Dna Investigation In The Fbi Case

This gives a witness time to forget what the person looked like. This kind of error is responsible for approximately 75% of wrongful conviction cases (Huff, 107). Bad science is another issue that may cause wrongful imprisonment. Analysts have been inaccurate because of carelessness testifying in court presenting evidence that was not based on science and participated in misconduct. The DNA Identification Act of 1991 led the creation of the FBI CODIS DATA BASE which was announced as having been established to the U.S Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2002. Since 1989, there have been tons of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued until DNA testing prove that they were wrongly accused. In a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted following the preliminary hearing. Amending the existing post-conviction DNA testing statue to enable access to deserving defendants and do better utilize DNA database comparisons in order to enable identification of real perpetrators where wrongful conviction is claimed. The Government should create a forensic advisory board to advise the commonwealth on the best delivery of forensic services to state and local government and create a Conviction Integrity Commission to study future exoneration and providing educational programs for the bar, bench, law enforcement and community.

Melley, Brian. "Man is cleared after 16 years; DNA ties crimes to fugitves." Miami Herald 24 November 2015: 12A.

The first piece of evidence we analyzed was the DNA samples that were found at Mr.Sharar’s room. We compared these samples to the five different samples that were found at the crime scene. Gel electrophoresis was used to conduct each five samples to see who’s gel belongs to one of the five samples. We discovered that Sample 1 was Jay-Z’s DNA because the DNA from the crime scene matched the alleles in his DNA. Thus, this shows that Jay-Z’s DNA is sample 1. While conducting this experiment, we saw that Ms.Fiske’s DNA matches with sample 2. Also, Ms.Crawford’s DNA was also found at the crime scene because her DNA matches with sample 4. This evidence supports why we think that Ms.Fiske and Ms.Crawford are our main suspects because their DNA were

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.

Imagine putting your life on the line every day for the lives of others. The Federal Bureau of

In 2009, Alfonso Jay King, Jr. was arrested on serious assault charges. While King was in custody, police collected his DNA by cotton swabbing his cheek. This was authorized by the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA), which permits police to obtain DNA samples from people arrested for, but not yet convicted of, violent crimes. After his DNA was processed, King was connected to an unsolved rape case from 2003 and convicted of rape. In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the lower court’s decision was reversed because King’s right against suspicionless searches outweighed the identification purposes his DNA served in his 2009 case. Yet, the court maintained that the MDCA was constitutional because there are scenarios where DNA would be necessary to identify but not investigate an arrestee. Maryland then called for the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision and affirm the constitutionality of the MDCA.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

and could get up to 50 years in jail if convicted of rape and kidnapping.

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

In my opinion, the greatest scientific advance in history that had the greatest impact on forensic science is DNA profiling. Since the ability to analyze DNA was discovered, it has served to be a tremendous tool, leading to the arrest of thousands of suspected criminals. Also, in addition to helping law enforcement in the effort to catch suspects, DNA profiling has lead to numerous exonerations of those who previously were found guilty and sentenced for a crime. Another scientific advance that greatly benefitted modern forensic science were advancements in chemistry and the analysis of chemicals and substances. With the ability to analyze carpet fibers, strange powders or any material, a forensic scientist can tie a crime to a specific location

Before the 1980s, 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. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Phillips, 2008). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem repeats are also the same for all people, but the number of repetitions is highly variable. Before this discovery, a drop of blood at a crime scene could only reveal a person’s blood type, plus a few proteins unique to certain people. Now DNA forensics can expose a person’s gender, race, susceptibility to diseases, and even propensity for high aggression or drug abuse (Phillips, 2008). More importantly, the certainty of DNA evidence is extremely powerful in court. Astounded at this technology’s almost perfect accuracy, the FBI changed the name of its Serology Unit to the DNA Analysis Unit in 1988 when they began accepting requests for DNA comparisons (Lewis, 1989).

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been used to analyze and prove innocence or guilt of suspects of crimes with great accuracy. DNA is part of everyday life. It is the heredity material in humans and almost all other organisms. While being part of an investigation. DNA has helped to solve crimes. There is a couple ways that DNA left behind can be tested to solve a crime. Either if the suspect has been caught and or had his or her DNA tested, or if he or she has left behind any biological evidence. Which then needs to be tested to see if it matches the DNA found in the crime scene to his or hers DNA. The result to this comparison may help establish if the suspect committed the crime.

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 is deoxyribonucleic acid, which is found in almost all living things. DNA serves as a code for the creation and maintenance of new cells within an organism. Within humans, it is found in almost every cell. Although most of our DNA is found within the nucleus of our cells as nuclear DNA, a very small amount of our DNA is also found within the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA is generally not used for solving crimes, for the purpose of this paper it will be disregarded.