Court Opinion

ID: 9684441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:57:22.733855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:55.838848
License: Public Domain

COOPER, Justice,
dissenting.
Lucy Davis is the DNA section supervisor at the Kentucky State Police Forensic Laboratory in Frankfort. She testified at Appellant’s trial by closed circuit television from her Frankfort office. As is the norm with DNA evidence, Davis’s testimony was highly technical almost to the point of being incomprehensible to a layperson. One suspects that the only thing the jurors really understood from her testimony was that there was only one chance in 125,000,-000 that any other African-American male except Appellant could have committed this crime. After twice viewing the videotape of Davis’s testimony (mostly futile attempts at cross-examination), I believe a fair summary is that she based her ultimate opinion that the probability of Appellant’s innocence was only 1/125,000,000 on (1) her visual comparison of the alignments of DNA bands shown on an autora-diogram, which is produced on an x-ray film; (2) a computer measurement of “pieces” of DNA as reflected on the computer printout; and (3) a population data base developed by the F.B.I. laboratory in Washington, D.C., the accuracy of which was neither established nor challenged. According to Davis, the DNA bands on the autoradiogram must be aligned and the DNA “pieces” on the computer printout must be within 2.5% of each other in measurement before they are considered a “match.” Apparently, the autoradiogram is scanned into the computer which then calculates the measurements. Thus, Davis’s opinion was based on her visual inspection of the DNA alignments as shown on the autoradiogram and her interpretation of the computer calculations shown on the printout.
*485Defense counsel moved that the autora-diogram and the printout be introduced into evidence so that he and the jurors could see for themselves whether the DNA samples shown on the autoradiogram were, in fact, aligned and whether the “pieces” of DNA reflected on the computer printout were, in fact, within 2.5% of each other. Unfortunately, the closed circuit television technology used for Davis’s testimony was of insufficient quality to permit the jury to view the actual contents of these items of evidence. The camera in Frankfort was out of focus, and the words “Remote Site Is Active” constantly flashed on and off in the center of the monitor in Hopkinsville.
The trial judge overruled the motion to introduce the evidence on grounds that (1) the autoradiogram and the computer printout were “demonstrative aids,” not evidence, and (2) these items were inadmissible because they were the “work product” of the witness. Of course, the autoradio-gram and computer printout were not “demonstrative aids” but were the evidentiary bases for Davis’s expert opinion. A demonstrative aid, sometimes referred to as a “visual aid,” is something that elucidates a witness’s testimony, e.g., an anatomically correct doll used by a child sex abuse victim to explain the nature of the abuse, Stringer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 956 S.W.2d 888, 886-87 (1997), or a human skeleton used by a doctor to demonstrate the nature of a physical injury. Appellant’s purpose in seeking admission of the autoradiogram and computer printout was not to elucidate Davis’s testimony but to challenge her interpretation of the contents of those items of evidence. Suffice it to say, the “work product” rule is a discovery rule that applies only to the work product of a party’s attorney or representative. CR 26.02(3)(a). It has nothing to do with the admissibility of evidence providing the basis for a witness’s expert opinion.
The Court of Appeals held that the proposed evidence was excludable neither as “demonstrative aids” nor as “work product” but rather was both relevant and admissible. However, it then determined that the evidence was “unavailable” because it was in Frankfort whereas the trial was in Hopkinsville. I agree with the majority opinion that such is an insufficient basis for exclusion. Hopkinsville is only a four-hour drive from Frankfort (less by way of state police cruiser, per empirical evidence, and much less by way of state police helicopter). The short delay to transport this evidence to Hopkinsville would have extended this one-day trial for no more than one additional day.
However, after searching mightily, as did the trial judge and the Court of Appeals, for some basis to justify an affir-mance, the majority of this Court now concludes that (A) although the trial court’s bases for excluding the evidence were erroneous, and (B) the Court of Appeals’ basis for excluding the evidence was erroneous, (C) the conviction can be affirmed because (1) defense counsel did not offer the excluded evidence by avowal; and (2) defense counsel did not request a continuance so as to obtain the evidence for the purpose of offering it by avowal.
I. AVOWAL?
A party cannot offer by avowal evidence that is in the physical custody of the opposing party at a place other than where the trial is being held. More importantly, however, the purpose of an avowal is to make the substance of the evidence known to the court. Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 1.10, at 23 (3d ed. Michie 1993). See also Webb v. Stone, Ky., 445 S.W.2d 842, 844-45 (1969) (where the substance of the excluded evi*486dence was known and only its relevance was at issue, an avowal as to its relevance was not required), distinguished by Commonwealth v. Ferrell, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 520, 524-25 (2000). We already know the substance of the evidence in this case, i.e., an autoradiogram showing the alignments of DNA bands and a computer printout showing measurements of “pieces” of DNA. It is Davis’s interpretation of that evidence that is at issue. Davis relied on her interpretation of that evidence in forming her opinion that the probability of Appellant’s guilt was 125,000,000 to one, but defense counsel was precluded from examining the same evidence to determine and possibly attack the credibility of Davis’s interpretations. The upshot, of course, was that Davis was permitted to rely on her interpretations of the excluded evidence to support her opinions on direct examination and to rebut defense counsel’s questions on cross-examination. Yet, no one else was permitted to even see the evidence. If an expert can use real evidence to support her conclusions but preclude the defendant and the jury from examining the same evidence to test the credibility of her testimony, we might as well throw away the key — and KRE 705 as well.
Surely, the majority of this Court does not suggest that if we had the evidence before us by way of avowal we would examine it ourselves to see if we agree or disagree with Davis’s interpretation. It is not the function of an appellate court to determine whether an expert’s testimony is credible. That is for the jury to decide, and the jury that convicted Appellant was not given that opportunity. We do not need an avowal to know that the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 11 of the Constitution of Kentucky entitle a criminal defendant to at least see the evidence upon which he is being convicted.
The majority opinion’s reliance on Garrett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 48 S.W.3d 6 (2001), is misplaced. In Garrett, defense counsel wanted to introduce the victim’s entire diary in response to the Commonwealth’s introduction of one redacted page. Id. at 14-15. The diary was in the courtroom and, in fact, defense counsel had already questioned the victim about other selected passages. Because Appellant did not tender the diary as an avowal exhibit, neither the trial court nor this Court could determine whether it contained any other information relevant to the victim’s credibility or any other issue at trial. Here, we know the evidence was both relevant and admissible (the majority opinion even so holds, ante, at 482). It was also never in the courtroom and was unavailable even for inspection by defense counsel and the jury, much less for proffer as an avowal exhibit.
II. CONTINUANCE?
The majority opinion holds that defense counsel should have requested a continuance in order to obtain the documents so that he could offer them by avowal. No motion for a continuance was necessary because no continuance was required.1 First, as noted in Part I above, there was no need for an avowal. Second, defense counsel demanded that the documents be produced in Hopkinsville so that he and the jury could see for themselves whether the DNA bands on the autoradiogram were aligned and whether the DNA “pieces” on the computer printout were within 2.5% of each other in measurement. Compliance with that demand would have *487required a four-hour recess at most; thus, the demand, itself, was a request for that recess.
The prosecutor first suggested that the autoradiogram and the computer printout might be obtained by facsimile transmission (“fax”). Although defense counsel suggested that a facsimile copy would not be the “best evidence,” a facsimile is, in fact, a “duplicate” under KRE 1001(4) and admissible under KRE 1003. See, e.g., Ingram v. State, 48 Ark.App. 105, 891 S.W.2d 805, 806-07 (1995); Adams v. State, 217 Ga.App. 706, 459 S.E.2d 182, 183 (1995); State v. Carter, 762 So.2d 662, 681 (La.Ct.App.2000); People v. Miller, 199 A.D.2d 692, 605 N.Y.S.2d 160, 162 (1993); Englund v. State, 946 S.W.2d 64, 71 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); State v. Smith, 66 Wash.App. 825, 832 P.2d 1366, 1368 (1992). However, a facsimile transmission was not possible in this case because an autoradio-gram is not a paper document, but a film, and the available fax machines were incapable of transmitting a film.
The trial court did not rule that the documents were unavailable because they were in Frankfort (that was the Court of Appeals’ theory). Instead, upon being advised that the documents could not be faxed, he simply avoided delaying the trial under the pretext that the documents were not “evidence.” Strangely, while correctly holding that the documents are evidence and clearly admissible under KRE 705, the majority opinion criticizes trial counsel for failing to make another request for a recess on the additional grounds that he needed to offer the documents by avowal so that this Court could examine them and determine whether the improper exclusion was “harmless error.” Of course, any additional request to delay the trial for this purpose after the trial judge had ruled that the documents were not “evidence” would have been an obvious exercise in futility. Further, the only way this Court could decide that this error was harmless would be for us to decide that we agreed with Davis’s interpretation — and, as noted in Part I of this dissent, supra, it is not the function of an appellate court to pass on the credibility of witnesses.
III. HARMLESS?
Nevertheless, there is no circumstance under which this Court could possibly hold that the failure to permit defense counsel and the jury to view and decide for themselves the credibility of the evidence used to convict Appellant of this crime could be “harmless.” The autoradiogram and the computer printout provided the bases for Davis’s opinion that only one African-American male out of 125,000,000 (guess who?) could have the same DNA match that she believed was reflected by the autoradiogram and the computer printout. One-hundred twenty-five million is almost four times the total number of African-Americans (thus, presumably, eight times the number of African-American males) presently residing in the United States of America.2 Hardly harmless. In fact, the evidence is so prejudicial that a number of jurisdictions hold that, while the existence of a DNA “match” is relevant and admissible if proper procedures were followed, statistical probability calculations associated therewith are inadmissible primarily because of their exaggerated impact on the jury. E.g., People v. Wallace, 14 Cal.App.4th 651, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 721, 725 (1993); People v. Lipscomb, 215 Ill.App.3d *488413, 158 Ill.Dec. 952, 574 N.E.2d 1345, 1359 (1991); State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422, 428-29 (Minn.1989).
IY. CONCLUSION.
No doubt, modem technology can be of great assistance and convenience in the conduct of jury trials. Here, closed circuit television technology enabled Davis to testify against Appellant without the inconvenience of a four-hour trip from Frankfort to Hopkinsville, and the trial judge’s erroneous ruling that the bases for Davis’s expert opinion were not “evidence” avoided the inconvenience of transporting the evidence from Frankfort to Hopkinsville. Nevertheless, convenience must give way to a criminal defendant’s right to Due Process. Defense counsel and the jurors were entitled to see for themselves the evidence that formed the bases for Davis’s opinion that the probability of Appellant’s guilt was 125,000,000 to one. Both the Court of Appeals and this Court agree. Yet, each has found its own pretext for affirming the trial court’s pretext for avoiding a four-hour delay of the trial. Let the outcome of this ease be fair warning to all criminal defense counsel to never agree that a Commonwealth’s witness may testify by closed circuit television transmission and to always demand a face-to-face confrontation with the witnesses against the defendant and the evidence relied upon by those witnesses. Ky. Const. § 11. No doubt, requiring the personal attendance of laboratory personnel at every trial will cause further backlogs and delays in processing evidence at the crime laboratory. However, that is the price that must be paid for Due Process.
Fortunately for Appellant, the majority opinion’s holding that his conviction must be affirmed solely because of defense counsel’s failure to offer an avowal assures the ultimate success of his inevitable claim that his conviction must be vacated because of ineffective assistance of counsel. RCr 11.42. Unfortunately for Appellant, the five-year delay already consumed by these appeals plus the additional delay in processing his RCr 11.42 motion may reduce that success to a Pyrrhic victory, at best. (The record before us does not reflect that Appellant was able to post the $25,000 cash bond on appeal.)
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would reverse Appellant’s conviction and remand this case to the Christian Circuit Court for a new (one-day) trial.
JOHNSTONE, and STUMBO, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.

. A "continuance" is an adjournment or postponement of a trial to a future date. Black’s Law Dictionary 316 (7th ed.1999). A “recess” is a brief break in judicial proceedings. Id. at 1275.

. 34,658,190 "black or African-American" persons presently reside in the United States. See U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Table PL 1, at http://www.cen-sus.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf (visited Jan. 24, 2003).