Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce DNA evidence.

Text: Defendant claims the trial court erred when it ruled admissible DNA evidence because the State failed to establish the reliability of its database. LA.REV.STAT. ANN. § 15:441.1, provides in part, that: [e]vidence of deoxyribonucleic acid profiles, ... offered to establish the identity of the offender of any crime is relevant as proof in conformity with the Louisiana Code of Evidence. The Louisiana Legislature clearly intended this type of evidence to be admissible absent a particularized showing that the evidence is unreliable. This Court has adopted the reasoning and observations set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), which specifically rejected the general acceptance test and outlined the means for determining the reliability and answered many questions as to proper standards for the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1122 (La.1993). In Daubert, the Supreme Court stated that an inference or assertion of scientific knowledge must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation, i.e., good grounds, based on what is known. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786. In short, evidentiary reliability will be based on scientific validity. Id., 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786, n9. The trial court must determine whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. The trial court must make a ... preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts at issue. Many factors will bear on the inquiry.... Id., 509 U.S. at 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786 General acceptance can have a bearing on the issue. Id., 509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786. At the pre-trial hearing and at trial, the State expert, Michelle Gaines, [25] testified she performed DNA analysis on a pair of gloves found in the ditch opposite the point where Chreene found the victim's car, cigarette butts from the victim's driveway, defendant's bloodstained jeans, and from some swabs taken from inside and outside the victim's vehicle. Gaines compared these results with reference samples taken from defendant, the victim, Lance Malone (the victim's son), Andrew Lee J.R. Brantley, Jr., Shawn Minnifield [26] and Richard Stanford. [27] Gaines testified the victim could not be excluded as the donor of the blood found on defendant's jeans, swabs from the car and the outside of the glove. Gaines further claimed the likelihood of another Caucasian contributor was approximately one in 48.9 quadrillion. In addition, DNA was extracted from inside the glove which revealed three donors. Defendant and the victim could not be excluded as two of the donors while the remaining individuals who submitted reference samples were excluded as possible sources. When questioned about the third donor of DNA on the inside of the glove, Gaines described that individual as a weak contributor, one that contributed less DNA than the other two. When queried further about the weak contributor, Gaines said this DNA could have been contributed by anyone who had handled those gloves probably fairly recently, if someone else had worn them at some point in time, it would be possible that I am getting some or a small amount of their DNA in this sample. (R., vol.XIV, p. 3408). Gaines also testified that the test results revealed that the profile obtained from inside the glove was approximately 4.9 million more times as likely to have been a mixture of DNA from defendant, the victim, and an unknown African-American male than a mixture of DNA from the victim and two unknown African-American men. Defense counsel was free at trial to challenge the accuracy of the database used when the expert made her calculations. At the hearing on the issue, Gaines testified a computer program was used to calculate the frequency rates of specific DNA profiles appearing in various populations and that the program was available to the defense in discovery. In addition, the witness testified the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory had been certified to conduct DNA testing and analysis. In this situation, defendant fails to show the trial court erred when it admitted the DNA evidence. This argument lacks merit.