Cited by

(concluding that DNA evidence has vital importance to prosecution in murder case).

We have recognized that “ ‘DNA test results are only as reliable and accurate as the testing procedures used by the particular laboratory.’ ” ().

427 6 (Minn. 1989) (stating that to “ensure a fair trial, the test data and methodology must be available for independent review by the opposing party”).

to support his argument that the state’s use of unreliable scientific testing methods implicate a liberty interest that is subject to due-process protections.

to argue that the use of unreliable scientific evidence implicates a liberty interest that must be afforded due process.

to support her argument that the state’s use of unreliable scientific testing methods affects a liberty interest that is subject to due-process protections.

5 which addressed due process concerns regarding the reliability of DNA testing and its use at trial.

to support his proposition that scientific evidence may implicate liberty concerns.

Since “the admissibility of specific test results in a 10 particular case hinges on the laboratory’s compliance with appropriate standards and controls,” Zabinski’s argument that lack of glucose testing might undermine the accuracy of the BCA’s urine-testing results in cases involving diabetics or those with metabolic disorders is purely hypothetical and, even if true, does not undermine the admissibility of Zabinski’s test result.

3 Under the second prong of the Frye-Mack test, the court considers “whether the laboratory conducting the tests in the individual case complied with appropriate standards and controls.” where we held that “admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory’s compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their testing data and results.” Having described the two prongs of our Frye-Mack test, we now proceed to review the d

Even if Schneider’s trial counsel determined that the PCR evidence would be suppressed at a Frye-Mack hearing, that the RFLP evidence would not be suppressed.

(holding Frye-Mack test applicable to admissibility of DNA testing as a new scientific technique).

Traylor, d at 898 (-28 (Minn.1989)) (internal citations omitted).

(noting that laboratories concerned about disclosure of trade secrets if DNA evidence was discoverable could seek a protective order under Minn. R.Crim.

we explained the basic science of how DNA may be used for identification purposes: DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is an extremely long, thread-like chain of molecules found in the nucleus of every cell in the body * * *.

Traylor argues that the testing procedures employed by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)

-26 (Minn.1989), a case concerning the admissibility of expert testimony based on DNA evidence, we considered whether to abandon Frye-Mack in favor of a standard for admission based solely on the Minnesota Rules of Evidence.

(holding that because forensic samples are often so small that the entire sample must be used to procure a reliable result, access to the data, methodology, and actual results of the state's DNA tests is crucial for the defendant to have at least an opportunity for independent expert review) reh’g den

Thus, we held, inter alia, that (a) because forensic DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, DNA test results are admissible if performed in accordance with appropriate laboratory standards and controls and (b) in order to ensure a fair trial, the test data and methodology must be

Defendant argues that bite-mark analysis is not widely accepted within the scientific community and therefore does not meet the so-called Frye test, for admission of novel scientific evidence.

2 (discussing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923)).

Appellant also challenges the admission of deoxyribonu-cleic acid (“DNA”) evidence, were not satisfied.

Jobe waived his right to a

it is an unconstitutional denial of due process to require him to provide evidence that may ultimately result in misidentification.

*496 (collecting cases).

we held, inter alia, that although forensic DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, the test results in that case were inadmissible because the testing laboratory, Cellmark, did not comply with the guidelines adopted in Schwartz .