State v. Pickett
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 466 N.J. Super. 270, 246 A.3d 279 (App. Div. 2021), No. A-4207-19
What did the court decide?
The court held that if the State uses an expert who relies on novel probabilistic genotyping software (here, TrueAllele) for DNA testimony, the defendant is entitled to the software's source code and related development records, such as testing, design, bug reports, and change logs, under a protective order, to challenge its reliability at a Frye hearing. The defendant must first show a "particularized need" for that discovery. The court reversed the trial judge's denial and told the judge to order the discovery under a protective order.
Why does it matter?
Companies often refuse to share their DNA software code, saying it is a trade secret. This ruling says a protective order, not secrecy, is the answer, and it gives a four-factor test for showing need. It is binding in New Jersey trial courts and is often cited in other states when a defendant asks to inspect the code behind DNA evidence.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on New Jersey Courts (full published opinion) →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.