United States District Court for the District of Maryland
602 F. Supp. 2d 658 (D. Md. 2009)
Earl Davis (defendant) was charged with robbery and murder for his role in the robbery of an armored bank vehicle and the resulting death of the passenger. Investigators recovered DNA samples from the steering wheel of the perpetrators’ getaway car and from a hat that one of the shooters had left at the scene. The DNA samples were entered into a nationwide database and returned a match with Davis’s DNA. The match was a “cold hit” because Davis had not been linked to the crime by other evidence prior to the match. The testing laboratory determined that, in the absence of an identical twin, Davis was the source of the DNA on the steering wheel and the hat to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. The prosecution introduced an affidavit of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employee stating that the FBI permitted this type of source attribution only if the probability of a random profile match was less than 1 in 300 billion. Davis filed a motion to exclude the DNA evidence, arguing that there was no single, universally accepted methodology for calculating the probability that a cold match was random. There were three established methodologies for this type of calculation that could provide the proper context of a cold match. Each methodology was statistically reliable, but answered a distinct question. There was disagreement in the scientific community as to which methodology provided the best context for cold-hit matches. In support of his motion, Davis argued that the DNA evidence should be excluded because of this disagreement. Davis also argued that a source-attribution statement was per se inadmissible.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Titus, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.