TROY – Rensselaer County prosecutors will not be able to use Google technology to try to prove Johnny Oquendo strangled 21-year-old Noel Alkaramla and dumped her body in a suitcase in the Hudson River.

In a strongly worded three-page ruling issued Thursday, state Supreme Court Justice Andrew Ceresia determined prosecutors for District Attorney Joel Abelove "failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the science underlying Google location services has gained general acceptance in the in the relevant scientific community."

Jury selection begins Monday in the trial of Oquendo, 40, who is charged with second-degree murder, concealment of a human body and criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, a misdemeanor. He faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted.

Alkaramla, whose mother had been married to Oquendo, disappeared after a co-worker at Verdile's restaurant in Troy dropped her off on Third Street, the street where the defendant lived, around 9 a.m. on Nov. 22, 2015.

Prosecutors say Oquendo, who is a registered sex offender, choked Alkaramla to death on the third floor of his apartment at 170 Third St. They allege he stuffed the 5-foot-1-inch, 135-pound woman into a suitcase and dumped her in the river. She was found Dec. 30, 2015 near the USS Slater, the World War II Navy destroyer escort docked along the Hudson in Albany.

Prosecutors wanted to use Google location services to show the jury where they believe Oquendo's cell phone – and Oquendo – were at key times during the night.

Oquendo's lawyer, Assistant Public Defender William Roberts, asked the judge to hold a hearing to determine the admissibility of the scientific evidence. Ceresia held the hearing on Oct. 16 at which prosecutors called two witnesses: FBI Special Agent Michael Sabric and Sarah Rodriguez, a records custodian for Google.

In his ruling, Ceresia said Rodriguez testified mostly about the format that Google uses to maintain the location history of its users. He said Rodriguez also spoke about sources of information Google uses to estimate the location of a user's cell phone.

The judge said Sabric testified about his use of Google location services as an investigative tool.

"Significantly, neither witness had any training as a scientist or an engineer and both witnesses acknowledged that Google location services are based upon a specific algorithm with which they are unfamiliar," Ceresia wrote.

Even if the witnesses were qualified to offer their opinions on the technology, the judge wrote, prosecutors still showed no proof the technology had gained acceptance in the scientific community because they produced no additional experts, scientific or legal writings or relevant judicial opinions to support their case.

"Accordingly, because the (prosecutors) failed to meet their burden at this hearing, the court is constrained to grant defendant's motion to preclude evidence of his Google location history," the judge wrote.

Roberts said he was pleased with the judge's ruling, which would ensure that the jury would not be prejudiced by "materials that are not sound science under current existing case law." he said.