Carl Dausch v. State of Florida

Though I would find that Dausch is entitled to a new trial because the trial court reversibly erred by excluding certain evidence, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to vacate his convictions on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator. In support of its decision, the majority holds — without citing any support — that admissible DNA evidence is not competent substantial evidence of identity. Majority op. at 518-19. Before today, we have never limited the jury’s ability to decide the weight to give to admissible DNA evidence or set a…