Please Scroll Down for a complete listing of information

STR-DNA Admissibility Appellate Case Law

 
 

 

While trial courts in two states have refused to admit evidence produced by a method of DNA testing that uses automated equipment to analyze short tandem repeats (STRs), trial courts in many other states have allowed the Profiler Plus and Cofiler Systems into evidence. Recent defense motions have targeted the adequacy of Perkin Elmer's developmental validation, and the company's refusal to disclose their primer sequences. In the majority of cases these efforts have failed and the trial courts are allowing the STR evidence in at trial. 

In People v. Shreck Shreck.PDF , a Colorado trial court decision which has now been Reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court and State v. Pfenning pfenning.pdf a Vermont trial court decision have been available on other websites. See www.scientific.org These sites fail to include the cases where trial courts have faced the same issues and rejected the defense challenge to these systems. Those cases are listed below:

While trial courts in two states have refused to admit evidence produced by a method of DNA testing that uses automated equipment to analyze short tandem repeats (STRs), trial courts in many other states have allowed the Profiler Plus and Cofiler Systems into evidence. Recent defense motions have targeted the adequacy of Perkin Elmer's developmental validation, and the company's refusal to disclose their primer sequences. In the majority of cases these efforts have failed and the trial courts are allowing the STR evidence in at trial. 

In People v. Shreck Shreck.PDF , a Colorado trial court decision which has now been Reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court and State v. Pfenning pfenning.pdf a Vermont trial court decision have been available on other websites. See www.scientific.org These sites fail to include the cases where trial courts have faced the same issues and rejected the defense challenge to these systems. Those cases are listed below:

  1. Colorado Supreme Court opinion in People v. Shreck, 00SA105.PDF  00SA105.DOC
  2. California Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Hill, People v. Hill.PDF
    Utah Supreme Court opinion in Utah v. Butterfield butterfield1.PDF
  3. U.S. District Court, District of Delaware ruling in  U.S. v. Trala trala.PDF
  4. State v. Traylor 2003 WL 473847 Minn., 2003 TraylorSC.PDF   & State v. Kromah 2003 WL 473204 Minn., 2003 Kromah.PDF  reverses State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. App., 3/26/02) traylor.PDF
  5. Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida opinion in Yisrael v. State yisraelCA.PDF
  6. State v. Salmon 2002 WL 31245217 Mo.App. W.D., 10/8/02 salmon.PDF
  7. Troxell v. Indiana, 778 N.E.2d 811 (Ind., 11/22/02) Troxell.PDF
  8. People v. Frediani Cal.App. 4 Dist., 1/29/03 Fredian.PDF
  9. People v. Smith Cal.App 2 Dist., 4/1/03 Smith.PDF
  10. People v. Henderson Cal.App 4 Dist., 4/2/03 Henderson.PDF
  11. Missouri v. Faulkner, Missouri CA 3/27/03 Faulkner.PDF
  12. U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey ruling in U.S. v. Ewell, 3/21/03 Ewell.PDF
  13.  New Hampshire v. Whittey, New Hampshire Supreme Court, 5/13/03 WhitteyAP.PDF
  14. People v. Townes, Cal.App. 2 Dist., 5/13/03 Townes.PDF
  15. People v. McCraw, Cal.App. 2 Dist., 5/13/03 McCraw.PDF
  16. Nebraska v. Fernando-Granados, 268 Neb. Rpt 290, __ N.W.2d ___ (2004). Fernando-Granados.PDF
  17. U.S. v. Gipson, C.A.8 (Minn) 9/1/04 Gipson.PDF
  18. U S v. Morrow, et al., U S District Court, District of Columbia, No. CRIM.A. 04-355CKK 6/9/05. Morrow.pdf
  19. Harris v. Texas, Court of Appeals, 2nd District, Fort Worth, no. 2-03-417-CR, 8/31/05 Harris v. Texas.PDF
  20. State v. Motyka, Rhode Island Supreme Court No. 2002-403-C.A. 3/21/06 (the trial court did not err in ruling that the DNA-STR evidence was admissible and the software package and the user manuals for the fluorescent scanner and thermocycler were not discoverable). Motyka2.PDF
  21. People v. Silva, Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2006 6/28/06, The trial court did not erred in failing to hold an evidentiary admissibility hearing to determine whether subsequent scientific developments had undermined the general acceptance of PCR based STR DNA typing. Silva.PDF
  22. Washington v. Smith, CA Wash. Division II, No. 33631-6-II, STR-DNA technique and statistics are generally accepted when dealing with mixed and degraded samples State v. Smith, Wash.PDF
  23. Roberts v. U.S., District of Columbia CA, No. 03-CF-853, 2/15/07, STR-DNA technique and statistics are generally accepted when dealing with mixed samples. Roberts v US.PDF
  24. Overton v. Florida, Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC04-2071, 11/29/07, in the context of a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during a Frye hearing on STR-DNA testing, the court found the defendant’s claim to be groundless because STR-DNA testing was generally accepted and met the Frye standard. Overton.PDF
  25. People v. Jackson, Cal.App. 3 Dist., 5/27/08, the Identifiler DNA test kit uses the PCR/STR testing methods, which have been generally accepted by the scientific community so there is no reason to conduct a pretrial admissibility hearing. Jackson1.PDF