Opinion ID: 1506658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 56

Heading: Validation Studies

Text: Without merit is defendant's argument that the trial court violated his confrontation rights by refusing to allow him to cross-examine Cellmark's validation studies. Defense counsel never attempted to cross-examine the State's experts on that matter. To the contrary, defense counsel objected when the prosecutor attempted to elicit testimony from Dr. Word on Cellmark's validation trials. The dissent therefore misleads when it states that the trial court did not permit defendant to examine the scientific experts on Cellmark's validation studies. Post at 276, 699 A. 2d at 674. The trial court properly precluded defendant from eliciting testimony through his own expert about Cellmark's validation studies. The issue of Cellmark's validation studies on the polymarker more properly concerns the reliability of the polymarker. As such, the issue goes to the admissibility of the test and not its weight. We are convinced the trial court did not compromise the defendant's confrontation rights. As the record reveals, defense counsel cross-examined the State's experts on their methodologies and on the results from the PM tests.