United States v. Beverly

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004 · Evidence

369 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2004)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencemtDNARule 702Daubertscientific reliabilityRule 403expert testimonyBatson

Facts

The government introduced mitochondrial DNA evidence against Beverly based on a hair recovered from a hat found in a stolen getaway car after the Security National Bank robbery. The hat appeared in bank surveillance photographs on a person identified as Beverly. Beverly argued that the mtDNA evidence was unreliable because the testing laboratory lacked outside accreditation, the lab sometimes experienced contamination, and the testing in this case was contaminated; he also argued that the statistical presentation overstated the evidence's significance and was unfairly prejudicial. The district court held extensive pretrial hearings and admitted the evidence.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony on mitochondrial DNA testing and related statistical evidence under Rule 702 and Daubert, and by finding that the evidence's probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice? Also, did the district court clearly err in rejecting the defendants' Batson challenge to the government's strike of Mrs. McKeever?

Rule

Expert scientific testimony is admissible under Rule 702 if it is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and those principles and methods are reliably applied to the facts of the case. Under Daubert, reliability may be assessed by considering testability, peer review and publication, known or potential error rate, standards and controls, and general acceptance; if the evidence is reliable and relevant, the court must then consider whether its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice. A Batson challenge proceeds in three steps: prima facie showing, race-neutral explanation, and a trial-court determination whether purposeful discrimination has been proven.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal robbery trial in Cincinnati, the government offers expert testimony comparing mitochondrial DNA from a hair shaft found inside a knit mask to Daniel Ortiz's mtDNA profile. The testing was performed by Harbor Trace Forensics, a private laboratory in Kentucky that had not yet obtained outside accreditation because it had been doing casework for less than a year, although the lead scientist holds a Ph.D. in genetics and has published peer-reviewed work on mtDNA methods.

Daniel moves to exclude the mtDNA testimony solely because the laboratory lacked outside accreditation when it performed the testing. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The motion should be denied. Under the majority opinion, mtDNA testing has a sufficiently established scientific basis, and the absence of external certification by itself does not render the evidence inadmissible where there is no legal requirement of certification and the expert's qualifications are substantial. That objection goes to weight, not automatic exclusion. (Derived from United States v. Beverly (2004).)