PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS Unravelling the DNA Controversy: People v. Wesley, A Step in the
Right Direction
Denise A. Filocoma
3 J.L. & Pol'y 537 (1995)
In 1994, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in People v. Wesley, that forensic DNA evidence is admissible in criminal trials. The result of the court's holding in Wesley was to abolish the pretrial DNA hearings in New York where courts decide, based on expert testimony, whether a particular scientific theory or practice is reliable enough to be admitted as evidence at trial. Consequently, DNA testing is now automatically deemed a widely accepted and reliable form of evidence in New York criminal trials.

This Comment discusses the use of DNA in forensic science, especially its use in criminal trials, where DNA tests are increasingly being used to link suspects to crimes. DNA tests can determine, with unprecedented accuracy, whether a given suspect is the source of a blood or semen stain, a piece of tissue or even a single strand of hair found at the scene of a crime or on the body of a victim of a crime. Regardless of its accuracy, the application of DNA profiling in criminal trials has been a hotly debated issue.

This Comment also reviews the factual background of People v. Wesley and analyzes the controversial plurality opinion of the New York Court of Appeals. On September 15, 1987, after a visit by George Wesley, the raped and murdered body of seventy-nine-year-old Helen Kendrick was found in her Albany, New York apartment. DNA testing of blood stained clothing found in Wesley's apartment revealed that the blood on Wesley's clothes matched that of Kendrick. Wesley was subsequently convicted for the murder and rape of Helen Kendrick based on DNA evidence that linked Wesley to the crime. The Wesley decision acknowledged the importance of DNA evidence on the criminal justice system in holding that such evidence is reliable absent expert testimony to that effect.

Lastly, this Comment reaches beyond the scope of People v. Wesley and proposes a two-part solution that would facilitate the nationwide acceptance of DNA testing as reliable evidence. First, laboratories conducting DNA testing need to be regulated by the federal government in order to create standardized testing procedures. Second, both accredited laboratories and courts must agree upon a uniform method of statistical calculation for determining the probability of DNA sample match. As the reliability of DNA testing increases jurisdictionally across the nation, not only will taxpayers be spared the cost of pretrial hearings to determine the reliability of the DNA testing as evidence, but the use of DNA evidence at criminal trials will help accurately implicate the guilty and clear the innocent.