The Crime Scene Of A Virginia Man

Imagine spending nearly 20 years in a prison for a crime you did not commit. Well that was the case for Angel Gonzalez. Angel was arrested and convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping on June 16, 1995. Angel was later then exonerated on March 10, 2015. The victim identified Angel from the back of the cop car and never got out the car to get a closer look at him. The evidence that was used to convicted Angel was that the victim told the police that the assailant had the same car as Angel. After 20 years in prison, The Innocence Project opened up his case and reviewed it. The organization brought up DNA testing that provided he wasn’t one of the assailants. After a day, Angel was released out of prison and walked as a free man. These types

One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or wrong forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions.

In some cases, such as murder there are some people that have been wrongfully accused. Due to wrongful practices, people have been convicted of circumstantial evidence. ``DNA is a very powerful tool . . . but it is circumstantial evidence like other pieces of circumstantial evidence and a proper investigation still has to take place,'' she said. (Matthew, n.d.).

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Well, in nearly 25 years since post-conviction DNA evidence has been used to demonstrate criminal innocence, even in cases that landed defendants on death row or in prison for life. Eyewitness misidentification, forensic science errors, false confessions, government misconduct and bad lawyering are many of the reasons wrongful convictions occur. Eyewitness being the most common. Sometimes it can be done by error and other times it is actually done intentionally. In seventy-seven percent of the DNA exonerations, eyewitness misidentification led to wrongful convictions (The Innocence Project- How wrongful conviction happen).

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

Marieb stated (435), DNA fingerprinting can prove that a suspect was actually at the scene of a crime and establishes innocence.” Before the evolution of DNA fingerprinting, persecuting attorney and our judicial system depended on many aspects of reliable sources to convict a criminal. They depended on the eyewitnesses who were likely to recant on their statements, tampered evidence, and bias jurors. Presently, DNA fingerprinting have aided in exonerating hundreds of cases including Ray Krone, also known as The Snaggle Tooth Killer. He was exculpated by DNA evidence after he served 10 years and was facing the death penalty for a crime he didn’t commit. He was wrongly convicted of murder and the circumstantial evidence at the time was the bite marks they found on the victim’s body resembled his teeth. DNA revealed Kenneth Phillips was the culprit. He was the 100th inmate vindicated through DNA from death row since 1976. Even though, this is a fascinating process. It is not a perfect system. Similarly, fingerprints were used in the past, yet the current progression speaks for

The past 27 years convicted felons and counting have been acquitted of their crimes through DNA evidence. In fact, this is a statical syllogism that provides a strong inductive argument.

The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim (Calandro, 2005). It was two years later that DNA was again ruled admissible in a Virginia state ruling. In the years that followed the use of DNA in trial proceeding was not disputed. It was not until the technique of obtaining the evidence was more largely used did the practice become questionable.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

Because there are many different types of crimes, it is often difficult to find enough physical evidence to convict a person. For example, in rape cases there is usually only a small amount of physical evidence, so cases are based on word alone. Because of DNA testing we can now take samples from the victim and attempt to match the results with those of the suspect. Therefore, DNA is sometimes the only real way of determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect without having any witnesses. Since many rape cases are left unsolved, DNA testing is believed to be the most accurate way of keeping sex offenders off the street. Because of the growing trend of using DNA in rape cases especially, a company in Brooklyn now advertises a small flashlight-like device intended to be used to jab at attackers in order to collect a sample of his skin for later use (Adler). According to a study by Joseph Peterson, with the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois, DNA evidence does not have a major impact on the decision to either convict or acquit

As an instrumental character in the adversarial process the American Criminal Justice system uses, the impact of DNA evidence directly affects the way prosecutors present their case during trial. When a prosecutor introduced DNA forensic evidence to the American courtroom in 1987, that DNA forensic evidence was the catalyst that secured the conviction of a rapist, Tommie Lee Andrews, in Orange County, Florida (State

The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a landmark study by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Senate with help from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (Schneider, 2013). This study found that there were numerous reasons why people are wrongfully convicted including, but not limited to eye witness identification, perjured testimony, improper forensic science techniques, and government misconduct (Roberts & Weathered, 2009) The original Innocence Project was founded twenty two (22) years ago as a part of the Cardoza School of Law of Yeshiva University in New York City, New York (Davis, 2012). The Innocence Projects primary goal is to exonerate those whom have been convicted of a crime when there is DNA evidence available to be tested or re-tested (Mitchell, 2011). DNA testing has been possible in five (5) percent to ten (10) percent of cases since 1992 (Risinger, 2007). On the other side, other members of the Innocence Project help to exonerate those have been convicted of a crime where there is no DNA evidence to test. A goal of the Innocence Project is to conduct research on the reasons for wrongful convictions, how to fix the criminal justice system, as well as advocate for those who have been wrongfully convicted (Steiker & Steiker, 2005). The members of this organization strive to teach the world about the dangers of wrongful convictions. To date, this non-profit legal organization, has freed three hundred eighteen (318)

There are often mistakes made that falsely determine an individual’s sentence. Sloppy police work and loss of documents are examples of careless errors. There is also some room for error with determining the results of a DNA sample that do not fall under the human error category. Many times there may not be ample DNA samples at a crime scene. Only a fraction of crimes reveal DNA. Drive-by shootings and bombings often do not provide DNA for investigation purposes. “There is a public perception that DNA is the cure-all for these kinds of mistakes. DNA is not the whole answer.” (Dieter, Richard) Eye witnesses cannot solely and accurately determine a person’s fate 100 percent of the time. There are numerous amounts of cases in which those found guilty were indeed later found innocent. Many times, these individuals have already served time in jail. Many argue that the time inmates spend in