312 A.3d 615
Del.2024Background
- Kwesi Hudson was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery, second-degree rape, and other crimes after three violent attacks in New Castle County, Delaware.
- The offenses followed a pattern: women were abducted from apartment complexes, threatened with a firearm, sexually assaulted or robbed, and forced to withdraw money from ATMs.
- Investigators used DNA evidence and cell-site location information (from cell tower "dumps") to link Hudson to the crimes.
- Pretrial, Hudson moved to exclude expert DNA evidence generated using the STRmix probabilistic genotyping software, challenging its scientific reliability under Daubert and DRE 702.
- Hudson also moved to suppress location data obtained via broad search warrants for cell tower dumps, arguing they were constitutionally overbroad and lacked particularity.
- The Superior Court denied both motions; Hudson was convicted and sentenced to 162 years, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hudson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of STRmix DNA expert testimony | STRmix is unreliable, untestable, uses opaque calculations; Daubert hearing required | STRmix is validated, widely accepted, and reliable; ample record for admissibility | STRmix evidence is reliable under Daubert/DRE 702; no Daubert hearing needed |
| Constitutionality of cell tower dump warrants under Fourth Amendment | Warrants are overbroad, lack particularity, amount to unconstitutional general warrants | Warrants were limited in scope (time/location), described evidence particularly, supported by probable cause | Warrants were sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause; constitutional |
| Applicability of Carpenter v. United States to tower dump warrants | Carpenter controls; warrants for cell-site data require strict scrutiny | Carpenter does not control tower dumps; only historic, individual CSLI at issue there | Carpenter does not apply; even if it did, warrants here meet constitutional requirements |
| Sufficiency of probable cause for tower dump warrants | Warrants not based on adequate suspicion targeted to evidence sought | Warrants relied on detailed, case-specific affidavits linking crimes to towers | Probable cause was established under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (extends Daubert to all expert testimony)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (holding historic CSLI generally requires a warrant; distinguishes from tower dumps)
- Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (discusses particularity requirement for warrants under Delaware law)
- Gissantaner v. United States, 990 F.3d 457 (affirms reliability and admissibility of STRmix DNA evidence)