Opinion ID: 1920515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forensic DNA Analysis.

Text: This certified question presents an issue of first impression for this court, and one involving several basic scientific principles. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is an extremely long, thread-like chain of molecules found in the nucleus of every cell of the body   . The DNA chains are tightly coiled up into bodies called chromosomes, of which humans have twenty-three   . No two individuals, except for identical twins, have identical DNA. Within a given person, however, DNA does not vary from cell to cell. Thompson & Ford, DNA Typing: Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification Tests, 75 Virg.L.Rev. 45, 61 & n. 76 (1989). DNA typing is an emerging scientific technique that reveals distinctive patterns in the human genetic material of blood and other body fluids, hair and tissue. Three commercial laboratories in the United States currently perform DNA analysis: Cellmark (the company that did the testing in this case), [3] Lifecodes Corporation, and Cetus Corporation. Both Cellmark and Lifecodes employ restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis in their DNA testing. RFLP analysis involves the following steps: 1) Extraction: DNA is removed from the specimen and washed with an organic solvent. 2) Fragmentation: the extracted DNA chain is then cut into fragments at specific sites by mixing it with a restriction enzyme. 3) Gel electrophoresis: the DNA is placed in a gel to which an electrical current is applied, causing separation of the fragments into bands according to their length. 4) Southern blotting: the DNA bands are transferred to a nylon membrane while retaining the same positions they previously occupied on the gel. The double-stranded bands are then treated with a chemical that causes them to separate into single strands. 5) Hybridization: genetic probes (DNA clones) are applied, which bind to a specific, complementary DNA sequence on the membrane; the excess probe is then washed off. 6) Autoradiograph: the membrane is exposed to an x-ray film and developed so that the DNA banding patterns and their lengths can be visualized. Finally, the autoradiograph is interpreted by comparing the DNA print to another DNA sample to determine if they match based on band length. See Cobey v. State, 80 Md.App. 31, 559 A.2d 391, 397 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1989), for a helpful diagram of this process. It is undisputed that RFLP analysis is routinely performed and generally accepted for research and diagnostic purposes within many scientific disciplines. DNA testing is frequently used for paternity purposes and such evidence has been admitted in civil cases. E.g., In re Baby Girl S., 140 Misc.2d 299, 304, 532 N.Y.S.2d 634, 637 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1988). Forensic DNA typing is heralded as a significant breakthrough because it promises greater specificity of results and may permit analysis of samples too small to be identified by traditional means, such as ABO blood typing. After hearing testimony from 12 experts and making extensive findings, the trial court found that forensic DNA typing using RFLP analysis is generally accepted in the scientific community under the Frye standard. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. E.g., Cobey, 80 Md.App. at 43, 559 A.2d at 398 (affirming trial court's conclusion that DNA fingerprinting is generally accepted); People v. Castro, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985, 999 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1989) (unpublished pretrial order concluding theory underlying forensic DNA identification is generally accepted); People v. Wesley, 140 Misc.2d 306, 332, 533 N.Y.S.2d 643, 659 (N.Y.Co.Ct.1988) (granting motion permitting taking of DNA samples from defendant for testing); see also Andrews, 533 So.2d at 850-51 (affirming admission of DNA evidence under relevancy approach); Spencer v. Commonwealth ( Spencer I ), ___ Va. ___, ___ & n. 10, 384 S.E.2d 775, 783 & n. 10 (Va.1989), and Spencer v. Commonwealth ( Spencer II ), ___ Va. ___, ___ & n. 11, 384 S.E.2d 785, 797 & n. 11 (Va.1989) (affirming trial court's conclusion that DNA testing is reliable; although Frye standard not used in Virginia, court said DNA testing would meet its requirements). Even defense counsel conceded at oral argument that this type of evidence should be admissible in criminal proceedings. While we agree that DNA typing is generally acceptable, we nevertheless believe reliability of the test results is crucial. Reliability is particularly important in a criminal proceeding because a suspect may face the loss of liberty due to DNA identification. The experts acknowledged that DNA testing could produce a false negative, where a match between DNA prints is not declared when one in fact exists. Contradictory expert testimony was offered on whether a false positive, where the wrong individual is identified as the contributor of the DNA sample, could result. We are troubled by the fact that Cellmark admitted having falsely identified two samples as coming from the same subject during a proficiency test performed by the California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors (CACLD). Out of 44 total samples, Cellmark made one incorrect match, which was considered too high an error rate by some experts. The possibility of ambiguous match conclusions is also disturbing. For example, the Cellmark report opined that the DNA samples from the stained blue jeans and from Carrie Coonrod's blood are from the same individual, even though the banding patterns did not fit their match criteria. As a direct corollary, specific DNA test results are only as reliable and accurate as the testing procedures used by the particular laboratory. Indeed, a New York court, while allowing the admissibility of exclusionary DNA evidence, found the inclusionary DNA test results too unreliable to admit in a criminal proceeding because the laboratory (Lifecodes) failed to use certain generally accepted techniques. Castro, 545 N.Y.S.2d at 999. Another court, although allowing DNA test results because the record showed reliable procedures were followed, hastened to add, [W]e are not, at this juncture, holding that DNA fingerprinting is now admissible willy-nilly. Cobey, 80 Md.App. at 43, 559 A.2d at 398. The Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM), coordinated by the FBI and consisting of 31 scientists from the United States and Canada, has established laboratory procedures for DNA RFLP analysis and quality control guidelines for forensic DNA typing. This group maintains it is important that any test procedure used by the laboratory possess a high degree of accuracy and reproducibility. Consequently, the use of appropriate standards and controls are essential in order to ensure reliable results. Guidelines for a Quality Assurance (QA) Program for DNA Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) Analysis 1 (TWGDAM publication). The state and defense counsel at oral argument agreed that such standardization was appropriate and necessary. Cellmark's testing procedures were extensively reviewed by the experts and the court at the pretrial hearing. Although Cellmark has implemented protocols and certain quality control measures for its technicians to follow, deficiencies in several aspects exist. Laboratory validation protocols developed by the FBI were the subject of much testimony. The director of Cellmark's Research and Development Laboratory, Dr. Robin Cotton, admitted that because Cellmark did not meet all the minimum guidelines, such as formal methodology validation and published results of experimental studies in peer review journals, the FBI likely would not consider their test results ready for use in court. The experts also reviewed similar standards for DNA typing developed by CACLD. Again, Dr. Cotton acknowledged that Cellmark has not comported with all of these standards. Even if a laboratory has followed reliable procedures to ensure accurate test results, constitutional concerns may prevent the admissibility of such evidence. The fair trial and due process rights are implicated when data relied upon by a laboratory in performing tests are not available to the opposing party for review and cross examination. Under our broad discovery rules, defense counsel has the right to inspect and reproduce any results or reports of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons made in connection with the particular case. Minn.R.Crim.P. 9.01, subd. 1(4); see also id. 9.03, subd. 1 (discovery investigations not to be impeded). The prosecution has a similar right. Id. 9.02, subd. 1(2). These rules reflect an important presumption in favor of discovery. Cf. Spencer II, ___ Va. at ___ - ___, 384 S.E.2d at 785, 791 (written scientific reports were discoverable by defendant but not the work notes [or] memorandum upon which the reports were based because such data was expressly excluded by the state's discovery rules). Ideally, a defendant should be provided with the actual DNA sample(s) in order to reproduce the tests. As a practical matter, this may not be possible because forensic samples are often so small that the entire sample is used in testing. Consequently, access to the data, methodology, and actual results is crucial so a defendant has at least an opportunity for independent expert review. In response to a discovery motion, Cellmark disclosed to the defense its DNA Fingerprinting protocol, laboratory notes from the testing in this case, the autoradiographs produced during RFLP analysis and statistical frequency tables. The defense request for more specific information regarding its methodology and population data base was denied by Cellmark. Arguably, trade secrets may be at stake for the commercial laboratories. Protective measures could be pursued, however, before denial of discovery is appropriate. See Minn.R.Crim.P. 9.03, subd. 5 (protective orders) & subd. 6 (in camera proceedings). Prejudicial failure to disclose information may result in the imposition of harsh sanctions, such as conviction reversal and the granting of a new trial. See id. 9.03, subd. 8; see also State v. Smith, 367 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.1985) (denying motion for mistrial); State v. Zeimet, 310 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1981) (reversing for failure to disclose). In a recent Virginia case, the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in permitting testimony on DNA probability statistics that had been updated before trial was rejected because the defendant was made cognizant of the [new information] before trial and did not allege any resulting prejudice or surprise. Spencer II, ___ Va. at ___, 384 S.E.2d at 791. A similar argument regarding the testing laboratory's protocol was not reached because the defendant waived this claim for purposes of appeal. Id. ___ Va. at ___ n. 5, 384 S.E.2d at 792 n. 5. Moreover, failure to disclose requested evidence which is material either to guilt or to punishment violates due process. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); see also State v. Blankenship, 277 Minn. 32, 34, 151 N.W.2d 410, 412 (1967). While this concern is most often noted where the withheld information is exculpatory, as in Brady and Blankenship, the constitutional standard nonetheless encompasses other material information. DNA test results are material to the issue of guilt and could have an impact on the trial outcome. Access to laboratory information generally is significant for another reason. The validity of testing procedures and principles is assessed in the scientific community by publishing the data in peer review journals. The TWGDAM, FBI and CACLD standards stress that publication of a laboratory's work product and data used in DNA analysis, as well as independent replication and validation studies, are essential prerequisites to reliability. Efforts to assess the reliability of the commercial laboratories' methodology consequently have been hindered because this information has not yet been made fully available. For example, Cellmark has not yet published data regarding its methodology and its probes are only selectively available. While we agree with the trial court that forensic DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, we hold that admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory's compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their testing data and results. [4] We answer the certified question accordingly. Because the laboratory in this case did not comport with these guidelines, the test results lack foundational adequacy and, without more, are thus inadmissible. [5]