New York Law Review

Tag: Scientific Evidence

  • People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417 (1994): Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence

    83 N.Y.2d 417 (1994)

    Expert testimony based on novel scientific principles is admissible only after the underlying principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field, as determined by the Frye standard.

    Summary

    In People v. Wesley, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of DNA profiling evidence, a novel scientific technique at the time. The defendant was convicted of murder, rape, and other crimes. The prosecution presented DNA evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that DNA profiling evidence was generally accepted as reliable by the relevant scientific community in 1988 when the Frye hearing occurred, and a proper foundation was laid at trial. The Court emphasized that the Frye test, regarding general acceptance, is distinct from foundation issues relating to specific procedures used in the case.

    Facts

    Helen Kendrick, a 79-year-old woman, was found murdered in her apartment. The investigation focused on George Wesley, a client of the same social services organization. Caseworkers found bloodstained clothing in Wesley’s apartment. Wesley initially denied knowing Kendrick but later admitted to visiting her. He gave conflicting accounts of how his shirt became bloodied and offered an implausible explanation for Kendrick’s injuries. Microscopic analysis revealed fibers from Kendrick’s apartment on Wesley’s clothing and vice versa. DNA comparison was made of a bloodstain taken from defendant’s T-shirt, hair follicles taken from the deceased and blood drawn from the defendant, indicating a match between the blood stain and the victim’s DNA.

    Procedural History

    The Albany County Court convicted Wesley of second-degree murder, first-degree rape, attempted first-degree sodomy, and second-degree burglary. Prior to trial, a Frye hearing was held to determine the admissibility of DNA evidence. The trial court ruled the evidence admissible, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Wesley appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether DNA profiling evidence is admissible in New York State under the Frye standard, requiring general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

    Holding

    Yes, because DNA profiling evidence was generally accepted as reliable by the relevant scientific community at the time of the Frye hearing, and a proper foundation was established at trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court applied the Frye standard, stating that expert testimony based on scientific principles is admissible only after the principle has gained general acceptance in its field. The Court noted that while the procedure doesn’t need to be unanimously endorsed, it must be generally accepted as reliable. Expert testimony presented at the Frye hearing supported the acceptance of DNA profiling evidence. The Court emphasized the distinction between the Frye test and the foundational requirements for admitting specific evidence. The Frye test addresses the general reliability of the scientific method, while foundation concerns the specific procedures used in the case. The court found Lifecodes’ procedures to be generally accepted. Challenges to population studies used for statistical analysis of DNA matches go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and are to be decided by the jury. The Court further noted that the modern trend in evidence law moves away from imposing special tests on scientific evidence and toward using traditional standards of relevancy and expertise. A concurring opinion argued that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that Lifecodes’ protocols for determining a match were generally accepted, emphasizing the subjectivity of visual matching techniques. However, the majority found that visual matching was an accepted procedure at the time. Chief Judge Kaye, concurring in result only, argued for a stricter application of the Frye standard, particularly regarding the procedures used by Lifecodes. Kaye found the DNA evidence should have been excluded. However, she concurred in the affirmance of the conviction, finding the error harmless given the other evidence against Wesley.

  • People v. Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42 (1981): Admissibility of Bite Mark Evidence

    54 N.Y.2d 42 (1981)

    Bite mark evidence is generally admissible in criminal cases if the reliability of the techniques employed is accepted by a majority of experts in the field, and the accepted techniques were employed by the experts in the specific case, without needing to establish scientific reliability in each individual case.

    Summary

    Middleton was convicted of manslaughter based, in part, on bite mark evidence. The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of bite mark evidence as a means of identification. The court held that bite mark evidence is admissible if the techniques used are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. It emphasized that a unanimous endorsement is not required, and the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence without a preliminary hearing on the scientific principles, provided proper foundation evidence regarding the specific procedures used is presented.

    Facts

    Gladstone Scale, Middleton’s supervisor at Mount Sinai Hospital, was found dead in his office. An autopsy revealed five distinct bite marks on Scale’s back. Middleton was a suspect. The prosecution sought an order to examine Middleton’s mouth and create a cast of his teeth for comparison with the bite marks. Middleton’s attorney opposed the motion, but it was overruled, and the examination proceeded. Dr. Levine, a dentist associated with the chief medical examiner’s office, conducted the examination and created the cast.

    Procedural History

    Middleton was indicted after the bite mark evidence was presented to the Grand Jury. He moved to suppress statements he made to the District Attorney, but the motion was denied. At trial, Middleton argued for the suppression of the bite mark evidence, requested a hearing on the reliability of bite mark testimony, and moved to strike Dr. Levine’s testimony. The trial court denied these motions. Middleton was convicted of manslaughter. The Appellate Division affirmed, and Middleton appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to order the examination and casting of Middleton’s teeth.

    2. Whether the order for examination was improper absent a showing of probable cause.

    3. Whether the bite mark evidence should have been excluded because its reliability was not established.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the Supreme Court has the authority to issue an order in furtherance of a Grand Jury investigation, even without an arrest or indictment.

    2. No, because the defendant waived his Fourth Amendment objection by failing to properly raise it in a pre-trial suppression motion.

    3. No, because the reliability of bite mark evidence is sufficiently established in the scientific community to make it admissible, provided foundation evidence regarding the specific procedures used is presented.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue the order for examination, citing CPL 10.10 and 10.30, which recognize the authority of a Supreme Court Justice to act as a local criminal court and the superior courts’ jurisdiction over Grand Jury proceedings. The court found that Middleton had waived his Fourth Amendment argument regarding probable cause by failing to make a timely motion to suppress the evidence on those grounds. The court emphasized that the purpose of CPL article 710 is to allow the People the opportunity to contest the claim of illegality by showing the information in the possession of the police at the time the evidence was obtained. Regarding the admissibility of bite mark evidence, the court stated, “[T]he test is not whether a particular procedure is unanimously indorsed by the scientific community, but whether it is generally acceptable as reliable.” The court noted that the techniques used in bite mark analysis (photography, dental molds, etc.) are accepted by a majority of experts in the field, citing various publications and cases from other jurisdictions. The court concluded that “[i]t was not error, therefore, for the Trial Judge, without a hearing concerning the scientific principles involved, to hold the evidence generally reliable.” It highlighted Dr. Levine’s testimony, who stated with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the bite wounds were inflicted by Middleton, finding no inconsistencies between the bite marks and Middleton’s teeth despite their unique characteristics.