Opinion ID: 2230718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sub-150 RFU Peaks

Text: The district court also ruled as a result of the Frye-Mack hearing that loci with peaks under 150 RFUs would not be admissible as part of the state's case-in-chief because the BCA's own internal protocols prohibited using such peaks for any purpose but exclusion (determining that a given individual could not have been the source of the DNA). The court ruled that the sub-150 RFU peaks were likely to be more prejudicial than probative, because it is a very short step from the assertion that the evidence does not exclude the defendant to the inference of therefore it must implicate the defendant. The court noted, [t]his is not to say that there is insufficient foundation to preclude the State from inquiring on redirect, should the issue be raised in cross-examination, whether there is anything in the sub-150 RFU peaks that excludes Defendant. During cross-examination, Bailey's attorney asked this series of questions of Knutson: Q:    And then you have basically up there [referring to a display] nine different locations that you look at in the gene? A: That's correct. They are nine different areas of DNA that we look at, yes. Q: And they are called loci? A: That is what they are referred to as, yes. Q: But they are areas of DNA that you look at to see if a person might be excluded; is that correct? A: They are areas of DNA that have been shown to differ between individuals. Q: And you look at them to see if a person might be excluded? A: We look at them to compare them to known samples to see whether either inclusion or exclusions can be made. Q: Okay. And here, I believe you testified, you got results out of five of the nine in terms of doing the calculation that you did; is that correct? A: Yes, we received, I obtained reportable results for five of the areas. Q: Okay. Reportable results for five of the areas, is that right? A: That's correct. Based on this exchange, the district court ruled that Bailey had opened the door to questioning by the state to establish that nothing in the four sub-150 loci excluded Bailey as the donor. Bailey contends that the district court erred in allowing this testimony.