DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 USE OF DNA INFORMATION IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM
6 USE OF DNA INFORMATION IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM
Pages 131-151
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 131... ...
As in any forensic work, they must attend to the essentials of preserving specimens, labeling, and the chain of custody and to any constitutional or statutory requirements that regulate the collection and handling of samples. The Fourth Amendment provides much of the legal framework for the gathering of DNA samples from suspects or private places, and court orders are sometimes needed in this connection.
|
From page 132... ...
cases-such as paternity, custody, and proof-ofdeath cases-the standards for admissibility must also be high, because DNA evidence might be dispositive. The relevant federal rules (403, 702706)
|
From page 133... ...
Complexities arise with DNA typing, because the full typing process rests on theories and findings that pertain to various scientific fields. For example, the underlying theory of detecting polymorphisms is accepted by human geneticists and molecular biologists, but population geneticists and statisticians might differ as to the appropriate method for determining the population frequency of a genotype in the general population or in a particular geographic, ethnic, or other group.
|
From page 134... ...
Moreover, even if a court finds DNA evidence admissible because proper procedures were followed, the probative force of the evidence will depend on the quality of the laboratory work. More control can be exercised by the court in deciding whether the general practices in the laboratory or the theories that a laboratory uses accord with acceptable scientific standards.
|
From page 135... ...
Schwartz,6 became the first appellate court to reject the use of DNA evidence analyzed by a forensic laboratory. In answering a certified question, the court noted that "DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community." Nevertheless, the court went on to hold that admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory's compliance with appropriate standards and controls and on the availability of its testing data and results.
|
From page 136... ...
It did caution, however, that "we are not, at this juncture, holding that DNA fingerprinting is now admissible willy-nilly in all criminal trials." In 1989, Maryland became one of a growing number of states to enact a law recognizing the admissibility of DNA evidence. Admissibility According to the Helpfulness Standard The Federal Rules of Evidence, without specifically repudiating the Frye rule, adopt a more flexible approach.
|
From page 137... ...
i~ Cases on Admissibility of DNA Evidence Under the Federal Rules As with the Frye rule, courts applying the federal rules or conforming state rules must consider whether the particular techniques used in a particular case pass scientific muster. Three federal courts have now conducted
|
From page 138... ...
. when the court should be called upon to admit DNA evidence." In addition, a number of state courts that apply analogues of the federal rules have considered the admissibility of DNA evidence.
|
From page 139... ...
In discussing the standard for admitting novel scientific evidence, it rejected the Frye test, asserting instead that the court should make a "threshold finding of fact with respect to the reliability of the scientific method offered." Without discussing the details of the experts' testimony, the court concluded that the evidence supporting admissibility was credible.27 A Delaware trial court held in State v. Pennell28 that DNA evidence was admissible under a state statute similar to the federal rules, but refused to admit probability statistics.
|
From page 140... ...
The appeal grew out of a trial court's decision after a Frye hearing (that involved testimony by 10 experts) to admit DNA evidence.
|
From page 141... ...
After being convicted of rape, in part on the basis of DNA typing evidence, the defendant appealed, arguing that there was no general agreement concerning test methods, use of control samples, or the need for a testing laboratory to meet external performance standards. The high court did not address those arguments, focusing instead on the "lack of inherent rationality" of the process by which the testing laboratory concluded that 1 Caucasian in 59,000,000 would have the DNA pattern represented by the semen stain and the defendant's blood.
|
From page 142... ...
The Minnesota statute states that in any civil or criminal trial or hearing DNA evidence is admissible without "antecedent expert testimony that DNA analysis provides a trustworthy and reliable method of identifying characteristics in an individual's genetic material upon a showing that the offered testimony meets the standards for admissibility set forth in the Rules of Evidence"; a companion provision specifically permits the admission of "ct~ti~tir~1 nnnill~tir~n frP~llPnr`~ P`~i~en~P 1 _ ~ ~ .
|
From page 143... ...
are convicted of another crime within 5 years.38 The laws are premised on the fact that criminals sometimes leave biological evidence at the crime scene and that the comparison of the results of DNA typing of such samples with profiles stored in the forensic laboratory might lead law-enforcement officials quickly to a prime suspect. The creation of felon DNA databanks raises a number of challenging constitutional questions, e.g., whether extracting blood for DNA analysis in anticipation of future conduct is an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment and whether the creation of such banks violates a privacy right of the first-degree relatives of persons whose DNA samples are stored (see Chapter 31.
|
From page 144... ...
Methods of correcting for shifted DNA patterns (that would otherwise fall outside the usual matching rule) might require an admissibility hearing concerning whether the correction procedure has gained scientific acceptance, inasmuch as this substantially changes the method of declaring a match.
|
From page 145... ...
In view of the importance of DNA typing in both civil and criminal cases, the judge should determine, before allowing DNA evidence to be introduced, that appropriate standards have been followed, that tests were adequately performed by a reliable laboratory, and that the appropriate protocols for DNA typing and formulation of an opinion were fully complied with. In states without relevant statutes, the committee recommends that the court judicially notice the appropriateness of the theoretical basis of DNA typing by using this report, similar reports, and case law.
|
From page 146... ...
DNA EVIDENCE AND THE VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM The Jury Because a jury might overvalue or undervalue scientific evidence, it is appropriate where permitted for the judge to question DNA experts with an eye to aiding the jury. The judge can explain to the jury the role of experts and the role of the jury in evaluating the experts' opinions.
|
From page 147... ...
DNA evidence, like other scientific and statistical evidence, can pose special problems of jury comprehension. Courts and attorneys should cooperate to facilitate jury understanding.
|
From page 148... ...
PROTECTIVE ORDERS Protective orders should not be used to prevent experts on either side from obtaining all relevant information, which can include original materials, data sheets, software protocols, and information about unpublished databanks. A protective order might be appropriate to limit disclosures by attorneys and experts to third parties about proprietary information acquired in the course of a particular case; but as a general rule, any scientific information used in a case should be open to widespread scientific scrutiny.
|
From page 149... ...
Of course, the early exclusion of suspects who have been cleared by DNA typing evidence will reduce other costs to the judicial system. DNA evidence might also obviate trials in some cases by proving identity fairly conclusively.
|
From page 150... ...
The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye v. United States, a halfcentury later.
|
From page 151... ...
, vacated after death of defendant. See Weinstein, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is sound; it should be amended (138 F.R.D.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.