Ex Parte Perry v. State
Alabama Supreme Court
586 So. 2d 242 (1991)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Waylon Dwight Perry (defendant) was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the 1988 murder of Bryce Wallace. Wallace was strangled in his home. Police found bloodstains on Wallace’s clothing and the home’s front doorknob (the bloodstains). The government (plaintiff) hired a company called Lifecodes Corporation to perform DNA testing. At trial, Perry objected to the admission of DNA-test evidence. Joanne Squeglia, a Lifecodes employee, testified about the procedures she used to compare DNA from the bloodstains to Perry’s DNA. Dr. Kevin McElfresh, the assistant manager of Lifecodes’ forensics laboratory, testified (1) about Lifecodes’ normal DNA-analysis procedures, (2) that the DNA from the bloodstains matched Perry’s DNA and (3) that the probability of finding similarly matching DNA was about one in 209 million. Perry appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred by admitting the DNA evidence without first holding an admissibility hearing, because DNA testing was a novel type of scientific evidence in Alabama courts and could possibly produce flawed results. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.