dna evidence current legal issues ted r. hunt chief trial attorney jackson county, prosecutor’s...

DNA EvidenceDNA EvidenceCurrent Legal IssuesCurrent Legal Issues

Ted R. HuntTed R. HuntChief Trial AttorneyChief Trial Attorney

Jackson County, Prosecutor’s Jackson County, Prosecutor’s OfficeOffice

State of the ArtState of the ArtDNA TechnologiesDNA Technologies

The STR ProcessThe STR Process

Collection of sample – by police or lab officialCollection of sample – by police or lab official

Extraction – breaking DNA out of cell nucleus/separation of Extraction – breaking DNA out of cell nucleus/separation of male/female contributorsmale/female contributors

Quantitation – measurement of DNA present in sampleQuantitation – measurement of DNA present in sample

Amplification – copying locations of interest (13 core loci)Amplification – copying locations of interest (13 core loci)

Detection – identification and sizing of DNA fragmentsDetection – identification and sizing of DNA fragments

Interpretation – expert analysis and conclusions regarding Interpretation – expert analysis and conclusions regarding data produced by testing process (includes technical review data produced by testing process (includes technical review by second analyst)by second analyst)

STR TestingSTR Testing Analytical target = DNA inside nucleus of cellAnalytical target = DNA inside nucleus of cell

Blood, semen, saliva, skin tissue, perspirationBlood, semen, saliva, skin tissue, perspiration

Small sample sizes - results possible from less than 1 ng. Small sample sizes - results possible from less than 1 ng. samplesample

Works well with moderately degraded samplesWorks well with moderately degraded samples

High power of discrimination – profile rarity in trillions, High power of discrimination – profile rarity in trillions, quadrillions, quintillions are commonquadrillions, quintillions are common

Kits: IdentifilerKits: Identifiler™ (Applied Biosystems) PowerPlex 16™ ™ (Applied Biosystems) PowerPlex 16™ (Promega) (Promega)

Mini STR TestingMini STR Testing

Designed for detection of highly degraded Designed for detection of highly degraded nuclear DNA samplesnuclear DNA samples

Smaller “amplicon” product generated than with Smaller “amplicon” product generated than with conventional STR kitsconventional STR kits

Can be difficult to interpret results, depending on Can be difficult to interpret results, depending on sample quality/quantitysample quality/quantity

Kits: MiniFilerKits: MiniFiler™ (Applied Biosystems)™ (Applied Biosystems)

Low Copy Number DNA TestingLow Copy Number DNA Testing(LCN) (STR)(LCN) (STR)

Designed for very low level DNA analysisDesigned for very low level DNA analysis

Typically refers to less than 100 pg. of DNA or about 15 cellsTypically refers to less than 100 pg. of DNA or about 15 cells

Touch DNATouch DNA

Investigative leadsInvestigative leads

Difficult to interpret results due to low sample levelsDifficult to interpret results due to low sample levels

Threat of contamination due to low sample levelsThreat of contamination due to low sample levels

Utilized by N.Y.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s lab Utilized by N.Y.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s lab (OCME(OCME))

Y-STR TestingY-STR Testing

Y Chromosome inherited from father to son onlyY Chromosome inherited from father to son only

Only markers on Y Chromosome analyzedOnly markers on Y Chromosome analyzed

Works well for detecting male contributor in male/female mixtures Works well for detecting male contributor in male/female mixtures where male DNA = “masked” by higher quantity of female DNAwhere male DNA = “masked” by higher quantity of female DNA

Statistical weight of match less discriminating than conventional STR Statistical weight of match less discriminating than conventional STR testing due to en bloc inheritance of Y chromosome - father to son testing due to en bloc inheritance of Y chromosome - father to son (no genetic recombination); (no genetic recombination);

Test kits: YfilerTest kits: Yfiler™ (Applied Biosystems)™ (Applied Biosystems) PowerPlex Y PowerPlex Y™ (Promega)™ (Promega)

Utilized by private labs and public crime labsUtilized by private labs and public crime labs

Mitochondrial DNA TestingMitochondrial DNA TestingMtDNAMtDNA

Mitochondria = maternally inherited from mother to son and Mitochondria = maternally inherited from mother to son and daughterdaughter

MtDNA = outside cellular nucleus – hundreds of copies of MtDNA MtDNA = outside cellular nucleus – hundreds of copies of MtDNA vs. 2 for nuclear DNA (1 allele from each parent)vs. 2 for nuclear DNA (1 allele from each parent)

Bones, teeth, hair shafts + highly degraded samplesBones, teeth, hair shafts + highly degraded samples

MtDNA = sequenced vs. detecting number of short tandem repeats MtDNA = sequenced vs. detecting number of short tandem repeats with STR testingwith STR testing

Low power of discrimination due to en bloc maternal inheritance (no Low power of discrimination due to en bloc maternal inheritance (no genetic recombination)genetic recombination)

Utilized by certain private labs + FBIUtilized by certain private labs + FBI

DNA in ContextDNA in Context

DNA MATCH: AVAILABLE INFERENCESDNA MATCH: AVAILABLE INFERENCES

TESTING =UNRELIABLE

CONTAMINATION

TRANSFERED

PLANTED

CONSENSUALOR

EXPLAINABLE

GUILT

DNA

Levels of Evidentiary ContextLevels of Evidentiary Context

Level I: Circumstances surrounding the Level I: Circumstances surrounding the itemitem

Level II: Information provided by the Level II: Information provided by the victim, witness, or suspect relative to the victim, witness, or suspect relative to the itemitem

Level III: DNA test results + statistical Level III: DNA test results + statistical weight attached to testing conclusionsweight attached to testing conclusions

Levels of Evidentiary ContextLevels of Evidentiary Context

1. The contextual surroundings of the item at crime scene1. The contextual surroundings of the item at crime scene

(CSI)(CSI)

2. Extrinsic information: Suspect & witness statements 2. Extrinsic information: Suspect & witness statements relative to itemrelative to item

(Detective)(Detective)

3. Testing conclusion and statistical frequency of item3. Testing conclusion and statistical frequency of item

(Crime Lab)(Crime Lab)

Level I: Situational CircumstancesLevel I: Situational Circumstances

1. Environment1. Environment (open or closed) (open or closed)

2. Native/foreign 2. Native/foreign (to the crime scene environment)(to the crime scene environment)

3. Nature 3. Nature (type of item, article, substance)(type of item, article, substance)

4. Location4. Location (relative to other relevant persons, places, (relative to other relevant persons, places, items, articles, substances)items, articles, substances)

5. Relation 5. Relation (direct or inferred connection between relevant (direct or inferred connection between relevant persons, places, items, articles, substances)persons, places, items, articles, substances)

Level I: Situational CircumstancesLevel I: Situational Circumstances

6. Action6. Action (inference of movement, force, velocity) (inference of movement, force, velocity)

7. Quantity7. Quantity (abundance/scarcity) (abundance/scarcity)

8. Rarity 8. Rarity (commonality/infrequency)(commonality/infrequency)

9. Portability9. Portability (transferability of item, article, substance) (transferability of item, article, substance)

10. Condition 10. Condition (inference about length of time item, article, (inference about length of time item, article, or substance has been at crime scene based on its or substance has been at crime scene based on its external and internal characteristics)external and internal characteristics)


Despite it transferability, the DNA evidence, Despite it transferability, the DNA evidence, taken in context, including its location on a piece taken in context, including its location on a piece of tissue underneath the victim’s body, along of tissue underneath the victim’s body, along with other corroborative and consistent partial with other corroborative and consistent partial profiles on pantyhose found or the victim’s body, profiles on pantyhose found or the victim’s body, in addition to the absence of evidence in addition to the absence of evidence supporting defendant’s “unlikely” transfer theory, supporting defendant’s “unlikely” transfer theory, provided sufficient evidence to support the jury’s provided sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdictverdict

State v. FreemanState v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc , 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008)2008)


““[W]here, as here, DNA material found in a [W]here, as here, DNA material found in a location [under the victim’s fingernail], quantity location [under the victim’s fingernail], quantity [416 ng.], and type inconsistent with casual [416 ng.], and type inconsistent with casual contact [fingernail torn + evidence of a struggle] contact [fingernail torn + evidence of a struggle] and there is a one in one quintillion likelihood and there is a one in one quintillion likelihood that someone else was the source of the that someone else was the source of the material, the evidence is legally sufficient to material, the evidence is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict.” support a guilty verdict.”

State v. AbdelmalikState v. Abdelmalik, 273 S.W.3d 61 (Mo. App. , 273 S.W.3d 61 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)W.D. 2008)

DNA in ContextDNA in ContextVictim’s location (GS wound to head/victim under Victim’s location (GS wound to head/victim under bridge/industrial area)bridge/industrial area)Condition (not fully clothed in 26 degree temperatures)Condition (not fully clothed in 26 degree temperatures)Blood from GSW pooled between discovery and police Blood from GSW pooled between discovery and police arrivalarrivalInferred absence of post-mortem mobility (semen on Inferred absence of post-mortem mobility (semen on buttock had not gravitated down leg)buttock had not gravitated down leg)DNA match to defendantDNA match to defendantDefendant’s denial of 1) consensual sex with victim; or 2) Defendant’s denial of 1) consensual sex with victim; or 2) having been at crime scenehaving been at crime sceneSupported reasonable inference that sex + death Supported reasonable inference that sex + death happened closely in time and supported guilty verdicthappened closely in time and supported guilty verdict

State v. CalhounState v. Calhoun, 259 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008), 259 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)

Spoliation/Consumption of Spoliation/Consumption of DNA EvidenceDNA Evidence

Spoliation/ConsumptionSpoliation/Consumption

““In cases where the testing agency finds it In cases where the testing agency finds it necessary to consume the only sample of necessary to consume the only sample of evidence in the testing procedure, admission of evidence in the testing procedure, admission of the test results does not violate due process in the test results does not violate due process in the absence of bad faith on the part of the state.”the absence of bad faith on the part of the state.”

State v. FergusonState v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 496 (Mo. , 20 S.W.3d 485, 496 (Mo. banc 2000) (DNA death penalty case)banc 2000) (DNA death penalty case)


ABA standard 3.4 (a) “When possible, a ABA standard 3.4 (a) “When possible, a portion of the DNA evidence tested and, portion of the DNA evidence tested and, when possible, a portion of any extract when possible, a portion of any extract from the DNA evidence should be from the DNA evidence should be preserved for further testing.”preserved for further testing.”

FBI DNA STANDARD 7.2FBI DNA STANDARD 7.2 “Where possible, the “Where possible, the laboratory shall retain or return a portion of the laboratory shall retain or return a portion of the evidence sample or extract.” evidence sample or extract.”


State v. FergusonState v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485 (Mo. banc , 20 S.W.3d 485 (Mo. banc 2000)2000)

State v. WillersState v. Willers, 794 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. App. , 794 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. App. 1990)1990)

State v. HansonState v. Hanson, 684 S.W.2d 337 (Mo. App. , 684 S.W.2d 337 (Mo. App. 1984)1984)

State v. LowranceState v. Lowrance, 619 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. App. , 619 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. App. 1981)1981)

State v. SproutState v. Sprout, 365 S.W.2d 572 (Mo. 1963), 365 S.W.2d 572 (Mo. 1963)

Defense Access to CODIS?Defense Access to CODIS?

SDIS/NDISSDIS/NDIS

Access to SDISAccess to SDIS

Section 650.055.6Section 650.055.6

SDIS records are “closed records” under SDIS records are “closed records” under Chapter 610, except:Chapter 610, except:

Peace officersPeace officers

Attorney generalAttorney general

Access to SDISAccess to SDIS

ProsecutorsProsecutors

““The individual The individual whose DNA sample has been whose DNA sample has been collectedcollected, , or his or her attorneyor his or her attorney” (access to ” (access to specimen ID #, genetic profile, bio sample only)specimen ID #, genetic profile, bio sample only)

JudgesJudges

*No statutory authorization for “keyboard search”*No statutory authorization for “keyboard search”

Access to NDISAccess to NDIS

42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3):42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3):

Criminal justice agencies for law enforcement purposesCriminal justice agencies for law enforcement purposes

Judicial proceedingsJudicial proceedings

““for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant, whofor criminal defense purposes, to a defendant, who shall shall have access to samples and analyses have access to samples and analyses performed in performed in connection with the caseconnection with the case in which such defendant is in which such defendant is charged” (*no statutory authorization for a “keyboard charged” (*no statutory authorization for a “keyboard search”)search”)

Population statistics databases, identification research, Population statistics databases, identification research, protocol development, quality controlprotocol development, quality control

Access to NDISAccess to NDIS

Rivera v. MuellerRivera v. Mueller, 596 F.Supp.2d 1163 (N.D. Ill. , 596 F.Supp.2d 1163 (N.D. Ill. 2009) FBI ordered to proceed with a manual 2009) FBI ordered to proceed with a manual CODIS keyboard search comparing DNA profile CODIS keyboard search comparing DNA profile developed by (unaccredited) private lab from developed by (unaccredited) private lab from semen sample to known offender profiles semen sample to known offender profiles contained within NDIS based on contained within NDIS based on statestate court court orderorder

Changes since Changes since RiveraRivera

Access to NDISAccess to NDISIncoming DataIncoming Data

1. The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI 1. The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;

2. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited 2. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited by an approved accrediting agency;by an approved accrediting agency;

3. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an 3. The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;

4. The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at 4. The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at NDIS, such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic NDIS, such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic (casework), unidentified human remains, missing person or a (casework), unidentified human remains, missing person or a relative of missing person;relative of missing person;

Access to NDISAccess to NDISIncoming DataIncoming Data

5. The DNA data must meet minimum loci requirements for 5. The DNA data must meet minimum loci requirements for the specimen category;the specimen category;

6. The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR 6. The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR accepted kits; andaccepted kits; and

7. Participating laboratories must have and follow 7. Participating laboratories must have and follow expungement procedures in accordance with federal expungement procedures in accordance with federal lawlaw

8. Request must be initiated by SDIS custodian; 1) exigent 8. Request must be initiated by SDIS custodian; 1) exigent investigative circumstances; 2) minimal # of lociinvestigative circumstances; 2) minimal # of loci

Surrogate TestimonySurrogate Testimonyin DNA Casesin DNA Cases

U.S. Supreme Court CasesU.S. Supreme Court CasesCrawford v. WashingtonCrawford v. Washington, , 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation requires 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation requires testify witness (who offers testimonial statements) to be present at testify witness (who offers testimonial statements) to be present at trial, or defendant must have had prior opportunity for confrontationtrial, or defendant must have had prior opportunity for confrontation

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,129129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009) (affidavit of S.Ct. 2527 (2009) (affidavit of drug results admitted, no analyst testified; confrontation violated; drug results admitted, no analyst testified; confrontation violated; reversed)reversed)

Bullcoming v. NewBullcoming v. New MexicoMexico,,131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011) (certified report 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011) (certified report admitted, non-testing analyst reported results at trial; confrontation admitted, non-testing analyst reported results at trial; confrontation violated; reversed)violated; reversed)

People v. WilliamsPeople v. Williams, 939 N.E.2d 268 (Ill. 2010) (pending before U.S. , 939 N.E.2d 268 (Ill. 2010) (pending before U.S. Supreme Court this term) (DNA analyst who did not perform Supreme Court this term) (DNA analyst who did not perform technical aspect of testing but reviewed and interpreted test data, technical aspect of testing but reviewed and interpreted test data, testified at trial; affirmed by Illinois Supreme Court) testified at trial; affirmed by Illinois Supreme Court)

Legal Path to AdmissibilityLegal Path to Admissibility

State v. WalkupState v. Walkup, 290 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. App. , 290 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. App. W.D.W.D. 2009) (autopsy testimony) (“Dudley 2009) (autopsy testimony) (“Dudley was entitled to rely upon the factual was entitled to rely upon the factual information contained in the autopsy report information contained in the autopsy report and photographs, scene investigation and photographs, scene investigation reports, the toxicology report, and body reports, the toxicology report, and body diagrams as support for her opinions diagrams as support for her opinions because because she testified those materials are she testified those materials are reasonably relied upon by other experts in reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field of forensic pathologythe field of forensic pathology.”).”)


State v. HaslettState v. Haslett, 283 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. App. , 283 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. App. S.D.S.D. 2009) (autopsy testimony) (“The State did not 2009) (autopsy testimony) (“The State did not move to introduce the autopsy report into move to introduce the autopsy report into evidence and Dr. Anderson only testified as to evidence and Dr. Anderson only testified as to his own opinions and conclusions drawn from his own opinions and conclusions drawn from various medical sources and photographs. various medical sources and photographs. ‘‘Generally, an expert may rely on hearsay Generally, an expert may rely on hearsay evidence as support for opinions, as long as that evidence as support for opinions, as long as that evidence is of a type reasonably relied upon by evidence is of a type reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field; such evidence need other experts in the field; such evidence need not be independently admissiblenot be independently admissible.’”) .’”)


Johnson v. Clements,Johnson v. Clements,344 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. App. 344 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. App. E.D.E.D. 2011) (lab manager properly testified to 2011) (lab manager properly testified to results of urine test when she oversaw all testing results of urine test when she oversaw all testing procedures and was the “final reviewer” of the procedures and was the “final reviewer” of the results despite the fact that she did not results despite the fact that she did not personally perform the testing procedures; personally perform the testing procedures; confrontation not violatedconfrontation not violated))

Court relied on Court relied on Melendez-DiazMelendez-Diaz, fn. 1, fn. 1

Factual Path to AdmissibilityFactual Path to Admissibility

Detailed documentation + raw data included in Detailed documentation + raw data included in case recordcase record

Detailed technical review, including reanalysis of Detailed technical review, including reanalysis of entire case record, including all raw data entire case record, including all raw data testifying analyst (materials reasonably relied testifying analyst (materials reasonably relied upon by experts in the field)upon by experts in the field)

Specificity of trial record made by prosecutor + Specificity of trial record made by prosecutor + analyst regarding materials reviewed + fact of analyst regarding materials reviewed + fact of independent basis for testifying analyst’s opinionindependent basis for testifying analyst’s opinion

Factual Path to AdmissibilityFactual Path to Admissibility

Independent opinion testimony by testifying expert Independent opinion testimony by testifying expert regarding analysis, interpretation, opinions, conclusions regarding analysis, interpretation, opinions, conclusions of the case dataof the case data

The prosecutor should not introduce the lab report of a The prosecutor should not introduce the lab report of a non-testifying expertnon-testifying expert

The analyst should not refer to the opinion of a non-The analyst should not refer to the opinion of a non-testifying expert or “parrot” those findingstestifying expert or “parrot” those findings

*Note: testimonial statements can be used for non-*Note: testimonial statements can be used for non-testimonial purposes (providing an informational testimonial purposes (providing an informational foundation for expert opinion)foundation for expert opinion)

Defense RetestingDefense Retesting

Defense DNA RetestingDefense DNA Retesting

““A wrongly accused person’s best insurance A wrongly accused person’s best insurance against the possibility of being falsely against the possibility of being falsely incriminated is the opportunity to have the incriminated is the opportunity to have the testing repeated. Such an opportunity should be testing repeated. Such an opportunity should be provided whenever possible.” provided whenever possible.”

National Research Council Report on the National Research Council Report on the Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 87 (1996)Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 87 (1996)

Defense ConsumptionDefense Consumption

ABA Standard 3.4 Consumptive Testing:ABA Standard 3.4 Consumptive Testing:

““(d) Before approving a test that entirely (d) Before approving a test that entirely consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it, consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it, the attorney for any defendant against whom an the attorney for any defendant against whom an accusatorial instrument has been filed, or for any accusatorial instrument has been filed, or for any other person who intends to conduct such a test, other person who intends to conduct such a test, should provide the prosecutor an opportunity to should provide the prosecutor an opportunity to object and move for an appropriate court order.”object and move for an appropriate court order.”

StipulationsStipulationsWritten retesting agreement incorporated into Written retesting agreement incorporated into court ordercourt order

Accredited labAccredited lab

Sample splitSample split

Scientifically acceptable transfer Scientifically acceptable transfer methods/conditionsmethods/conditions

Only expert-to-expert transfers of evidenceOnly expert-to-expert transfers of evidence

StipulationsStipulations

Unnecessary consumption precludedUnnecessary consumption precluded

Return of unused sample, extract, amped Return of unused sample, extract, amped DNA to custodian lab by date certainDNA to custodian lab by date certain

Address all chain of custody Address all chain of custody concerns/requirementsconcerns/requirements

Incorporate stips into scheduling orderIncorporate stips into scheduling order

DNA DiscoveryDNA Discovery

Scope of DiscoveryScope of Discovery

In criminal cases there is no general right In criminal cases there is no general right of discovery and the only disclosure that of discovery and the only disclosure that must be provided to a criminal defendant must be provided to a criminal defendant is that required under Rule 25 pertaining to is that required under Rule 25 pertaining to discovery in criminal casesdiscovery in criminal cases

State v. JacoState v. Jaco, 156 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. banc , 156 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. banc 2005)2005)

Scope of DiscoveryScope of Discovery

Rule 25.03 does not require the state to Rule 25.03 does not require the state to summarize the evidence in a case for the summarize the evidence in a case for the defendant - defendant - State v. EnkeState v. Enke, 891 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. , 891 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. App. 1994)App. 1994)

The contents of discoverable material need not The contents of discoverable material need not be displayed in a particular format, so long as be displayed in a particular format, so long as those contents are disclosed – those contents are disclosed – State v. GillState v. Gill, 300 , 300 S.W.3d 225 (Mo. banc 2009)S.W.3d 225 (Mo. banc 2009)

Electronic DiscoveryElectronic Discovery

Defendant’s constitutional rights were not Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by (KCPD) crime lab’s refusal to provide violated by (KCPD) crime lab’s refusal to provide printed copies of DNA electropherograms when printed copies of DNA electropherograms when he was provided a zip drive containing all case he was provided a zip drive containing all case data, including electronic version of e-grams. data, including electronic version of e-grams. Printed e-grams contained no exculpatory Printed e-grams contained no exculpatory evidence not available on zip drive.evidence not available on zip drive.

McIntyre v. McKuneMcIntyre v. McKune, 2011 WL 686120 (D. Kan.) , 2011 WL 686120 (D. Kan.)


There is no clearly established There is no clearly established constitutional right to non-exculpatory constitutional right to non-exculpatory discovery discovery

McIntyreMcIntyre, at p. 27 (citing , at p. 27 (citing Wilson v. Wilson v. SirmonsSirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1103 (10, 536 F.3d 1064, 1103 (10thth Cir. Cir. 2008)) 2008))


The Sixth Amendment right to cross examine an The Sixth Amendment right to cross examine an adverse witness does not include the power to adverse witness does not include the power to require pretrial disclosure of any and all require pretrial disclosure of any and all information that might be useful in contradicting information that might be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony unfavorable testimony

McIntyreMcIntyre, at p. 27 (citing , at p. 27 (citing Chambers v. Chambers v. MississippiMississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); , 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973); Pennsylvania v. RitchiePennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 53 (1987)), 480 U.S. 39, 53 (1987))

Voluminous Non Case-Specific Voluminous Non Case-Specific DNA DiscoveryDNA Discovery

Supreme Court Rule 25.07: Manner of Making Supreme Court Rule 25.07: Manner of Making Disclosures:Disclosures:

In a manner agreed to by state and defendantIn a manner agreed to by state and defendant

By notice that the material and information may be By notice that the material and information may be inspected, obtained, tested, copied, or photographedinspected, obtained, tested, copied, or photographed

At a specified time and placeAt a specified time and place

At suitable facilitiesAt suitable facilities

[email protected]@jacksongov.org

dna evidence current legal issues ted r. hunt chief trial attorney jackson county, prosecutor’s...

Documents