Do We have a Right to DNA Evidence in Trials?

Although the fruits of genomics have yet to materialize for curing diseases, the science community does have a better understanding of how complex diseases and evolution work. In addition, genomics has a useful by-product, a tool used by forensic detectives. Using PCR, a fast and inexpensive technology for making copies of DNA, extremely small samples from blood stains, semen, hair follicles, saliva, and skin are used for DNA evidence.

... Complete entry

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/22  at  07:26 PM

"DNA fingerprinting does not prove guilt or innocence ... it states a statistical probability in the range of one in several billion. "

"However, the State of Alaska opposed the motion on the grounds that the evidence would not prove his innocence. "

What, one in several billion odds aren't good enough for Alaska?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/23  at  03:21 PM

The first test only showed the accused was a possible suspect.

With newer technology available, the lawyer decided not to use it, perhaps because DNA evidence can also be used against you.

The lawyer gambled and lost according to Alaska law and now the Supreme Court decision that the prisoner cannot depend on them for a constitutional right.

The statistcs of matching are not relevant to this case, I just wanted to differntiate DNA fingerprinting from regular fingerprinting.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/04  at  03:40 PM

The STR DNA test is more effective and reliable than any of the DNA procedures available at the time of the trial. At the Supreme Court, the state of Alaska admitted that this test would prove Osborne's guilt/innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ninth Circuit court of appeals found that under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, he has an absolute constitutional right to this evidence. The state law in Alaska requires him to produce evidence of innocence by some other means before they will permit the DNA analysis. Five members of the Supreme Court decided that this state law does not offend their sense of due process and fundamental justice/fairness. I am left to wonder, "What more would it take?"

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: