Penal Code 1405 Research Paper

One of the most accurate methods of connecting a suspect with a crime is through the use of DNA analysis. Even if no fingerprints are left behind at a robbery, for instance, a single strand of hair or skin cell from the thief can be used to positively identify a suspect. Conversely, if a suspect’s DNA does not match samples procured from a crime scene, the use of so-called “genetic fingerprinting” can exonerate, or clear, them. Concern over the issue of wrongful convictions, coupled with a sense of greater trust in DNA analysis over other, more conventional methods of prosecution, such as eyewitness testimony, has led some to call for mandatory DNA testing before any person begins serving a sentence for a serious crime, as well as

This has resulted in an increased demand for prosecution to produce viable and tangible forensic evidence, in order to satisfy the high standard of proof in criminal proceedings. Donald E. Shelton conducted a survey in which he wanted to discover the amount of jurors that expected the prosecution to provide some form of scientific evidence; his findings showed that “46 percent expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case. 22 percent expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case. 36 percent expected to see fingerprint evidence in every criminal case. And 32 percent expected to see ballistic or other firearms laboratory evidence in every criminal case.”

In some states, only certain convicts may request testing; and in others, requests are limited to a certain time period after sentencing. Many of these laws, however, do not mandate that DNA analysis is a right only that prisoners may request it. A Virginia court ruled in 2001 that prisoners convicted of felonies have a constitutional right to DNA testing, and in November, 2008, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine whether prisoners have a constitutional right to test DNA evidence. As of March 2011, 266 people are known to have been exonerated in the United States through the use of DNA evidence. It is important to note that forty-three states do require DNA samples to be collected from all convicted felons, but this sample is not necessarily to be used for analysis in that particular case.

When DNA is found, it puts the case on a new level. DNA analyst and investigators have a specific job to find evidence on or at the crime scene. Lead prosecutor, Marcia Clark, as she was the one that found the glove at the scene and the glove on his property, also stumble across some DNA. DNA was matched and tracked back to O.J. Blood stains left behind were 100% traced back to Mr. Simpson. To me, that screams guilty.

Statement of the Problem DNA has become a vital part of criminal investigations. DNA can include and exclude suspects of criminal investigations. During a criminal investigation, all DNA should be collected, properly preserved and tested, but at times this does not occur or the technology was not available for this process to occur. In addition, DNA has become an imperative portion of exoneration cases.

He claimed he was working at a bar filled with customers when the crime was committed. With all of his alibies, he was still charged with a crime he didn’t commit all because they found bite marks on the little girl’s wrist that seemed to match up with him. He was later released from prison when the true murdered was caught. Is DNA a reliable forensic tool?

Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong In Brandon L. Garrett 's book, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, he makes it very clear how wrongful convictions occur and how these people have spent many years in prison for crimes they never committed. Garrett presents 250 cases of innocent people who were convicted wrongfully because the prosecutors opposed testing the DNA of those convicted. Garrett provided simple statistics such as graphs, percentages, and charts to help the reader understand just how great of an impact this was.

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.

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

In some states, only certain convicts may request testing; and in others, requests are limited to a certain time period after sentencing. Many of these laws, however, do not mandate that DNA analysis is a right only that prisoners may request it. A Virginia court ruled in 2001 that prisoners convicted of felonies have a constitutional right to DNA testing, and in November, 2008, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine whether prisoners have a constitutional right to test DNA evidence. As of March 2011, 266 people are known to have been exonerated in the United States through the use of DNA evidence. It is important to note that forty-three states do require DNA samples to be collected from all convicted felons, but this sample is not necessarily to be used for analysis in that particular case.

Science has come a long way over the years. It has helped countless every day struggles and cure diseases most commonly found. What you don’t hear about however is the advancement of forensic science. Forensic science has helped solve countless cases of murder, rape, and sexual assault. In the case of John Joubert, it helped solve the murders of three young boys with one small piece of evidence that linked him directly to the crime.

DNA evidence has come a far way since the exoneration of Steven Avery and if the case was to be tried today there would be a much different

“Moore later showed law officers where to find the gun. Grooves in the gun were similar to markings found on the fatal bullets, though an expert testified that the particular grooves were fairly common and could be found in other weapons” (Wuornos v. State, 1994). The gun evidence alone would not be sufficient enough to

Police were determined to calm the masses by convicting Daryl Hunt of the murder and rape of Debora Sykes. Nevrmind having rookie defense attorneys, but against all logic and evidence, Hunt was sentenced to life in prison. Hunt would be wrongly placed in prison for almost 20 years. No matter how many times the defense attorneys had tried, it was not possible to give Hunt his freedom. The only exception being that the true criminal was

DNA in Forensic Science DNA is the carrier of genetic information in humans and other living organisms. It has become a very useful tool in forensic science since it was discovered. In forensic science, DNA testing is used to compare the genetic structure of two individuals to establish whether there is a genetic relationship between them. One example of the use of DNA in forensic science that is important in biology today is comparing a suspect’s DNA profile to DNA that was discovered at a crime scene.