Tennis umpire Lois Ann Goodman, who has been accused of killing her husband, lost her bid to stop the California prosecutors from taking her DNA sample for the trial.
Her attorneys had said that the DNA sample would not serve any purpose as Goodman had herself stated before the state prosecutors that she had used a coffee cup for the crime and pieces of the broken mug had already been submitted to the police.
The police had initially refused to register them as evidence as they thought that her husband died of an accident."Taking DNA suggests some form of criminality," attorney Robert Sheahen said. "It gives the indication that there is probable cause in the case."
The 70-year-old Goodman is currently free on $500,000 bail but has to wear an electronic monitoring device.
Sheahen argued that it would be an intrusion on Goodman as she would be forced to give her saliva sample for the purpose. More so since the saliva sample from the referee had been collected at the time of her arrest.
However, Deputy District Attorney Lisa Tanner pointed out that the sample has not been made available to prosecutors. "We need it to further investigate this case," she said. "We need it to compare it to blood taken at the scene."
Although the coroner has pointed out that death was due to blunt-force trauma to the head, the prosecutors now allege that Goodman used the broken coffee mug as an "improvised knife".
"A DNA sample infers criminality," said Sheahan. "To now claim Mrs. Goodman is more likely to have committed the offense because her DNA is inside the home is madness."
However, Superior Court Judge Jessica Silvers told the defense attorneys that taking the salvia swab sample is permissible as long as it is done in a private setting.
Goodman, who resides in California's Woodland Hills, has been charged with killing her 80-year-old husband, Alan Goodman, with the broken coffee mug on April 17. Apparently, Goodman left him bleeding to die while she went to play tennis and get a manicure.
Meanwhile, Goodman's lawyers are considering appealing against the ruling. According to them the DNA regulation is relatively new and cases pertaining to the DNA regulation are pending in the state's appellate courts.
