Opinion ID: 2074377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Microscopic Hair Samples

Text: Brookins' first argument is that the Superior Court failed to take into account the unreliability of microscopic comparison of hair samples. [11] That argument is contradicted by the record, which shows that the Superior Court evaluated the reliability and credibility of microscopic hair analyses in general and decided nonetheless to credit the microscopic hair comparison analysis in this particular case. [12] We hold that the Superior Court properly rejected the categorical argument that microscopic hair analysis is inherently unreliable. As one federal court has pointed out, human hair analysis by microscopic comparison was an accepted and reliable scientific method or technique, the results of which were routinely admitted at trial along with other circumstantial evidence. . . . [13] Brookins has not demonstrated that the microscopic hair comparison analysis was unreliable in his specific case. Accordingly, the microscopic comparison of hair samples was properly admitted into evidence at Brookins' trial and was properly considered in evaluating the strength of his argument based on the new DNA evidence report.