Using DNA in Criminal Trials Essay

This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.

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)

When a crime has been committed, it is up to investigators and the courts to determine how to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect. Problems arise when an individual feels his or her Fourth Amendment rights have been violated when it comes to reasonableness of obtaining DNA, since many individuals feel they should be protected from unreasonable search of their person, home, and personal effects. There are several factors that need to be considered how to legally obtain DNA from a suspect. These can include warrant and probable cause issues, totality of circumstances, whether the crime in question is a violent felony, and if the suspect has been arrested, or previously arrested and convicted

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.).

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

DNA testing is a critical and accurate tool in linking accused and even convicted criminals for crimes, and should be widely used to assess guilt or innocence before jail sentences are imposed. It was started up by scientists Francis C. Crick and James D, Watson in 1953 as they had described the uses, structures and purpose of the DNA “deoxyribonucleic acid” genetic fingerprint that contains organism information about an individual (testing

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

False confessions have been a leading factor in destroying the lives of many innocent people. Since the advances of technology, victims of false confessions have been exonerated from the charges previously placed on them while others are still fighting for innocence or died a criminal. One technological advance that has exonerated many individuals is DNA testing. According to Randy James, DNA testing was discovered in 1985 and was first used in court to convict Tommie Lee Andrews (Time, 2009). Today many Americans are convicted because of false confessions that have not yet been overturned with new evidence (Kassin, 2014). Although DNA testing has led to freedom for many innocent Americans, there are still many innocent people who are locked

DNA’s certainty is dramatized in today’s society, which gives lay people the impression that DNA is infallible; however, in the case of Wayne Butler and others, the fallibility of DNA is exposed. Wayne Butler was accused of sadistically murdering Natasha Douty who was found beaten to death on Brampton Island in 1983. Wayne Butler was vacationing on Brampton Island during the timeframe of the murder; however, claimed to be jogging during this time. After submitting a blood test, Butler was eliminated as a suspect. However, Butler was arrested in 2001 for this murder because semen, which was found on the towel at the crime scene, was found to be a match. The John Tonge Centre performed a DNA test on the evidence on the towel. Butler was found innocent after it was identified that the John Tonge Centre mislabeled the test tubes containing the crime scene evidence. (“DNA Evidence”) This case proves that DNA testing may not be as reliable as we think.

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

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 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.

Before any release, there must be proper evidence showing that the accused had nothing to do with the crime. The introduction of the first person using DNA to prove his innocent was David Vasquez. In 1985, he was convicted, later in 1990; he was released due to DNA evidence (O’Leary, 2012). Since the Vasquez case, DNA testing has been a very powerful technique to use to prove a person’s innocence. A great reason for this is because victims are capable of lying and misidentifying.

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

DNA is spread by an organism to an offspring during reproduction and inherit traits half from the male parent and the other half from the female. DNA can be very useful in crime scenes since DNA can be found through fingerprints, fingernails, mucus and blood. Although DNA is not always the most accurate since some convicted people are often innocent because fingerprints can be contaminated easily. On the other hand, hair protein sample test has been proved incorrectly by only 1.98 percent and scientists only need one single strand of hair to identify one person out of a