Opinion ID: 1203661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: DNA Printing

Text: Spencer assigns error to the trial court's admitting into evidence the results of the DNA print identification test. We briefly summarize the test as described by the expert witnesses. [10] The DNA molecule is described as a double-helical strand and physically resembles a twisted ladder. The molecule is contained in every cell that has a nucleus, which includes nearly all the cells of the human body. The configuration of the DNA molecule differs in every individual with the exception of identical twins. The DNA molecule's configuration is the same in every nucleated cell of a particular person, and its characteristics do not change during the life of that individual. The DNA molecule is very complicated, and certain chemical procedures must be performed to read the genetic information contained in the molecule. Once the DNA is chemically extracted from the biological specimen, enzymes called restriction endonucleases are applied to the molecule. These enzymes recognize particular sequences of genetic information coded by certain chemicals. At the precise point of recognition, the enzymes cut the DNA strand into fragments. Next, a procedure called electrophoresis is used to separate the different lengths of the DNA fragments. The DNA fragments are then transferred to a piece of nylon membrane. Next, radioactive probes are added, which identify and bind to particular fragments that the probes are designed to recognize. The resulting accumulation of radioactivity exposes X-ray film that is placed next to the nylon membrane. Developing the X-ray film reveals bands of DNA. The pattern of the bands is then compared to the pattern of DNA bands obtained from testing other specimens. A sample of Spencer's blood and the semen stains discovered at the crime scene were forwarded to Lifecodes Corporation for DNA print identification testing. The tests established that the DNA extracted from the semen stains matched the DNA extracted from Spencer's blood sample. The statistical likelihood that anyone other than Spencer produced the semen stains is one in 705 million. Spencer argues that the DNA tests results were inadmissible because the Commonwealth failed to establish the test's reliability as required by O'Dell, 234 Va. 672, 364 S.E.2d 491. We do not agree. The record is replete with uncontradicted expert testimony that no dissent whatsoever [exists] in the scientific community concerning the reliability of the DNA printing technique. Unrebutted expert testimony further established that the testing procedure performed in this case was conducted in a reliable manner. Indeed, defense counsel admitted to the trial judge that he had no evidence to contradict the testimony of the Commonwealth's experts. Because the undisputed evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that DNA testing is a reliable scientific technique and that the tests performed here were properly conducted, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the results of the DNA testing. [11]