From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
People v. Wakefield
New York Appellate Division, Third Department
No. 107724 (Aug. 15, 2019)
A mental-health caseworker performed a welfare check at a man’s apartment and discovered that the man had been strangled with a guitar-amplifier cord. A friend of John Wakefield (defendant) told law-enforcement officers that Wakefield admitted to killing the man. The officers took a cheek swab from Wakefield to compare Wakefield’s DNA to DNA found in the man’s apartment. Officers sent the raw data from the DNA extraction to a company that analyzed the data using TrueAllele software. The TrueAllele test results indicated a high degree of probability that Wakefield’s DNA was on the amplifier cord and on the victim. Wakefield was charged with murder. Before trial, Wakefield moved to exclude the TrueAllele test results, and the trial court held a hearing regarding the results’ admissibility. At the hearing, TrueAllele’s creator testified that although DNA-genotype analysis had traditionally been conducted by humans with some assistance from computers, TrueAllele uses an algorithm to find patterns in DNA data and calculate how much likelier it is that the suspect matches the evidence than a random person. A human analyst inputs commands to tell the computer how to analyze the data using TrueAllele, but the software is designed to incorporate artificial intelligence in the analysis. The TrueAllele software contained roughly 170,000 lines of source code, written by TrueAllele’s creator and developed over 25 versions of the software. The trial court also received evidence that TrueAllele had been evaluated in journals and studies, its high degree of efficacy had been recognized in peer-reviewed publications, it was used by the United States government and several states, including New York, and courts in three other states had admitted TrueAllele test results into evidence. The trial court found that TrueAllele was generally accepted in the scientific community and allowed the evidence. The jury convicted Wakefield, and he appealed to the New York Appellate Division. One of Wakefield’s arguments was that TrueAllele’s source code was the out-of-court declarant of the test results being offered against Wakefield, and Wakefield’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated because he did not have access to the source code.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Pritzker, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 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.