The issue presented is one of first impression in this state: does DNA typing evidence meet the legal requirements for admissibility of novel scientific evidence and, if so, whether the basis for the calculation of statistical probability employed by the testing laboratory, Cellmark in this case, satisfied the foundation requirements of People v.
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. AXELL
Docket No. B046327.
235 Cal.App.3d 836 (1991)
1 Cal. Rptr.2d 411
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LYNDA PATRICIA AXELL, Defendant and Appellant.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 29, 1991.
October 29, 1991.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Frederick R. Millar, Jr., Robert M. Snider and Elaine F. Tumonis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
