Opinion ID: 2299396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Allele Table

Text: The admission of the allele table, the only part of Quartaro's report introduced into evidence, requires a more nuanced analysis. See Summers, 666 F.3d at 202 ([T]he report invited the jurors' attention to the data's numerical identifiers. Admission of the report presented an unnecessary risk that the jury would improperly evaluate the DNA evidence based on its lay perceptions of what the data meant rather than on [the witness's] expertise and any potential inaccuracies in his conclusions that might be developed on cross-examination.). The allele table articulated by numerical identifiers the DNA profiles of defendant and decedent, as well as that of the bloodstains found on evidence seized from the scene of the crime. These statements clearly constituted solemn declarations made for the primary purpose of establishing facts relevant to a criminal prosecution. Bullcoming, 131 S.Ct. at 2716 (holding that statements were testimonial in nature because they were `incontrovertibly    affirmation[s] made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact' in a criminal proceeding (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 129 S.Ct. at 2532)). The DNA testing was performed to aid the criminal prosecution of defendant for the first-degree murder of Hilario. The DNA-profiling analysis was completed for the sole purpose of proving at trial that Hilario's blood was on defendant's hands, so-to-speak. Quartaro generated the allele table for only one conceivable purposeits later use at defendant's criminal trial to prove that defendant wore the DNA of Hilario on the night of her murder. Despite reaching the ineluctable conclusion that the allele table was prepared for the sole purpose of aiding in defendant's criminal prosecution, we must further consider whether the allele table should be characterized as testimonial in nature or as mere machine-generated, nontestimonial raw data. This query stems, at least in part, from Justice Sotomayor's remark in Bullcoming, 131 S.Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring), that the Supreme Court has not yet determined whether raw data generated by a machine could be introduced into evidence in conjunction with the testimony of an expert witness. [29] Since Justice Sotomayor made such a reflection, at least two courts have squarely addressed this question in reference to tables composed of numerical DNA profiles similar to the allele table at issue in this case. See United States v. Summers, 666 F.3d 192 (4th Cir.2011); Derr v. State, 422 Md. 211, 29 A.3d 533 (2011). [30] In Summers, 666 F.3d at 196, the testifying expert wrote a three-page report describing the DNA-testing results and his expert conclusions, which contained a table juxtaposing the numerical identifiers of the allele found at corresponding loci of the DNA extracted   . Although author of the report and a supervisor in the testing laboratory, the testifying expert did not himself perform the DNA testing at issue. Id. The expert's complete report, including its corresponding allele table, was admitted into evidence. Id. In the face of the defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge, the Fourth Circuit found no error in the admission of the expert's testimony concerning the DNA-testing results, nor in his report's admission into evidence because of the predominance of the expert's independent, subjective opinion and judgment therein. Id. at 201, 202. However, the admission of the allele table, which the court construed as representing the testing results of subordinate analysts not available for cross-examination, gave the court pause. Id. at 202. Nevertheless, the court determined, in accordance with its circuit precedent, [31] that [t]he numerical identifiers of the DNA allele here, insofar as they are nothing more than raw data produced by a machine, could not be considered testimonial in nature. Id. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit drew a direct comparison to Derr, 29 A.3d at 550, 553, 554, which held that the allele table in that case was testimonial and could not be construed as entirely machine-generated raw data. After synthesizing Derr's handling of this issue, the Summers court concluded that [t]o the extent that Derr ascribes testimonial significance to machine-generated resultsa conclusion that cannot be squared with our own circuit precedentwe find its reasoning unpersuasive. Summers, 666 F.3d at 203. The court in Derr, however, did not characterize the allele table in question as wholly machine-generated. Instead, the court provided a painstakingly detailed analysis of just how elaborate the process of preparing an allele table and creating a DNA profile is: The process involves a specialized DNA analyst interpreting data displayed in the form of a graph containing different-colored peaks of varying heights to identify the values of alleles at each chromosomal location. [32] Derr, 29 A.3d at 541-42. Thus, the process entails a DNA analyst transforming raw data, in the form of computer-generated graphs, into an allele table exhibiting the DNA profiles of the tested samples. The process described in Derr is similar to the process that Quartaro testified he undertook in this case to produce the contested allele table. Quartaro's testimony, both on direct and on cross-examination, reveals that the allele table he prepared was the result of his own independent analysis of the raw data produced in graph form by the computer program known as Gene Mapper. Quartaro analyzed these graphs to identify the genetic profiles contained in the DNA samples and then compiled this information into the allele table. Although aided by computer software in so compiling, Quartaro was required to assess the results to ensure that the best possible profile was gleaned from the data. In so doing, Quartaro independently chose to consider only some of the generated profiles in forming the allele table. Accordingly, we are convinced that the certifications made in the allele table viz., that it represents the DNA profiles of defendant and decedentare that of Quartaro, and that they may not be attributed fairly to Quartaro's subordinate analysts, nor to a machine. We reach this conclusion upon our determination that crucial to the question of whether material consists of mere raw data is the exercise, or lack thereof, of independent, subjective analysis. [33] The significance of such critical thinking is apparent in the analysis of even those courts that have declared certain scientific-testing materials to be nontestimonial raw data. See, e.g., Summers, 666 F.3d at 203 (stating, after determining that the allele table was nontestimonial, machine-generated raw data, that [t]he only evidence interpreting the raw data was provided by [the testifying expert] via his report and live testimony); United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359, 362 (7th Cir.2008) (stating that the Confrontation Clause does not forbid the use of raw data produced by scientific instruments, though the interpretation of those data may be testimonial); People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332, 890 N.Y.S.2d 415, 918 N.E.2d 927, 931 (2009) (stating that a DNA report, consisting of machine-generated graphs, charts and numerical data, was nontestimonial because [t]here were no conclusions, interpretations or comparisons apparent in the report since the technicians' use of the typing machine would not have entailed any such subjective analysis). We, unlike the courts in the aforementioned cases, cannot say that the allele table in this case was not the result of an individual's specialized and calculated interpretation and analysis. It is clear from Quartaro's testimony that he employed his scientific expertise and knowledge to independently scrutinize and analyze graphical raw datathe computer-generated byproduct of Quartaro's subordinate analysts' testingand that such independent interpretation resulted in Quartaro transforming what was raw data into the testimonial materials at issue in this case. As a result, we conclude that the numerical identifiers in the allele table constituted testimonial statements that are subject to the dictates of the Confrontation Clause. See Bullcoming, 131 S.Ct. at 2713-14 (An analyst's certification prepared in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution    is `testimonial,' and therefore within the compass of the Confrontation Clause.). As we previously have explicated, however, the numerical identifiers in the allele table were the product solely of Quartaro's expertise and independent analysis of the graphical raw data. We thus are of the opinion that the requirements of the Confrontation Clause were satisfied by defendant's ample opportunity to cross-examine Quartaro.