The Evolution of DNA in Criminal Investigations

The Evolution of DNA in Criminal Investigations

According to Murdock (2010) scientists called DNA an invention that had led to the discovery of an organelle inside the nuclei of a white blood a cell through a model built by Watson and Crick called the double helix structure in 1950s. The discovery of DNA as a tool in criminal investigation was done in 1984 when Sir Alex Jeffreys identified “genetic fingerprints”. This marked the first time when scientists were able to differentiate the DNA of different individuals.

Television shows dealing with crimes like Criminal Scene Investigation have served the purpose of educating the public about the role of DNA in criminal investigation. Despite its extensive scrutiny, the use of DNA in presenting evidence in the courtroom has undergone a revolution to become the standard form in presenting evidence today (Reeder, Cormier & Calandro, 2005). The use of DNA in the presenting of evidence has been scrutinized in recent years due to the newness of the procedure and its power to discrimination of between individuals. According to Reeder, Cormier & Calandro (2005) legislative issues have become the focus, stemming from the increased use of DNA databanking and the movement to allow post-conviction DNA testing.

The use of DNA was first meant to solve cases that were linked to the issue of paternity. Samples were taken under controlled clinical conditions from the child and the parent to link the parent with the child. The use of DNA first made its way in the courtroom in 1986 when a molecular biologist was asked by police to verify the confession of a seventeen year old boy who was accused of two-rape murders in England. The test performed proved that the boy was innocent and eventually the perpetrators were caught by use of the same technology. The use of DNA in the presentation of evidence in this case was very significant because otherwise, the boy would have been found guilty and accused of a crime he did not commit.

Shortly after 1987, the first DNA-based conviction occurred in the United States when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after a sample of his DNA matched traces of semen sample found in the rape victim (Reeder, Cormier & Calandro, 2005) and (Murdock, 2010). In West Virginia two years later, a state high court ruled in favour of DNA admitted as evidence. The years that followed these cases, DNA was used in the presenting of evidence for many cases without any disputes. However, this began to change with the frequent use of DNA by many prosecutors which made attorneys question the admissibility of such tests.

Admissibility Standards

As explored in the article DNA Evidence – Legal History of DNA Evidence Frye standard and Daubert standard are the standards mostly employed in the admissibility of new scientific evidence. The Frye standard originated from a case in 1923 by Frey vs. the United States where the court ruled that for scientific evidence to be admissible, it should have gained adequate and general acceptance from its relevant field. The Daubert standard is much more recent and was derived from the 1993 case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The Supreme Court stated that for scientific evidence to be admissible, it must have sufficient scientific consistency and validity to be termed as relevant.

Challenges to Admissibility

The first challenge of admissibility of DNA evidence came with the murder case of people of New York vs. Castro. During the pre-trial hearings in the New York Supreme Court DNA evidence from a bloodstain on the defendant’s watch was in question (Reeder, Cormier & Calandro, 2005).The court identified that use of DNA is widely accepted in the scientific community. The pre-trial hearing required the court to determine whether the laboratory procedures used to obtain the results were reliable for consideration by the jury. The laboratory procedures were thus questionable and a testimony from an expert revealed that the laboratory had failed to use reliable procedures that could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the blood on the watch was from the victim. The court then ruled in favour of Castro because the DNA results proved to be unreliable.

Due to the unreliability of results in the case of the people of New York vs. Castro, recommendations and requirements were made by the New York Supreme Court to cater for future cases where DNA was likely to be used as evidence. Before DNA was accepted in a court of law as evidence, the laboratory results were required to be well explained taking into consideration the errors involved. The custody of the documents containing the results since the time they were obtained to the time they are presented in court is also vital information that should be presented in court to rule out the likelihood of alterations. In the late 1980s and 1990s, many cases were dismissed due to the unreliability of DNA results. Many major cases that involve the presentation of DNA as the major form of evidence are keen to check the credibility of the results presented by investigating issues concerning the reliability of the technician performing the tests and the reliability of the procedures used in the laboratory where the analysis is performed.

In another similar case in Supreme Court of Minnesota the court acknowledged the importance of DNA evidence in criminal cases, but also stated that admissibility of DNA results depends on the compliance of the laboratory that has appropriate controls and standards. According to the article DNA Evidence – Legal History of DNA Evidence most laboratory results are declared insufficient due to poor methodological confirmation processes leading to the dismissal of the evidence. Even though DNA testing has the ability to become one of the most widely used for presenting evidence in criminal cases, its advancement in technology has led to its inadmissibility questioning the reliability of the new advancements in technology of DNA testing.

In 2001, the issues were or the most part resolved in several cases where the court supported results that could be proved to be reliable. Most people recommended that the issue of DNA inadmissibility should not be a matter of scrutiny by the judiciary. In a case in Colorado where the evidence was dismissed because the results were inadmissible due to the validity of the testing kit was later found to be admissible when an appeal was made.

The Emergence of DNA Databases

In addition to the court cases scrutinizing the reliability of DNA evidence upon review of laboratory methodology and validation processes, the introduction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) forensic DNA database – mandated by the federal DNA Identification Act of 1994, provided another set of pressures on forensic laboratories to ensure their methodologies were sound and validated (Reeder, Cormier & Calandro, 2005) and Murdock, 2010).

Correspondingly, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 advocated for the use of similar standards for Forensic DNA testing. Further federal support was provided for law enforcement agencies both state and local with the aim of improving the DNA testing competences.

Development of All Felons Database

Additionally, all the 50 states keep DNA databases. The profiles included vary from one state to another, with a general trend toward expanding the crimes justifying inclusion (Reeder, Cormier & Calandro, 2005). Virginia in 1999 became the first state to keep DNA from all felons. Other states were keeping DNA from felons that were convicted with certain crimes like those involving sexual violence. By the end of 1999, about six states had an all felons’ DNA database. Now there are around 38 states with the same legislation and the other states are making progress in order to have DNA database of all felons. according to Reeder, Cormier & Calandro (2005), DNA database has led to a growing number of “cold hit” cases, where no suspects have been identified, but samples from a crime scene submitted to the local, state or federal DNA database result in a match from a previously convicted offender. Virginia became the first state where a criminal was executed and convicted based on a “cold hit”

Emergence of “John Doe” Warrants

In addition for their use in “cold hits”, DNA database has brought up the use of a new arrest warrant known as the “John Doe” or “DNA” warrants where the person is not identified and the only thing present from an investigation is the genetic code of the of the suspect (Murdock, 2010). As discussed in the article “DNA Evidence – Legal History of DNA Evidence” in Wisconsin in 1999, a prosecutor became the first person to obtain a warrant and file for criminal charges against a person who was identified through DNA profiling. Many states have been successful in convicting offenders based on these warrants and for this case, just like in Wisconsin, they have been legalized.

Post Conviction DNA Testing

Just as the states have convicted many suspects who have been involved in criminal activities, many innocent people convicted have been set free through post conviction DNA testing. Since the introduction of DNA testing in 1989, many people have people that had been falsely convicted have been proved innocent. In 1992, the Innocent Project was established to advocate for the rights of those felons who continued to insist on their innocence. Through this project, DNA testing has gained acceptance leading to their legislation in most states to cater for those who have been falsely convicted.

On October 30, 2004, President George Bush signed the Justice for All Act, which significantly enhanced funding and guidelines for the use of DNA technology in the judicial process (Reeder, Cormier & Calandro, 2005). The Act gave the right to all felons to obtain post conviction testing creating a probability that the suspect did not commit a certain offence.

Additionally, the Act authorized the increase of grants to state and local law enforcement agencies for them to improve their DNA testing laboratories. The laboratories would be accredited and audited in every two years to ensure that they are compliant according to federal standards.

In conclusion, the use of DNA in criminal investigations has been widely supported by legal reviews and quality control measures modified for the last twenty years to ensure the reliability of the results obtained. The ongoing judicial and legislative reviews have contributed in a significant way in the evolution of DNA analysis. The scrutiny of DNA based evidence in the 1990s led to its modification making it a powerful tool in today’s judicial system. With technological advances legislative and judicial reviews should ensure that DNA analysis uphold justice as well as protecting the public.

References

Reeder, D., Cormier, K. & Calandro, L. (2005). Evolution of DNA Evidence for Crime Solving- A Judicial and Legislative History. Forensic Magazine.

DNA Evidence – Legal History of DNA Evidence. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://law.jrank.org/pages/6228/DNA-Evidence-Legal-History-DNA-Evidence.html” http://law.jrank.org/pages/6228/DNA-Evidence-Legal-History-DNA-Evidence.html

Murdock, K. (2010). The History of DNA Testing in Criminal Investigations. EHow. March 29, 2010. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.ehow.com/about_6136480_history-dna-testing-criminal-investigations.html” http://www.ehow.com/about_6136480_history-dna-testing-criminal-investigations.html