not return home from work at Bayshore Community Church in Gumboro. Burton had been working as a part-time custodian at the church and police said he was the last person who saw Bennett alive. Bennett’s personal effects were found at the church. Police reported finding tire tracks made by a truck or large SUV at the crime scene where Bennett’s body was found. Police said Burton drove a black 2006 Chevy Silverado pickup, which had been freshly washed when he drove it to Delaware State Police Troop 4 in Georgetown so detectives could photograph the truck’s tires.

Burton’s attorneys, Daniel Strumpf and Gary Traynor, filed 10 separate motions challenging details of search warrants police obtained for Burton’s DNA and search his truck and his home.

Strumpf argued that the warrant seeking Burton’s DNA failed to present enough facts to show that police were entitled to collect it. Bradley disagreed, saying the evidence available makes clear that there was a reasonable belief that Burton’s DNA would be found on Bennett’s body.

Next, Burton’s attorneys sought throw out tire track evidence matching Burton’s Chevy Silverado found 40 yards from Bennett’s body.

The defense argued the tire tracks at the scene showed more wear than Burton’s tires and that the tracks were too far from where Burton’s body was found. The defense tried to portray wear testing of the tires performed by  Maryland State Police as being at odds with the statements made by Delaware State Police Det. John King when he sought a search warrant for Burton’s DNA. Bradley rejected these arguments, saying King’s statements on the affidavit seeking the warrant matched those made by Maryland’s tire impression examiner.

Regarding the distance between the tracks and where Bennett’s body was found, Bradley again rejected the defense’s argument, saying the affidavit for probable cause notes that Bennett’s body had been dragged.

“Whoever dropped off Nicole Bennett’s body, and the inference is that it was Burton, wouldn’t want to do it right next to his vehicle and make his tracks the ones closest to her body,” Bradley said.

With that, Bradley denied Burton’s motion to suppress the DNA search warrant.

Truck evidence to be suppressed

The defense then sought to suppress a Delaware State Police search warrant to search Burton’s truck, arguing that the warrant did not contain facts that would indicate seizable property would be found in the truck.

Because they had information that he was at the church the night of Bennett’s death, police went to Burton’s home to question him. There, they saw the Chevy Silverado truck, which Burton had previously driven to Troop 4 in Georgetown. The tire tread patterns were photographed and found to match near where Bennett’s body was found.

In statements to police, Burton said he thought the truck got muddy when he missed a turn and pulled into a grassy area to to get back on the road. He also speculated the mud could have come from his parents’ driveway or other dirt roads and driveways in Dagsboro.

Prosecutors argue that Burton had mud on his truck, it was muddy where Bennett’s body was found and there were tire tracks matching Burton’s truck by the area where Bennett’s body was located.

Bradley suppressed the mud evidence because the search warrant for the truck failed to state what evidence prosecutors were looking for.

Charges, witnesses upheld

Burton then challenged the bill of particulars charging him with first-degree murder and first-degree rape. The defense sought a description of what portion of the charges took place in Delaware and the means Burton employed in causing Bennett’s death. Burton argued that he needed this information to prepare his defense.

Bradley rejected this argument, saying Burton was adequately put on notice as to what charges he is facing and that the defense cannot force the prosecution to disclose its legal theory of the case.

On a related note, Bradley denied Burton’s motion to identify out-of-state witnesses from Maryland law enforcement who would testify against him. Bradley said prosecutors do not have to disclose the statements of their witnesses and that the defense can call those witnesses if it so desires.

Still another motion related to spousal communications, although what those communications entail is unclear. Prosecutors asked for an evidentiary hearing on the matter and a hearing was held Jan. 31, but the hearing was held under seal; the public was not allowed in the courtroom.

Burton then sought to exclude a soil analysis of the area where Bennett’s body was found, which state investigators concluded was consistent with soil recovered from Burton’s truck. Burton’s attorneys argued that investigators did not take samples of soil found at Bayshore Community Church or at Burton’s parents’ driveway.

Bradley rejected this argument, allowing the soil evidence to be used, although he added the state would have to establish their investigator’s expertise and that he followed recognized sampling procedures.

The defense next tried to challenge a Delaware State Police search warrant of Burton’s house, shed and a maroon truck arguing, again, that the warrant contained insufficient facts to obtain a warrant.

Bradley disagreed, saying that given the available evidence, it was reasonable to conclude that a crime had been committed and that seizable evidence would have been found in Burton’s home, shed and maroon truck. Of note, Bradley said it is reasonable to conclude that the clothes Burton wore the night of the murder and Bennett’s car keys and clothes, all could have contained trace evidence linking Burton to the crime through DNA, hair, blood and fibers. In addition, because Burton told police he had washed his truck, Bradley said it is not unreasonable to conclude that rags, sponges and towels used to clean the truck would also be found at Burton’s home.

Burton’s attorneys sought to participate directly in the examination of prospective jurors, which Bradley denied. They also challenged another warrant filed to search Burton’s truck, although this motion was held under seal, and Bradley’s decision is not known.

Sex offender history to be suppressed

Finally, the defense sought to keep Burton’s 2004 guilty plea for sex offenses involving two children from being introduced at trial. Prosecutors say that Burton had concealed his sex offender history from Bayshore Community Church pastor Daniel Tice when he was hired as a part-time custodian in 2012. Upon investigating Burton’s background, prosecutors say, Tice found Burton’s sex offender history and asked him on June 7, 2012, to clear up his criminal history or his employment would be terminated by June 23, 2012. Bennett was found dead on June 15.

Prosecutors allege that Burton, knowing he would be terminated and would no longer have easy access to Bennett, raped and murdered her before his firing.

Bradley allowed evidence that Burton was going to be terminated to be introduced at trial, because that evidence speaks to motive and opportunity. However, Bradley ruled Burton’s prior status as a sex offender cannot be introduced because it would be prejudicial to the jury.

Burton is scheduled to go to trial beginning Monday, May 8.