1. DNA evidence play ed a central role in this 44 y ear-old murder case in two way s: the presence
of a "match" between petitioner's profile and the major contributor in DNA mix tures found on
the victim's vag inal swab and the absence of his DNA on her underwear. Prior to trial, petitioner
moved to ex clude the testimony that his profile was not on the victim's underwear (the basis for
the prosecutor's arg ument that he could be identified as the killer). He offered ex pert testimony
that the novel methods used to test the deg raded and mix ed evidence sample was not g enerally
accepted in the scientific community and that reliable methods were not used to test the samples.
The question presented for review is:
Did the trial court violate petitioner's rig ht to due process when it admitted DNA evidence based
on a novel methodolog y without conducting a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the
evidence was reliable and g enerally accepted in the scientific community ?

2. The trial court ex cluded most of the evidence petitioner soug ht to present that pointed to the
victim's intimate partner as the person who murdered her.
The question presented for review is: W hat is the scope of a trial court's authority to ex clude
defense evidence that points to another person as the perpetrator of the charg ed crimes?

Did the trial court violate petitioner's right to due process when it admitted DNA evidence based on a novel methodology without conducting a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the evidence was reliable and generally accepted in the scientific community?