People v. Golub
| Decision Date | 23 August 1993 |
| Citation | 196 A.D.2d 637,601 N.Y.S.2d 502 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert GOLUB, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ethel P. Ross, Rye, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Peter A. Weinstein and Bruce E. Whitney, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, PIZZUTO and W. JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered June 1, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On March 3, 1989, at approximately 2:30 P.M., the 14-year-old victim returned home from school. The victim lived at 101 Horton Road, Valley Stream, Long Island. The Golub family lived five doors away at 81 Horton Road. At 2:50 P.M., the victim received a telephone call which, telephone company records indicate, originated from the Golub residence. Shortly afterwards, the victim left her house. At approximately 3:15 P.M., she was seen entering the Golubs' house. The following day, the victim's mutilated body was found in a storage area underneath the stairs leading to the basement of the Golub home. In addition, two bloodstained attache cases containing the victim's clothing were found in the basement. The bloodstains were tested using a then relatively new scientific technique known as "DNA fingerprinting". The results of the tests indicated that the blood on the attache cases was that of the victim and that of the defendant.
Prior to trial, a Frye hearing (see, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013) was held to determine the admissibility of the DNA evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that DNA fingerprinting is a reliable scientific theory that is generally accepted in the scientific community and that the six-step procedure used to extract and analyze DNA samples is also generally accepted in the scientific community. The hearing court further found that Lifecodes, the laboratory which conducted the DNA testing, had adequately performed the tests in this case and that its findings were sufficiently reliable to be admissible at trial as a question of fact for the jury.
After a lengthy trial, the defendant was found guilty of the murder of the victim. The evidence against him included, inter alia, the DNA evidence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the admission of that evidence.
Presently, there is no serious dispute in the legal or scientific community concerning the theory underlying DNA identification. It has been extensively and thoroughly detailed in New York case law and has been found to be generally accepted in the scientific community (see, People v. Wesley, 183 A.D.2d 75, 78, 589 N.Y.S.2d 197, lv. granted 81 N.Y.2d 978, 598 N.Y.S.2d 779, 615 N.E.2d 236; People v. Mohit, 153 Misc.2d 22, 25, 579 N.Y.S.2d 990; People v. Shi Fu Huang, 145 Misc.2d 513, 514, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920; People v. Castro, 144 Misc.2d 956, 963, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985; People v. Gonzalez, NYLJ, August 18, 1989, at 22, col 2; People v. Lopez, NYLJ, January 6, 1989, at 29, col 1).
Likewise, there is no serious dispute with regard to the six-step procedure used to isolate and identify DNA. Dr. Michael Baird, the People's expert, testified at the Frye hearing that the six-step procedure has been generally accepted in the scientific community where it has been used for approximately 12 years. Dr. Simon Ford, the defendant's expert, agreed that the procedure used by Lifecodes is based closely on the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palumbo
...is no real dispute within the scientific community regarding the general theory underlying DNA identification (People v. Golub, 196 A.D.2d 637, 637-638, 601 N.Y.S.2d 502; People v. Wesley, 183 A.D.2d 75, 78, 589 N.Y.S.2d 197, affd 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97, 633 N.E.2d 451). In addition......
-
People v. Parrilla
...blood or some other bodily fluid such as semen and the testing was done by a lab other than OCME. See e.g. People v. Golub, 196 A.D.2d 637, 601 N.Y.S.2d 502 (2d Dept.1993) ; People v. Mohit, 153 Misc.2d 22, 579 N.Y.S.2d 990 (Westchester Co.1992) ; People v. Shi Fu Huang, 145 Misc.2d 513, 54......
-
People v. Golub
...162 610 N.Y.S.2d 162 82 N.Y.2d 895, 632 N.E.2d 472 People v. Golub (Robert) Court of Appeals of New York Dec 09, 1993 Levine, J. 196 A.D.2d 637, 601 N.Y.S.2d 502 App.Div. 2, Nassau Denied. ...
-
Expert witnesses
...slides re-cut from the original specimen. Failure to establish complete chain of custody was therefore excusable. People v. Golub , 196 A.D.2d 637, 601 N.Y.S.2d 502 (2d Dept. 1993). DNA testing is accepted as reliable under the Frye standard. People v. Davis , 196 A.D.2d 597, 601 N.Y.S.2d 1......
-
Expert witnesses
...slides re-cut from the original specimen. Failure to establish complete chain of custody was therefore excusable. People v. Golub , 196 A.D.2d 637, 601 N.Y.S. 502 (2d Dept. 1993). DNA testing is accepted as reliable under the Frye standard. People v. Davis , 196 A.D.2d 597, 601 N.Y.S.2d 174......
-
Expert witnesses
...slides re-cut from the original specimen. Failure to establish complete chain of custody was therefore excusable. People v. Golub , 196 A.D.2d 637, 601 N.Y.S. 502 (2d Dept. 1993). DNA testing is accepted as reliable under the Frye standard. People v. Davis , 196 A.D.2d 597, 601 N.Y.S.2d 174......
-
Expert witnesses
...slides re-cut from the original specimen. Failure to establish complete chain of custody was therefore excusable. People v. Golub , 196 A.D.2d 637, 601 N.Y.S. 502 (2d Dept. 1993). DNA testing is accepted as reliable under the Frye standard. People v. Davis , 196 A.D.2d 597, 601 N.Y.S.2d 174......