You are here: / / MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ...

MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for DNA testing of some, but not all, of the evidence admitted at his trial:

Here, the defendant established that if forensic DNA testing had been conducted on two blood samples, a bloody sweater, and fingernail scrapings of the decedent, if any, recovered by the police from the crime scene, and if the results of such testing had been admitted at trial, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him … . However, with respect to the defendant’s request for forensic DNA testing of hair and fibers, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him had DNA testing results of those items been admitted into evidence … .

In opposition to the motion, the People failed to come forward with evidence demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of the materials sought, and whether such materials are available for testing. “[T]he defendant does not bear the burden of showing that the specified DNA evidence exists and is available in suitable quantities to make testing feasible. To the contrary, it is the People, as the gatekeeper of the evidence, who must show what evidence exists and whether the evidence is available for testing” … . “[A] conclusory assertion that the evidence no longer exists is legally insufficient” … . People v Robinson, 2017 NY Slip Op 00665, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED)/DNA (CRMINAL LAW, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING OF CERTAIN TRIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED)

You might also like
Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SMALL TABLE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Petitioner, Who Was Sentenced to Death in Federal Court, Could Not Be Declared “Civilly Dead” Pursuant to the Civil Rights Law—Paternity Petition Should Not Have Been Dismissed
PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF A FELONY COMPLAINT AND ARRAIGNMENT ON AN INDICTMENT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHICH LED TO A MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF THE JUVENILE.
NONPARTY SUBPOENA PROPERLY QUASHED BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF EXECUTED THE STIPULATION UNDER DURESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS A CORRECTABLE DEFECT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL... MOTHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED...