DNA Evidence In Supreme Court Cases

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

In Maryland, police officers are permitted to collect DNA from suspects who are arrested for crimes of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. This has proven to be effective in identifying criminals. One of the criminals that was caught using DNA evidence, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was extremely dissatisfied when he was linked to and charged for another crime when he was arrested and charged for assault. When his DNA was taken, law enforcement officers found that his DNA matched the DNA evidence of a previous rape case. Because of this discovery, King received the life sentence and decided to appeal his case, arguing that the MDCA (Maryland DNA Collection Act) was unconstitutional and violated the Fourth Amendment. The fundamental question

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)

In addition to undeserved charges, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of people for crimes in which they were convicted over the past few years. When DNA testing became readily available to the criminal justice system, crucial flaws began to surface. It was realized that people were serving hard-time for felony crimes they didn’t commit.

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.)

Procedural: The United States and Georgia Constitutions allow the Georgia Department of Corrections to compel incarcerated felons to submit saliva samples for DNA profiling, pursuant with O.C.G.A. section 24-4-60. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the Georgia Department of Corrections. The statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the search and seizure provisions of the Georgia Constitution, or the felon’s rights to privacy under the United States or Georgia Constitutions, and was affirmed.

The Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) gave the state and police officers permission to collect DNA specimens from people who are detained for a violent crime, an attempt to conduct a violent crime, breaking and entering, or attempted to break and enter. Police arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was on first and second assault charges. While he was under arrest before his sentence, King's DNA was collected and documented in Maryland's DNA file. King's DNA to matched a rape case that was never solved. This evidence was the only evidence that ties King to the rape. Furthermore, King went to trial and the judge sentenced him to life in prison.

April 10, 2009, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with first and second degree assault. According the booking procedure in Maryland along with the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) King was photographed, fingerprinted, and his cheek was swabbed for a DNA sample. Only 28 other states participate in DNA swab laws. Soon after King’s DNA was processed it was matched to an open rape case from 2003. King and his attorney moved to suppress the DNA arguing that his DNA was obtained through violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The attorney moved to suppress based on the fact that King’s DNA was obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure. His motion was denied and King was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. King appealed his ruling on the grounds that the Maryland DNA Collection Act is unconstitutional. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in the favor of King, ruling that the MDCA is unconstitutional. The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court justices voted 5 to 4 that the Maryland DNA Collection act is constitutional. This

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.

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

Perhaps the most critical improvement in criminal examination since the happening to one of a kind finger impression ID is the usage of DNA development to convict punks or get rid of persons as suspects. DNA examinations on spit, skin tissue, blood, hair, and semen can now be reliably used to association guilty parties to wrongdoings. Dynamically recognized in the midst of the past 10 years, DNA development is in the blink of an eye by and large used by police, prosecutors, shield course, and courts in the United

Should Federal Agents be allowed to collect DNA from anyone arrested? This is a controversial issue. In my opinion, DNA is a very powerful and useful tool because many sex crimes go unsolved because of lack of evidence, but if federal agents can look in a database where DNA samples are stored and compare it to anyone who was arrested especially those who committed sex crimes more crimes would be solved. Many say DNA testing violates suspects rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. DNA testing has toppled the way federal agents gather evidence in various criminal cases, particularly assault and homicide and thus had an expansive effect on a lot of people past cases. In this paper I am going to address

The DNA from the saliva was a perfect match with the DNA from the semen collected from the rape victims. Puetz, the investigator on the case defends the constitutionality of his evidence-gathering methods; the courts, he says, have held that once you've put out your trash, you've waived your right to keep the contents private, and "I don't see why the same wont hold true for saliva."(Adler).