DOCSLIB.ORG

Forensic DNA Analysis: Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

US. Departmentof Justice Officeof JusticeProgmm Bureau of Justice Sta!ktics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Steven D. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH Group, Inc., Gary L. Bush, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Director, Law and Policy Program. This report was written by Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel, with assistance from Robert L. Marx, System Specialist, and Judith A. Ryder, Director, Corporate Communications. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Paul Ferrara, Director, Bureau of Forensic Science, Commonwealth of Virginia. The federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Federal Statistics and Information Policy Branch, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under B JS Grant No. 87-B J-CX-K079, awarded to SEARCH Group, Inc., 73 11 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or legal analyses of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright O SEARCH Group, Inc. 1991 The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating that they are copyrighted or reprinted by any source other than SEARCH Group, Inc. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, coordinates the activities of the following program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Forum on Criminal Justice Uses of DNA -Participants - W. Gray Buckley Dr. Henry Lee Inspector Director Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Science Laboratory Connecticut State Police Gary L. Bush Senior Policy Advisor Karen McDonald Information Services Branch Director Kentucky State Police Criminal Justice Information Systems Bureau of Criminal Apprehension James Dempsey Minnesota Department of Public Safety Assistant Counsel to the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Civil Catherine M. Russell and Constitutional Rights Counsel Offrce of U. S. Rep. Don Edwards Subcommittee on Technology and Law Ofjice of U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy Dr. Paul Ferrara Director Prof. George Trubow Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science Director Centerfor Informatics Law Jill D. Friedman The John Marshall School of Law Counsel U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee John K. Winkler, Jr. Subcommittee on Technology and the Law Senior Vice President Lifecodes Corporation Wayne A. Garrett Assistant Director Fred Wynbrandt Bureau of Criminal Investigation Assistant Director Virginia State Police Criminal Identijication and IMormation California Department of Justice Janlori Goldman StaffAttorney SEARCH Group Staff Project on Privacy and Technology Sheila J. Barton American Civil Liberties Union Director, Law and Policy Program Richard N. Harris Robert R. Belair Director former) General Counsel Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Robert L. Marx M. Dawn Herkenham System Specialist Counsel New York Division of Criminal Justice Services Bureau of Justice Statistics Staff Carol G. Kaplan John W. Hicks Chief, Information Policy Branch Deputy Assistant Director FBI Laboratory, Washington,D.C. iii Table of Contents Introduction 1 I. DNA Testing Methods and Use 3 DNA and Its Potential for Identification 3 DNA Testing Methodologies 4 -Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism 5 -Polymerase Chain Reaction-based Techniques 6 Allele-Specific OligonucleotideProbes 6 Amplification Fragment Length Polymorphism 7 Functions of DNA Testing 7 -Paternity Determinations 7 -Identif~ationof Suspects 7 Forensic Limitations of DNA Testing 8 -Infancy of DNA Databanks 8 -Private versus Government Laboratories 9 -Funding 10 11. Issues Regarding DNA Testing 11 lnvasiveness 11 -Obtaining DNA Specimens From a Suspect 11 "Dragnet" Testing Impermissible 12 Particularized Suspicion May Be Adequate 13 More Stringent Standard for DNA Searches? 13 -Obtaining DNA Specimens for Databank Purposes 14 Administrative Searches Judged Using Rational Basis Test 14 Blood Sample Searches Often Judged Using Compelling State Interest Test 15 Blood Testsfor DNA Databank Purposes Likly to be Held Constitutional 15 -Issues Associated with DNA Testing 16 Blood Testsfor Suspects or Offenders 16 Universal DNAIBlood Testing Program 17 Reliability 17 -Scientists Claim Reliability 17 -Courts Accept Reliability 18 Frye Test 18 Relevancy Test 18 DNA Test Results Admitted as Evidence 19 -CriminalJustice Officials Endorse Reliability 20 -Problems in Admitting DNA Test Results in Court 21 Adequacy of Population Studies 21 Adequacy of Testing Methods 22 Human Error in Interpreting Test Results 23 Alleged Unfairness to Criminal Defendants 23 Lack of Standards 24 Establishment and Use of DNA Databanks 25 -Law Enforcement Use 25 Relevance of Fingerprint Databank Case Law 26 Maintaining a Databank on Non-Arrestees 26 -National Population Register 27 -Genetic Redlining 27 -Management and Regulation 28 Dissemination of DNA Test Data 28 -Use of DNA Data for Criminal Justice Purposes 28 -Use of DNA Data as a Basis for Probable Cause 29 -Use of Non-Offender DNA Data 29 -Use of DNA Data for Noncriminal Justice Purposes 30 -General Dissemination Policy Issues 30 Conclusion 32 Introduction Hailed by many as the "most sig- Forensic DNA Analysis and Issues The report cites the responses of nificant breakthrough ...since finger- focuses primarily on the privacy and scientists and judicial and criminal printing" and the "greatest advance ... confidentiality issues raised by DNA justice officials to the question of since the advent of cross-examina- testing for identification purposes. DNA testing's reliability, and tion," DNA analysis has dramatically The report consists of two sections. examines some potential problems altered the work of law enforcement, Part One, DNA Testing Methods and associated with submitting DNA test the courts and forensic scientists in Use, provides a brief and general results as evidence in court. These only six short years. DNA - description of the underlying science challenges include the adequacy of deoxyribonucleic acid -is the basic associated with forensic DNA testing. population studies and testing genetic material within each living This section reviews methodologies methods, the role of human error in cell that determines a person's indi- for identifying the distinctive patterns interpreting test results, alleged vidual characteristics. Since the early found in an individual's genetic unfairness to criminal defendants and 1980s,DNA testing has been used in material, and discusses two major the lack of standards. AIDS and genetic disease research, functions of DNA testing: paternity Part Two also considers law bone marrow transplants, and in an- determination and suspect enforcement's use of DNA databanks thropological investigations. l In identification. Finally, this section and the relevance of fingerprint forensics, DNA testing is typically outlines a few of the difficulties and databank case law and the used to identify individuals, using limitations confronting justice maintenance of non-arrestee only small samples of body fluids or agencies interested in establishing databanks. It also discusses questions tissue -such as blood, semen or hair DNA testing capabilities including the relating to a DNA databank as a -left at a crime scene. infancy of DNA databanks, the national population register, the threat This new technology raises scarcity of government laboratories of genetic redlining and problems profound issues and complex and the lack of funding. associated with managing and questions, the answers to which effect Part Two, Issues Regarding DNA regulating such databanks. all of society. Criminal justice Testing, identifies four broad and Finally, Part Two discusses the practitioners are considering the somewhat controversial topics - practice of disseminating DNA test complexities of obtaining DNA invasiveness, reliability, establishment data for both criminal and samples from suspects; establishing and use of databanks and noncriminal justice purposes; its use properly equipped and expertly dissemination of DNA test data - as a basis for probable cause; and the staffed laboratories; developing with which criminal justice distribution of non-offender DNA national standards for quality practitioners are beginning to data. The report concludes by noting assurance; submitting DNA as struggle. This section of the report that DNA testing's tremendous evidence in court; and creating DNA analyzes questions raised when bodily potential for use in a law enforcement profile databanks. fluids or tissue are taken from an setting must be balanced with privacy individual for identification purposes considerations. or to build a databank. It discusses developments in the Federal and State courts and in State legislatures, and examines the consistency of DNA testing with prevailing practices. Harold M. Schrneck, Jr., "New Test That Finds Hidden AIDS Virus is a Sleuth with Value in Many Fields."New York Times,June 21, 1988, Medical Science Page. Forensic DNA Analysis and Issues Page 1 Forensic DNA Analysis and Issues relies upon numerous source documents and resource personnel. This report originated in June of 1989 when SEARCH
Recommended publications
  • Federal Rules of Evidence: 801-03, 901

    Federal Rules of Evidence: 801-03, 901

    FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: 801-03, 901 Rule 801. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion. (b) Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if-- (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross- examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  • Comparison Between Precision ID Globalfiler™ NGS STR Panel V2 and Traditional Methods

    Comparison Between Precision ID Globalfiler™ NGS STR Panel V2 and Traditional Methods

    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Article Interpreting Mixture Profiles: Comparison Between Precision ID GlobalFiler™ NGS STR Panel v2 and Traditional Methods Michele Ragazzo 1, Stefania Carboni 2, Valerio Caputo 1 , Carlotta Buttini 1, Laura Manzo 1, Valeria Errichiello 1, Giulio Puleri 1 and Emiliano Giardina 1,2,* 1 Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Tor Vergata University of Rome, 00133 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (M.R.); [email protected] (V.C.); [email protected] (C.B.); [email protected] (L.M.); [email protected] (V.E.); [email protected] (G.P.) 2 Genomic Medicine Laboratory UILDM, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, 00142 Rome, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 14 April 2020; Accepted: 22 May 2020; Published: 26 May 2020 Abstract: Forensic investigation for the identification of offenders, recognition of human remains, and verification of family relationships requires the analysis of particular types of highly informative DNA markers, which have high discriminatory power and are efficient for typing degraded samples. These markers, called STRs (Short Tandem Repeats), can be amplified by multiplex-PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) allowing attainment of a unique profile through which it is possible to distinguish one individual from another with a high statistical significance. The rapid and progressive evolution of analytical techniques and the advent of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) have completely revolutionized the DNA sequencing approach. This technology, widely used today in the diagnostic field, has the advantage of being able to process several samples in parallel, producing a huge volume of data in a short time.
  • Estabilishing an Rfu Threshold for Forensic

    Estabilishing an Rfu Threshold for Forensic

    BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE Thesis INVESTIGATION OF BASELINE NOISE: ESTABILISHING AN RFU THRESHOLD FOR FORENSIC DNA ANALYSIS by JOLI BREGU B.S., Boston University, 2009 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science 2011 i Approved by First Reader ____________________________________________________ Catherine Grgicak, M.S.F.S., Ph.D. Instructor, Biomedical Forensic Sciences Second Reader________________________________________________ Kelly Brockhohn Criminalist II San Diego County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor Dr. Catherine Grgicak for her continuous and invaluable guidance, ideas, tireless patience, and motivating enthusiasm. It is her inspiring personality and extraordinary ability to effectively explain scientific concepts throughout the thesis project and the master degree program courses that have made possible the completion of this thesis. I express my sincere appreciation to my second reader Kelly Brockhohn for her patience, valuable suggestions and willingness to help. I would like to acknowledge all of those who supported this project in any respect: Danielle Conklin, Elisse Coronado and Margaret Terrill. Lastly, I want to thank my family for giving me the greatest love and support in every step of my life. iii INVESTIGATION OF BASELINE NOISE: ESTABILISHING AN RFU THRESHOLD FOR FORENSIC DNA ANALYSIS JOLI BREGU Boston University School of Medicine, 2011 Major Professor: Catherine Grgicak, M.S.F.S., Ph.D., Instructor in Biomedical Forensic Sciences Program ABSTRACT Two methods to determine analytical thresholds for forensic DNA analyses were examined. These methods rely on analysis of the baseline of a number of amplification negative and run blank samples.
  • The Applicability of the Character Evidence Rule to Corporations

    The Applicability of the Character Evidence Rule to Corporations

    KIM.DOC 12/20/00 2:32 PM CHARACTERISTICS OF SOULLESS PERSONS: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE RULE TO CORPORATIONS ∗ Susanna M. Kim Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404, the character evidence rule, it is well established that evidence of character generally is not admissible to show that a person acted in conformity with that char- acter on a particular occasion. No consensus exists, however, as to whether the character evidence rule should also apply to corpora- tions. In this article, Professor Kim argues that the ban on character evidence should not be extended to corporations. Professor Kim be- gins with a discussion of various rationales offered to support the character evidence rule, emphasizing Kantian conceptions of human autonomy. She then examines varying definitions of “character” and concludes that character may best be regarded as a reflection of the internal operating system of the human organism. Next, Professor Kim turns to an analysis of the personhood of corporations and de- termines that corporations are persons and moral actors with the ca- pacity to possess character. This corporate character is separate and apart from the character of the corporation’s individual members and reflects the internal operating system of the corporate organization. Finally, Professor Kim suggests that the human autonomy ra- tionale for the character evidence rule does not apply with equal force to corporations. She then concludes with an examination of the prac- tical implications of excluding corporations from the protections af- forded individuals under Rule 404. To a seemingly ever-increasing extent the members of society, individual and corporate alike, are awash in an existential sea, out ∗ Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law.
  • Forensic Science Report 1

    Forensic Science Report 1

    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice APRIL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 2018 REPORT FORENSIC SCIENCE Fiscal Year 2017 Funding for DNA Analysis, Capacity Enhancement, and Other Forensic Activities By Gerald LaPorte, Heather Waltke, Charles Heurich, and Ruby J. Chase U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh St. N.W. Washington, DC 20531 David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D. Director, National Institute of Justice This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at: National Institute of Justice Strengthen Science • Advance Justice NIJ.ojp.gov Office of Justice Programs Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice O J P.gov The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Opinions or conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Photo Sources: ©isak55/Shutterstock, Inc., ©Khakimullin Aleksandr/Shutterstock, Inc. APRIL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 2018 REPORT FORENSIC SCIENCE Fiscal Year 2017 Funding for DNA Analysis, Capacity Enhancement, and Other Forensic Activities BY GERALD LAPORTE, HEATHER WALTKE, CHARLES HEURICH, AND RUBY J.
  • Decision Admitting Into Evidence Statements of Witness Prh056 Under Rule 158

    Decision Admitting Into Evidence Statements of Witness Prh056 Under Rule 158

    R303996 PUBLIC STL-11-01/T/TC F3480/20171213/R303996-R304018/EN/af SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR LEBANON u· \..l.ili .. ~Wl ~~ TRIBUNAL SPECIAL POUR LE LIBAN THE TRIAL CHAMBER SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR LEBANON Case No: STL-11-01/T/TC Before: Judge David Re, Presiding Judge Janet Nosworthy Judge Micheline Braidy Judge Walid Akoum, Alternate Judge Judge Nicola Lettieri, Alternate Judge Registrar: Mr Daryl Mundis Date: 13 December 2017 Original language: English Classification: Public THE PROSECUTOR v. SALIM JAMIL AYYASH HASSAN HABIB MERHI HUSSEIN HASSAN ONEISSI ASSAD HASSAN SABRA DECISION ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE STATEMENTS OF WITNESS PRH056 UNDER RULE 158 Office of the Prosecutor: Counsel for Mr Salim Jamil Ayyash: Mr Norman Farrell & Mr Alexander Hugh Mr Emile Aoun, Mr Thomas Hannis & Milne MrChadMair Legal Representatives of Counsel for Mr Hassan Habib Merhi: Participating Victims: Mr Mohamed Aouini, Ms Dorothee Le Fraper Mr Peter Haynes, Mr Mohammad F. Mattar du Hellen & Mr Jad Youssef Khalil & Ms Nada Abdelsater-Abusamra Counsel for Mr Hussein Hassan Oneissi: Mr Vincent Courcelle-Labrousse, Mr Y asser Hassan & Ms Natalie von Wisting usen Mr David Young, Mr Geoffrey R Ms Sarah Bafadhel R303997 PUBLIC STL-11-01/T/TC F3480/20171213/R303996-R304018/EN/af INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. The Prosecution alleges that the Accused, Mr Hassan Habib Merhi, Mr Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Mr Assad Hassan Sabra, chose Mr Ahmed Abu Adass, a person of Palestinian origin, as a suitable individual to appear in a video-recorded false claim of responsibility for the attack1 on the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr Rafik Hariri, on 14 February 2005 in Beirut.2 According to the Prosecution, in early January 2005, Mr Oneissi, introduced himself to Mr Abu Adass as 'Mohammed' at the Arab University Mosque of Beirut, also known as 'the Al-Houry Mosque', and asked Mr Abu Adass to teach him how to pray.
  • Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina."

    Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina."

    SECTION .0100 - ORGANIZATION .0101 Definitions For purposes of this Chapter, the following shall apply: (1) "Chapter" or "Rules" refers to the "Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of North Carolina." (2) "Board" refers to the "Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina." A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and the action of a majority of a quorum, present and voting, shall constitute the action of the Board. (3) "Executive Director" refers to the "Executive Director of the Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina." (4) "Filing" or "filed" shall mean received in the office of the Board of Law Examiners. Except that applications placed in the United States mail properly addressed to the Board of Law Examiners and bearing sufficient first class postage and postmarked by the United States Postal Service or date-stamped by any recognized delivery service on or before a deadline date will be considered as having been timely filed if all required fees are included in the mailing. Mailings which are postmarked after a deadline or which, if postmarked on or before a deadline, do not include required fees or which include a check in payment of required fees which is dishonored because of insufficient funds will not be considered as filed. Applications which are not properly signed and notarized; or which do not include the properly executed Authorization and Release forms; or which are illegible; or with incomplete answers to questions will not be considered filed and will be returned.
  • An Investigation Into the Foundational Principles of Forensic Science

    An Investigation Into the Foundational Principles of Forensic Science

    Department of Chemistry An Investigation into the Foundational Principles of Forensic Science Max Michael Houck This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Of Curtin University of Technology February, 2010 i Declaration: To the best of my knowledge and belief this thesis contains no material previously published by any other person except where due acknowledgment has been made. This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Signature: __________________________________ Date: _________________ ii Abstract This thesis lays the groundwork for a philosophy of forensic science. Forensic science is a historical science, much like archaeology and geology, which operates by the analysis and understanding of the physical remnants of past criminal activity. Native and non-native principles guide forensic science’s operation, application, and interpretations. The production history of mass-produced goods is embedded in the finished product, called the supply chain. The supply chain solidifies much of the specificity and resolution of the evidentiary significance of that product. Forensic science has not had an over-arching view of this production history integrated into its methods or instruction. This thesis offers provenance as the dominant factor for much of the inherent significance of mass-produced goods that become evidence. iii Presentations and Publications Some ideas and concepts in this thesis appeared in the following presentations and publications: “Forensic Science is History,” 2004 Combined Meeting of the Southern, Midwestern, Mid Atlantic Associations of Forensic Scientists and the Canadian Society of Forensic Scientists, Orlando, FL, September. “Crime Scene Investigation,” NASA Goddard Engineering Colloquium, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, November 2005 “A supply chain approach to evidentiary significance,” 2008 Australia New Zealand Forensic Science Society, Melbourne.
  • OVERVIEW of WRITTEN RECORDS EXCEPTIONS, FRE 803 (5) Et Seq

    OVERVIEW of WRITTEN RECORDS EXCEPTIONS, FRE 803 (5) Et Seq

    17. WRITTEN RECORDS EXCEPTIONS, FRE 803 (5) et seq. A. OVERVIEW 1. There are lots of exceptions for written documents found in Rule 803. We will focus on the two most important ones: a) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity, 803(6), which most people call by its nickname, Business Records. b) Public records, 803(8), also sometimes called official records 2. These exceptions are tricky because there is a tendency to confuse the name of the rule with whether it fits into an exception. A document is not a “business record” because it is the record of a business, nor is it a “public record” because it comes from a government office. The only question is whether the foundation has been laid, and they are detailed. A document is only a piece of paper until someone lays a foundation. If you're suing the welfare dept, and trying to get their records into evidence, they could be business records, official records, statements of the opposing party, past recollection recorded, or not hearsay at all because not offered for their truth, depending on the circumstances and what kind of foundation you can lay. 3. These records frequently have hearsay within hearsay problems . Business records may describe both the personal knowledge of employees and also things told to employees by outsiders. The former is covered by the business record exception, the latter is not. It needs its own reason why it is not hearsay. 4. You must distinguish business records from documents with independent legal significance, from admissions of the party-opponent.
  • Character Evidence in Criminal Cases

    Character Evidence in Criminal Cases

    CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES Rules 404(a), 405, and 608 of the Texas Rules of Evidence & Article 37.07 § 3 of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Austin Bar Association 11th Annual Criminal Law Retreat November 17, 2006 Randy T. Leavitt Travis County Attorney‟s Office 314 W. 11th Street, Third Floor Austin, TX 78701 (512)854-9415 Updated by Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez Introduction Character evidence is a general category of evidence that relates to some character trait that is at issue during a criminal trial. Character, as the term is used in our jurisprudence, means the estimate attached to an individual by the community, not the real qualities of the individual as perceived by the witness. In other words, it is not what the individual in question really is, but what he is held to be by the society in which he moves. Rogers v. State, 70 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934). The character evidence sought to be admitted must be related to the offense the defendant is charged with. The defendant is permitted to offer relevant character evidence under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Washington v. State, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967). The same argument should be made under Article I, § 19 of the Texas Constitution. If proper constitutional objections are made, a 44.2(a) harm analysis is required under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In Texas, character evidence is admissible for or against a criminal defendant, a witness, or a victim/complainant. Rule 404 of the Texas Rules of Evidence governs when character evidence is admissible, Rule 405 governs how character may be proven, and Rule 608 governs when and how the character and conduct of a witness may be impeached.
  • DNA Fingerprinting: a Guide to Admissibility and Use

    DNA Fingerprinting: a Guide to Admissibility and Use

    Missouri Law Review Volume 57 Issue 2 Spring 1992 Article 9 Spring 1992 DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide to Admissibility and Use Ricardo Fontg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ricardo Fontg, DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide to Admissibility and Use, 57 MO. L. REV. (1992) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol57/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fontg: Fontg: DNA Fingerprinting Comment DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide to Admissibility and Use I. INTRODUCTION Forensic scientists have long hoped for the ability "to identify the origin of blood and body-fluid stains with the same degree of certainty as finger- prints."' Recent advances in recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") research offer scientists the necessary technology. Consequently, DNA technology now provides the judicial system with a powerful new test to identify criminal suspects and to trace paternity. Every individual, except an identical twin, possesses a unique genetic "blueprint" known as DNA. DNA is found in every chromosome of every cell in the human body; thus, an individual's blood, semen, skin, and hair can provide virtual positive identification of that person through his or her DNA.2 Because of this unique pattern, scientists can use DNA tests to identify individuals much like criminologists use fingerprints to identify individuals.
  • Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic Dna Testing Laboratories

    Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic Dna Testing Laboratories

    QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING LABORATORIES This document consists of definitions and standards. The standards are quality assurance measures that place specific requirements on the laboratory. Equivalent measures not outlined in this document may also meet the standard if determined sufficient through an accreditation process. EFFECTIVE DATE: These standards shall take effect July 1, 2009. REFERENCES: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories” and “Quality Assurance Standards for Convicted Offender DNA Databasing Laboratories,” Forensic Science Communications, July 2000, Volume 2, Number 3. 1. SCOPE The standards describe the quality assurance requirements that laboratories performing forensic DNA testing or utilizing the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) shall follow to ensure the quality and integrity of the data generated by the laboratory. These standards also apply to vendor laboratories that perform forensic DNA testing in accordance with Standard 17. These standards do not preclude the participation of a laboratory, by itself or in collaboration with others, in research and development, on procedures that have not yet been validated. 2. DEFINITIONS As used in these standards, the following terms shall have the meanings specified: Accredited laboratory is a DNA laboratory that has received formal recognition that it meets or exceeds a list of standards, including the FBI Director’s Quality Assurance Standards, to perform specific tests, by a nonprofit professional association of persons actively involved in forensic science that is nationally recognized within the forensic community in accordance with the provisions of the Federal DNA Identification Act (42 U.S.C. § 14132) or subsequent laws. Accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured quantity to its actual (true) value.