Opinion ID: 2284344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Daubert Hearing

Text: Prior to trial, Appellant asked for a Daubert hearing to determine the validity of the DNA analysis. The Commonwealth countered that a Daubert hearing is unnecessary for DNA analysis and that the court should instead take judicial notice of its reliability. The court found that DNA analysis is indeed reliable and, therefore, declined to conduct a Daubert hearing. The method used to analyze Appellant's DNA is called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) analysis. As this Court noted over ten years ago, DNA analysis using the PCR method has . . . been recognized as valid and scientifically reliable. Fugate v. Commonwealth, 993 S.W.2d 931, 936 (Ky.1999). It is clear that the PCR method of DNA analysis has been subjected to extensive peer review. Id. Due to scholarly review and acceptance, the Court held in Fugate that in that trial and in future cases, DNA comparison analysis using the . . . PCR method [] is admissible without being the subject of a pretrial Daubert hearing. Id. at 937-38. Thus, the trial court properly declined a Daubert hearing, instead allowing Appellant to try to undermine the credibility of the DNA evidence at trial. See id. at 938. (The opposing party could question the handling of the samples, the chain of custody, the accuracy of the procedures, the quality of training of the particular person or persons who conducted the actual tests and whatever other challenge could be made to the credibility of the evidence.). In fact, Appellant's primary allegation of fault with the DNA evidence related not to the method of analyzing the DNA, but instead to the source of the DNA. Essentially, Appellant questioned the authenticity of the DNA alleged to have been found on Williams's body due to the length of time between the discovery of the body and trial. Of course, the opportunity for the Commonwealth to authenticate the DNA occurs not at a Daubert hearing, but at trial, where the chain of custody is proven before the evidence is introduced. The Commonwealth was indeed able to authenticate the DNA at trial and it subsequently was appropriately admitted into evidence.