Was Petitioner deprived of Due Process where the court denied her any meaningful opportunity to contest the use of junk science at her trial?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner’s conviction was predicated on the testimony of a so-called blood spatter expert. Defense counsel objected to the admission of this testimony, noting that it was unreliable science that could not be replicated. Despite defense counsel’s request for a Frye hearing to challenge the admissibility of the testimony and despite a federal study decrying blood spatter testimony as “more subjective than scientific,” the court summarily denied the request for a hearing. This case presents two critical issues: 1) Was Petitioner deprived of Due Process where the court denied her any meaningful opportunity to contest the use of junk science at her trial? 2) Is New York’s reliance on the antiquated Frye standard anachronistic to the demands of due process and inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Daubert, especially where thirty-three states afford defendants greater protections?