Please Scroll Down for a complete listing of information

STR-DNA Y-chromosome

 

 

DNA analysis of male chromosomes is making the leap to criminology and case law. In cases where a rapist is sterile or has had a vasectomy, Y-chromosome analysis makes it possible to get a DNA profile. This page is dedicated to dissemination of legal decisions regarding the use of Y-chromosome DNA in forensic science. We will include the decisions in Acrobat (.pdf) format as we have with other DNA methods. If you have decisions regarding this technology please send them to us so they can be included here. Those cases are listed below:

  1. Arizona v. Sanders, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County CR-2002900, Dec. 16, 2003. Sanders.PDF
  2. Shabazz v. State, 592 S.E.2d 876, 3 FCDR 276 Court of Appeals of Georgia No. A04A0021 Jan. 7, 2004. Shabazz.PDF
  3. Minnesota v. Temple, Minnesota District Court, 4th Judicial District, Hennepin County, Sip. No. 02040491, April 14, 2005. Temple.PDF
  4. Washington v. Russell , Washington Superior Court, Clark County No.  05-1-02485-2, 1/6/06 (a Frye hearing is not necessary prior to admission of Y-STR DNA test results). Russell.PDF upheld in State v. Russell, Washington CA, No.34424-6-ll, 11/14/07. Russell CA.PDF
  5. Curtis v. Texas, CA, 2nd District, Fort Worth, NO. 2-05-102-CR, 8/31/06, After conducting an admissibility hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the Y-STR evidence was reliable and relevant. Curtis v Texas.PDF
  6. R. v. Johnson, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File No. 592/05, O.J. No. 4450, 11/7/06, A good example of how Y-STR evidence was used in a case. R. v. Johnson, [2006] O.J. No. 4450.PDF
  7. State v. Calleia, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, Case No. 05-5387, Indictment No. 06-02-235, 10/29/07, Y-STR DNA testing were found to satisfy the standard set forth in Frye and therefore were admissible at trial. Calleia.PDF. State v. Calleia, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, No. A-6218-07T4, 6/22/10, the appellate court reversed the verdict on other grounds but approved the YSTR ruling of the trial court. Callelia_CA.pdf. State v. Calleia, 206 N.J. 274 (2011),the NJ Supreme Court reinstating the underlying conviction and leaving intact the YSTR DNA ruling.
  8. State v. Yeboah, Minnesota Court of Appeals, A07-0739, 5/13/08, a Frye hearing was necessary prior to admission of Y-STR DNA test results but failure to conduct such a hearing was harmless error in this case. Yeboah.PDF
  9. Washington v. Bander, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, No. 61125-9-I, 6/8/09, a Frye hearing for the use of the counting method for the statistic in Y-STR testing was unnecessary. Bander.PDF
  10. People v. Dyleski, Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division One, A115725, 4/27/09, an admissibility hearing was not required for Y-STR testing, the counting method, and confidence intervals because they are not new scientific techniques. Dyleski.pdf
  11. People v. Robinson et al., Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, B198592, 8/19/09, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to consider the evidence of STR and YSTR testing. Robinson1.pdf
  12. People v. Tunis, Colo. Court of Appeals, No. 09CA0593, 8/2/2012, after conducting an admissibility hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the Y-STR evidence was reliable and admissible in trial.Tunis.pdf
  13. Illinois v. Zapata, IL App (2d), No. 2-12-0825, 2014, it was established that Y-STR DNA analysis is a non-experimental, demonstrable technique that is widely accepted by forensic scientists and there is a general acceptance of Y-STR DNA analysis in the scientific community. Zapata.pdf