The case arose when Pennsylvania State Police seized a gun from a bag containing Hunter Anderson's ID and loaded magazines during a search warrant execution. When traditional DNA analysis of gun swabs proved inconclusive due to mixed DNA sources, law enforcement turned to Pittsburgh-based Cybergenetics Corp., which used TrueAllele software to conclude the DNA mixture was 11.5 trillion times more likely to include Anderson's DNA than that of a random Caucasian.
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Bove explained that TrueAllele's methodology satisfied all five Daubert reliability factors, noting the software "may not be perfect, but most science is not." The court found TrueAllele capable of testing through controlled lab experiments, subject to low error rates of 0.005%, governed by established forensic DNA standards, peer-reviewed through multiple studies, and generally accepted in the forensic DNA community. "The expert does not have to be right," Bove wrote, emphasizing that "the evidentiary requirement of reliability is lower than the merits standard of correctness."
Anderson had moved to exclude the TrueAllele evidence under Daubert, arguing he needed access to the software's proprietary source code to properly challenge its reliability. Following a two-day hearing with competing experts, Chief Judge Matthew Brann denied the motion in a thorough opinion. Anderson later pleaded guilty to the firearm charge while preserving his right to appeal the DNA and Second Amendment rulings.
The Third Circuit's decision aligns with the Sixth Circuit's 2021 approval of similar probabilistic genotyping software in United States v. Gissantaner, potentially encouraging broader adoption of such technology in federal courts. The ruling also rejected Anderson's Second Amendment challenge to his conviction and upheld his 78-month consecutive sentence, noting his status as a parolee foreclosed constitutional arguments under circuit precedent.