Opinion ID: 1059619
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Testimony of DNA Expert Witnesses

Text: Johnson contends that Jean Hamilton and George Li lacked sufficient expertise to testify concerning population and statistical genetics. Thus, he disputes the admission of their testimony regarding the statistical probability that someone other than Johnson would have the same DNA profile as the donor of the DNA found on evidence collected from Hall's apartment. We disagree with Johnson's argument. The issue whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert on a given subject is a matter submitted to the trial court's discretion, and the trial court's ruling in this regard will not be disturbed on appeal unless it plainly appears that the witness was not qualified. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 275, 293, 384 S.E.2d 775, 785 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1036, 110 S.Ct. 759, 107 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990); Lane v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 713, 718, 292 S.E.2d 358, 361 (1982); Wileman v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 642, 647, 484 S.E.2d 621, 624 (1997). Li testified that he was the supervisor of forensic biology examiners at the Division of Forensic Science laboratory in Richmond, and that he also conducted forensic biology examinations as part of his duties. Li holds a Master of Science degree in forensic science. He received training in DNA analysis, including statistical issues involved in such analysis, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Li had trained both investigators and technicians on the theory and technique of DNA typing, and was an instructor in the graduate program in forensic science at Virginia Commonwealth University. He had performed DNA analyses on thousands of samples and previously had qualified as an expert witness in the field of forensic science. He explained that forensic DNA analysis involves a determination whether a person can be eliminated as a source of DNA found at a crime scene, as well as a determination regarding how frequently a particular DNA profile appears in the general population. Hamilton testified that she holds a Master of Science degree in forensic science, and has been employed by the Commonwealth Division of Forensic Science for 12 years as a forensic scientist. She also completed undergraduate and graduate level courses in statistics. Hamilton explained that part of her work in DNA analysis involves an assessment of the approximate frequency that a particular DNA profile appears in the general population. She also stated that she previously has testified as an expert witness regarding such probabilities. Based on this foundation testimony, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Li and Hamilton to testify concerning the statistical probabilities at issue in this case.