Opinion ID: 1795722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: harmless?

Text: Nevertheless, there is no circumstance under which this Court could possibly hold that the failure to permit defense counsel and the jury to view and decide for themselves the credibility of the evidence used to convict Appellant of this crime could be harmless. The autoradiogram and the computer printout provided the bases for Davis's opinion that only one African-American male out of 125,000,000 (guess who?) could have the same DNA match that she believed was reflected by the autoradiogram and the computer printout. One-hundred twenty-five million is almost four times the total number of African-Americans (thus, presumably, eight times the number of African-American males) presently residing in the United States of America. [2] Hardly harmless. In fact, the evidence is so prejudicial that a number of jurisdictions hold that, while the existence of a DNA match is relevant and admissible if proper procedures were followed, statistical probability calculations associated therewith are inadmissible primarily because of their exaggerated impact on the jury. E.g., People v. Wallace, 14 Cal.App.4th 651, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 721, 725 (1993); People v. Lipscomb, 215 Ill.App.3d 413, 158 Ill.Dec. 952, 574 N.E.2d 1345, 1359 (1991); State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422, 428-29 (Minn.1989).