Monday, July 8, 2013
Use of DNA Evidence Upheld Over ‘Confrontation’ Claim
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A mechanically produced DNA profile did not constitute “testimony,” the Court of Appeal has held in affirming a rape conviction.
Aimee Rogers, a DNA analyst, testified that based on the report, there was one chance in 1.278 quintillion—a million times a billion—that the defendant, Roberto Arauz, did not commit the crime.
Writing for this district’s Div. Six, Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert said in an unpublished opinion filed Wednesday:
“Rogers testified that after the DNA is extracted, a machine produces the DNA profiles. Our Supreme Court held that machine-generated printouts of blood alcohol analyses do not implicate the Confrontation Clause….Machine readouts are not “statements” and machines are not “declarants.”…For the same reasons, machine-generated DNA profiles do not implicate the Confrontation Clause.”
“Finally, Rogers did not testify to what some other analyst concluded. Instead, Rogers testified she personally analyzed the DNA profiles. Her conclusions were based on her own analysis. Rogers’s testimony does not implicate the Confrontation Clause.”
The case is People v. v. Arauz, B242843
Copyright 2013, Metropolitan News Company