Midday’s Gary Eichten talks with Jack Tunheim, an attorney in the Office of the State Attorney General of Minnesota, about Minnesota Supreme Court’s differing view with state legislature over use of DNA evidence in court proceedings.
The MN Supreme Court has concerns that the statistical evidence could be unfair to defendants.
SPEAKER 1: Well, this is one of those murky constitutional areas. We have what's called separation of powers, and that is provided for in our Constitution. And it says that the judicial branch of government really can make its own rules for how hearings in the courtrooms are run.
Nonetheless, the legislature has on many occasions told the courts what they want to have admitted as evidence and what they don't. And most of the time the court accepts that. But the court here, I think on policy grounds, disagrees with the validity of this type of evidence.
SPEAKER 2: Why has the state Supreme Court in Minnesota been so adamant about this? After all, the other states except for Wyoming allow this statistical evidence to be presented.
SPEAKER 1: Well, I'm not sure. I think the court up until now has remained unconvinced that the statistical probability evidence aspect of DNA testing is really fair to defendants. I think that's their concern, that the numbers are so overwhelming, 1 in 89,000,000 million chance or something on that order that it will overwhelm all other evidentiary matters. But I think the court may well be looking at changing its mind on this as DNA testing becomes more and more accurate.
SPEAKER 2: Are those claims of statistical accuracy valid, or is this something that the promoters are sending out there?
SPEAKER 1: Oh, I think the statistical claims courts in other states have ruled that they are valid and they are right on the mark. I think our court remains a little bit mistrustful and probably will require another full-blown hearing before the court on this particular issue before they get convinced the other way.
SPEAKER 2: And do you think we're going to get that hearing at the Supreme Court?
SPEAKER 1: I think soon, if not in the case involving Timothy [INAUDIBLE] and certainly one of the many cases that are coming down the line. Because DNA testing is being used day in and day out in law enforcement in Minnesota, and it's a remarkably accurate tool, the fingerprinting that can be done through DNA.
Views and opinions expressed in the content do not represent the opinions of APMG. APMG is not responsible for objectionable content and language represented on the site. Please use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report a piece of content. Thank you.
Transcriptions provided are machine generated, and while APMG makes the best effort for accuracy, mistakes will happen. Please excuse these errors and use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report an error. Thank you.