## Facts

- In 2017, the State of New Jersey charged Corey Pickett with murder and related offenses.
- The State sought to introduce forensic evidence stating that Pickett’s DNA matched DNA found on two revolvers and a ski mask recovered near the crime scene.
- The DNA “match” depended on probabilistic genotyping performed by a private company using its proprietary software (TrueAllele), which is designed to interpret small or mixed DNA samples.
- Because probabilistic genotyping had not previously been found reliable in New Jersey, the State requested a Frye hearing on admissibility, and the trial court granted that request.
- At the hearing, a State witness described the software and testified that it was correctly coded and produced reliable DNA-profile results.
- To prepare to challenge the reliability of the method and cross-examine the State’s proof, Pickett moved to compel production of (1) the software source code and (2) records concerning glitches, errors, and unexpected results.
- Pickett argued he needed these materials to test the reliability of the tool generating the statistical conclusions, particularly in light of concerns raised in other litigation about coding problems in similar DNA-interpretation software.
- The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the requested materials were trade secrets.
- Pickett obtained leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the discovery order.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant is entitled to discovery of probabilistic genotyping software source code and records of glitches, errors, and unexpected results when the State relies on the software to support DNA evidence at a Frye hearing, even if the materials are claimed to be trade secrets.
2. If discovery is required, what conditions and protections should govern production to limit disclosure of proprietary information while allowing meaningful defense review.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division vacated the order denying discovery and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that trade-secret status does not automatically bar discovery in a criminal case when the materials are needed to test the reliability and admissibility of the State’s scientific proof.
- The court concluded that denying access to source-code-related information and documented software problems prevented the defense from fairly evaluating and challenging the reliability of a software-driven method offered as scientific evidence.
- The court directed the trial court on remand to craft appropriate protective measures and to order production sufficient to permit informed litigation of reliability under Frye and effective cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- Under Frye, when a party offers a novel scientific method, the proponent must show the technique is reliable and generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
- A defendant must have a real opportunity to test and contest the reliability of scientific evidence that the State seeks to use against him, including by preparing for admissibility litigation and cross-examining the State’s witnesses.
- Trade-secret protections are not absolute in criminal discovery; courts must balance confidentiality interests against the defendant’s need for information to contest evidence.
- Courts may order disclosure of proprietary materials subject to strict protective orders (such as limiting review to defense counsel and qualified reviewers, restricting copying and dissemination, and requiring return or destruction after the case).

## Conclusion

State v. Pickett, 246 A.3d 279 (2021) held that when the State relies on proprietary probabilistic genotyping software to generate inculpatory DNA results and seeks admissibility under Frye, the defense may obtain source code and documented software-error materials under strong protective conditions, because trade-secret claims cannot block discovery needed to test reliability and challenge the State’s evidence.
