You are here: / / ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED...
,

ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, although finding the error harmless, determined the introduction of DNA evidence without testimony by the analysts violated the Confrontation Clause:

​

The defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const Sixth Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted into evidence lab reports from a nontestifying DNA analyst which directly linked the defendant to the crime … .

“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” … . “Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . This determination is based on a review of the ” entire record'”… . In order for the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt must be overwhelming, and there must be “no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction” … .

Here, apart from the erroneously admitted evidence, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. People v Tsintzelis, 2017 NY Slip Op 05980, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DNA, ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH A CHILD WAS PRESENT IN THE HOME WHEN FATHER STRUCK HIS PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD SAW OR HEARD THE INCIDENT AND NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS UPSET BY THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (OF THE THEN UNBORN CHILD) FINDINGS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenant Properly Granted Despite Substantial Construction In Violation of the Covenant
Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court
Consolidation of Trials Okay Even If Some Prejudice Results; Potential for Inconsistent Verdicts Eliminated by Consolidation
CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE REBUTTED PRESUMPTION UNPRESERVED PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE.
THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE, I.E., THAT SHE LIVED IN NEW ROCHELLE AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE WHEN IN FACT SHE LIVED IN BROOKLYN AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE, WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN “MATERIAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE INSURER HAD DENIED COVERAGE BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN DECEDENT’S NAME AFTER DECEDENT HAD DIED, THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY AND WAS PROPERLY REVIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a); SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

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

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED... PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS...