Microscopic Hair Analysis Cases

Unfortunately, these shows also create a false expectation that clear and definite evidence can be shown for any case, which is not true. Jurors expect every case to have thorough scientific evidence from the best and most modern technology and to look exactly as it does on a television show (Shelton). Radford said, “Science does not operate on certainties.” During an investigation, scientists don’t ever say that the DNA being tested is a “match” to the suspect because nothing can ever be a definite match. Instead, their vocabulary consists of phrases such as

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 analysts have been profiling DNA since 1985. Then in 1998, the Combined DNA Index System became fully operational (“FAQs” 2010). CODIS’s three levels are the national level, the state level, and the local level. As September 2015, there is 14,740,249 DNA profiles in CODIS (“CODIS”, n.d.). Since everybody has different DNA, except identical twins, DNA analysts have been able to assists with investigator to determine between who is guilty and who is innocent. With some of their findings, they are able to exonerate individuals, who have been wrongfully convicted. Even though television may make DNA analysts’ life look simple on the screen, it is not. There is need for interest and education. Lastly, the actual job that entails for the DNA

At the scene of the crime a hair was found near Anna Garcia. After viewing and testing the hair, we concluded that the hair belonged to Erica. The unknown hair had the exact same thickness and color of Erica’s hair. The hair at the crime scene had a similar cuticle to Erica’s. Both Erica’s hair and the one at the crime scene had the same cortex as well. We believe that Erica’s hair was brought to the crime scene on a piece of clothing by Alex Garcia(Anna’s ex-husband). When Alex came to murder Anna a hair of Erica’s must have fallen off when Alex was doing his deed.

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)

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

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

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

Trichology is the study of hair. Interestingly, this study dates back to mid-1800s. However, hair analysis in forensic science began in 1930. During which time, a forensic scientist by the name of Edmond Locard introduced the Locard Exchange Principal. This principal hinges on the fact that any time there is contact between two surfaces an exchange of material will take place. (Oien, 2009) In this paper, I will prove how Forensic Hair Analysis and Forensic Hair comparison and studies if properly performed and correctly interpreted hair analysis meets all the scientific method standards.

    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.

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

In April of 2015, the field of forensic science suffered a major shock after the FBI announced that the hair analysis testimony that it had used to investigate criminal suspects was flawed. legal scholar Tucker Carrington stated that the FBI hair analysis being performed was “magic”, it was considered that because its hair analysis investigations were unscientific. The evidence that was presented on trial was considered to be unreliable. In about 95% of cases it was discovered that analysts stated their conclusion in order to favor prosicuters. False testemonies occurred in over 100 trials, including 32 death penalty cases. But FBI was not done with their announcements, they also revealed that

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.

Often when local police authorities present findings to state prosecutors and those findings are too vague, prosecutors will state what evidence they need to file information or an indictment. This places the investigating authorities in a biased position; the investigation then turns from an objective search to a subjective search. Another cause would be when a prosecutor provides the laboratory with information relating to the crime. This is often described on the lab acquisition forms accompanying evidence sent into a lab to be processed. Specific comments such as details relating to a possible cause and manner of death, “Rush please-suspect expected to flee,” “Compare standards submitted for elimination purposes,” should never be rendered to avoid subjective validation. This leads to another issue called into question; whether state run crime labs lead to favorable findings for the prosecution? “Funding crime labs through court-assessed fees creates another channel for bias to enter crime lab analyses. In jurisdictions with this practice the crime lab receives a sum of money for each conviction of a given type” (Koppl and Sacks 2013,

Hair evidence helped by: Ricky McGinn was accused for murder and raper of this teen in Texas. The way they knew it was by detectives finding a pubic hair in the girl's genital region. To be positive that it was Ricky they did a DNA test over his hair and found out it was him. McGinn was later for murder and rape.