Transcript Recent Trends in Challenges to Forensic Evidence Used in Criminal

RECENT TRENDS IN CHALLENGES TO
FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS
Stephie-Anna Ramaley
Deputy District Attorney
Office of District Attorney
Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania
FRYE STANDARD
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Rule of Law: Evidence must be “sufficiently established
to have gained general acceptance in the particular field
in which it belongs.”
States that still use the Frye Standard:
California(Kelly), Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington
DAUBERT STANDARD
Dauber t v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579,
113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469 (U.S. 1993)
Rule of Law: F.R.E. 702 superseded the General Acceptance test of
Frye and therefore provides the standard for admitting expert
scientific testimony
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 - A witness who is qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
 the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue;
 the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
 the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
 the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
RECENT CHALLENGES TO FORENSIC
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
1) Automated Probabilistic Genotyping in
Forensic Biology cases (DNA)
2) Chemical Analysis of Designer Synthetic
Drugs
PROBABILISTIC GENOT YPING IN
FORENSIC BIOLOGY
Interpretation of DNA Data:
DNA data retrieved from evidence (evidence genotype)
DNA data retrieved from known individual/suspect (known
genotype)
DNA data from evidence (evidence genotype) is then compared
to the DNA data from a known reference/suspect (known
genotype)
Probability is then calculated to show how much more the
evidence DNA matches the known individual as opposed to the
DNA from a random person
COMPUTER INTERPRETATION OF
QUANTITATIVE DNA EVIDENCE
Mixtures
DNA data from more than one person is
recovered from the evidence
Often yields inconclusive results
Computer Interpretation of DNA data –
Example: TrueAllele
FRYE CHALLENGE
COMMONWEALTH V. FOLEY, 38 A.2d 882 (Pa.Super.
2012)
Challenge to TrueAllele under Frye
Held:
Not Novel Science
Proprietary nature of the source code doesn’t
make it Novel
Testimony determined Admissible
JURISDICTIONS ALLOWING TRUEALLELE
INTERPRETATION OF DNA DATA
Bakersfield, Kern County, CA (Kelly -Fr ye) - 2013
Vanderburgh, Indiana ( Dauber t)-2016
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana ( Dauber t) - 2014
Plymouth County, Massachusetts ( Dauber t) - 2016
Schenectady County, New York (Fr ye) - 2015
Cuyahoga County, Ohio ( Dauber t) – 2014
Indiana County, Pennsylvania (Fr ye) – 2009
Beaufort County, South Carolina (Jones) – 2015
Colonial Heights Count, Virginia (Spencer) - 2013
DRUG CHEMISTRY
Challenges to the Technology used in the
analysis of controlled substances are
virtually non-existent today
Instead, challenges seem to be focused
on Designer Drugs
DRUG CHEMISTRY
Challenges to the Technology used in the
analysis of controlled substances are
virtually non-existent today
Instead, challenges seem to be focused
on Designer Drugs
DRUG CHEMISTRY
Challenges to the Technology used in the
analysis of controlled substances are
virtually non-existent today
Instead, challenges seem to be focused
on Designer Drugs
DESIGNER “SYNTHETIC” DRUGS
Synthetically produced by modifying the
chemical structure of existing illicit substances,
with the goal of mimicking those substances
Often marketed as herbal incense, bath salts,
jewelry cleaner, or plant food, and have caused
significant abuse, addiction, overdoses, and
emergency room visits
They are labeled “not for human consumption”
to mask their intended purpose and avoid Food
and Drug Administration regulatory oversight of
the manufacturing process
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF DESIGNER DRUGS
IN PENNSYLVANIA
A substance other than a controlled substance that
is intended for human consumption and either has
a chemical structure substantially similar to that of
a controlled substance in Schedules I, II or III of
[the CSDDCA] or that produces an effect
substantially similar to that of a controlled
substance in Schedules I, II or III. . . .
35 P.S. § 780-102
MOST COMMON CLASSES
1) Synthetic Cannabinoids, known as “Synthetic
Marijuana”,“K2,” or “Spice”, are often sold in
legal retail outlets as “herbal incense” or
“potpourri”
2) Synthetic cathinones are often sold as “bath
salts” or “jewelry cleaner”
SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS
Man-made chemicals that are applied (often
sprayed) onto plant material and marketed as a
“legal” high
Synthetic cannabinoids mimic Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary
psychoactive active ingredient in marijuana.
SYNTHETIC CATHINONE
Man-made chemicals related to amphetamines
Products often consist of
methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV),
mephedrone, and methylone
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGNER
DRUGS
1) Compounds in the drugs aren’t necessarily
illegal
2) Chemical makeup of drugs are constantly
changing
3) Testing capabilities in Laboratories
ANALOG STATUTES
A “Controlled substance analogue” is defined as a substance:
the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the
chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the
central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater
than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the
central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or
II; or
with respect to a particular person, which such person represents
or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect
on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or
greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on
the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I
or II. 21 U.S.C. §802 (32)(a)
FEDERAL STATUTE
§813. Treatment of controlled substance analogues
A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent
intended for human consumption, be treated, for the
purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance
in schedule I.
21 U.S.C. § 813
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES
The following acts and the causing thereof within the
Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
(36) The knowing or intentional manufacture,
distribution, possession with intent to distribute or possession
of a designer drug . . . .
35 P.S. § 780-113(36)
PENNSYLVANIA SYNTHETIC CANNIBINOID
STATUTE
( v i i ) S y n t h et i c c a n n a b i n o id s , i n c l ud i n g a ny m a te r i a l , c o m p o un d , m i x t ur e o r
p r e p a r a t i o n t h a t i s n o t l i s te d a s a c o n t ro l le d s u b s t a n c e i n S c h e d ul e s I , I I , I I I , I V a n d V,
i s n o t a Fe d e r a l Fo o d a n d D r u g A d m i ni s t r a t i on - a p p rov e d d r u g o r n o t u s e d w i t h i n
l e g i t i ma te a n d a p p r ov e d m e d i c a l r e s e a r c h a n d w h i c h c o n t a i n s a ny q u a n t i t y o f t h e
f o l l ow in g s u b s t a n c e s , t h e i r s a l t s , i s o m e r s , w h et h e r o p t i c al , p o s i t io n a l o r g e o m et r i c,
a n a l o g ue s , h o m o l o g ues a n d s a l t s o f i s o m e r s , a n a lo g ue s a n d h o m o l og ue s , u n l e s s
s p e c i fi ca l l y ex e m p te d , w h e n ev e r t h e ex i s te nc e o f t h e s e s a l t s , i s o m e r s , a n a l o g ue s ,
h o m o l o g ue s a n d s a l t s o f i s o m e r s , a n a l o g ue s a n d h o m o l o g ue s i f p o s s i b l e w i t h i n t h e
s p e c i fi c c h e m i ca l d e s i g n a t io n :
1 . Tet r a hy d ro c a n n a b i n o ls m e a n i n g tet r a hy d ro c a n n a b i n o l s w h i c h a r e n a t u r a l ly
c o n t ai n e d i n a p l a n t o f t h e g e n u s C a n n a b i s a s w e l l a s s y n t h et i c e q u i v a l e n t s o f t h e
s u b s t a n c e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p l a n t o r i n t h e r e s i n o us ex t r a c t iv e s o f C a n n a b i s o r
s y n t h et i c s u b s t a n c es , d e r i va t i ve s a n d t h e i r i s o m e r s w i t h a n a l o g o us c h e m ic a l s t r uc t ur e
a n d o r p h a r m a c o lo g i c al a c t i v i t y s u c h a s t h e f o l l ow i n g :
( A ) D e l t a - 1 c i s o r t r a n s tet r a hy d ro c a n n a b i n o l a n d t h e i r o p t i ca l i s o m e r s .
( B ) D e l t a - 6 c i s o r t r a n s tet r a hy d ro c a n n a b i n o l a n d t h e i r o p t i ca l i s o m e r s .
( C ) D e l t a - 3 ,4 c i s o r t h e i r t r a n s tet r a hy d ro c a n n a b i n o l a n d t h e i r o p t i ca l i s o m e r s . . . .
3 5 P. S . 7 8 0 - 1 0 4 ( 1 ) ( v i i )
“SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR”
Basis for recent Daubert and Frye challenges
Basis for Void for Vagueness Constitutional
Challenges
Dueling experts regarding whether a substance
is “substantially similar” in structure to the
Controlled Substance at issue
FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS
US v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257 (11 th Cir. 2005)
US v. Fedida, 942 FSupp 1270 (MD Fla. 2013)
US v. McFadden, 753 F.3d 432 (4 th Cir. 2014)
STATE COURT DECISIONS
State of Ohio v. Silmi, Cuyahoga C.P., No. CR 561754, Journal
Entry and Opinion (Feb. 7, 2013)
State of Ohio v. Shalash, 41 N.E.3d 1263 (Ct. App. Ohio 2015)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Herman , 2016 WL 3597519
(Pa.Super. 2016); CP -67-CR-2400-2014 (Court of Common Pleas
of York County)