52 Misc. 3d 903
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2016Background
- Indictment for first-degree robbery and third-degree weapon possession.
- Defendant moved for discovery of electronic raw DNA data under CPL 240.20(1)(c); initial denial overturned on reconsideration.
- DNA analysis: mixture with a major male contributor; major profile matched defendant’s Convicted Offender profile in NYS DNA Index System.
- OCME performed DNA analysis at NYPD’s request; data stored in .fsa files; raw data claimed to be extractable and transmittable on electronic media.
- Defendant argues raw data necessary to evaluate peaks and filter applications; People argue raw data is not a readable document and that OCME outside People’s control; court must decide on disclosure of electronic raw data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether electronic raw DNA data is a discoverable written document | People contend raw data is not readable; it is machine output with no meaning | Koenderman argues raw data is a written document containing information about a scientific test | Yes, discoverable as a written document under CPL 240.20(1)(c) |
| Whether the OCME must disclose electronic raw data | OCME, though independent, performed the analysis at NYPD’s request; data should be disclosed | OCME outside People’s control; no obligation to disclose | Yes, OCME must disclose the electronic raw data |
| Whether electronic raw data qualifies as a 'written instrument' under Penal Law | Data embodies information concerning a scientific test | Not readable text; data requires processing | Yes, qualifies as a 'written instrument' under Penal Law §170.00 and CPL 240.20(1)(c) |
| Role of software filters and need for defense access to raw data | Filters affect peak interpretation; defendant needs raw data to evaluate results | Defense may process data with alternative software to challenge results | Raw data must be disclosed to permit proper defense and evaluation of DNA evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Powell, 205 A.D.2d 561 (2d Dept 1994) (written document includes diagrams in medical records)
- People v Robinson, 53 A.D.3d 63 (2d Dept 2008) (computer source code is a written document; data not readable text on its own)
- DaGata, 86 N.Y.2d 40 (1995) (broad pretrial discovery; viewing prosecution’s evidence)
- People v John, 27 N.Y.3d 294 (2016) (DNA interpretation requires analyst judgment; not purely machine output)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007) (source code as text; meaningful information via interpretation)
- People v. Grant, 185 Misc.2d 512 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2000) (cable box data as a written document)
- People v. Lawrence, 169 Misc.2d 752 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 1996) (cellular telephone containing computer chips as written data)
- People v. Pena, 169 Misc.2d 366 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 1996) (cellphone data as written information)