Paredes v. State

462 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, a street gang member, gathered a group of members and entered the apartment of Cantu and Sanchez to attempt to steal money and drugs from the two men. Both Cantu and Sanchez were shot and killed. D gave a fellow gang member, Jessica Perez, the T-shirt he had worn during the crime and asked her to wash it. She did not. She informed the police who then recovered the shirt from Perez and sent it to a private forensic laboratory, for DNA testing. The bloodstain DNA matched one of the victims. At trial, P called Freeman, the forensic-laboratory director, to testify about the DNA analyses. She testified that DNA testing is conducted in an assembly-line batch process. A different laboratory analyst conducts each step of the DNA testing in order to generate raw DNA data. One analyst applies chemicals, a second then determines the amount of DNA present, a third analyst copies the DNA sequence and loads the data onto the capillary electrophoresis instrument that yields a DNA graph-the raw data-that can be used to compare the produced DNA profile to other evidence and the last analyst takes that graph and uses it to determine whether the DNA profile obtained from the testing matches the DNA profile of a known individual, in this case, the victim. Three different analysts did the work, and Freeman supervised the proceedings and conducted the final analysis-comparing the produced DNA profiles to the evidence and determining a match. Freeman explained that the company has safety protocols to identify errors in the process. P did not introduce into evidence any documents concerning the raw data, and none of the three analysts who conducted the batch process testified at trial. Freeman was responsible for compiling the data generated by the various instruments and reaching the ultimate conclusion. D objected, in that he was entitled to cross-examine the people who actually conducted the testing on which the expert opinion was based. The court overruled the objection because the other three only facilitated a mechanical process while Freeman was the only one who analyzed the end results from that process. D was convicted of capital murder and appealed. Eventually, a second petition for discretionary review was granted on whether the Confrontation Clause should have precluded the admission of Freeman's testimony when she relied on raw DNA data generated by non-testifying analysts to form her opinion.