/r/ForensicGenealogy
r/ForensicGenelogy is dedicated to investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), an investigative process used by law enforcement agencies to determine the identities of human remains and criminal suspects through genetic genealogy.
A subreddit dedicated to news and information about forensic genealogy!
/r/ForensicGenealogy
The petition for Jerry Arnold Westrom v. Minnesota was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States on October 21 after the case was distributed to the justices for the Friday, October 18 conference. For the court to grant review and oral arguments, four justices must vote in agreement to hear the case. One of the legal questions presented to the court pertained to IGG.
SCOTUS case documents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\24-271.html
Previous thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/ForensicGenealogy/comments/1fjg9j1/scotus_petition_for_a_writ_of_certiorari_jerry/
Correction: The October 10 date refers to Minnesota's deadline to reply, not the deadline for the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case. I apologize for the confusion. Can't edit titles on Reddit.
On June 11, 2024, the attorney for Jerry Arnold Westrom, Eric J. Nelson, filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. (Side note: Nelson represented Derek Chauvin in the state's case against Chauvin, which is irrelevant here but I nonetheless find interesting.) The response from the United State Supreme Court on whether or not to hear the case is due October 10, 2024.
Docket files: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\24-271.html
More information regarding the certiorari process: https://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/the-certiorari-process-seeking-supreme-court-review/
Background
Jerry Arnold Westrom was convicted in 2022 for the 1993 murder of Jeanne "Jeanie" Childs. In 2018, DNA extracted from a bloody napkin found at the crime scene generated two hits in the MyHeritage genealogy database. He was arrested shortly thereafter.
https://www.startribune.com/life-sentence-for-isanti-man-in-brutal-1993-cold-case-killing/600205310
The case was sent to the Minnesota Supreme Court to consider, among other things, legal questions pertaining to IGG and the creation of SNP profiles. Opinion filed May 8, 2024: https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2024/OPA221679-05082024.pdf
The Petition
The petition served to the United States Supreme Court presents three legal questions. I emphasized the question pertaining to IGG.
A. Whether society is prepared to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in an individual’s shed DNA, as evidenced by the laws of several states and rulings of lower courts.
B. Whether State witnesses’ testimony as to the contents and veracity of scientific and forensic materials prepared by other analysts violated Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and this Court’s decision in Smith v. Arizona.
C. Whether Petitioner received constitutionally deficient representation from trial counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.
I will allow you to review the writ for yourself, but I tried to find key paragraphs relevant to IGG.
Page 21: "[IGG] formed the entire basis of [Minnesota's] investigation of Mr. Westrom."
Clearly, both the DNA and genealogical results were testimonial, as they were prepared at the behest of law enforcement as part of a criminal investigation and in preparation for litigation. Further, the results of the analysis were also hearsay—out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the DNA profile matched that of the Petitioner. Boeckers’ testimony would have been meaningless without reference to the genealogist or the DNA results from MyHeritage.com. And without this evidence, Respondent’s case against Petitioner would have crumbled. It formed the entire basis of Respondent’s investigation of Mr. Westrom. “[T]he truth of the basis testimony is what makes it useful to the prosecutor; that is what supplies the predicate for—and thus gives value to—the state expert's opinion.” Smith, 144 S. Ct. at 1798.
Page 30a: "[A]ll evidence obtained as fruits of these acts should be suppressed."
Defendant now argues that an unlawful search occurred when investigators, without a warrant, accessed the genetic information Defendant held in common with the User on MyHeritage. Defendant also argues that the analysis of the DNA found on the discarded napkin was an additional unlawful search. Because of these violations, Defendant argues that all evidence obtained as fruits of these acts should be suppressed.
I will keep an eye on this case's movement in the court.
This community is being revived after two years of inactivity given the increased interest in, discussion of, and reporting on investigative genetic genealogy (IGG). We—the new moderation team—appreciate the previous subreddit leadership for building a strong foundation for this community, and we are grateful for Reddit's trust in us leading this subreddit from this point forward.
We would appreciate everyone's help in making this community a source of timely and reliable information on the subject. We believe this subreddit can become a helpful source for the public.
Thank you,
u/CR29-22-2805 and u/1Banana10Dollars
Additional Subreddit Information
I just joined and haven't read all posts yet, but does anyone know if forensic genealogy has been used in the JonBonet case? If not, why not?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dna-id-jody-loomis/id1545785245?i=1000504988863
This podcast covers cases solved by forensic genealogy... hope you like it!