People v. Shi Fu Huang
| Decision Date | 22 September 1989 |
| Citation | 145 Misc.2d 513,546 N.Y.S.2d 920 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. SHI FU HUANG, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, J. Kenneth Littman, for plaintiff.
John B. Avanzino, Brooklyn, for defendant.
On September 21, 1988, defendant SHI FU HUANG was indicted for the crimes of Murder in the Second Degree (two counts) and Burglary in the Second Degree.
On September 18 and 19, 1989, a hearing pursuant to Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Circuit, 1923) was held to determine the admissibility of "DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) Fingerprinting". New York follows the standards for admissibility set forth in Frye. People v. Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42, 444 N.Y.S.2d 581, 429 N.E.2d 100 (1981).
The decision reached in any criminal case on the admissibility of scientific evidence is of vital importance since it has a significant potential for influencing a jury and greatly increases the likelihood of an erroneous verdict.
Although no appellate court in New York has ruled on the admissibility of DNA evidence, the trial courts of the State have begun to grapple with the extremely complex issues involved. People v. Wesley, 140 Misc.2d 306, 533 N.Y.S.2d 643 (Sup.Ct., Albany County, 1988); People v. Lopez, New York Law Journal, p 29, col. 1, January 6, 1989 (Sup.Ct., Queens County, 1988); People v. Joseph Castro, New York Law Journal, p 19, col. 3, August 16, 1989 (Sup.Ct., Bronx, 1989); People v. Carlos Gonzalez, New York Law Journal, p 22, col 2, August 18, 1989 (County Court, Suffolk, 1989).
Testifying for the People at the hearing were Dr. Michael Baird, Director of Forensic and Paternity testing at Lifecodes Corp., an expert in the fields of genetics, molecular biology and population genetics; and Ms. Deborah Vining, a senior forensic scientist at Lifecodes. The defense called no witnesses.
Dr. Baird stated that it is the underlying principle of the DNA Print System (Lifecode's trademark name) that every individual, other than an identical twin, has a unique configuration of DNA in every cell that contains a nucleus. Additionally, each individual has the same DNA makeup in every cell containing a nucleus. DNA is found in the white cells of human blood but not in the red cells which do not have nuclei. The evidentiary samples that were submitted to Lifecodes Corp. for analysis, labeled 15602-15606, were blood samples and were divided as follows:
15602: a vial of a known sample of SHI FU HUANG'S blood taken pursuant to Court Order
15603: a blood swatch on a shirt
15604: a small storage tube
15605: a storage tube (HEM No. 15)
15606: a black ski hat with a blood stain.
The Court in this opinion will not detail the background and development of the theory of DNA Identification since it is not in controversy at this hearing and has been extensively and thoroughly detailed in New York case law and has found general scientific acceptance. See, for example, People v. Castro, supra; People v. Gonzalez, supra.
Dr. Baird provided detailed testimony with respect to the six steps or techniques used to produce a DNA print.
The Court will briefly list the six steps:
1. The Extraction and Isolation of DNA
In this step the DNA is chemically extracted from the evidentiary samples.
2. The Fragmentation (or "cutting") of the DNA
In this step the DNA is cut into individual fragments by the use of an enzyme. (The enzyme used in this case was PsTI).
3. Gel Electrophoresis (or "separation" of the fragments)
The fragments are placed in a chemically charged flat gelatin surface containing an agarose gel. The gel is placed in an electric field, positive at one end and negative at the other. The DNA fragments which carry a negative charge flow toward the positive end of the gel. The particles arrange themselves according to size; the larger at the top, the smaller migrate towards the bottom.
4. Southern Blotting
The DNA fragments are chemically split apart into two strands separating the four chemicals within the DNA (A, C, G, T). The pattern formed is transferred to a nylon membrane.
5. Hybridization
Probes are tagged with a radioactive marker and applied to the membrane. When a probe finds a DNA fragment that carries its complimentary strand, it will bind to that fragment. In this case, Lifecodes used five polymorphic probes and two non polymorphic probes. It is the uncontroverted testimony that the probes used are accepted by the scientific community and have been subjected to peer review.
6. Autoradiography
After the excess probes are removed and the radioactively marked membrane is taken from the hybridization solution, the membrane is placed against an x-ray film and exposed. Bands appear where the radioactive probes stuck to the fragments. The completed film is often referred to as an "autorad".
All six steps have been recognized as reliable and have gained general acceptance in the scientific community.
Ms. Vining testified that she followed the six procedures outlined above, as well as the Lifecodes protocol for those procedures (People's 10 in Evidence). The Lifecodes protocol was not challenged by the defendant. Furthermore, there was no evidence controverting the correctness of the procedures employed by Ms. Vining. She stated that based on her review of the autorads, sample 15605 had degraded because of bacterial contamination. There could, therefore, be no reading as to that sample. However, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springfield v. State
...144 (1991); Cobey v. State, 80 Md.App. 31, 559 A.2d 391 (1989); State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo.1991); People v. Shi Fu Huang, 145 Misc.2d 513, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920 (Co.Ct.1989); State v. Pennington, 327 N.C. 89, 393 S.E.2d 847 (1990); State v. Ford, 301 S.C. 485, 392 S.E.2d 781 (1990); Stat......
-
Polk v. State, 90-KA-0308
...(1989); Andrews v. State, 533 So.2d 841 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988), review denied, 542 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1989); People v. Shi Fu Huang, 145 Misc.2d 513, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920 (Cty.Ct.1989); State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn.1989); People v. Castro, 144 Misc.2d 956, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (Sup.Ct.1989)......
-
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J. v. Philip Morris
...v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97, 633 N.E.2d 451 (N.Y.1994) (DNA identification analysis proper); People v. Shi Fu Huang, 145 Misc.2d 513, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y.Co.Ct.1989) (DNA evidence admissible subject to lowest proposed figure of probability); People v. Victory, 166 Misc.2d 54......
-
Smith v. Deppish
...because the defendant offered no expert testimony to contradict Lifecodes' Chinese statistical data base sample. People v. Shi Fu Huang, 145 Misc.2d 513, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1989). Also subsequent to Castro, the Supreme Court of South Carolina in State v. Ford, 301 S.C. 485, 392 S.E.2d 781 (1......