Opinion ID: 1679655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: legal standard for determining the admissibility of dna evidence

Text: The defendant contends that the appropriate legal standard is the test articulated by this court in State v. Houser, 241 Neb. 525, 490 N.W.2d 168 (1992), a case decided after the preliminary hearing but before the trial in the present case. In Houser, we instructed that the trial court must preliminarily decide, outside the presence of a jury, if certain foundational requirements were satisfied before DNA evidence could be admitted. The State argues that Houser does not apply in the present case and offers two bases for the argument. One, the State argues that since the Houser opinion dealt with preliminary hearing guidelines and was decided after the trial court held a preliminary hearing regarding the admissibility of the DNA evidence, the trial court could not have erred in not following these guidelines, and therefore, the subsequent change in law regarding evidentiary determinations had no effect. Two, the State asserts the test set forth in Houser may be inapplicable because subsequent to this court's opinion in Houser, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), ruled that the Frye general acceptance test, the foundation of the Houser test, was superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence, and is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. The State's arguments on this issue are inherently inconsistent and illustrate the necessity of stating the effect of a subsequent change in law. When there has been a subsequent change in the law, it is the duty of the trial court to render a decision which reflects any change in the applicable law which occurred in the interval between the time the judge made rulings of law and the time judgment is pronounced. See Happy Hour, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 186 Neb. 533, 184 N.W.2d 630 (1971) (a statutory amendment relating to a matter of procedure is applicable to pending cases which have not been tried). Since the trial court is bound by the existing statutory or case law, the fact that the court held a preliminary hearing does not eliminate the court's obligation to conform to existing law. In the present case, the defendant objected at trial to the DNA evidence on the basis that the admissibility requirements did not conform to this court's ruling in Houser; therefore, the issue is preserved for appeal. The question now becomes whether the admissibility standard for DNA evidence is to be determined under Houser or Daubert. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Daubert, it was well established in Nebraska that the Frye test, as established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), was the appropriate test to use in determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. The court in Frye set out a general acceptance test for the admissibility of testimony about scientific evidence. The Frye court noted: [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. 293 F. at 1014. As one court has commented, the  Frye court assumed that general acceptance indicated reliability and that only reliable evidence should be admissible. U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 794 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104, 121 L.Ed.2d 63. One of the primary objectives of this test is to shield jurors from misleading or prejudicial scientific testimony. This rationale is based on the concern that (1) lay jurors tend to be overly impressed by science, (2) lay jurors lack the capacity to evaluate such scientific evidence critically, and (3) lay jurors are likely to give unreliable scientific testimony more weight than it deserves. Another benefit of Frye is protecting the courts from unproven and potentially erroneous scientific theories until those theories have been appropriately subjected to scrutiny by experts from the relevant scientific community. In effect, Frye envisions an evolutionary process leading to the admissibility of scientific evidence. A novel technique must pass through an experimental stage in which it is scrutinized by the scientific community. Only after the technique has been tested successfully in this stage and has passed into the demonstrable stage will it receive judicial recognition. Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Colum.L.Rev. 1197, 1205 (1980). The Frye test is not without critics. Many believe the test precludes the use of a new discovery or scientific technique even though there may be direct experimental or clinical support for the principle. A leading commentator writes that the objectives of the Frye test can be attained satisfactorily by less drastic constraints on the admissibility of scientific evidence. See 1 McCormick on Evidence § 203 (John W. Strong 4th ed. 1992). In the 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court rejected Frye 's general acceptance test as the exclusive test and redefined the standard for the admission of expert testimony in the federal courts. The Supreme Court determined that the Frye test was superseded by Fed.R.Evid. 702. Rule 702 allows the admission of expert testimony if the scientific or specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact and if the witness is properly qualified as an expert. The rule specifically states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. The Court explained that a rigid `general acceptance' requirement would be at odds with the `liberal thrust' of the Federal Rules and their `general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.' ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2794 (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988)). Daubert, by its own terms, does not apply to state court proceedings; nevertheless, the State argues that the Daubert holding is persuasive in Nebraska based on the fact that our rules of evidence mirror the federal rules. Nebraska codified the Federal Rules of Evidence effective August 24, 1975. Since the adoption of the federal rules, we have reaffirmed the Frye test as the appropriate legal standard in determining whether to admit new scientific evidence. See, State v. Houser, 241 Neb. 525, 490 N.W.2d 168 (1992); State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990). In our consideration of whether to adopt the Daubert standard, we have acknowledged the problems involved in the application of Frye, such as identifying the relevant scientific community and the ambiguity about what constitutes general acceptance; however, we also recognized that in application, Daubert leaves many similar questions unanswered. In refusing to apply Daubert in determining the admissibility of DNA evidence, the Arizona Supreme Court reasoned: Daubert itself does not establish a regime based solely on the qualification of experts and relevance. See Fed.R.Evid. 702. The Daubert analysis includes a reliability requirement for [p]ertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles. ... The nature of this requirement is currently unknown, may vary from case to case, and is to be fashioned by trial judges using an analytical framework as yet unspecified. (Citation omitted.) State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580, 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993). Many jurisdictions which have considered this issue have also refused to abandon the Frye standard and will not admit scientific evidence which is still the subject of dispute and controversy in the relevant scientific communities. See, State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879, 846 P.2d 502 (1993); Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884 (Colo.1993); State v. Vandebogart, 136 N.H. 365, 616 A.2d 483 (1992). This caution is warranted in light of the fact that scientific evidence is becoming increasingly more prevalent and prominent in criminal court proceedings. As one commentator noted, `legal proof of criminal conduct is rapidly evolving into a multidisciplinary mosaic of law, science, and technology.' Andre A. Moenssens, Foreword: Novel Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: Some Words of Caution, 84 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 1 (1993). Since it is not possible for the courts to ignore these advances, scientific evidence becomes `a source of particular judicial caution.' State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. at 578, 858 P.2d at 1181. A New Mexico court, when faced with this issue, declined to adopt the more lenient relevancy standard of Daubert and reaffirmed the Frye standard, stating: If a scientific principle has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, there is some assurance that the jury will not embroil itself in the question of the validity of the principle. Further, the jury's inclination to be awed by the principle will not be as problematic if scientists generally accept it. In effect, then, the Frye process endorses the soundness of the scientific principle that is at the root of the evidence, and the jury is not required to pass on the scientific reliability of the process involved. State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 853 P.2d 135, 138 (N.M.App.1993). See, also, State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. at 578, 858 P.2d at 1181 (applying the Frye test: [B]ecause neither judge nor jury may be able to separate `junk science' from good science, Frye helps guarantee `that reliability will be assessed by those in the best position to do so: members of the relevant scientific field who can dispassionately study and test the new theory'); Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d at 890 (DNA testing is precisely the sort of scientific evidence which requires application of the Frye test); U.S. v. Porter, 618 A.2d 629, 633 (D.C.1992) (admissibility of DNA evidence presents the very kind of issue which the... language from Frye was designed to address). In ensuring that only accepted, accurate DNA tests are considered as evidence in trials, we reaffirmed Frye as the appropriate test in State v. Houser, 241 Neb. 525, 490 N.W.2d 168 (1992), and further instructed that Frye was not totally controlling as to the admissibility of DNA evidence, but is only the first of several criteria that a trial court determines are satisfied before such testimony may be admitted. In the present case, as in Houser, we recognize the complex nature of DNA evidence and the need to protect against unproven and potentially erroneous and misleading evidence, and we decline to adopt the less demanding Daubert standard and reaffirm Frye as the standard for determining the admissibility of DNA evidence. In Houser, we held that even though the DNA method at issue may satisfy Frye as being generally accepted as reliable in the general sense, the forensic applications must also be sufficiently reliable. We instructed that the trial court is to decide preliminarily, outside the presence of the jury, on the basis of the evidence before it: (1) whether the witnesses on the DNA issue are experts in the relevant scientific fields, (2) whether DNA testing used in the case under consideration is generally accepted by the relevant scientific communities, (3) whether the method of testing used in the case under consideration is generally accepted as reliable if performed properly, (4) whether the test conducted properly followed the method, (5) whether PCR DNA analysis evidence is more probative than prejudicial under § 27-403, and (6) whether statistical probability evidence interpreting PCR analysis results is more probative than prejudicial. See State v. Houser, 241 Neb. 525, 490 N.W.2d 168 (1992) (applying same standard to RFLP DNA evidence). Such a procedure was followed here. However, because we determine that FSA's statistical evidence and analysis were flawed and base our decision to reverse on that determination, we can assume without deciding that the methodology and procedure employed by FSA in arriving at a preliminary match were performed by an expert in the field, that the testing done was generally accepted in the scientific community, and that proper protocol was followed, thereby meeting the standards of the Frye test. We therefore move on to the statistical analysis. It is the statistical step in the DNA analysis that is at the heart of this appeal and has been the primary focus of judicial inquiry in recent appellate cases. There is no disagreement that the Hardy-Weinberg principle upon which FSA's probability calculations are based is theoretically sound. See State v. Houser, supra . However, as the Washington Supreme Court noted: `[T]here seems to be a serious misperception that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a law of physics that must apply to a population.' ... The [proponent of DNA evidence] must show more than the theory. For the evidence to be admitted, the [principle] must be valid in application. (Citation omitted.) State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879, 904, 846 P.2d 502, 514-15 (1993). It is the question of whether the Hardy-Weinberg equation is valid as applied to population frequency estimates that is at the center of a current dispute within the scientific community. As we previously discussed, in order to calculate the statistical significance of a DNA match, it is necessary to know how frequently in the population an allele will be found. The probability estimate is determined by multiplying the product of the frequencies of the two alleles by two. Although this calculation appears relatively simple, this methodology is under considerable attack by the scientific community. The court in People v. Pizarro, 10 Cal.App.4th 57, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 452 (1992), effectively and efficiently summarized the basis of the current dispute in the scientific community: In order to calculate the statistical significance of the match within a particular racial or ethnic population, tests are performed to determine the frequency of appearance of the different [alleles] within the target population. Thus, a database would be created by selecting a number of people from the relevant population which would be, theoretically, the same population to which the suspect belonged. Therefore, if the suspect was Hispanic then the Hispanic database would be employed to establish a frequency of occurrence of a given [genotype] within the Hispanic population. The underlying theory behind all of this is that the ratio of [genotypes] will vary among different racial and ethnic groups. In other words, while a [genotype] may not be distinct to particular racial or ethnic groups, it may occur with different frequency within different racial or ethnic groups.... It is around this theory that controversy rages. A database created from the general population would show the frequency of occurrence of a given defendant's specific [genotype] compared to the perpetrator without regard to race or ethnic background.... [T]he dispute revolves around the question of whether or not a racial or ethnic population group chosen to represent the database accurately reflects the group within which the suspect should be placed. The literature reflects that a number of prominent scientific figures conclude that selection of the database for a specific ethnic/racial group (the Black population or the Hispanic population, etc.) fails to consider the concept of subgrouping. Generally speaking, the selection of a database from a general population group (Black) as opposed to a subgroup (Blacks of Nigerian descent, for illustration purposes) is predicated on a concept of random mating within the general group without regard to the religion, ethnicity and geography. This process of random mating in general would conclude that the specific population is in ... equilibrium. The concept of subgrouping assumes that within each ethnic/racial population group there are subgroups that tend to mate within the specific subgroup (mating endogamously) based upon such factors as religion or like ethnicity or geographical differences, etc. Subgrouping would assume that based upon actual mating practices, as opposed to general mating practices, genetic differences would develop between subgroups. Therefore, subgroups (Puerto Rican Hispanics, for example) within a general population (Hispanic, for example) would show significant differences in the frequency of a given allele pattern.... The data used to create the data base in the present case apparently came from an article published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, an HLA workshop, and FSA case work. Thomas Blake, a forensic serologist employed by FSA, testified that numerous data bases exist and that once a determination is made that the data bases have basically the same frequencies, the data from all the different studies can be combined. He stated, assuming a random mating population, the Hardy-Weinberg equation can be used to check the reliability of the data base. When asked about the possibility of population substructure, Blake testified that population substructure was rare and not occurring in the population as a whole. When asked if there was a dispute in the scientific community concerning population substructure, Blake stated, The theory of population substructure, there's some scientists who agree and some who don't. Nobody really disagrees that there's such a thing as substructure. There certainly is. The question is whether or not in the broad Caucasian population within the United States there are inbreeding isolates. The State contends that any controversy concerning the statistical probabilities of a declared DNA match concerns credibility and weight, not admissibility. Although in Houser, we discussed statistical issues, we did not specifically address whether the admissibility of DNA statistical evidence requires that the probability calculations be based on generally accepted methods. Therefore, the issue now before this court is whether the Frye-Houser requirement of general scientific acceptance applies to the statistical probability calculation step of DNA analysis. In People v. Barney, 8 Cal.App.4th 798, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 (1992), a California court recently examined this issue. In applying standards essentially identical to Frye-Houser, the court reasoned: To end the Kelly-Frye inquiry at the matching step, and leave it to jurors to assess the current scientific debate on statistical calculation as a matter of weight rather than admissibility, would stand Kelly-Frye on its head. We would be asking jurors to do what judges carefully avoid decide the substantive merits of competing scientific opinion as to the reliability of the novel method of scientific proof. We cannot reasonably ask the average juror to decide such arcane questions as whether genetic substructuring ... preclude[s] use of the Hardy-Weinberg equation ... when we ourselves have struggled to grasp these concepts. The result would be predictable. The jury would simply skip to the bottom linethe only aspect of the process that is readily understoodand look at the ultimate expression of match probability, without competently assessing the reliability of the process by which the laboratory got to the bottom line. This is an instance in which the method of scientific proof is so impenetrable that it would `... assume a posture of mystic infallibility in the eyes of a jury....' ... ... It is the task of scientistsnot judges, and not jurorsto assess reliability. `The requirement of general acceptance in the scientific community assures that those most qualified to assess the general validity of a scientific method will have the determinative voice....' ... Might the statistical calculation step be distinguished from the processing and matching steps for Kelly-Frye purposes on the ground that only the first two steps produce novel scientific evidence while the third step is merely interpretative? Again, such an approach would subvert Kelly-Frye. The evidence produced by DNA analysis is not merely ... raw data ... but encompasses the ultimate expression of the statistical significance of a match, in the same way that polygraph evidence is not merely the raw data produced by a polygraph machine but encompasses the operator's ultimate expression of opinion whether the subject is telling the truth. Were we to terminate the Kelly-Frye inquiry short of the interpretative steps in new methods of scientific proof, Kelly-Frye would lose much of its efficacy as a tool of considerable judicial caution and of an essentially conservative nature that is deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the unrestrained admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles. (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis omitted.) 10 Cal.Rptr.2d at 742. Accord State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 853 P.2d 135 (N.M.App.1993). We agree. The calculation of statistical probability is an essential part of the process used in determining the significance of a DNA match; therefore, the underlying method of arriving at that calculation must also meet the Frye-Houser general acceptance test. Based on this conclusion, the task before this court is not to decide the underlying validity of the methods employed in calculating population frequencieswhether or not Hardy-Weinberg equations are invalid due to population substructurerather, we must determine whether the methodology has gained general acceptance. The report of the Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, National Research Council, DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992), a part of the record in the Frye hearing held in this case, is persuasive regarding the lack of general acceptance. As stated in State v. Anderson, 853 P.2d at 145-46: While this case was pending on appeal, a group of scholars that are part of the National Academy of Sciences released a prepublication manuscript of a report on DNA evidence. See Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, National Research Council, DNA Technology in Forensic Science (forthcoming). The group of scholars included many highly regarded names in science, medicine, and law. The bulk of the report urges the continued development of DNA evidence for forensic use. However, the report does include some criticisms of current methods of DNA typing. Again, the authors focus on one of the main criticisms, the absence of reliable subpopulation databases. Id. at § 3.2. The report discusses the debates over the need for subpopulation databases, and concludes that they indeed are necessary. This report is indicative of the absence of general acceptance. There is not just one author trying to make a point, but rather a group of people that has reached a consensus in rejecting one aspect of the current methods of forensic use of DNA evidence. Before the issuance of the DNA committee report, statistical estimates calculated by forensic laboratories were routinely ruled admissible in most cases; however, since the issuance, an overwhelming majority of courts have excluded evidence of a match after finding there is no general acceptance as to the statistical probability calculations due to the division in the scientific community on the issue of population substructure. See, State v. Vandebogart, 136 N.H. 365, 616 A.2d 483 (1992) (evidence of match was not admissible when not accompanied by scientifically reliable population frequency estimate); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 162, 596 N.E.2d 311, 316 (1992) (court held there was no general acceptance in the field of population genetics when there exists a lively, and still very current, dispute regarding the role of population substructure); People v. Mohit, 153 Misc.2d 22, 579 N.Y.S.2d 990, 998 (1992) (there is a sharp disagreement within the scientific community on the manner in which probability estimates are derived). The State contends that the following appellate court decisions are indicative of the general acceptance of PCR DQ Alpha methodology: Spencer v. Com., 240 Va. 78, 393 S.E.2d 609 (1990); Clarke v. State, 813 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.App.1991); State v. Williams, 252 N.J.Super. 369, 599 A.2d 960 (1991); State v. Lyons, 124 Or.App. 598, 863 P.2d 1303 (1993); and State v. Penton, No. 9-91-25, 1993 WL 102507 (Ohio App. Apr. 7, 1993 (unpublished opinion)), dismissed 67 Ohio St.3d 1464, 619 N.E.2d 698. An examination of these cases reveals that the issues of population substructure and the reliability of population data bases were not addressed; therefore, these cases are not persuasive nor relevant as to validity of the statistical methodology employed by FSA. See, U.S. v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1157 (9th Cir.1994) ([u]nderrepresentation of persons of like ethnicity in the profile data bases and questionable assumptions of allelic independence may inflate the odds against a random match with the defendant's sample. In such a situation the jury may be ill-suited to discount properly the probative value of DNA profiling statistics); State v. Hummert, No. 1 CA-CR 92-098, 1994 WL 384979 at  (Ariz. App. July 26, 1994) (`[t]estimony of a match in DNA samples, without the statistical background or probability estimates, is neither based on a generally accepted scientific theory nor helpful to the trier of fact'). Given the substantial disagreement within the scientific community, this court finds there is no general acceptance of FSA's statistical probability calculations. This finding requires an additional inquiry into whether the absence of general acceptance of the statistical methodology results in the total exclusion of the evidence. Two judicial approaches have emerged. One approach is to separate the evidence of a declared match from the statistical probability component of the DNA analysis. See, State v. Pennell, 584 A.2d 513 (Del.1989); State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1989). Under this approach, the jury is not allowed to hear evidence of the statistical significance of the match. The majority of courts have rejected this approach and have adopted the view expressed by the DNA committee. The DNA committee report states: To say that two patterns match, without providing any scientifically valid estimate... of the frequency with which such matches might occur by chance, is meaningless. DNA Technology in Forensic Science, supra at 3-1. Without the probability assessment, the jury does not know what to make of the fact that the patterns match: the jury does not know whether the patterns are as common as pictures with two eyes, or as unique as the Mona Lisa. U.S. v. Yee, 134 F.R.D. 161, 181 (N.D.Ohio 1991). The court in People v. Barney, 8 Cal.App.4th 798, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 (1992), found that a declared DNA match means nothing without the statistical component. Similarly, the Washington Supreme Court found that [t]estimony of a match in DNA samples, without the statistical background or probability estimates, is neither based on a generally accepted scientific theory nor helpful to the trier of fact. State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879, 907, 846 P.2d 502, 516 (1993). See, also, State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 853 P.2d 135 (N.M.App.1993); State v. Vandebogart, supra ; Commonwealth v. Curnin, 409 Mass. 218, 565 N.E.2d 440 (1991). The majority approach is consistent with this court's opinion in State v. Houser, 241 Neb. 525, 490 N.W.2d 168 (1992). Therefore, we hold that evidence of a DNA match will not be admissible if it has not been accompanied by statistical probability evidence that has been calculated from a generally accepted method. Even though the trial court could not have anticipated the extent of the current dispute within the scientific community regarding population substructure, it was error to admit the DNA evidence. Whether this is harmless error, as the State contends, will be discussed infra.