Criminal Procedure; Confrontation Clause; DNA profiles

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure; Confrontation Clause; DNA profiles

DNA profiles are not testimonial statements subject to the Confrontation Clause.

“In this case, Witucki’s testimony was similar to that of the testifying analyst in State v. Williams and Barton. Witucki was a highly qualified expert. When the victims’ swabs first came in, Witucki confirmed the presence of semen. Once Witucki received Orchid’s DNA profile, he reviewed the profile to make sure that Orchid followed its procedures and quality control measures and that it obtained acceptable results. Witucki also evaluated the profile to make sure it was of sufficient quality to enter into the DNA database. After the computer showed a match between Deadwiller and the Orchid DNA profiles, Witucki obtained a buccal swab from Deadwiller, developed a DNA profile from that swab, and reconfirmed that Deadwiller was a match. Thus, Witucki was not merely a conduit for Orchid’s DNA profiles, but he independently concluded that Deadwiller was a match to Orchid’s DNA profiles. See State v. Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶20. Therefore, Witucki’s testimony was sufficient to protect Deadwiller’s right to confrontation.”

Affirmed.

2010AP2363-CR & 2010AP2364-CR State v. Deadwiller

Ziegler, J.

Full Text