Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Briefs: Forensic and Testimonial Evidence: Full Name Name of University January 22, 2017
Case Briefs: Forensic and Testimonial Evidence: Full Name Name of University January 22, 2017
Case Briefs: Forensic and Testimonial Evidence: Full Name Name of University January 22, 2017
Full Name
Name of University
In Kansas v. Rader (2005), Dennis L. Rader, identified as the BTK serial killer, pled
guilty to ten counts of first-degree murder. With the facts of the case not in contention by
the defense, the principal issue raised by the case pertains to the use of familial DNA
without potentially leading him to flee, the Court granted a warrant so that law
enforcement could make use of a pap smear that Rader’s daughter had taken while at
university. The probable cause made use of in procuring this warrant was the fact that BTK
had sent a package to law enforcement, and that this package was traced back to the church
With the familial DNA test on Rader’s daughter’s pap smear yielding a perfect match,
law enforcement was able to arrest Rader on the basis of DNA evidence. The Fourth
Amendment question raised by the case, albeit not debated at trial due to Rader’s guilty
plea, pertains to whether or not the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
search and seizure should apply to familial DNA testing. Indeed, and because those
subjected to familial DNA testing have not committed a crime, and hold privacy rights
beyond Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights, the question of familial DNA
precedent for the use of familial DNA tests in a high-profile homicide setting. Indeed, and
with the number of DNA profiles in CODIS growing constantly, the case offers law
enforcement a new screening tool for potential suspects. Moreover, it alleviates some of the
CASE BRIEFS 3
difficulties that might otherwise be associated with obtaining a DNA sample from a suspect
themselves.
Richard Ramirez, colloquially known as the “Night Stalker” serial killer, was
burglaries. He was sentenced to death for these crimes. During the appeal phase, Ramirez
sentence of death.
Tangibly, Ramirez’s defense team argued that the dilation and potential presence of
semen within the anus of the victim was not sufficient to support the sodomy charge
inasmuch as it could not be determined whether or not the victim was alive at the time of
the purported act. In this regard, the court ruled that evidence of sodomy was admissible
inasmuch as the statutory provisions associated with sodomy do not make any mention of
whether a victim must be alive or dead at the time of penetration, and that the status of the
victim at the time was irrelevant inasmuch as the jury could infer that an intent to commit
sodomy was present regardless of whether the victim was alive or dead.
Ultimately, and for the purposes of law enforcement, this decision is critical in that it
demonstrates that law enforcement must not necessarily demonstrate that a victim was a
live at the time of a concomitant crime representing a special circumstance. Thus, forensic
CASE BRIEFS 4
evidence does not necessarily need to be able to determine whether a victim was alive or
In People of New York v. Taylor (1990), the New York State Court of Appeals for the Second
District rules on the admissibility of expert testimony pertaining to rape trauma syndrome in the contexts
of cases wherein the accused face rape charges. In the Taylor case, City University of New York
Professor testified in relation to rape trauma syndrome to explain why the accuser would have been
unwilling to name her attacker in the hours following the purported rape, and then appear calm and
controlled in the wake of the attack. With Taylor convicted, the defense appealed the use of this testimony
as being prejudicial.
Noting that the admissibility of expert testimony must be premised on its ability to help a lay jury
understand a complex phenomenon so as to bring about an accurate verdict, the court notes that analogous
phenomena like sexually-abused child syndrome are typically admissible as expert evidence to mitigate
common misperceptions of rape. With rape representing a misunderstood and stigmatized act, the Court
notes that expert testimony can thus be admissible in relation to it. Grounding this decision on the fact
that other states have already ruled such testimony admissible, the Court nevertheless notes in its decision
that such expert testimony can only be used to provide scientific context for other testimony, and cannot
Ultimately, this case is important because it provides law enforcement and the courts with the
ability to provide context for testimony in relation to crimes that are misunderstood by the lay public.
Thus, layperson testimony can be provided with expert contextualization in a manner that is germane to
furthering the case put forth by the prosecution. This is valuable in relation to testimonial evidence in that
it helps to create a context in which the prosecution is able to provide context for conflicting testimony
that might otherwise bring about reasonable doubt on the part of the jury.
CASE BRIEFS 5
The People of New York vs Joseph Castro, Citation 144 Misc.2d 956
In this seminal case, the New York Supreme Court for Bronx County considers the
admissibility of DNA testing in criminal trials. Interestingly, the issue at hand is not the
admissibility of the forensic evidence embodied by DNA but rather the expert testimony
needed to justify the scientific legitimacy of DNA evidence. With multiple professors on
both sides of the DNA debate providing expert testimony regarding its accuracy, the
question before the court was whether DNA evidence was credible enough to be admissible
Ultimately, the court used a three prong test to determine the admissibility of DNA.
First, it made use of the scientific theory underlying DNA identification so as to justify the
test at the baseline. Second, it examined the reliability of the techniques and procedures
used to test DNA so as to determine if they can indeed produce valid and reliable results.
Third, and in relation to pre-trial hearings, the Court examined the question of whether the
laboratory that undertook the testing was capable of producing reliable results in relation
to both theory and technique. Answering in the affirmative on all three prongs, the Court
ruled that the expert testimony surrounding DNA evidence was sufficient, and that DNA
Ultimately, the decision rendered in the case is first critical because it set the
baseline for the admissibility of DNA evidence in court. More importantly, and because the
case focuses on expert testimony rather than forensic evidence itself, it also demonstrates
that standards that law enforcement must achieve so as to succeed in introducing new
forms of evidence into court in an admissible fashion. With the test requiring a combination
CASE BRIEFS 6
of theory, empirics, and reliable practitioners, it thus sets an important user’s guide for law
References
People of New York v. Castro, No. 144 Misc.2d 956 (New York Supreme Court for Bronx
County 1989).
People of New York vs. Taylor, No. 75 N.Y.2d 277 (New York Appelate Court for the Second
Division 1990).
The People of the State of California vs Richard R. Ramirez, No. S004698 (Supreme Court of
California 1990).
The State of Kansas vs. Dennis L. Rader, No. 05CR498 (Eighteenth Judicial District Court,