269 A.3d 1177
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2022Background
- Victim Barbara Vernieri was found murdered and set on fire in her home on Sept. 14, 2012; investigators observed gasoline and blood patterns.
- Defendant Daniel Rochat acknowledged an unannounced visit to Vernieri on Sept. 12; cellphone records and a shoeprint linked him near the scene on Sept. 14.
- A search of a condominium Rochat used produced sink swabs that tested positive for blood; OCME analyzed two swab samples using low copy number (LCN) DNA methods and used its proprietary Forensic Statistical Tool (FST) to compute likelihood ratios for a mixed sample.
- OCME's LCN testing produced a single-source profile matching Vernieri (Sample 1) and a mixed profile (Sample 2) for which FST gave a strong likelihood ratio favoring Vernieri + unknown over two unknowns, but favored Vernieri + unknown over Vernieri + Rochat by 575:1; separate NJSP testing of nails could not exclude Rochat but yielded only a 1-in-333 match statistic.
- After trial conviction, this Court ordered a Frye (N.J. Rule 104(a)) hearing; the trial court admitted LCN and FST evidence, but on de novo review the Appellate Division concluded the State failed to "clearly establish" general acceptance of OCME's LCN methods and proprietary FST and held their admission was not harmless.
- Court reversed Rochat's convictions and remanded for a new trial; it also addressed and upheld probable cause for the Van Winkle search warrant, excluded victim statements to a friend as present-sense impressions, and upheld (but reviewed) the jury instruction on consciousness of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Rochat's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of FST (proprietary probabilistic software) | FST was validated internally by OCME and approved by NY DNA Subcommittee/CFS; likelihood ratios are accepted statistical tools | FST is proprietary, used and developed only by OCME, not generally accepted; validation was insular and the source code revealed serious errors | Reversed—FST not shown to be "generally accepted"; admission was improper and not harmless |
| Admissibility of LCN DNA testing (high-sensitivity / low-template STR) | LCN is an extension of conventional STR, OCME conducted extensive validation, SWGDAM guidelines and some international labs use LCN | LCN suffers from stochastic effects, contamination risk, lack of reproducibility, and is not generally accepted for criminal casework | Reversed—State failed to "clearly establish" general acceptance; LCN evidence inadmissible and error not harmless |
| Probable cause for Van Winkle Avenue search warrant | Affidavit tied cellphone location, neighbor disturbance, defendant's inconsistent statements, prior visit to victim, and shoe impressions to the property | Search lacked sufficient nexus showing evidence would be found at that location | Affirmed—totality of circumstances supplied probable cause for the warrant |
| Admission of victim's out-of-court statements to friend (present-sense impression / state-of-mind) | Statements were made immediately after event and showed victim was surprised by defendant's visit; alternatively admissible as state-of-mind | Statements were not "while or immediately after" the event and were offered to show defendant's conduct (impermissible use) | Reversed in part—statements not admissible as present-sense impressions and not admissible under state-of-mind for the purpose offered; excluded on retrial |
| Jury instruction re: conduct at arrest (consciousness of guilt) | Evidence of ignoring police commands is admissible to show consciousness of guilt; limiting instruction given | Conduct was panic, inconsistent, not probative; acquittal on resisting-arrest count undermines relevance | Affirmed—limiting instruction was proper and jurors could accept or reject innocence explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishing general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (1997) (N.J. Supreme Court applying strict Frye standard in criminal cases)
- State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 (2018) (proponent must "clearly establish" general acceptance)
- State v. Ghigliotty, 463 N.J. Super. 355 (App. Div. 2020) (discussing Frye analysis and relevant scientific community)
- People v. Williams, 147 N.E.3d 1131 (N.Y. 2020) (criticizing reliance on an insular agency validation and disapproving automatic admissibility of OCME LCN/FST)
- State v. Pickett, 466 N.J. Super. 270 (App. Div. 2021) (discussing disclosure and reliability concerns with probabilistic genotyping and FST)
- State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308 (2005) (harmless-error standard where wrongly admitted evidence may have influenced verdict)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (U.S. Supreme Court framing federal gatekeeping standard; discussed for contrast to Frye)