DNA as Proof of Guilt - Often Necessary, Not Always Sufficient

More than two decades ago, a Texas appellate court made clear that a DNA profile correspondence between the suspect and the crime scene evidence, standing alone, was enough to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, in particular in a case where the victim was unable to identify her assailant. [.....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal justice (1986) 2022-01, Vol.36 (4), p.53-54
Main Author: Epstein, Jules
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
African Americans
Analysis
Burden of proof
Crime scenes
Evidence
Evidence (Law)
Federal court decisions
Firearms
Genetic aspects
Guilt (Law)
Indictments
Laws, regulations and rules
Reasonable doubt
Remedies
Robbery
State court decisions
Trials
Victims of crime
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:More than two decades ago, a Texas appellate court made clear that a DNA profile correspondence between the suspect and the crime scene evidence, standing alone, was enough to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, in particular in a case where the victim was unable to identify her assailant. [...]the power of DNA. In other words, she could not determine whether the defendant's DNA ended up on the gun because he touched the gun, because he touched something that subsequently came into contact with the gun, or because he breathed, sneezed, or coughed near the gun. * Second, Russell was unable to determine when the defendant's DNA was deposited on the gun; she could not say if it was deposited on or about August IO, 2014, or at some other undetermined time. * Third, Russell was clear that the DNA sample was consistent with being a mixture, meaning that at least one other person's DNA was on the gun and possibly as many as three or four other people's DNA. * Fourth, Russell conceded that, although the other three individuals at the picnic table were able to be excluded as contributors to the sample, that did not mean that their DNA was not on the gun; rather, it simply meant that it wasn't detected. * Fifth, two individuals also present in the courtyard that night were not DNA tested. * Finally, Russell testified that she could not definitively say that the DNA profile developed was that of the defendant; she could determine only that he could not be excluded as a contributor.
ISSN:0887-7785