RICHMOND D. PHILLIPS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Friedman, Filed Oct. 27, 2015,
DNA – Where a DNA sample does not comply with statutory requirements to be automatically admissible, it reverts to the standard requirement of a Frye-Reed hearing

The statute in question called for implementation of a standard that no longer existed.

Those standards-setting entities soon became defunct, however, in effect, rendering the obsolescence-proof statute, ironically, obsolete

The Court notes that there are 3 different approaches taken to deal with factually obsolete statutes:
1) Enforcing the statute “as is”
2) Inventing a new interpretation “unimagined by the legislative drafters” that saves the statute from obsolescence
3) Declare the obsolete statute unconstitutional

The Court declares, however, that “all of these approaches are unsatisfactory”… but proceeds to follow number 2 anyway, just without the insulting language.

Statutory Interpretation – Obsolete Statute – When a statute is obsolete on its face, work to effectuate the legislative intent in the present legal and factual landscape (if and how the legislature would have intended courts to enforce the obsolete statute)

Statutory Interpretation – DNA – Thus, we hold that while a DNA analysis conducted pursuant to the FBI Quality Assurance Standards may be admissible, it is not automatically admissible under the DNA Admissibility Statute.

DNA – Frye-Reed – Compliance with the FBI Quality Assurance Standards are sufficient “to show that the analysis is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community”

DNA – Frye-Reed – Failure to adhere to “cutting-edge” techniques does not render a practice “junk science.”

6th Amendment – Sealing courtroom during reading of jury instructions is not a Sixth Amendment violation, as any who wanted to be inside could have been