In May, after more than a year of work on it, Ken Young filed with the court his draft order, which he hopes the judge will endorse, demanding a new trial for Pierce. Though the contents of the proposed order are sealed until Cooper issues his ruling, the proposed order basically states that Pierce is due a new trial because his original counsel was lax in pursing the forensic case. Young also contends that his order would compel the state to begin a new search for the missing DNA evidence.
The prosecution, which also is barred from discussing the contents of its proposed order, submitted its draft earlier this month. Mark Bowden, a spokesman for the Attorney General would say only that the state's position is that it opposes a new trial for Pierce.
Cooper, for his part, is still mulling the legal issues surrounding the dueling orders, and is, as he says, still unsure how he will rule.
To be sure, he says, both sides face significant legal obstacles. Certainly, it will be difficult for Young to prevail in any argument that might suggest that the fact that crucial evidence is missing should auger to Pierce's benefit.
As Cooper puts it, "there are presumptions which sometimes attach to lost evidence or destroyed evidence if it can be proven that it was destroyed intentionally and by the prosecuting agency. Of course there's no evidence like that in this particular case."