State v. Hampton
183 So. 3d 769
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sherman Hampton was indicted on four counts of aggravated rape based largely on DNA matches from samples dating as early as 1992; a 2006 CODIS lead identified him as a match and he was later buccally swabbed in 2013 to confirm the match.
- Each count carries mandatory life without parole; none of the victims identified Hampton or were asked to attempt identification at lineup/photo array.
- Hampton moved for a Daubert-Foret pretrial (gatekeeping) hearing challenging the reliability of certain older DNA test results performed by a private lab (Reliagene), relying on allegations of partial profiles, mixed samples, missing loci, destroyed documentation, and evolving methodologies.
- The prosecution opposed a pretrial reliability hearing; the trial judge denied Hampton’s motion, stating the defense offered no evidence of deviation from standard practice.
- The appellate court granted supervisory relief, held the trial judge abused her discretion by refusing a Daubert-Foret hearing given Hampton’s sufficient allegations about the older DNA evidence, and remanded for an appropriate pretrial hearing with the prosecution bearing the burden to prove reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pretrial Daubert-Foret hearing was required to test reliability of challenged DNA evidence | Hampton argued Reliagene’s older testing produced partial/mixed profiles, missing loci, destroyed documentation, and used outdated methods, triggering a reliability inquiry | Prosecution argued DNA testing is generally reliable and suggested testing occurred after 2003; opposed a pretrial hearing and offered no written counter-evidence | Trial court abused discretion by denying hearing; remand for Daubert-Foret hearing where proponent must prove reliability |
| Proper allocation of burden at the hearing | Hampton contended he need only plead sufficient allegations to trigger a hearing, not prove unreliability at motion stage | Prosecution implicitly suggested defense must provide evidence of deviation to justify hearing | Court held defense need only allege sufficient methodology challenges; proponent (prosecution) bears burden at hearing to establish reliability |
| Whether age of samples and evolving DNA standards can justify a hearing | Hampton argued advances and changed protocols (e.g., SWGDAM guidance, concerns about partial profiles) could affect older test reliability | Prosecution relied on general confidence in DNA evidence and legislative recognition of DNA relevance | Court found age of samples and allegations about testing methods sufficient to require hearing; courts cannot skip gatekeeping solely because DNA is generally reliable |
| Whether judicial notice of DNA reliability is permissible (i.e., when no hearing needed) | Hampton implicitly argued judicial notice not appropriate given factual questions about methods and dates | Prosecution suggested some DNA methods are inherently reliable, possibly justifying no hearing | Court held judicial notice (forgoing a hearing) is only appropriate when a method’s inherent reliability is established; not applicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal gatekeeping standard for scientific expert evidence)
- State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (Louisiana adoption of Daubert gatekeeping under state evidence code)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Daubert rulings)
- State v. Quatrevingt, 670 So.2d 197 (La. 1996) (discussion of DNA evidence reliability and admissibility)
- Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (pretrial Daubert hearings common but not always required)
- State v. Charles, 617 So.2d 895 (La. 1993) (burden on proponent to establish admissibility of DNA evidence)