The first- and third-degree murder charges levied against former Penn State football player LaVon Chisley for his alleged role in the murder of a Penn State senior in June were sent to trial this morning.

But not before testimony that questioned the accuracy of some statements in the criminal complaint against Chisley, 23.

Langston Carraway, 26, was found stabbed to death June 5 on a couch in his apartment, 110 Northbrook Lane, police said. His death was ruled a homicide, according to court documents.

At the scene, a bloody glove was found a few feet from Carraway's body and, according to the criminal complaint, the glove was analyzed for DNA. The complaint states that "two separate DNA profiles were obtained [from the glove]. One of the profiles belonged to [Carraway], and the other belonged to [Chisley]. The only DNA profile found inside the glove was Chisley's."

When Karen Muir, Chisley's lawyer, asked Patton Township Police Det. Chris Federinko if that statement was true, he referred to the DNA analysis lab report, and said, "Langston Carraway and LaVon Chisley can not be excluded as contributors. It does not say it's a match."

Furthermore, stating that the "only" DNA profile found inside the glove was Chisley's is "not true," Federinko said. "In fact, there is a mixture." Federinko testified that a third DNA profile was found inside the glove and did not appear to match Chisley or Carraway.

Therefore, authorities can not conclusively determine that the DNA found on the glove is Chisley's or Carraway's, but they also can not rule them out. Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said the DNA was analyzed using an exclusionary method.

"The DNA evidence speaks for itself. What was entered into court today indicates a match to two individuals and only two individuals," he said. "And when the scientist takes the stand, and he also says it is a match, that'll be the evidence the jury hears."

Chisley's friend, Kerry Onaka, also testified this morning telling the court she saw Chisley in possession of a black, rubber glove similar to the one found at the crime scene.

According to the criminal complaint, Onaka was shown a glove "identical" to the one found at the crime scene. Muir highlighted the portion of the criminal complaint that states "Onaka identified the glove as the glove that was in Chisley's pocket the evening of June 3, 2006."

She asked Federinko if that statement was true, pointing out that it was not the identical glove found at the crime scene, but rather a glove that was similar to the glove Onaka said Chisley had.

"That [statement] is not true because that's not the exact glove," Muir said. In response, Madeira said Muir was relying on "semantics, semantics, semantics." "Unfortunately, the question asked of this detective was about one sentence and read alone, that one sentence doesn't appear to be accurate, but read in context … it does appear to be consistent and accurate," he said.

Check Monday's edition of The Daily Collegian for more information from Friday morning's hearing.