About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

29 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 357 (1995)
Evidence - Massachusetts Replaces Frye Test with Daubert Standard for Determining Admission of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials

handle is hein.journals/sufflr29 and id is 375 raw text is: Evidence-Massachusetts Replaces Frye Test with Daubert Standard for Determining Admission of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials-Common- wealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (1994) Federal and Massachusetts state courts have historically admitted novel scientific evidence so long as the relevant scientific community has gener- ally accepted the technique in issue.1 Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States replaced the general acceptance test with the relevancy and reliability requirement inherent in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evi- dence.2 Massachusetts courts, however, have adhered to the general accep- tance test and precluded the admission of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification evidence, finding that the relevant scientific community had not accepted statistical probability match estimates.3 In Commonwealth v. Lanigan,' the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts considered wheth- er the Commonwealth established an adequate basis for admitting expert testimony concerning the statistical probability that the defendant's DNA would match DNA samples found at a crime scene.5 Concluding that the 1. See United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1531-32 (11th Cir. 1989) (discussing and applying general acceptance test); Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (articulat- ing general acceptance standard of admissibility for scientific evidence); Commonwealth v. Cumin, 409 Mass. 218, 222, 565 N.E.2d 440, 443 (1991) (recognizing court's historical adherence to general acceptance standard); Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 268, 191 N.E.2d 479, 481 (1963) (stating courts may not admit scientific evidence unless generally accepted by relevant scientific com- munity); see also Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 COLUM. L. REv. 1197, 1250 (1980) (discussing dominance of Frye test in admissibility of scientific evidence for over 50 years); Janet C. Hoefel, Note, The Dark Side of DNA Profiling: Unreliable Scientific Evidence Meets the Criminal Defendant, 42 STAN. L. REV. 465, 496 (1990) (noting that majority of courts employ Frye test). Under the Frye test, the scientific tech- nique employed must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 2. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2793-94 (1993) (requiring reliability and relevancy for admission of scientific evidence); see also FED. R. EVID. 702 (setting forth federal admissibility standard for scientific evidence); Daniel Dwyer, Case Comment, Federal Rules of Evidence Supersede General Acceptance Standard for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence, 28 SUFFOLK U. L. REv. 252, 255-57 (1994) (discussing Daubert standard). Rule 702 states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise. FED. R. EVID. 702. 3. See Commonwealth v. Daggett, 416 Mass. 347, 350-51, 622 N.E.2d 272, 274-75 (1993) (af- firming determination that scientific community had not accepted statistical probability calculations); Commonwealth v. Lanigan (Lanigan I), 413 Mass. 154, 155, 163, 596 N.E.2d 311, 312, 316 (1992) (upholding superior court's determination precluding admission of DNA evidence); Commonwealth v. Cumin, 409 Mass. 218, 224-27, 565 N.E.2d 440, 444-45 (1991) (finding scientific community dis- agreed about adequacy of population database used to determine statistical probability estimates). 4. 419 Mass. 15, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (1994). 5. See id. at 20-21, 641 N.E.2d at 1346 (assessing validity of product rule method of statistical probability calculation); see also infra notes 9-10 & 16 (detailing DNA testing and techniques used to determine probability of DNA match in general population).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most