Opinion ID: 864456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether the dna identification testimony of

Text: GINA PINEDA WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED. ¶84. Moody argues that Gina Pineda's testimony should not have been allowed because Reliagene, the DNA testing facility where she was employed, had no reliable scientific test for low level contaminated and degraded samples. Moody also argues that it is not known whether Reliagene's testing for such samples are generally accepted in the scientific community. ¶85. Pineda's testimony reveals otherwise. She testified extensively about the typing kit that was used for this case. She said the typing kit that was used would not give a wrong result. Pineda explained that even with degrading DNA, the test Reliagene used would not give a wrong result; it would just give no result at all. This test is in accordance with FBI standards. Pineda also testified that Reliagene was accredited by the DNA Advisory Board, and the Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. These organizations, she explained, consist of scientists, law enforcement agents, and lawyers and write guidelines for DNA testing facilities across the country. ¶86. Moody attempted to argue that in order for Pineda's testimony to be admitted, it would need to be shown that they had done in-house validation studies of their procedures. On cross-examination, during a suppression hearing outside the presence of the jury, Moody's counsel asked: 49 Q: Now, I've got one simple question for you. Has Reliagene ever done an in-house laboratory validation study on a degraded sample? A: Yes, we have. Q: Do you have that here today? A: I have that in the form of the published paper that I said we participated in. Q: I heard all that. A: Reliagene did part of that study, and that study included degradation studies. Q: I heard all that, Ms. Pineda A: Okay Q: I heard you testify about a paper that you participated in with 26 other companies. A: That's correct. Q: My question is simpler than that. Has Reliagene ever performed its own validation study in-house, in New Orleans, to verify y'all's work on a degraded sample. That's a yes or no answer. A: Yes. Q: In house? A: Yes. ¶87. Counsel for Moody argued that it was clear from Pineda's testimony that Reliagene does not have accredited protocols for testing of mixed, degraded low level samples of DNA; however, outside the presence of the jury, the attorneys and the trial judge had the following exchange: MR. PRICE: Judge, I would just say on behalf of the state, I think Ms. Pineda's testimony establishes clearly that a validation study was done and that she previously testified the lab is accredited and further testified today and clarified that this particular work in the area of mixed sample has been done. 50 THE COURT: That certainly appears to be the testimony, Mr. Kirksey. ¶88. The defense's own witness, Dr. Craig Cohen, a genetics expert, admitted that Reliagene had done an excellent job. (MR. PRICE CROSS-EXAMINATION) Q: Have you ever worked at an accredited forensic lab? A: No, I haven't. It's a tremendous amount of work to do this, and I can tell you, ReliaGene does an excellent job. Q: Okay, Except in this case, in this instance, is that what you're saying? A: Actually in this case, with the exception of this sample, they did an exceptional job. Q: Okay. So you reviewed– A: And, actually, you know, I use ReliaGene as an example of how labs should function. ¶89. Dr. Cohen went on to testify that of the 30 or 40 samples Reliagene tested, he only had a problem with one of the samples. ¶90. When the trial judge admits evidence and testimony, reversal is not warranted absent a showing of prejudice to the accused, such that the trial judge can be said to have abused his discretion. Ivy v. State, 641 So.2d 15, 18 (Miss. 1994). There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in allowing Pineda's testimony. This issue is without merit.