DNA Transcript Bank
Below are transcript excerpts from criminal trials and hearings involving DNA in Connecticut. By providing these transcripts as examples, we are neither endorsing nor criticizing the approaches taken by the attorneys who handled these cases. Rather, we hope that the transcripts will be useful for educational and trial preparation purposes. If you are preparing for trial and would like suggestions for improving upon something you see here (or would like suggestions for trying something different), please contact the DNA Project.
Our transcript bank is a work in progress. If you have a transcript you are willing to contribute, please contact us.
Internet Explorer is the recommended browser for downloading the transcripts below. This transcript bank is accessible only by public defenders. If you are an assigned counsel and would like access to one or more of the transcripts, please contact the DNA Project.
Internet Explorer is the recommended browser for downloading the motions below.
State v. Raymond
Bridgeport GA, 2018
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in sexual assault case [pdf]
Bridgeport GA, 2018
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in sexual assault case [pdf]
State v. Rodriguez
New Britan GA, 2018
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in cold-hit sexual assault case [pdf]
New Britan GA, 2018
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in cold-hit sexual assault case [pdf]
State v. Graham
Hartford JD, 2018
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in murder case. Includes discussion of STRmix and likelihood ratios [pdf]
Hartford JD, 2018
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in murder case. Includes discussion of STRmix and likelihood ratios [pdf]
State v. Pjura
Litchfield JD, 2018
• Short direct examination of DNA analyst by state where defendant was included in profile obtained from sneaker (defense did not cross) [pdf]
Litchfield JD, 2018
• Short direct examination of DNA analyst by state where defendant was included in profile obtained from sneaker (defense did not cross) [pdf]
State v. Fortin
Rockville GA, 2017
• Direct examination of DNA analyst. Includes discussion of STRmix and likelihood ratios (defense did not cross) [pdf]
Rockville GA, 2017
• Direct examination of DNA analyst. Includes discussion of STRmix and likelihood ratios (defense did not cross) [pdf]
State v. Foster
New London JD, 2017
• Pretrial hearing testimony of DNA analyst re DNA transfer (where multiple items were in one manila envelope together before being tested) [pdf]
• Trial testimony of DNA analyst. Includes discussion of STRmix, likelihood ratios, transfer [pdf]
New London JD, 2017
• Pretrial hearing testimony of DNA analyst re DNA transfer (where multiple items were in one manila envelope together before being tested) [pdf]
• Trial testimony of DNA analyst. Includes discussion of STRmix, likelihood ratios, transfer [pdf]
State v. Dawson
Norwalk GA, 2016
• Argument on admissibility of asterisks / minor peaks [pdf]
• Cross examination of DNA analyst by Joe Lopez in gun case. Includes discussion of degradation, mixtures, low levels, transfer, stochastic fluctuation, allelic drop out [pdf]
Norwalk GA, 2016
• Argument on admissibility of asterisks / minor peaks [pdf]
• Cross examination of DNA analyst by Joe Lopez in gun case. Includes discussion of degradation, mixtures, low levels, transfer, stochastic fluctuation, allelic drop out [pdf]
State v. Ashby
Hartford JD, 2007
• Testimony of forensic biology analyst and DNA analyst re results of serological and DNA testing, where testing was requested by defense. Includes discussion of blood testing, amylase, acid phosphatase (screening test of semen), multiple male contributors to DNA, Y testing [pdf]
Hartford JD, 2007
• Testimony of forensic biology analyst and DNA analyst re results of serological and DNA testing, where testing was requested by defense. Includes discussion of blood testing, amylase, acid phosphatase (screening test of semen), multiple male contributors to DNA, Y testing [pdf]
State v. Grant
New Haven JD, 2002
Cold-case murder where DNA implicated defendant 28 years after the crime. Multiple experts on both sides. Dated, but still useful for educational purposes:
• Testimony of analyst (state lab) [pdf]
• Testimony of Edward Blake (state’s DNA expert) [pdf]
• Testimony of Katherine Colombo (defense’s DNA expert) from private lab Cell Mark [pdf]
• Testimony of Kenneth Kidd (state’s statiss expert) [pdf]
• Testimony of Kimberly Nelson (defense’s expert in mitochondrial DNA) [pdf]
New Haven JD, 2002
Cold-case murder where DNA implicated defendant 28 years after the crime. Multiple experts on both sides. Dated, but still useful for educational purposes:
• Testimony of analyst (state lab) [pdf]
• Testimony of Edward Blake (state’s DNA expert) [pdf]
• Testimony of Katherine Colombo (defense’s DNA expert) from private lab Cell Mark [pdf]
• Testimony of Kenneth Kidd (state’s statiss expert) [pdf]
• Testimony of Kimberly Nelson (defense’s expert in mitochondrial DNA) [pdf]
United States v. Rose
D.C. Superior Court, 2016
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in Washington, D.C. Not a Connecticut case (and thus some lab protocols may differ), but an example of a detailed cross examination by the defense. Includes discussion of mixtures, transfer, analytical and stochastic thresholds, and allele stacking. [pdf]
D.C. Superior Court, 2016
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in Washington, D.C. Not a Connecticut case (and thus some lab protocols may differ), but an example of a detailed cross examination by the defense. Includes discussion of mixtures, transfer, analytical and stochastic thresholds, and allele stacking. [pdf]
State v. Jeffrey Villar
Waterbury GA, 2017
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in a hand gun case; defense theory is that his client’s profile is on gun due to secondary transfer, not from direct touch. Analyst opines that secondary transfer is “highly unlikely” in this instance due to the high likelihood results (statistics) of “1 hundred billion times more likely ….” If your theory is that your client did not touch the gun, that his/her DNA is on the gun due to secondary transfer, then you must look at this transcript and prepare to address the above opinion testimony; feel free to call Joe Lopez to discuss strategy. [pdf]
State v. Santos Javier Nunez
Hartford, JD, 2019
• FIRST Porter challenge to STRmix -- the lab’s software which generates likelihood ratios; the current statistical methodology used to express the probative value / strength of a DNA match. [pdf]
• Judge D’Addabbo finds STRmix software passes Porter challenge. [pdf]
PLEASE NOTE: This transcript is NOT being provided as a template for future litigation. In fact, please contact Joe Lopez first before pursuing another Porter challenge of STRmix. An admissibility challenge to STRmix requires the use of several experts and considerable preparation.
State v. Daniel Streit
New Haven, JD, 2018
• Cross of DNA analyst by Joe Lopez in a homicide case (stabbing) - defendant claimed self-defense and told police that he and decedent struggled for control of a knife. Defense introduced DNA evidence to show that both defendant and decedent’s DNA was on a knife and that the decedent was the major contributor to the mixture; defense argued that DNA corroborated defendant’s version. Discussion of the amount of DNA on an item and whether that amount is more consistent with primary transfer (touch) or with secondary transfer. [pdf]
State v. Edwin Glass
Hartford JD, 2018
• Sexual Assault trial where defense lawyer cross examines several analysts and challenges the methodology and reliability of using software (STRmix) to generate likelihood ratios. Lots of information about the step-by-step process of generating DNA profiles and how the lab analyzes and reports out DNA test results.
PLEASE NOTE: These transcripts are NOT being provided as a template for future litigation; they are posted solely to illustrate how analysts will respond to different areas of inquiries / questioning. Please contact Joe Lopez if you are preparing for trial and want to brainstorm complex DNA issues. There are other ways of challenging some of the DNA issues that were present in this case.
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst AS [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst CH [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA GY] [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst JE no jury [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst JE [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst LR [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst LR no jury [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst ZW [pdf]
• State v. Glass – forensic biology JG [pdf]
Waterbury GA, 2017
• Direct and cross examination of DNA analyst in a hand gun case; defense theory is that his client’s profile is on gun due to secondary transfer, not from direct touch. Analyst opines that secondary transfer is “highly unlikely” in this instance due to the high likelihood results (statistics) of “1 hundred billion times more likely ….” If your theory is that your client did not touch the gun, that his/her DNA is on the gun due to secondary transfer, then you must look at this transcript and prepare to address the above opinion testimony; feel free to call Joe Lopez to discuss strategy. [pdf]
State v. Santos Javier Nunez
Hartford, JD, 2019
• FIRST Porter challenge to STRmix -- the lab’s software which generates likelihood ratios; the current statistical methodology used to express the probative value / strength of a DNA match. [pdf]
• Judge D’Addabbo finds STRmix software passes Porter challenge. [pdf]
PLEASE NOTE: This transcript is NOT being provided as a template for future litigation. In fact, please contact Joe Lopez first before pursuing another Porter challenge of STRmix. An admissibility challenge to STRmix requires the use of several experts and considerable preparation.
State v. Daniel Streit
New Haven, JD, 2018
• Cross of DNA analyst by Joe Lopez in a homicide case (stabbing) - defendant claimed self-defense and told police that he and decedent struggled for control of a knife. Defense introduced DNA evidence to show that both defendant and decedent’s DNA was on a knife and that the decedent was the major contributor to the mixture; defense argued that DNA corroborated defendant’s version. Discussion of the amount of DNA on an item and whether that amount is more consistent with primary transfer (touch) or with secondary transfer. [pdf]
State v. Edwin Glass
Hartford JD, 2018
• Sexual Assault trial where defense lawyer cross examines several analysts and challenges the methodology and reliability of using software (STRmix) to generate likelihood ratios. Lots of information about the step-by-step process of generating DNA profiles and how the lab analyzes and reports out DNA test results.
PLEASE NOTE: These transcripts are NOT being provided as a template for future litigation; they are posted solely to illustrate how analysts will respond to different areas of inquiries / questioning. Please contact Joe Lopez if you are preparing for trial and want to brainstorm complex DNA issues. There are other ways of challenging some of the DNA issues that were present in this case.
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst AS [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst CH [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA GY] [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst JE no jury [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst JE [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst LR [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst LR no jury [pdf]
• State v. Glass – DNA analyst ZW [pdf]
• State v. Glass – forensic biology JG [pdf]