United States v. Beverly

Noah Beverly (defendant) was part of a group charged by the federal government (plaintiff) with conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, several armed bank robberies, and possession of firearms during these crimes. Beverly was convicted at trial and appealed that conviction. At issue was the introduction of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. Beverly argued that the evidence was not scientifically reliable or, in the alternative, should have been excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Beverly also argued that the laboratory in question had not been certified by an external agency and could have contaminated the evidence. mtDNA can be found outside the cell nucleus, which makes it easier to obtain than traditional nuclear DNA. mtDNA also allows for testing on smaller or degraded samples. For instance, mtDNA was found in one hair taken from a hat located in an abandoned robbery vehicle, and that mtDNA was the source used against Beverly at trial. Testing the types of DNA was also different, as noncoding regions of mtDNA were tested, each with about 300 letters of code length, with a 1- to 2-percent variance of mtDNA sequence existing between unrelated individuals. Accordingly, although nuclear DNA generally yields a 1-in-large-number possibility of random similarities between strands, the possibility of random consistency of mtDNA patterns has been stated as between less than 1 percent and 3 percent. As for the laboratory, although it had not been accredited at the time of trial by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the lack of accreditation was because the laboratory had only been open for 11 months. The laboratory subsequently was certified, and the director, Dr. Melton, had studied mtDNA and published on the matter several times.