You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a witness who had first-hand knowledge of the generation of the DNA profile:

When confronted with testimonial DNA evidence at trial, a defendant is entitled to cross-examine “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data” … . As the defendant contends, the People failed to establish that the analyst who testified in this case performed such a role in the testing or analysis of the testimonial DNA evidence introduced against him at trial … . Since the error was not harmless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Butler, 2020 NY Slip Op 02676, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER’S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT’S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ONE CHILD, HANNAH D, SUPPORTED THE FINDING FATHER DERIVATIVELY ABUSED TWO OTHER CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS AN INFANT AND THE OTHER HAD NOT BEEN BORN AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE OF HANNAH D (SECOND DEPT).
Legal Underpinning of the “Fellow Officer” Rule Explained
FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR DID NOT JUSTIFY FAMILY COURT’S AWARD OF CUSTODY TO MOTHER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).
FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC” DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
FIVE INCH HIGH THRESHOLD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, NO EVIDENCE BUILDING BUILT IN 1924 MUST BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE OR COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN FATHER SAID HE WISHED... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...