Ginny Barron is a Minnesota criminal defense attorney with a focused practice in forensic evidence and is frequently retained as a DNA defense attorney in Minnesota in cases involving complex scientific evidence. Her practice includes a focused emphasis on litigating forensic DNA evidence in criminal cases throughout Minnesota.
DNA evidence is often seen as powerful, scientific proof in criminal cases. But when it comes to felon in possession of a firearm charges under Minnesota law, DNA evidence does not automatically answer the most important legal question:
Did the person knowingly possess the firearm?
Under Minnesota Statute 624.713, the prosecution must prove more than just the presence of DNA—they must prove unlawful possession.
If you are facing a firearm possession charge, understanding how DNA evidence is used—and challenged—can make a critical difference in your case.
DNA evidence is frequently misunderstood and often overstated in criminal prosecutions. Scientific findings are often presented as definitive, even when they rely on assumptions, interpretation, and limitations that are not fully explained to juries. Identifying and challenging those gaps is a critical part of an effective defense.
What Is a Felon in Possession Charge in Minnesota?
Minnesota law strictly limits who can legally possess firearms.
“A person who has been convicted of… a crime of violence… is prohibited from possessing any type of firearm or ammunition.”
— Minnesota Statute 624.713, Subdivision 1(2)
This prohibition is often lifetime, and violating it is a serious felony.
“A person… who possesses any type of firearm or ammunition is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years…”
— Minnesota Statute 624.713, Subdivision 2(b)
But here’s the key issue:
The law requires possession, not just proximity or association.
The Critical Legal Question: What Counts as “Possession”?
In a felon in possession case, prosecutors must prove that the defendant:
- Knowingly possessed the firearm, or
- Exercised control over it
This is where DNA evidence often enters the case—but also where it can be misunderstood.
How DNA Evidence Is Used in Firearm Cases
DNA may be collected from:
- The grip or trigger of a firearm
- Ammunition or magazines
- Gun cases or storage containers
At first glance, this may seem like strong evidence. However, DNA only shows possible contact, not possession.
Key Reality:
DNA cannot tell:
- When the firearm was touched
- How the DNA was transferred
- Whether the person ever controlled the weapon
Why DNA Evidence Alone Is Not Enough
1. DNA Shows Contact—Not Control
Assuming a person’s DNA is actually found on a gun, it does not prove that the person possessed it illegally.
DNA could result from:
- Background DNA
- Secondary transfer (touching another object or person)
- Prior lawful handling (before any prohibition applied)
2. Multiple Contributors Complicate the Evidence
Firearms often contain DNA from multiple individuals.
This creates DNA mixtures, which:
- Are harder to interpret
- Require subjective analysis
- Can lead to different conclusions between labs
3. Timing Cannot Be Determined
DNA evidence cannot establish when it was deposited.
This is critical in possession cases, where timing may be the difference between guilt or innocence.
4. Scientific Interpretation Is Not Always Objective
Even trained analysts may interpret the same DNA evidence differently.
As seen in forensic research and casework:
- Analysts make judgment calls
- Software relies on assumptions
- Results can vary between laboratories
- Results can even vary between different analysts in the same lab
The Legal Gap Between DNA and Possession
Minnesota Statute 624.713 focuses on who is prohibited from possessing firearms—not on forensic evidence.
The statute clearly defines categories of prohibited individuals, including:
- Individuals convicted of crimes of violence
- Persons with certain mental health commitments
- Individuals subject to protective or risk orders
But the statute does not say that DNA equals possession.
That distinction is where strong legal defense becomes essential.
Common Misconceptions About DNA in Gun Cases
Myth: “If DNA is on the gun, the case is proven.”
Reality: Not true. DNA is only one piece of evidence and must be interpreted in context.
Myth: “DNA proves who used the firearm.”
Reality: Incorrect. DNA cannot determine use, intent, or control.
Myth: “Scientific evidence cannot be challenged.”
Reality: Also incorrect. DNA evidence is frequently challenged in court.
How DNA Evidence Is Challenged in Felon in Possession Cases
Successfully challenging DNA evidence in Minnesota requires a defense attorney who understands both the science and the legal standards and knows how to apply them effectively in court. As a forensic DNA lawyer in Minnesota, Ginny Barron regularly analyzes how DNA evidence is collected, interpreted, and presented in criminal cases.
As an experienced DNA lawyer in Minnesota, Ginny Barron does the following in her cases:
- Examines how DNA was collected and handled
- Examines whether contamination or transfer could have occurred
- Analyzes whether the sample is a mixture, and what that may mean in terms of the interpretation and conclusions made by the lab
- Challenging the assumptions used in interpretation
- Challenging the subjective conclusions in the interpretation
- Reviewing and questioning validation studies to ensure that the lab is not exceeding the bounds of what it has validated in their interpretations and conclusions
- Reviewing Standard Operating Procedures
- Making sure the analyst is following the labs standard operating procedures
- Challenging the foundational reliability of the testing done
- Challenging the foundational reliability of the interpretations made
- Challenging the foundational reliability of the conclusions made in the report
- Ensuring there was enough DNA present to reliably interpret a sample
- Highlighting the lack of proof of actual possession
Successfully challenging forensic evidence requires more than general legal knowledge—it requires a strategic approach to challenge DNA evidence in Minnesota courts, where both scientific reliability and legal standards must be tested. Ginny focuses on both.
Why This Matters for Your Case
A felon in possession charge carries serious consequences, including:
- Up to 15 years in prison
- Significant fines
- Long-term impact on civil rights
But even in cases involving DNA evidence, the prosecution must still prove either actual possession or constructive possession under Minnesota Statute 624.713.
DNA alone does not automatically meet that burden.
Working with a forensic DNA lawyer in Minnesota can make a critical difference in cases where scientific evidence is central to the prosecution’s theory.
Key Takeaways
- Minnesota Statute 624.713 prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms
- The law requires proof of possession, not just DNA presence
- DNA evidence can be complex, subjective, and limited and needs to be explained to a jury
- Mixtures, transfer, and timing issues can weaken DNA conclusions
- Much of DNA interpretation involves subjective determinations and assumptions
- I have found analysts frequently exceed validated thresholds in their interpretations and conclusions
- A strong legal defense focuses on challenging both the science and the legal standard
Real World Examples
- In reviewing numerous DNA lab files, I have had situations where clients owned a firearm legally and the only evidence the state has to link the person to current possession is the DNA. This was not something the DNA could prove and had to be fought against by the defense to educate the fact finder on the limitations of the testing.
- I have seen numerous cases where the Minnesota BCA has interpreted a sample as being a mixture of 5 people when in fact that was not supported by their own validation studies. This is important because if the mixture was above five people the Minnesota BCA has not validated mixtures greater than 5 people.
- I have seen numerous instances where the BCA has interpreted a complex sample (3 or more people) when the amount of DNA has been so small that it is not supported by their validation studies.
- I have even seen a case where the lab switched the client’s profile with a codefendant and reported a likelihood they attributed to client when in fact it was not client’s profile at all. Nothing in the lab protocols caught this, it was something I alone was able to discover by doing my own independent review of the underlying DNA case files.
Conclusion
DNA evidence can be powerful—but it is not definitive proof of possession.
In felon in possession cases under Minnesota Statute 624.713, the prosecution must prove more than the presence of DNA. They must prove actual possession or constructive possession. When scientific evidence is misunderstood or overstated, it can lead to serious and unjust consequences.
That is why it is critical to have a defense attorney who understands both the legal standards and the science behind DNA evidence—and who knows how to challenge it effectively.
At Barron Law Office, Ginny carefully examines every detail of the evidence, from forensic analysis to legal sufficiency. She leaves no stone unturned. She has done numerous admissibility hearings to challenge the State’s use of DNA when the science is not foundationally reliable as applied in an individual case.
DNA evidence is often misunderstood—and when it is, it can lead to wrongful convictions. If your case involves DNA evidence, it is critical to work with a DNA defense attorney in Minnesota who understands both the science and how to challenge it effectively in court.
Ginny Barron’s practice includes a focused emphasis on litigating forensic DNA evidence in criminal cases throughout Minnesota. Contact Barron Law Office today for a free consultation and take the first step in defending your case.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Does DNA on a firearm prove possession?
No. It only suggests possible contact—not control or ownership.
Can DNA evidence be wrong or misleading?
Yes. DNA interpretation can be affected by mixtures, transfer, and analyst assumptions.
What must the prosecution prove under Minnesota law?
They must prove that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm while being legally prohibited.
Can multiple people’s DNA be on the same gun?
Yes. Firearms often contain DNA from multiple contributors.
How can a defense attorney challenge DNA evidence?
By examining collection methods, interpretation, lab procedures, and whether the evidence actually proves possession.
