Page 1: The Buried Report

THE BURIED REPORT
THAT SCIENCE CANNOT IGNORE

"A Different Man’s SPERM DNA Was Found. The State Hid the Report."

Now, consider this: Just 12 days before your trial, a world-renowned laboratory sends a scientific report to the prosecutor. This report proves that the sperm found on the perpetrator’s clothing belongs to a third party—an "Unknown Male." The prosecutor receives this report, reads it, and hides it. Then, they put an expert witness on the stand to swear to your jury that the tests on the overalls were "negative" for semen.

HIDDEN

View The Hidden Lab Report

Scientific Proof of "Unknown Male" Sperm

Furthermore, the prosecution possesses evidence that your DNA was found at a second crime scene—one they know you did not commit because the attacker was a 6-ft white male with blue eyes. They withhold this proof of innocence. Instead, they claim you match the description, knowing it is false.

SUSPECTS

Jump to Page 3

The Real Culprits: Unmasking The True Attackers

SCIENCE

Jump to Page 2

The DNA Myth: The Reality of Touch DNA Transfer

"This isn't a movie script. It is the documented reality of the case against Elmo Rivadeneira."


The Buried Sperm Evidence

We start with the most critical evidence. In September 2011, mere days before trial, Bode Technology issued a Y-STR DNA report to the prosecutor regarding the overalls the victim was forced to wear.

CRITICAL

Link to Testimony

Victim forced to wear overalls

The findings? A sperm DNA profile belonging to an unknown male. Crucially: Elmo Rivadeneira was conclusively excluded.

EXONERATING

Link to Bode Report

Scientific Proof of Exclusion

Despite this, the State called an expert witness to testify that the overalls were "negative" for semen, misleading the jury into believing no biological evidence existed.

FALSE

Link to False Testimony

State Expert Claims "Negative" Result

The State held the proof of innocence in their file while presenting a false reality to the court.


The Timeline Fraud

When challenged in state court, the prosecution alleged this information had been disclosed in a 2006 report. This "phantom report" has never been produced. Science proves this excuse is a lie. The 2011 report relied on reference profiles that did not exist until January 2008. It is impossible to disclose a comparison in 2006 for a profile created two years later.

The Federal District Court recognized this deception. Unlike the state court, Judge McNulty identified the "major contradiction" in the State's timeline. Finding "merit" in Elmo's claim, the Court granted a stay to perfect the record.

COURT ORDER

Link to 2022 Federal Habeas Decision

Judge McNulty Grants Stay on Merits

Case Active & Reopened

Federal Court Update

Case No: 2:21-cv-01455 | Judge Madeline Cox Arleo

Last Action:

Jan 20, 2026

This case is not closed. It is actively being litigated in the United States District Court. On October 9, 2025, the Federal Court ordered the case REOPENED. On January 20, 2026, a Motion to Note Default was filed alongside the comprehensive 178-page Traverse Brief exposing every constitutional violation.

FILED

Read the 178-Page Traverse Brief

Filed Jan 20, 2026 • The Complete Argument

LIVE
Verify on PacerMonitor (Live Docket)

Next: The DNA Myth

The Reality of Touch DNA →

Jump to Page 3

The Real Culprits →

Follow @elmo_rivadeneira