The Pennsylvania Superior Court has granted a new trial to a man convicted of murder over his lawyer's failure to challenge a forensic pathology expert's theory on DNA evidence, one that was not generally accepted by science.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jack Panella, Victor Stabile and Maria McLaughlin ruled April 6 in Commonwealth v. Hopkins that defendant Gregory Scott Hopkins' lawyer provided him with ineffective counsel, and vacated his conviction.

Hopkins was charged with third-degree murder stemming from the strangulation death of Janet Walsh in 1979 in Beaver County. Hopkins admitted to having a casual sexual relationship with Walsh. DNA from Hopkins' semen was recovered from the crime scene, but Hopkins maintained he was not there at the time of the murder.

The prosecution's forensic expert, Dr. Cyril Wecht—father of state Supreme Court Justice David Wecht—advocated a theory that the "topographical distribution" of the semen on items obtained from the crime scene pointed to Hopkins as the prime suspect.

Appealing his conviction, Hopkins claimed his attorney was ineffective for failing to file a Frye motion to exclude Wecht's testimony on the ground that the methodology behind his opinion was not generally accepted in the field of forensic pathology.

"We agree with appellant. The record demonstrates that no scientific method exists for dating DNA deposits, and that Dr. Wecht's methodology is not generally accepted in the forensic pathology field," Stabile said. "We conclude trial counsel had no reasonable basis for failing to seek preclusion of Dr. Wecht's testimony under Frye, and the admission of his testimony caused substantial prejudice to appellant. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial."

However, Stabile emphasized that the court did not reach its decision lightly.

"This case involves a heinous crime that snuffed out the life of a young and blameless woman. Decades after the victim's death, the commonwealth went to considerable lengths to solve the crime with cutting-edge technology. A renowned forensic pathologist, Dr. Wecht, presented expert testimony on behalf of the commonwealth that, on the surface, appeared to pinpoint appellant as the wrongdoer," Stabile said.

"Nevertheless," he continued. "The record establishes that the verdict was the product of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Although Dr. Wecht's testimony was not supported by generally accepted methodology, trial counsel failed to move to exclude Dr. Wecht's testimony under Frye. Counsel did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to take this step; he simply neglected to consider it. Dr. Wecht's testimony prejudiced appellant by serving as the centerpiece of the commonwealth's case. The jury likely found appellant guilty because Dr. Wecht's status as an expert added luster to his theory of 'topographical distribution.' We believe that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of this case may well have been different had trial counsel moved to preclude Dr. Wecht's testimony under Frye."

The Beaver County District Attorney's Office did not return a call seeking comment.

Hopkins is represented by Adam Cogan, who did not return a call seeking comment.