## Facts

- A caseworker found the victim dead in his apartment with a guitar amplifier cord wrapped around his neck; investigators found no forced entry, no signs of a struggle, and no indication of suicide.
- Items were missing from the apartment, including a laptop, a PlayStation, and an orange duffle bag.
- After a reward was offered, a friend reported that the defendant had admitted killing the victim.
- Police obtained a buccal swab from the defendant and compared his DNA to biological material collected from the scene.
- Cybergenetics used the TrueAllele Casework System, a probabilistic genotyping program, to analyze the DNA data.
- The TrueAllele analysis indicated, to a high probability, that the defendant’s DNA was present on the amplifier cord, parts of the victim’s T-shirt, and the victim’s forearm.

## Issues

1. Whether DNA analysis generated using TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping was admissible under New York’s Frye standard as generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
2. Whether admitting TrueAllele results without disclosure of the software’s source code violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support, and not against the weight of the evidence for, convictions of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the trial court properly admitted TrueAllele evidence after a Frye hearing found the methodology generally accepted.
- The court held the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the absence of source-code disclosure because the relevant witnesses were the testifying human experts, not the software.
- The court held the proof was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Frye, the admissibility inquiry focuses on whether the expert’s testimony rests on scientific principles and methods that have gained general acceptance as reliable in the relevant field; general acceptance of a particular vendor’s product is not the controlling question.
- Probabilistic genotyping methodology may satisfy Frye when supported by expert testimony and evidence of acceptance and use within the scientific community (including peer-reviewed support and practical adoption).
- The Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements by witnesses; a computer program’s internal instructions (such as source code) are not themselves testimonial “declarants.”
- Confrontation is satisfied when the defendant can cross-examine the human analysts and experts who generated, validated, and interpreted the DNA results and the procedures used to produce them.
- On appellate review, convictions are upheld where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence after deference to jury credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld first-degree murder and robbery convictions, ruling that TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping evidence was admissible under Frye based on general acceptance of the methodology, and that the Confrontation Clause did not require access to the software’s source code where the prosecution presented live expert testimony subject to cross-examination.


People v. Wakefield, 175 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2019)