The 49-year-old Maine man who was convicted in the 1993 rape and murder of a woman at the University of Alaska Fairbanks is appealing his case.
Steve Downs was convicted in 2022 of the rape and murder of 20-year-old Sophie Sergie. Her body was discovered curled in a fetal position in a bathtub on the second floor of Bartlett Hall at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
A Fairbanks jury convicted Steve Downs of Sergie’s rape and murder after three weeks of testimony and 20 hours of deliberation in 2022.
Downs’ attorneys argue that the trial court erred in denying Downs’ motion to suppress results of a genealogical search, excluding a confession of an alternate suspect and admitting evidence relating to his ownership of a revolver in 2019, according to a legal brief filed by Public Defender Terrence Haas and Assistant Public Defender Emily Jura on May 17.
DNA search
In 2018, an investigator with the Alaska State Troopers contacted a private company to conduct a genetic genealogy search in a database.
DNA taken from swabs of Sergie’s body shared 23% of DNA with its closest match in the genealogical database. An employee at the private company used public records to map out the individual’s family tree and found that Downs was a potential or likely match to the family member.
Downs’ attorneys argue that law enforcement searched the genealogical database without a warrant, violating Downs’ and his family members’ reasonable right to privacy, according to the legal brief.
The databases’s privacy policy states that law enforcement may upload DNA to identify a perpetrator of a violent crime but also states that the company may disclose raw data if necessary to comply with a subpoena or warrant.
“Individuals who want to engage in recreational genealogy, but who also want to maintain their privacy from a government search, should not be forced to choose between the two,” attorneys stated.
The Fairbanks court denied Downs’ motion to suppress the DNA evidence, and Downs’ attorney argued that the search violated the Alaska and federal constitutions and was unreasonable, the legal brief stated.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a legal brief supporting Downs on May 17, arguing that the state should have obtained a warrant, the Fairbanks court’s decision to deny Downs’ motion to suppress evidence went against the Supreme Court’s framework for evolving technology, and that Fairbanks court’s approach to the Fourth Amendment is not fact-based.
“The trial court’s decision misapplies well-settled Fourth Amendment law in a way that would erode constitutional protections concerning an individual’s sensitive, information-rich DNA,” NACDL attorneys stated.
Attorneys argue that the Supreme Court has made it clear that technology cannot be allowed to erode privacy.
The Supreme Court decided in 2018 that seizing cell phone records without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Attorneys also argued that Downs did not upload his genetic material or consent to his family member sharing genetic material, and had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“In the very near future, virtually every American will have a blood relative whose DNA has been uploaded to a commercial website. And we cannot give or withhold our consent to distant relatives who choose to use those websites. Nor can we choose with whom we share our genes. We leave our genetic information everywhere we go. This Court should ensure that the Fourth Amendment continues to protect an individual’s privacy interests in their genetic information,” the brief stated.
Alternate confession
Karen Moto told Anchorage police in 2009 that her brother, Kenneth Moto, confessed to her that he murdered Sergie shortly after the murder and in the fall of 1993. Karen said that Kenneth said he killed Sergie because she “wouldn’t shut her mouth.”
Karen Moto said that she knew her brother had guns and knives at the time of the murder and he had a history of violence.
Downs’ attorneys argued that the recorded statements were admissible but the Fairbanks court denied Downs’ request, finding that Karen Moto’s statements were inadmissible, according to the legal brief.
Kenneth Moto, a student at UAF at the time of Sergie’s murder, was questioned twice in the case. He testified at trial that he did not kill Sergie. Karen Moto was unavailable to testify at trial because she is deceased.
Downs’ attorneys argued that Downs had a right to present his defense and and the statement should have been admitted under evidence rules. They argue that Karen Moto had motivation to speak truthfully and initiated contact with police.
While the trial court stated that it had concerns about the legitimacy of Karen Moto’s statements, attorneys argue that the jury should have decided on the legitimacy of Kenneth and Karen Moto’s statements, according to the legal brief.
Attorneys stated that the court intruded on Downs’ right to due process and jury trial.
“Because the confession was excluded, the jury never heard this uniquely incriminating evidence and Downs could not confront or impeach Moto’s denial of killing [Sergie],” the appeal stated, adding that testimony that Kenneth Moto may have been in the area at the time, he could have been the same seen leaving the bathroom at the time of the crime, he previously indecently viewed women in bathrooms, he provided inconsistent statements for his whereabouts the night of the crime, he was drinking, and was in a state of emotional distress would have been more compelling if the jury heard Karen Moto’s account of his confession.
Handgun possession
Police recovered a .22 H&R revolver from Downs’ home in 2019.
Downs denied having a .22 at the time of Sergie’s murder and said he bought the revolver in Maine.
At trial, a firearms analyst at the Alaska State Crime Lab testified that the revolver could not be excluded or identified as the gun that fired the round that killed Sergie. A gun seller in Maine also testified that he sold a revolver in 2015 to a man he thought was Downs who responded to a magazine ad.
The court permitted evidence that Downs owned the revolver in 2019, and the state said that the gun might have been the murder weapon and Downs showed a preference for the make and model of the gun.
Downs’ attorneys argue that the court erred in admitting evidence of the revolver. Attorneys state that the court hypothesized that Downs could have disposed of the alleged murder weapon in Maine after 1993 and happened to purchase the exact same gun years later, and the state encouraged the jury to speculate on whether the gun was or could be the murder weapon.
Downs’ attorneys stated that the court should reverse Downs’ conviction and order a new trial.
The state has until January 2025 to respond to the legal brief.