State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)

Citation: State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)
Parent Document: State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1997-12-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2427881/state-v-brooks/ ↗

Full Text

1,048 chars

Appellant asserts that venireperson Wilson was similarly situated because she also had some knowledge of DNA. There is, however, a distinction between Ms. Diemer and Ms. Wilson with respect to the level of their knowledge about DNA typing. The prosecutor’s concern that “a little knowledge” about typing methods might be more harmful than no knowledge is not completely without foundation. Ms. Wilson’s background as a nurse provided her with some familiarity with “general principles.” Ms. Diemer, in contrast, had more than a mere familiarity with general principles of DNA typing. She supervised a section of the clinical laboratory at a regional health center. Although her lab did not perform DNA typing, she was familiar with it because she had to teach her students about DNA, she stated. When questioned about her familiarity with the PCR method of testing, Ms. Diemer stated that she was familiar with it, but it did not mean “a lot” to her. The distinction between Ms. Diemer and Ms. Wilson is evident on the issue of DNA knowledge alone.

Other Sections in This Document (214)

Full Text