Commonwealth v. DiCicco
25 N.E.3d 859
Mass.2015Background
- Defendant convicted of aggravated rape in 1984; trial exhibits (victim's jeans and underpants) were located in 2005 and tested for Y-STR DNA in 2006–2007.
- Crime lab found sperm cells on two jean stains (13 and 14); nonsperm fraction of stain 13 excluded the defendant; sperm fractions and stain 14 were low-level/mixtures and largely inconclusive.
- Defendant retained expert Eric Carita, who reviewed lab data and opined the defendant was excluded as donor for both stains based largely on "potential alleles" (below laboratory call thresholds).
- Motion judge held an evidentiary hearing, excluded portions of Carita's testimony under Daubert/Lanigan as insufficiently reliable, admitted only the portions consistent with lab conclusions, and denied a new trial for lack of materiality.
- The SJC affirmed denial of new trial (no abuse of discretion) but held the judge abused discretion in denying supplemental funds to pay Carita for additional services rendered after the judge had initially authorized funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (DiCicco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert opinion based on below-threshold "potential alleles" | Carita's exclusion opinions are unreliable and unsupported by accepted methodology; should be excluded | Carita's conclusions are proper professional judgment under DNA working-group guidance and admissible; challenges to weight for jury | Exclusion affirmed: single or low-level potential alleles alone are not sufficiently reliable to exclude a donor under Daubert/Lanigan |
| Reliability of exclusion from mixed, low-level profiles (stain 14) | Low RFU peaks and possible stutter/inhibition make exclusion speculative | Two potential alleles at locus DYS458 justify exclusion despite low RFUs | Exclusion affirmed: low-level peaks in mixed sample may be stutter; insufficient foundation for exclusion |
| Materiality of admissible DNA evidence to justify new trial | Admissible DNA (defendant excluded from nonsperm cells of stain 13) not demonstrably deposited by assailant and could reflect contamination; not likely to change jury outcome | Exclusion from stain 13 epithelial cells (consistent across labs) would likely have been a real factor for jury because cells plausibly came from assailant's urine | Held for Commonwealth: admissible evidence lacked temporal/contextual proof and probative value to create substantial risk of different verdict |
| Award of supplemental expert funds after initial authorization | Additional funds unnecessary because expert testimony proved inadmissible; denial was within discretion | Initial authorization of funds implicitly approved retention; denying remaining payment for services already rendered was improper | Reversed: judge abused discretion in denying supplemental payment for services performed after initial funding authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal gatekeeping standard for scientific expert admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) (adopted Daubert-like reliability inquiry in Massachusetts)
- Canavan's Case, 432 Mass. 304 (2000) (expert reliability may be shown by general acceptance or other means)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (1986) (new-trial standard: new evidence must probably have been a real factor in jury deliberations)
- Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 441 Mass. 146 (2004) (consideration of expert-funding requests includes potential admissibility and necessity)