DNA Based Conviction Case Study

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.

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)

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.

1982 - DNA testing is first used as evidence in court to exonerate a condemned prisoner.

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.)

investigations both past and present. It can be used to identify criminals when there is evidence

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for the

This research report researched hundreds of cases where post-conviction DNA was used in cases of exoneration. This researched preformed different tests on available physical evidence. This research report is full of data and case studies to be compared to.

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.

Since the late 1980s, there have been thousands of cases in which prime suspects have been wrongfully convicted, the most common causes being eyewitness misidentification, incriminating statements, and statements from informants. According to The Innocence Project, there have been almost four hundred post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in our country, and they are working to investigate even more wrongful conviction cases. This life changing program, along with their six attorneys, gather information about thousands of cases and determine whether or not DNA evidence can be reevaluated. Kenneth Ireland’s case was submitted for litigation after they found that the court relied heavily on false statements from witnesses. Researchers working

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.

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

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.

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

In March of 1985, Bloodsworth was sentenced to death. Through it all Bloodsworth maintained his innocence and in 1993 with the help of a new technique used to test for DNA, Bloodsworth got his chance to prove he was innocent. Bloodsworth became the first person ever to be exonerated from death row by DNA evidence. (Jain, 2001) In one