DNA testing was a major milestone for the judicial system and the investigators. DNA testing involves a sample collection from the crime scene and compared to the defendant in question. If any type of similarities is present, then the defendant would be arrested and questioned. The milestone happened in the late 1980s when the federal government took charge of establishing a combined DNA index system that covered both the local and the state systems in the profiling of criminals (Lazer, 2004). The first use of DNA testing was in 1986 for a rape murder conviction. The crime occurred in the English Midlands. The police in England required the help of Alec Jeffery’s who was a molecular biologist. Jeffery’s has developed an interest to help out …show more content…
This is after the circuit court in Orange County, Florida convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape (Lazer, 2004). Like all types of testing the challenges of admissibility will always arise. The first case of challenging the admissibility of the DNA testing evidence was between The People of New York V. Castro involving a murder case (Pyrek, 2007). It was challenged on the DNA of the blood stain that was on the defendants watch had a lot of questions than answers (Ismaili, 2011). One critical analysis illustrated an information gap in the laboratory methodology used; by no means did it follow the generally scientific procedures and standards. Some supporters have suggested abandoning the methodology that was originally used in order to embrace new methods. With that suggestion it provided a loophole for the defense attorneys to challenge the reliability of the new methods. However, the court allowed the use of the DNA tests through the principle of exclusion but not inclusion citing that the process that could involve the determination of a match was complex than that of ruling out the match (Pyrek, 2007). One major milestone that the government developed was a combined DNA index
It is a great technological innovation that can help bring evidences and fact faster. In the article The DNA Wars Are Over, “Forensic use of DNA technology in criminal cases began in 1986… In one of the first uses of DNA in a criminal case in the United States, in November 1987.” Sadly in 1985, DNA testing was not popular in the U.S. investigation and was not available in Cole’s case. I believe the U.S. court system is improving and yes there are a lot mistrials and wrongful conviction cases, but you cannot avoid the fact that DNA testing can bring better truth than just relying on statements of both
DNA has given some innocents their freedom, but others are still being locked up. Jurors are giving guilty verdicts to people who don’t deserve it based on theories and confessions that may have been beaten out of them. It was reported in the studies that exculpatory DNA does sometimes help a defendant that had confessed, but then prosecutors come up with theories and that doesn’t help the defendants, as was the case of Joseph Buffey (Appleby & Kassin, 2016). I didn’t expect for exculpatory DNA not to be taken into consideration when prosecutors told a theory that can explain why DNA of the accused was not at the scene of the crime. It just doesn’t make sense.
Who Was She? A DNA Test Only Opened New Mysteries Libby Copeland, in “Who Was She? A DNA Test Only Opened New Mysteries,” discusses the increased popularity of DNA testing, the process, and the impact the results can have on the people who choose this path. In the article, Copeland effectively uses structure, tone, word choice and other rhetoric devices to establish her purpose of informing her readers about the effects of DNA testing. Copeland writes the article not only to inform, but also to engage and interest the general public, or anyone considering DNA testing.
For example, Maryland believed that DNA analysis helps to identify suspects more accurately and reduce future crimes, which would boost the public's confidence in law enforcement. The State even claimed that without the DNA Collection Act, which enabled the police to cheek swab from King, they would not have connected King to the sexual assault that he was ultimately accused of. Nevertheless, there is a risk in allowing Maryland to enforce its DNA Act for the purpose of only removing violent offenders. King actually acknowledges that DNA collection is beneficial because arrestees are more likely to have committed other crimes but hypothesizes that this logic can also be applied for other subgroups as well. For instance, young men, residents of particular neighborhoods, individuals from particular socioeconomic or educational backgrounds, or any other group that has a high incidence of criminal activity can be accused.
In the book picking cotton a young woman’s life was haunted by a terrible crime while a young man’s life was ruined by false accusations and evidence. This book is one which many can relate to, due to the fact that that we live in a society where crime as such happens everyday and situations such as lack of evidence and false accusations put people in jail for crimes they did not commit. In our genetics class we learn a lot about how DNA plays an important role in our lives. The book makes me take this way more seriously than I did when talking about it in class because it shows how a simple sample of DNA can rid someone of a lifetime in prison for a crime they did not commit. Ronald Cotton was accused of a crime he did not commit, after 10
For example, in the past, DNA testing did not exist. Nowadays, DNA testing helps identify criminals after it is
In the lab report three students are tested along with one suspect. Student number two’s DNA matched the suspects DNA. The student’s DNA’s are cut with five different enzymes as well as the suspects DNA. Student two’s DNA matched exactly with the suspects DNA; the other two student’s DNA did not resemble the suspects DNA at all. (Choi, et al, 2008) DNA fingerprinting is used a lot in determining who committed a crime.
In the case of United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1993), defendant John Ray Bonds was accused of killing a man during a late night shooting. The basis for his appeal was to suppress the DNA evidence because “at that time the FBI test results had not yet been published in a peer review journal explaining the FBI 's methods and offering data to support the results” (United States v. Bonds, 1993). The defendant also believed different methods for DNA analysis could have provided accurate results rather than a 1 in 35000 probability for the DNA match. The purpose of the case was to determine whether the court made a mistake in admitting DNA evidence in the trial.
The article “Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing” is based on a Virginia man named Darnell Phillips who was sentenced for life in prison for the physical and sexual violence of a 10 year old girl in 1990. One single hair was all it took for Virginia police to take him into custody and convict him. At the time, this physical evidence was sufficient enough to make an arrest in 1991, but 28 years later it has been brought to light that perhaps the microscopic hair analysis testimony at the time wasn 't accurate enough. In fact, it was even categorized as “Junk Science”, due to the inaccuracy of the hair comparisons. Due to the many errors and flaws in the FBI standards within the hair category, many
In King, Justice Kennedy referred to the invention of DNA technology as “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era.” This statement has been criticized, but the impact of DNA technology has been significant. Currently, forensic analysts can use “junk” DNA to identify a person with near certainty. Law enforcement can collect a person’s DNA through saliva. The sample is then uploaded to CODIS, a national network of DNA databases.
The Innocence Project usually represents convicted prisoners seeking a post-conviction DNA testing attempting prove their innocence. They also consult many of cases on appeal where the defendant is represented by primary counsel and they provide information and background on DNA testing litigation. As of now 351 people in the United States have been proven innocent by DNA testing, including 20 who served time on death row. The Innocence Project’s use of DNA technology to prove peoples innocense has provided indisputable proof that wrongful convictions are not rare events but instead arise from systemic defects. This is a non biased source because the innocence project has nothing to gain by freeing the wrongfully convicted and mainly takes about sources.
Without the help of DNA, connecting offenders to their victims and the scene of the crime, so many cases would be left unsolved. Shockingly enough, it wasn’t until 1984 where DNA was used for biological identification. Once DNA started to play such a big role in criminal justice, many cases where they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, were brought to court and finally solved. Even though there was such a large gap in when the offenses were first committed and when they were solved, there was still justice for the victims and their families. An important case where DNA changes everything would be that of Gary Ridgway, otherwise known as the green river killer.
This DNA sample was tested to determine if the DNA left on Mary Sullivan was a match. This proved to not be a match. This shows some suspicion to the final verdict of the
In order to understand the part that forensic pathology play in the system, it’s important to look at how it’s used in the criminal justice system.
DNA in forensic science The majority of cells making up the human body are diploid cells carrying identical DNA, with the exception of haploid gametes and red blood cells. Several types of biological evidence such as blood and hair are commonly used in forensic science, which is the scientific study of evidence for crime scene investigations and other legal matters. Forensic science is used for the purpose of DNA analysis, this is the analysis of DNA samples to determine if it came from a particular individual. DNA analysis is done by obtaining DNA samples from an individual; next, a large sample of DNA is produced from amplified selected sequences from the DNA collected.