DNA Cases and New Developments
State v. Walker, 2019 - Confrontation Clause Case.
The state presented testimony from one forensic lab analyst (H.D.) stating that the defendant's DNA profile (generated from a buccal swab) matched the major contributor of a DNA mixture on a bandana, seized from a crime scene. Analyst H.D. testified that she conducted the testing of the bandana, compared the results of the bandana to the results of the defendant's buccal swab, and opined there was a match. However, the Court held that H.D. should not have been permitted to testify as to the results of the testing of defendant's buccal swab (his DNA Profile) as such results were testimonial hearsay. Since the state did not produce the analyst who actually generated the defendant's DNA profile, the defendant's 6th amendment right to confront was violated.
State v. Walker - Crawford issue
U.S. v. Gissantaner, 2019 - Successful Daubert challenge
Successful Daubert challenge to the admissibility of STRmix, a genotyping software used to analyzes complex DNA mixtures; this software is used by our lab. Although this decision is probably limited to the specific facts of the case, it is a great read to understand the DNA analytical process, probabilistic genotype software and generating likelihood ratio results.
See ruling and transcripts
Fed Case STRmix not meet Daubert
Gissantaner Day 1
Gissantaner Day 2
New York Daily News article recounting a DNA hit based on lab contamination
NY Daily News - Tainted DNA clears suspect
2017 Massachusetts Court of Appeals Decision
As a matter of first impression, the presence of the defendant's DNA on clothing near the crime scene, standing alone, insufficient to support a conviction