Examples Of File Review

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.

III. Today I will discuss how DNA is tested, how reliable DNA evidence is, and contamination issues that could arise in DNA evidence.

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.)

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

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

Testing all backlogged rape kits (also known as sexual assault kits) places colossal burden on government employees. Analyzing all untested rape kits stresses forensic laboratories. Ritter states that, “the demand for DNA testing continues to outstrip the capacity” (40). This information portrays that forensic laboratories that test DNA found in rape kits cannot handle any more kits, since the laboratories already have too much genetic information to test. Because the labs already have a tremendous amount of DNA to test, adding to that amount will only stress workers. Since the

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).

In 2017 the investigations unit filed one hundred seventy-five (175) felony and misdemeanor charges. This includes but is not limited to (114) assaults by prisoner; (30) propelling substance at officers; (30) damaging jail; (5) aggravated assaults by prisoner; and (22) drug cases. These do not include cases that were investigated and closed out due to lack of victim cooperation and evidence. The Sheriff’s Office, on average, generates 12,000 cases per year. However, these numbers are increasing as the years’

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

With regard to the US, where social science and STS research have, focused less on forensic databases and more on the production of expertise and evidence in court, Jay Aronson provided a historical account of the early practices, the scientific and legal controversies, and the ultimately successful acceptance of forensic DNA evidence in court in 2007. Another particularity of social science and STS research in this domain is that it has so far mostly concentrated its “high end” forensic technologies, namely those which received a lot of public attention because they were new, because stakeholders in the criminal justice system struggled to determine the parameters of scientific reliability and admissibility, or because they were prominently featured in the media. While the use of DNA analysis for police investigations and forensic casework dates back to the late 1980s, the second half of the 1990s marked the beginning of the quest to render DNA profiles systematically and routinely searchable and minable by setting up centralized DNA databases in many countries around the world. A DNA molecule is a long, twisting chain known as a double helix. DNA looks pretty complex, but it's really made of only four nucleotides: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. These nucleotides exist as base pairs that link together like a ladder. Adenine and Thymine always bond together as a pair, and Cytosine and Guanine bond together as a pair.

Criminologists, usually Forensic scientists, collect DNA sources of semen, saliva, hair follicle, body cells, skin, and blood. They must always wear gloves, mask, and use disposable instruments. This help prevents the DNA being contaminated, to where it would not be useable. The collected samples must be bagged and label in envelopes but not plastic bags! Plastic Bags retain moisture that will damage DNA, another reason why DNA must be protected and label is that direst sunlight and weather condition may damage DNA.

Recent advancements in DNA technology have improved law enforcement’s ability to use DNA to solve old cases. Original forensic applications of DNA analysis were developed using a technology called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Although very old cases (more than 10 years) may not have had RFLP analysis done, this kind of DNA testing may have been attempted on more recent unsolved cases. However, because RFLP analysis required a relatively large quantity of DNA, testing may not have been successful. Similarly, biological evidence deemed insufficient in size for testing may not have been previously submitted for testing. Also, if a biological sample was degraded by environmental factors such as dirt or mold, RFLP analysis may have been unsuccessful at yielding a result (Turman).

As observed, several protocols are used for DNA extraction and analysis, and there is no standard methodology. Therefore, researchers must carefully evaluate the conditions of the material to be examined, especially when dealing with forensic cases, in which there is a greater risk of sample contamination and influence of environmental factors, in addition to a small amount of material available in most situations. The PCR technique has

Although the policies for the new hierarchial structure had been established and amended over the use of the new facility, yet the three concerned departments are not considerably complying with these and still creating problems resulting in conflicts among the departments, making it difficult and almost impossible for this new section supervisor to perform his job efficiently. His discussion with his department manager, Gary Whitehead, proved unfruitful as well. He refused to assist him in informing the departments about the new priorities by signing the memos and floating them in the