Opinion
ID Nos. 9901000187, 9901000155.
Date Submitted: March 7, 2000.
Dated Decided: March 8, 2000.
Upon Defendant's Motion to Exclude DNA Evidence: CONDITIONALLY GRANTED .
Upon Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery: CONDITIONALLY GRANTED .
Upon Defendant's Motion for a Daubert Hearing: CONDITIONALLY GRANTED .
ORDER
Now this 8 day of March, 2000, it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendant James Anderson has moved pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rules 12(b)(4) and 16(a)(1)(D) to compel the State to provide specific information related to DNA testing evidence sought by Defendant in a letter by counsel dated October 5, 1999. The defendant also has moved the Court to hold a Daubert hearing to consider the scientific reliability of STR DNA testing. Finally, at a hearing on March 7, 2000 the defendant has moved to exclude DNA evidence at trial.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2. The Delaware DNA statute ( 11 Del. C. § 3515) requires that DNA evidence be provided to the defense at least thirty (30) days before any criminal proceeding. The State provided the other party with the DNA evidence specifically required by the statute on February 23, 2000, less than 30 days before the scheduled March 15, 2000 jury selection. Absent an express waiver by the defendant of this 30 day requirement, the DNA evidence must be excluded from use at trial.
The statute relates to RLFP DNA results or tests. The State in this case is offering PCRSTR results. These results and tests are more current and more complex than RLFP results. To deny the statutory procedural protections of 11 Del. C. § 3515 in this case based on the method of testing would offend due process and fundamental fairness.
3. However, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3515(c), the Court would grant the State a continuance to allow the required 30 days to pass from the date the information was provided to the defense to the start of the trial if requested. The new trial date would be March 27, 2000. The Court does not find that a brief delay in the start of this trial would amount to an undue delay for the defendant.
4. The Court notes that DNA results are significantly important evidence in this case. The State as in every case has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and thus is entitled in accordance with the law and rules to make its best case. It cannot be said that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the brief delay that would be occasioned in this case.
D.R.E. 403.
5. If the State intends to use the DNA evidence in this case it must notify the Court by 12 noon on March 9, 2000 and seek a continuance of the beginning of this trial.
6. The State is required to provide a defendant with scientific tests or experiments which are material to the preparation of the defense or intended for use by the State as evidence in chief at the trial. The testing information requested by the defense in the October 5, 1999 letter appears to the Court to be necessary to the preparation of the defense. The Court notes the need for such evidence expressed by Defendant's expert as well as the citations to the report of the Committee on DNA Technologies in Forensic Sciences. Therefore, to afford the defendant a fair trial, the State must turn over the specifically requested information relating to the DNA testing by March 15, 2000, if it intends to seek admission of such test results at trial.
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(a)(1)(D).
7. The Court will hold a Daubert hearing before the commencement of trial to determine whether the underlying reasoning and methodology of the STR testing method of the DNA samples is scientifically valid and can be properly applied to the facts of this case, if the State intends to use such evidence.
8. If the State elects to introduce DNA evidence, trial will be scheduled to begin on March 27, 2000; however, jury selection will begin as scheduled on March 15, 2000, the jurors will not be sworn until after the Daubert hearing has been completed.
9. If the State elects not to use DNA results, the trial will commence as scheduled on March 15, 2000.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the DNA evidence be excluded from use at trial on March 15, 2000 because it was not provided to the defense 30 days prior to the start of trial. However, the Court will entertain a continuance request from the State to start the trial on March 27, 2000. If the State elects to use the DNA evidence the defendant's motion to compel the discovery of the specifically requested DNA testing information is GRANTED and Defendant's request for a Daubert hearing is also GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.