People v. Wesley
633 N.E.2d 451, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Novel scientific evidence is admissible in court if the principle or procedure has gained general acceptance as reliable within the relevant scientific community. This inquiry focuses on the general reliability of the technique, while specific application issues, such as laboratory procedures and statistical interpretation, typically go to the weight of the evidence for the jury to consider.
Facts:
- On September 15, 1987, 79-year-old Helen Kendrick was found dead in her Albany apartment.
- The investigation focused on George Wesley after caseworkers found his bloodstained T-shirt, underwear, and sweatpants in his apartment.
- Both Wesley and Kendrick were clients of the same social services organization, and Wesley had visited her apartment three days before her death.
- During police questioning, Wesley gave conflicting and implausible accounts of how his clothes became bloodied and how Kendrick was injured.
- Wesley stated he "didn't choke her" and did not have sexual intercourse with her, despite the detective not having mentioned these details.
- Forensic analysis showed that nylon fibers from Kendrick's carpet were found on Wesley's clothing, and fibers from a blanket in Wesley's bedroom were found on Kendrick's clothing.
- A biological comparison was performed on a bloodstain from Wesley's T-shirt, hair follicles from Kendrick, and a blood sample from Wesley.
- The analysis concluded that the DNA pattern from the T-shirt bloodstain matched the DNA from Kendrick's hair follicles and did not match Wesley's own DNA.
Procedural Posture:
- Prior to trial, the County Court (trial court) held a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of DNA profiling evidence.
- The trial court ruled that the DNA evidence was admissible.
- Following a jury trial, George Wesley was convicted of murder, rape, attempted sodomy, and burglary.
- Wesley filed a post-conviction motion to vacate the judgment based on newly discovered evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Wesley, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted Wesley permission to appeal the Appellate Division's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does DNA profiling evidence meet the Frye standard for admissibility, which requires that a novel scientific technique be generally accepted as reliable within the relevant scientific community?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
The court held that DNA profiling evidence meets the Frye standard of general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. The court reasoned that the core principles and procedures of DNA profiling, specifically RFLP analysis, were widely accepted as reliable for generating results. The testimony of several expert witnesses established that the techniques used by the testing company, Lifecodes, were generally accepted by molecular biologists and geneticists at the time of the 1988 hearing. The court distinguished the Frye inquiry, which addresses the general acceptance of the scientific theory, from foundational challenges about specific laboratory procedures or statistical probabilities in a particular case, which are matters of weight for the jury to evaluate.
Concurring - Chief Judge Kaye
While concurring in the result to affirm the conviction, Chief Judge Kaye disagreed with the majority's conclusion that DNA evidence met the Frye standard at the time of the hearing. The concurrence argued that the forensic application of DNA technology, particularly the methods for declaring a 'match' and assessing statistical significance, had not yet gained general acceptance in 1988. The concurrence noted that the hearing court relied too heavily on experts with commercial interests in the technology (from Lifecodes) and that there was a lack of independent peer review, established protocols, and consensus on crucial steps unique to forensic analysis. However, the error of admitting the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the DNA evidence was merely cumulative, confirming Wesley's admitted presence at the scene.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in New York jurisprudence, formally establishing the admissibility of DNA profiling evidence under the Frye standard. The majority opinion's framework separates the pretrial Frye hearing—focused on general scientific acceptance of a technique—from the trial foundation, which addresses the specific application in the case. This decision paved the way for the routine use of DNA evidence in criminal prosecutions in New York, while also highlighting the ongoing debate, reflected in the concurrence, about the standards required for emerging forensic technologies, especially regarding laboratory-specific protocols and statistical interpretation.
