Olathe — Attorneys for the man accused of killing an 18-year-old woman after kidnapping her from a Target store parking lot have again asked prosecutors to hand over electronic data showing how DNA was tested in the case.
Paul D. Cramm, defense attorney for Edwin R. Hall, on Friday filed an opinion written by an expert in the field on why the DNA data is needed. The expert, Dan Krane, an associate professor of biological sciences at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, did not return calls seeking comment.
Hall, 26, is accused in the kidnapping, rape and slaying of Kelsey Smith, who was taken June 2 from a Target store parking lot in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park. A grand jury indicted Hall on charges of capital murder, rape, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sodomy. The state is seeking the death penalty.
Prosecutors have not said what evidence links Hall to the crime, and a gag order prevents attorneys on both sides from discussing the case.
Prosecutors filed a response to the DNA request Monday, calling the motions "premature or simply moot." Stephen Maxwell, senior deputy district attorney, said prosecutors soon will provide the defense with an electronic copy of the DNA analyzed by the lab. The data would be in a read-only format.
But Cramm has again requested an unlocked format and says read-only would not be good enough.
Cramm made the initial request for the DNA data to be in an unlocked format at an earlier hearing on evidence in the case.
His argument is that the unlocked format will allow the defense expert the same freedom that prosecutors have to adjust parameters when analyzing the DNA. The issue is expected to be addressed in court today at a hearing.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Sounds to me that the prosecution has something to hide here. All accused are to be granted equal access to all evidence against them. What is the prosecutors so afraid of if it is really an open and shut case like they claim?
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
I don't quite understand why the defense is asking for an "unlocked" format. What "freedom" are they talking about? Does anyone know? Once the DNA has been "analyzed", how can you manipulate the parameters so that you get a different analysis? Guess I need to find out more about DNA analysis....
irnmadn88 (anonymous) says…
DNA science is not as slick and convenient as TV makes it out to be...
iirc...dna profiles are basically made up of genetic markers called Loci displayed as peaks on a graph. Certain Loci are relative to specfic indivuals (the 13 mentioned in the links below) but there are many more than those.
The higher the loci marker is on graph, the more likely that marker belongs to the specific indivual...BUT, there is an accepted point on the graph where the marker will fall below a level of probablity used in the identification process. The electronic filter the defense wants to fiddle with basically adjusts the probability point on the graph. What lowering that will do, will show more than the 13 loci use to identify the DNA...this could be attempt to muddy the water.
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources...
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Besides, the Defense is legally entitled to submit the evidence gathered to their own testing procedures. It's just like being pulled over and the cops finding a bottle of oregano in your bag of groceries and claiming it was marijuana. The defendant then has the right to see to it that that evidence is examines by their own experts after it is processed by the state.
The defense also has a right to be present during the state's examination of said evidence as well, although they are not allowed to interfere in the process.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Not a fan of Kline, but I'm glad he's pushing for the death penalty.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Ah I see. Thanks for the info irnmadn88 and Ragingbear. That makes a little more sense. I did not realize that DNA profiling was that inexact of a procedure. I knew that it wasn't as quick and easy as portrayed with the CSI shows, but I did think that it was more definitive than indicated above. I guess I am still not convinced that "tweaking" the probability point is going to change much if you have a 90% or above probability of a match. That would seem to be an unreliable test if you were able to go from a sure match like 90% or better to "can't match this person to this DNA" scenario.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
I do see from Ragingbear's oregano's analogy that the defense should be able to conduct their own investigation and/or observe the procedure being done to ensure the defendent is getting a fair trial.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
This has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not guilty. This has everything to do with due process. Something that things like the Patriot and Homeland Stupidity Act has been taking away from us. Eventually, you won't get to see the evidence against you until your actually in court. How fair is that?
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
Kodiac (Anonymous) says:
I don't quite understand why the defense is asking for an "unlocked" format. What "freedom" are they talking about? Does anyone know? Once the DNA has been "analyzed", how can you manipulate the parameters so that you get a different analysis? Guess I need to find out more about DNA analysis:.
Basically, DNA can be matched to a suspect (or, as it was until recent years, only rule out suspects) based on the number of markers matched. Just like fingerprints, an analyst can set a parameter for a match on the high end or low end.....i.e. two markers match, so it's a match vs. two markers is not enough of a match to be conclusive)....
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
That is correct. An unlocked format is the basic DNA that was taken. Locked is the DNA process that produces those little bars in a gelatin like trays. What the prosecution is saying is "Here is the stuff after we processed it. But you can't actually have the DNA to do your own test. Not yours.".