NCJ Number
138570
Journal
Washington University Law Quarterly Volume: 69 Issue: 1 Dated: (1991) Pages: 19-47
Date Published
1991
Length
29 pages
Annotation
In the main, courts have accepted the validity of DNA fingerprinting, holding the evidence to be admissible; some have declared that the general reliability of DNA typing is judicially noticeable. Even courts that have questioned the specific manner in which DNA typing tests have been conducted, have ruled these problems to affect the weight but not the admissibility of the evidence.
Abstract
Although two courts have excluded DNA evidence from trial because the prosecution had failed to establish that the analysts followed proper scientific procedure, most commentators and courts have ignored the crucial importance of this issue. Most opinions on scientific evidence focus on the foundational element of proof of the general reliability of the technique without questioning whether the analyst properly applied that technique in the instant case. This article assesses that split of authority. The author concludes that correct test procedure is so fundamental it should affect the admissibility of scientific evidence. Using the Federal Rule of Evidence section governing the hearsay exception for official records, the author then suggests that the party opposing admission of scientific evidence should bear the burden of showing the analyst's noncompliance with proper scientific procedure. 182 notes