Court Opinion

ID: 9691306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:24:38.998824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:16.446301
License: Public Domain

DAY, J.
(dissenting). I join Justice Steinmetz’s dissent with the exception of his conclusion that using no HLA blood test statistics at all is preferable to permitting only the use of the percentage of exclusion *18and paternity index. See dissent at 20. As both the majority and dissent have shown, all three types of statistical analysis can be misleading if viewed in isolation without an explanation of the statistical significance of the percentages or other numbers derived from the genetic testing. The majority paternity index illustration, that "the probability that the defendant is the father is one out of two thousand” in an urban area with a large population, at 15 n. 6, is a clear example of how presentation of numbers can be misleadingly skewed when pulled out of context and used standing alone.
Nevertheless, simply because circumstantial evidence may be difficult to understand or possesses the potential to be misconstrued does not necessarily mean it lacks probative value. Statistical evidence which shows that the defendant’s genetic markers are consistent with those of the child conceived by the victim used in conjunction with testimony from the victim identifying the defendant as the person with whom she had intercourse during the conceptive period, as well as the submission of other circumstantial evidence, can be quite probative.
I believe that using all three statistics, the probability of exclusion, paternity index, and probability of paternity, produces the most accurate method of analyzing the genetic marker information derived from HLA blood testing. However, given the choice between using two of the three statistics or using no evidence regarding genetic testing, I conclude the information provided by the two statistics is more beneficial to the trier of fact than no genetic analysis at all. Though I would apply the majority’s reasoning to all three types of statistical evidence, its conclusion is correct that "any susceptibility to misapplication [of *19the statistical information] can be alleviated by diligent cross-examination." Majority op. at 15.