Opinion
8753 Ind. 3515/12
03-21-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William MCADAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Justine M. Luongo, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.
Justine M. Luongo, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
The testimony of an analyst that linked defendant's DNA to DNA found on a pistol recovered at the crime scene did not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The witness's testimony demonstrated her own "independent analysis of the raw data" to make the comparison, and the analysis was not merely "a conduit for the conclusions of others" ( People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294, 315, 33 N.Y.S.3d 88, 52 N.E.3d 1114 [2016] ; see People v. Rodriguez, 153 A.D.3d 235, 246–247, 59 N.Y.S.3d 337 [1st Dept. 2017], affd on other grounds 31 N.Y.3d 1067, 77 N.Y.S.3d 336, 101 N.E.3d 977 [2018] ).
In any event, any error in admitting the disputed testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). Independent of the contested DNA evidence, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including aspects of his own trial testimony. Furthermore, defendant presented an implausible defense.