Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel weighs whether substitute DNA expert testimony violated defendant’s confrontation rights
Summary
Appellant argued that a testifying DNA expert who did not observe early lab steps relied improperly on a non‑testifying analyst’s work, violating the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause; the Commonwealth countered that eyewitness and other forensic evidence made any error harmless. The court took the case under advisement.
Chief Justice Amy Blake and the two‑justice panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Frank Muara on whether admission of opinion testimony by a substitute DNA expert violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
Appellant counsel Catherine Sullivan Leadridge told the court that the testifying scientist only “came in at step 3 of the DNA processing” and thus offered opinions based in part on the out‑of‑court work of a non‑testifying analyst, Emily DuPree. Leadridge argued that the substitute expert described herself…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
