Ambra ASTOLFI Case Study Answers

In McClure, Weisburd and Wilson (2008) summary article arguing that in addition to bench science, field experimentation involving forensic methods is key to assess the utility of various methods to solve crimes. The study reflected that there is a need for more research into many aspects of forensic science, criticizing the strength of scientific evidence that’s collected at a crime scene and interpretations of most forensic methods while omitting DNA testing. McClure et al’s (2008) explains that in sexual cases and homicides, the presence of DNA evidence actually increased the likelihood of prosecution and a conviction. According to the article “…the case of convictions, the odds-ratio for the presence of DNA evidence was 33.1 for sexual offenses and 23.1 for homicides” (McClure et al., 2008). Subsequently, the research shows that there was a consistent gradual decline in the national homicide rates that began in the 1900s and continued through into the 21st century. The decline of homicides in the US has dropped by from more than 90% in the 1960s to 62% in 2003. Even though this significant drop has occurred during the introduction of the new DNA testing

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)

Contamination can occur when transferring DNA or the collection of DNA evidence. In the case involving Mr. Farah, he was wrongful charged of rape although he had appealed in the High Court with the basis of the scientists not having said he was undisputedly the perpetrator. The scientists said that it was a very small chance that it was not Mr. Farah which he argued was still a reasonable doubt. The judges dismissed the case within twenty minutes but it was later found that the evidence was contaminated. Other examples include R v. Rendell (1999) and R v. Carroll (2002.)Though technology is advancing, the process of collecting, processing and analyzing DNA has faults. There needs to be more training, procedures and checks put in place for the system to be effective. Faults in evidence presents to be ineffective justice as although the jury weighed up the evidence, there was inadequate access to allow him to refute the claims and lead to wrongful convictions.

Today in the crime world, DNA evidence is strongly accepted in solving crime cases. This is all based in part by allowing a crime laboratory to have a designated unit whose main goal is to analyze DNA evidence to aid investigators with positive outcomes in crime case solving. With that being said we are going to discuss the functions of a DNA unit within a crime lab as well as address the vital role these units play in solving crime.

of a DNA fingerprint conducted on three babies and three sets of parents to determine

DNA technology has been used as a means to identify perpetrators of rapes and murders with a very high degree of reliability. However, interpretation of the evidence can be problematic at times. This problem comes into play when there are mixed sample’s, partial profiles and with contamination of the evidence submitted. Mixed samples

This report is crucial to the research because it analysis types of DNA testing and which is beneficial. In addition, these guidelines are examples of how every aspect of the judicial system which

Throughout the course of the investigation, the blood evidence found inside the van was not Hartlaub's. Enzymes from the blood spatter, which is only

In Paredes, at the trial court, a DNA analyst who did not perform the DNA test testified as to her conclusions based on a computer-generated report. Id. In this

Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, state the substance of the findings and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and, with respect to an expert whose findings and opinions were acquired in anticipation of litigation or for trial, summarize the qualifications of the expert, state the terms of the expert 's compensation, and attach to your answers any available list of publications written by the expert and any written report made by the expert concerning the expert 's findings and opinions. (Standard General Interrogatory No. 2.)

The DNA Identification Act of 1993 was formerly known as the Omnibus Crime control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Under the new act forensic laboratories are authorized to analyze DNA for identification purposes that are retrieved from crime scenes. With the regulations of the act the Federal Bureau of Investigation is obligated to follow standards such as setting standards for testing and issuing an advisory board to supervise the standards for quality assurance. Of the results under the act records are established of persons convicted of crimes, samples recovered from crime scenes, and samples from unidentified human remains.

Mainly in criminal act scene investigation, fingerprint machinery progressions have been responding to with arms open. The theory of biological exclusivity has been urbanized and substantiated by erudition and the judges have maintained this authenticity in the case of Daubert. Although the threat of inaccurate condemnation offers equally to ethical and feasible viewpoint on why dependable and legitimate forensic science is so significant, normal expert substantiation creed also dictates its legitimacy as a precondition for tolerability. Also in 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow made it unblemished that adjudicators have a gatekeeping answerability with admiration to expert substantiation. Federal courts as well as the states have comprised Daubert,

Considered one of the most reliable forms of evidence, in many criminal cases in DNA evidence. Since the 1980s, DNA analysis has continued to make steady progress as an adjunct to police investigations. DNA can be collected from blood, hair, skin cells, and other bodily substances. Similar to fingerprints, each individual has a unique DNA profile, but unlike that of fingerprints, only a miniscule amount of genetic material is needed to identify or eliminate suspects. However, the reliability and accuracy of the use of DNA evidence in criminal trials in Australia is constantly being challenged. It raises the question as to whether or not the justice system has been placing too much faith in DNA evidence. Although it has the power to put criminals behind bars, over confidence and careless mistakes in the use of DNA evidence can lead to miscarriages of justice.

This paper is to Intel what procedures you would take when collecting different types of physical and biological evidence. I will talk about the steps that I took in the process of collecting the soda can, and the DNA sample with the cotton swab. In the end you should understand from my documentation the procedures and steps made during the process.

She focused on providing to give persons credit for,that they should know how the DNA knowing the significance of its identification, collection and preservation at the crime scene is critical in obtaining accurate test outgrowth. Anyways, she also established report for the clarifying conclusions of DNA analysis, and she stated that there are three types of results that can occur in the DNA testing, the inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. Inclusion, when the DNA profile of a known individual (a victim or suspect) matches the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as a capable of becoming real source of that evidence. While the exclusion, when the DNA profile from an individual (a victim or suspect) does not match the DNA profile bring about from the crime scene evidence, the referenced individual is "excluded" as the patron of the evidence. Lastly, the inconclusive results, exemplify that the DNA testing did not yieldthe corollaryinformation that would allow a individual to be either included or excluded of the biological evidence that provides what is wanted or