50 Misc. 3d 247
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2015Background
- Two defendants (Debraux, Merritt) moved to preclude expert testimony based on OCME’s Forensic Statistical Tool (FST) or, alternatively, for Frye hearings; motions consolidated for decision.
- FST is software used by OCME to compute likelihood ratios for an individual’s contribution to DNA mixtures, incorporating stochastic effects (allelic drop-in/drop-out).
- Debraux: charged with weapons offenses; OCME found a mixed DNA sample on a handgun; prosecution sought buccal swab and comparison using FST; defendant sought protective order limiting database uploads.
- Merritt: charged with violent offenses from a shooting; OCME produced a 14-loci major-profile match and used FST to analyze a second mixture, yielding a very large likelihood ratio favoring inclusion.
- Defendants conceded general use of likelihood ratios/Bayesian methods but challenged the specific way FST models stochastic effects as not generally accepted, arguing inadmissibility or need for Frye hearings.
- Court denied motions to preclude FST evidence and denied need for Frye hearings; granted Debraux’s compelled buccal swab but entered a protective order barring OCME upload to state/federal databases until conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of FST-generated expert testimony | FST is generally accepted; Frye hearing unnecessary | FST’s specific method for accounting for stochastic effects (drop-in/drop-out) is not generally accepted; thus results unreliable | Denied preclusion; FST methodology sufficiently generally accepted; Frye hearing unnecessary |
| Need for Frye hearing on FST | Prior rulings and scientific support show general acceptance; courts may rely on those rulings | Collins and related decisions require Frye because FST’s stochastic modeling is novel/unaccepted | Denied; court may "count scientists’ votes" via existing rulings and need not duplicate extensive hearings |
| Pretrial exclusion as unduly prejudicial (Merritt) | Probative value substantial given independent major-profile match; not unfairly prejudicial | FST results could mislead jury and prejudice defendant | Denied; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Compelled buccal swab and protective order (Debraux) | Swab is minimally intrusive, necessary, and constitutionally permissible; OCME may use local DB but should not upload to state/federal until conviction | Swab unnecessary because FST unreliable; oppose upload to OCME local DB and to state/federal DBs | Swab compelled under Abe A. balancing; protective order forbids uploading to state/federal DBs until conviction but does not bar OCME local DB storage |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (established general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994) (admissibility requires generally accepted reliable techniques)
- Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434 (N.Y. 2006) (Frye inquiry focuses on community acceptance; courts should not re-litigate scientific soundness)
- People v. Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1981) (techniques need not be unanimous but must be generally accepted)
- People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449 (N.Y. 2007) (courts may rely on prior rulings to determine general acceptance)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (Fourth Amendment exclusionary principles governing searches and seizures)
- Matter of Abe A., 56 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1982) (three-part constitutional test for compelled corporeal evidence: probable cause, clear indication evidence will be found, safe/reliable method; plus balancing inquiry)