District Court, Adams County, Colorado Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Drive DATE FILED: July 28, 2019 1:36 PM CASE NUMBER: 2017CR677 Brighton, CO 80601 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Plaintiff, vs. ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ DANTE MARQUIS ANDERSON Defendant Case No: 17 CR 677 Division: F Courtroom: 401 ORDER CONCERNING PRESENTATION OF DNA EVIDENCE BACKGROUND The Defendant, Mr. Anderson is charged with Murder in the First Degree. Part of the evidence against the Defendant is DNA evidence. On February 21, 2019 the defense received a report of additional DNA testing conducted by the government. The DNA test results are provided using STRmix DNA analysis likelihood ratio and accompanying verbal scale. As it relates to the findings in this case, the DNA typing results from the front right thigh pocket (item 15.3) are at least “29 times more likely” if the DNA originated from Waller, the Defendant, and an unknown, unrelated individual than if they originated from Waller and two unknown, unrelated individuals. Assuming the presence of Waller, the analysis provides “limited” support for the proposition that the Defendant is a contributor to this mixture. The quoted likelihood ratio and verbal scale are the basis for the Defendant’s objection to this evidence being in front of a jury. People v. Anderson : 17 CR 677 P a g e | 1
Both sides agree that the Prosecution, as the party sponsoring the evidence bears the burden of production and proof as to whether the evidence is ultimately admissible. The Court agrees with the Defense that this Court is the gatekeeper in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. The Defense filed an objection to the DNA evidence and the Court held a hearing pursuant to People v. Shreck , 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001), on July 19, 2019. At the hearing the Prosecution called Dr. John Buckelton and Sarah Miller from the Colorado Burau of Investigation while the Defense called Dr. Daniel Krane. Each side also presented documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, each side had an opportunity to brief the issues in writing. The Court has now considered all written filings, the testimony, exhibits, and arguments. LEGAL ANALYSIS Courts throughout the country (Illinois, Michigan, the Virgin Islands, New York, Wyoming, Texas, as well as the US Army Courts-Martial) have found the reliability of probabilistic genotyping and STRmix sufficient enough to admit the results in criminal trials. United States v. Christensen , slip copy, 2019 WL 651500 (C.D. Ill. 2019); People v. Muhammad, 2018 WL 4927094, at *2 (Mich. App. 2018). Shreck and C.R.E. Standards In Shreck , the Colorado Supreme Court “explained that the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by C.R.E. 702 and C.R.E. 403.” Kutzly v. People , 442 P.3d 838, 841 (Colo., 2019). “[U]nder these evidentiary rules, admissibility of expert testimony requires that the testimony be relevant and reliable, and that the probative value of the evidence not be substantially outweighed by any of the countervailing considerations contained in CRE 403.” Id . In addition to making findings “as to the reliability of the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony is based and the qualifications of the witness giving that testimony,” this Court is also required to determine “the usefulness of such testimony to the jury.” Ruibal v. People , 432 P.3d 590, 593 (Colo. 2018) People v. Anderson : 17 CR 677 P a g e 2|
Specifically, to determine whether to admit expert testimony, this Court must find that: “(1) the scientific principles underlying the testimony are reasonably reliable; (2) the expert is qualified to opine on such matters; (3) the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury; and (4) the evidence satisfies CRE 403.” People v. Rector , 248 P.3d 1196, 1200 (Colo. 2011) With regards to a specific finding of reliability of expert testimony, the Supreme Court explained that a trial court is required to “apply a liberal standard that only requires proof that the underlying scientific principles are reasonably reliable.” Kutzly at 841. “Determining if expert testimony is reasonably reliable requires considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the proposed expert testimony and is not contingent on any specific list of factors.” Id. Because this Court must consider the totality of the circumstances, the Colorado Supreme Court has provided factors to consider which include: whether the technique has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has been generally accepted, its known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation. Id . at 841-42. However, the Court also explained that these factors “will be crucial in some cases but inapposite in others,” because “making a CRE 702 reliability determination will vary depending on the particular subject matter at hand.” Id . at 842. Additionally, if this Court finds relevance and reliability, it must then conduct a C.R.E. 403 balancing test. Id. Application of Shreck and C.R.E. Standards and Findings The Court, below, makes specific findings which support the conclusion that in this case, the results are relevant, the scientific principles underlying the testimony are reasonably reliable; the experts are qualified to opine on such matters; the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury; and the evidence satisfies CRE 403. The Court starts with the relevance of the results. The Court finds that the result “29,” itself is not relevant as it does not explain, to a factfinder, what it means. However, when accompanied by the verbal scale, it becomes relevant because it puts the result into People v. Anderson : 17 CR 677 P a g e 3|
context. Additionally, when put into further context, and compared to the remaining likelihood ratios and their verbal scales, it provides the factfinder the entire picture. As such, the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury in understanding where in the spectrum of proof this evidence stands against the Defendant. The Court finds the underlying scientific principles of STRmix and the reporting of the quantitative value likelihood ratios reliable. STRmix has successfully undergone developmental validation. It has been internally validated to be used in over 40 labs in the United States, including the FBI laboratory and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s laboratory. As it relates to its reliability, STRmix uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo to examine DNA profiles. The evidence proved that this is well-established statistical method. STRmix uses the available genetic information it has to differentiate true DNA donors from non-DNA donors within whichever DNA profile is in question. The Court finds the testimony of Dr. John Buckleton, credible and relevant for the determination of this motion. Dr. Buckleton is currently employed by the New Zealand Government Forensic Science Service and is currently assigned to the to the United States to assist with the transition to probabilistic genotyping. He has a number of degrees from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. The top two are a PhD in chemistry and a DOC in forensic science from the British Commonwealth. Dr. Buckleton has been responsible for publications as it relates to STRmix, and those publications have been in peer review journals. Additionally, he has given presentations surrounding DNA forensics and STRmix generally. Dr. Buckleton has been qualified as an expert in STRmix probabilistic genotyping many times before. As one of the co-creators of STRmix, and with over 30 years of experience as a forensic scientist, the Court finds his experience sufficient as an expert in STRmix generally and the statistics, probability, likelihood ratios, and verbal scales. Similarly, the Court finds the testimony of Sarah Miller, credible and relevant for the determination of this motion. She is responsible for the quality of the laboratory as it pertains to the DNA section. She’s also responsible for providing new technologies to People v. Anderson : 17 CR 677 P a g e 4|
Recommend
More recommend
