Andy agrees to investigate genetic factors for the defense

Andy agrees to investigate genetic factors for the defense at a moment when the case’s competing explanations are hardening into stories. The genetic inquiry could help argue for mitigation if the prosecution established that Jacob killed Ben Rifkin, but it also risked turning a complex scientific account into a public label for the whole Barber family. To pursue the possibility, Dr. Elizabeth Vogel asks Andy for a DNA sample and says she also needs one from his estranged father, William Barber. Andy’s initial refusal gives way when Laurie reminds him that Jacob is the client and asks how far he will go for their son.

The defense’s genetic question

Near the end of summer, Andy and Laurie attend one of their regular meetings with Dr. Elizabeth Vogel. She warns that the hour will be difficult, then explains that she needs a DNA sample from Andy: a quick swab of saliva. Andy objects that they had expected to exclude genetics from the case. Vogel answers that whether genetic evidence is admissible is a legal question for Andy and Jacob’s lawyer, Jonathan Klein, but that the science could potentially be used by either side.

The prosecution might use genetic evidence to suggest Jacob was violent by nature, while the defense could consider it as mitigation if the state had first made a strong case that Jacob committed the killing. Andy explains that mitigation could help reduce a first-degree charge to a lesser homicide offense. Vogel’s proposal therefore does not establish that Jacob has a genetic predisposition or that the defense will use such evidence; it opens a conditional strategy, dependent on both the case and the science.

A scientific account, and its public shorthand

Vogel emphasizes that behavioral genetics concerns how genes influence behavior, not a simple genetic trigger for a particular act. Human behavior has complex causes, and the account she gives depends on interaction between genes and environment. In her view, evidence of certain variants might help explain multigenerational patterns of violence, but that possibility is not equivalent to proving that a person is destined to commit a crime.

She identifies two variants under consideration. One is a variant of MAOA, a gene involved in metabolizing neurotransmitters including serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. The mutation, MAOA Knockout, has been associated with aggressive behavior and previously argued in court as a trigger for violence; Vogel says that earlier argument was rejected as too simplistic, while research on gene-environment interaction has since advanced. She also mentions a variant in the serotonin transporter gene, SLC6A4, on chromosome 17, describing its role in the system that reabsorbs serotonin. Andy stops her detailed explanation before she can continue.

The distinction between the careful account and its likely public reception is central to his resistance. Andy fears that qualifications about specific variants and complex causation will disappear in news coverage and be replaced by the phrase “murder gene.” In his apprehension, that label would not attach only to Jacob: it could mark the family as natural-born killers. The defense’s possible use of genetic evidence thus carries a risk beyond the courtroom, even before any sample is tested or any finding made.

The request that reaches backward

Vogel’s investigation requires more than Andy’s sample. She asks for a sample from his father, William Barber, whom Andy has not spoken to since he was five. Andy does not know whether his father is alive; Vogel tells him that William is alive and imprisoned at Northern Prison in Somers, Connecticut. She has already contacted him, but he refuses to meet with her and says Andy must ask him himself.

Andy is caught first by the news that his father is alive, then by the condition attached to obtaining his help. The prospect briefly stirs the excitement of having a father, but it quickly turns against the history he associates with William, known as Bloody Billy. Andy tells Vogel to reject the request. The conflict is not merely logistical: the genetic inquiry would make him approach a parent from whom he has been separated since early childhood and enlist him in a defense strategy that treats family history as potentially relevant evidence.

Vogel explains why she needs William’s participation. A sample from Andy alone could not show that a mutation was more than an individual occurrence; the defense would need evidence that it might be a family trait passed from father to son to son. She adds that seeking a court order could alert the district attorney to the defense’s plan. That constraint leaves the request dependent on William’s cooperation and Andy’s willingness to make contact.

Laurie’s appeal and the decision

Laurie intervenes when Andy remains opposed. She asks him to think about Jacob and how far he would go for him. Andy answers that he would go to hell and back; Laurie tells him that, then, he will do this too. Her appeal reframes the sample request as part of his parental responsibility, without resolving the legal, scientific, or personal costs of complying.

The episode ends with a decision to pursue the genetic investigation, not with test results or a settled defense theory. The evidence remains conditional: Vogel describes what the defense might argue if the prosecution proves its case, and the family samples would be needed to explore whether a relevant variant is inherited. Andy’s agreement therefore holds two pressures together. He is willing to approach his estranged father for Jacob’s sake, yet he fears that a scientific attempt to explain family patterns could become a blunt public verdict on the family itself.