In People v. Wortham, 2021 WL 5451365, which the New York Court of Appeals decided this November, Judge Wilson, in dissent, argued that a limited remand for a Frye hearing—a hearing that should have been held in the first instance but wasn’t—was unconstitutional. Judge Wilson is always thoughtful. As best one can tell, however, no judge­—state or federal—has previously reached that conclusion. Was he right?

* * *

In May 2011, the police executed a search warrant at a Brooklyn apartment and recovered weapons, drugs and drug paraphernalia from a back bedroom and arrested Tyrone Wortham, who lived in the apartment. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved (1) to preclude expert testimony regarding the probability that Wortham was a contributor to a multiple-source DNA sample taken from evidence in the apartment, a statistic derived from the use of a sophisticated “FST procedure,” or (2) for a Frye hearing on the general acceptance (or lack thereof) of that procedure. The trial court denied the motion without a Frye hearing, and Wortham was convicted on all counts.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]