holding that PCR method has emerged as predominant method of DNA typing and is accepted in both forensic and non-forensic settings
How later courts described this case
- holding that PCR method has emerged as predominant method of DNA typing and is accepted in both forensic and non-forensic settings
- holding that the Perkin-Elmer kit was reliable
- testimony as to testing, peer review, controls, and acceptance in the scientific community was sufficient to satisfy the Daubert reliability test for admissibility of DNA testing
- judicial notice can be taken of reliability of theory or technique
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Although I agree with the majority's conclusion that the State established the reliability of the Perkin-Elmer test kits, I believe it was unnecessary, as a matter of law, to subject the kits to an analysis to determine their scientific reliability. The test kits do not present a new scientific technique; rather, they use the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing method, which is generally accepted by the scientific community. See, e.g., People v. Hill , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 , 89 Cal.App.4th 48 , 59-60 (2001) (specifically discussing Perkin-Elmer test kits); and Lemour v. State , 802 So.2d 402 , 407 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001) (following the reasoning of Hill in holding that it is unnecessary to subject test kits using the PCR testing method to an analysis to determine the scientific reliability of the kits). See also Turner v. State , 746 So.2d 355 , 362 (Ala. 1998) (citing the holding in United States v. Beasley , 102 F.3d 1440 , 1448 (8th Cir. 1996), that in future cases judicial notice could be taken of the reliability of the PCR testing method); and Simmons v. State , 797 So.2d 1134 , 1146
(Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that the PCR testing method is generally accepted by the scientific community). The test kits "do not represent a separate part of the typing process, but rather, simply contain materials for beginning the PCR process. See People v. Shreck , 22 P.3d 68 , 81
(Colo. 2001). Therefore, . . . `questions as to the reliability of the particular type of . . . kit go to the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility.' Id ." United States v. Trala , 162 F. Supp.2d 336 , 346
(D.C. Del. 2001). The test kit is "simply one tool for carrying out generally accepted PCR methodology." State v. Russell , 125 Wn.2d 24 , 55 , 882 P.2d 747 , 768 (1994). See also Trala , 162 F. Supp.2d at 346 . Moreover, "the forensic community and those quarters of the scientific community that have used [the test kits] uniformly assert [their] reliability." State v. Butterfield , 27 P.3d 1133 , 1144 (Utah 2001) (citing scientific literature and numerous validation studies that conclude that the Perkin-Elmer test kits are scientifically reliable and holding that it is appropriate to take judicial notice of the inherent reliability of the test kits). Because I believe the majority unnecessarily subjects the test kits to an analysis to determine their scientific reliability, I concur only as to the result.
Moore, C.J., concurs.