You are here: / DNA

Tag Archive for: DNA

,

Dissent Would Have Reversed Based Upon Prosecutor’s Mischaracterization of the Probative Force of the Particular Form of DNA Evidence Presented at Trial

Although the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction, two justices would have reversed on prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance grounds.  The murder prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence.  The DNA evidence, according to the dissenters, formed the crux of the People’s case. The dissent offers a detailed explanation of the different types of DNA evidence, and the probative scope of each. According to the dissenters, the prosecutor mischaracterized the DNA evidence in summation, ascribing to it more probative force than it really had. Defense counsel was deemed ineffective by the dissenters for failing to object.  From the dissent:

[FROM THE DISSENT:] In light of the circumstantial nature of all of the evidence against defendant, we cannot conclude that the jury would have reached the same result had not the prosecutor both mischaracterized and emphasized the DNA evidence on summation, which evidence the People made the linchpin of their case. Here, the testimony of the People’s forensic expert put defendant in only a statistically-undefined group of people whose DNA could have been found on the victim’s underwear, on the ligature, and in the sperm fraction from the vaginal swab. In other words, that evidence placed defendant in a class of people that could have contributed to the DNA, but the prosecutor argued to the jury that the analysis of the DNA established defendant as the DNA’s contributor. We conclude that the prosecutor’s willful and repeated mischaracterization of evidence of class as evidence of exactitude was misconduct that could have “ ‘tip[ped] the scales against defendant’ ” … . We cannot conclude that the same result herein “would undoubtedly have been reached” absent that misconduct …. . People v Wright, 1247, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

Post-Conviction DNA Test Results Warranted New Trial Under 2012 Amendment to CPL 440.10

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial based on DNA evidence which was not analyzed until after the defendant was convicted. The DNA collected from under the victim’s fingernails did not match the defendant’s. The defendant’s conviction was based solely on the victim’s identification of the defendant made three weeks after she was attacked. The defendant had produced an alibi witness at his trial. The court explained the application of the recent amendment of Criminal Procedure Law 440.10:

Pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(g-1), which became effective October 1, 2012, the court may grant a defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment when forensic DNA testing is performed after the entry of judgment upon a conviction and “the court has determined that there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant.” Unlike a motion under CPL 440.10(1)(g), a defendant relying on the results of DNA testing no longer has to show that the results of such testing is newly discovered evidence in order to seek vacatur of a judgment of conviction. The defendant only has to show that there is a reasonable probability that he would have obtained a more favorable verdict. The newly amended statute, permitting relief at any time after the entry of judgment, applies to this case… . People v Hicks, 2014 NY Slip Op 01376, 1st Dept 2-27-14

 

,

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Defendant was convicted of the rape of one victim and the murder of another during an incident in 1980.  Over a substantial dissent, the First Department determined that the recent DNA test results re: hairs found on the perpetrator’s hat and DNA found under the fingernails of the murder victim—results which ruled out the defendant—did not warrant vacation of defendant’s conviction pursuant to a CPL 440 motion, and did not warrant a hearing.  The First Department noted the strength of the identification evidence provided by the rape victim and the fact that only three of 18 hairs taken from the hat were tested by the defense.  The majority of the First Department wrote:

Defendant has not established that the newly discovered DNA evidence “is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to [him]” … * * *

In deciding a CPL 440.10 motion, a hearing to develop additional facts is not “invariably necessary”; rather, CPL 440.30 contemplates that a court will make an initial determination on the written submissions whether the motion can be decided without a hearing … . Here, we find that even if the reliability of the evidence is assumed, defendant still did not establish a legal basis for ordering a new trial. Accordingly, the factual disputes in this case were not material, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a hearing.

The dissent wrote:

I respectfully dissent, because I believe the motion court should have granted defendant further DNA testing and held an evidentiary hearing before determining his motion under CPL 440.10.  People v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05547, 1st Dept 8-6-13

 

 

, ,

DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records

In finding DNA-profile reports generated by the City of New York’s Medical Examiner did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation, the Second Department wrote:

The reports contained no conclusions, interpretations, comparisons, or subjective analyses, and “consisted of merely machine-generated graphs” and raw data … . Accordingly, the reports were not “testimonial” in nature … .

Further, a foundation for the admission of these reports as business records was established through the testimony of an assistant director employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (see CPLR 4518[a]…), who also conducted the actual analysis and interpretation of the data contained in the reports at issue.  People v Fucito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05538, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

, ,

Prosecutor Need Not Accept Defendant’s Stipulation in Lieu of DNA Test

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of an Article 78 petition seeking prohibition with respect to an order that petitioner allow a buccal swab for DNA testing.  The petitioner argued that his offer to stipulate his DNA matched the DNA on two firearms should preclude the test. The Second Department held that a prosecutor was under no obligation to accept the offer to stipulate:

“[A] court order to obtain a [bodily] sample of a suspect may issue provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication’ that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable”…. “In addition, the issuing court must weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence to the investigation and the unavailability of less intrusive means of obtaining it, on the one hand, against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion on the other” …. Here, the petitioner … contends that the People’s motion should have been denied on the ground that his offer to stipulate that his DNA matched the DNA recovered from the two firearms at issue provided a less intrusive method of obtaining the evidence. However, the law is manifestly clear that the People are under no obligation to accept an offer by a defendant to stipulate to a fact or to an element of a charged crime …, and “the decision as to whether to decline or accept such a stipulation lies wholly within the prosecutor’s discretion”…. Accordingly, since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, his petition is denied … .  Matter of Johnson v Shillingford, 2013 NY slip Op 05212, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Second Department noted that DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation because the challenged evidence was not testimonial:

[Defendant’s] right of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when an expert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) from a sample of the decedent’s blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of a stain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profiles were not testimonial …, but rather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime… . The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony of police officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans when arrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subject DNA profiles matched…. People v Pitre, 2013 NY slip Op 05231, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

,

440 Motion Seeking DNA Testing of Evidence Properly Denied

In affirming the denial of a 440 motion by a defendant convicted of murder seeking DNA testing of blood evidence, the Fourth Department wrote:

We conclude that the court properly denied that part of the motion seeking testing … “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant”… .  People v Swift, 617, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by evidence of DNA testing:

The court properly admitted files prepared by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office containing DNA profiles derived from the testing of evidence recovered from the crime scenes, since the documents containing the DNA profiles, which were prepared prior to the defendant’s arrest, “did not, standing alone, link [him] to the crime” …. The testimony of the People’s expert witness established that she conducted the critical analysis at issue by comparing the DNA profiles derived from the crime scene evidence to the defendant’s DNA profile and concluding that all of the profiles matched…. Moreover, the DNA profile generated from the swab of the defendant’s cheek, standing alone, shed no light on the issue of the defendant’s guilt in the absence of the expert’s testimony that it matched the profiles derived from the crime scene evidence….  People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 05096, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

,

Defendant’s Being in the “General Area” Where Was Weapon Was Found and Defendant’s DNA on the Weapon Was Not Enough to Support Possession Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon as against the weight of the evidence.  The evidence demonstrated that the defendant was in the general area where the gun was found and the defendant could not be excluded from the mixed DNA found on the gun.  The court wrote:

No one saw defendant with the gun, he was just near where it was found and his DNA was on it. The officer testified that defendant was 20 to 30 feet past the house, whereas Fox [defendant’s companion] was off his bicycle and appeared to be doing something near the house. The officer further testified that he found the gun in front of that house, and vaguely stated that defendant  was  in “the general area” where the gun was found. This does not prove that defendant possessed the gun on Sheridan Avenue at that time. Based  on  the  testimony  of the  officer and  the  forensic scientist, it is possible that Fox – who  the officer had seen directly in front of the house – could have had the gun and left it on the ground at that time, and defendant’s DNA could have been there from handling  it previously (which  may  prove  that defendant handled the  gun at some  point, but not  at the date and time alleged in the  indictment) or through  secondary  transfer (i.e., if Fox  touched defendant  and  then  the  gun,  transferring some  of defendant’s DNA onto the gun). Because this scenario is equally likely to have occurred, we cannot say that the weight of the evidence supports the verdict finding defendant guilty  ….  People v Graham, 104177, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Statute of Limitations Tolled Until Defendant Identified by DNA; Police Had “Tacit Consent” to Enter Apartment

The Fourth Department determined the statute of limitations was tolled until defendant was identified through DNA collected in an unrelated conviction.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the police had “tacit consent” to enter defendant’s apartment:

Here, “[t]he record supports the court’s determination that the identity of defendant as the sexual assailant, and thus his whereabouts, were not ascertainable by diligent efforts” before 2008, when the State DNA Indexing System matched the DNA profile from the semen found on the victim’s night shirt with DNA obtained from defendant in conjunction with an unrelated 2007 conviction … .  * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that there was a warrantless arrest of defendant in his apartment, we note that it is well settled that “tacit consent by a person with apparent authority . . . [is] sufficient to obviate any possible violation of the Payton rule”…. Here, the People established that the police officers entered the apartment with the consent of defendant’s father…. Although “the police may not have received express permission to enter the premises, [the] gesture [of defendant’s father] of opening the door, leaving it wide open, and then walking  away from it could certainly be interpreted by the police to consist of tacit approval for them to enter”….  People v Sigl, 716, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

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