Running Head: CASE BRIEFS 1

Case Briefs: Forensic and Testimonial Evidence

Full Name

Name of University

January 22, 2017

CASE BRIEFS 2

The State of Kansas vs. Dennis L. Rader Citation: 05CR498

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

evidence so as to identify an individual suspected of a crime. Incapable Rader’s 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

at which Rader volunteered.

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

searches is highly controversial.

Regardless, the decision rendered in the case is important inasmuch as it sets a

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.

The People of the State of California vs Richard R. Ramirez Citation: S004698

Richard Ramirez, colloquially known as the “Night Stalker” serial killer, was

convicted of 13 counts of murder, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults, and 14

burglaries. He was sentenced to death for these crimes. During the appeal phase, Ramirez

raised several objections pertaining to the admissibility of forensic evidence in relation to

the sodomy components which represented a “special circumstance” justifying the

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

dead for such evidence to be used in a court of law.

People of New York vs. Taylor, Citation 75 N.Y.2d 277

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

be used as a basis for justifying the charge itself.

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

in court on the basis of its “general reliability.”

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

could be used in court for the purpose of identification.

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

enforcement seeking to use new forms of evidence.

CASE BRIEFS 7

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,

Sedgwick County, Kansas 2005).