http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/ wars.html!

Perhaps the most signicant advance in criminal investigation since the advent of ngerprint identication is the use of DNA technology to help convict criminals or eliminate persons as suspects. DNA analyses on saliva, skin tissue, blood, hair, and semen can now be reliably used to link criminals to crimes. Increasingly accepted during the past 10 years, DNA technology is now widely used by police, prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts in the United States.! ! An authoritative study on the forensic uses of DNA,conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, has noted that:! ...the reliability of DNA evidence will permit it to exonerate some people who would have been wrongfully accused or convicted without it.! ! Therefore, DNA identication is not only a way of securing convictions; it is also a way of excluding suspects who might otherwise be falsely charged with and convicted of serious crimes.5! ! Forensic use of DNA technology in criminal cases began in 1986 when police asked Dr. Alec J. Je"reys (who coined the term "DNA ngerprints" 6) of Leicester University (England) to verify a suspect's confession that he was responsible for two rape-murders in the English Midlands.7 Tests proved that the suspect had not committed the crimes. Police then began obtaining blood samples from several thousand male inhabitants in the area to identify a new suspect.8 In a 1987 case in England, Robert Melias became the rst person convicted of a crime (rape) on the basis of DNA evidence.9! ! In one of the rst uses of DNA in a criminal case in the United States, in November 1987, the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim.10! Two other important early cases involving DNA testing are State v. Woodall 11 and Spencer v. Commonwealth 12. In Woodall, the West Virginia Supreme Court was the rst State high court to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. The court accepted DNA testing by the

defendant, but inconclusive results failed to exculpate Woodall. The court upheld the defendant's conviction for rape, kidnaping, and robbery of two women. Subsequent DNA testing determined that Woodall was innocent, and he was released from prison (see the case prole in chapter IV for more details).! ! The multiple murder trials in Virginia of Timothy Wilson Spencer were the rst cases in the United States where the admission of DNA evidence led to guilty verdicts resulting in a death penalty. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the murder and rape convictions of Spencer, who had been convicted on the basis of DNA testing that matched his DNA with that of semen found in several victims. In Spencer, the defendant's attack upon the introduction of DNA evidence was limited to the contention that its novelty should lead the court to "hold o" until another day any decision..."13 There was no testimony from expert witnesses that challenged the general acceptance of DNA testing among the scientic community.14! ! The rst case that seriously challenged a DNA prole's admissibility was People v. Castro;15 the New York Supreme Court, in a 12-week pretrial hearing, exhaustively examined numerous issues relating to the admissibility of DNA evidence. Jose Castro was accused of murdering his neighbor and her 2-year-old daughter. A bloodstain on Castro'swatch was analyzed for a match to the victim. The court held the following:! ! o DNA identication theory and practice are generally accepted among the scientic community.! o DNA forensic identication techniques are generally accepted by the scientic community.! o Pretrial hearings are required to determine whether the testing laboratory's methodology was substantially in accord with scientic standards and produced reliable results for jury consideration.! The Castro ruling supports the proposition that DNA identication evidence of exclusion is more presumptively admissible than DNA identication evidence of inclusion. In Castro, the court ruled that DNA tests could be used to show that blood on Castro's watch was not his, but tests could not be used to show that the blood was that of his victims. In Castro, the court also recommended extensive discovery

requirements for future proceedings,including copies of all laboratory results and reports; explanation of statistical probability calculations; explanations for any observed defects or laboratory errors, including observed contaminants; and chain of custody of documents. These recommendations soon were expanded upon by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in Schwartz v.State,16 which noted,! "...ideally, a defendant should be provided with the actual DNA sample(s) in order to reproduce the results. As a practical matter, this may not be possible because forensic samples are often so small that the entire sample is used in testing. Consequently, access to the data, methodology, and actual results is crucial...for an independent expert review."17! In Schwartz, the Supreme Court of Minnesota refusedto admit the DNA evidence analyzed by a private forensic laboratory; the court noted the laboratory did not comply with appropriate standards and controls. In particular, the court was troubled by failure of the laboratory to reveal its underlying population data and testing methods. Such secrecy precluded replication of the test.! ! In summary, courts have successfully challenged improper application of DNA scientic techniquesto particular cases, especially when used to declare "matches" based on frequency estimates. However, DNA testing properly applied is generally accepted as admissible under Frye 18 or Daubert 19 standards.20 As stated in the National Research Council's 1996 report on DNA evidence, "The state of the proling technology and the methods for estimating frequencies and related statistics have progressed to the point where the admissibility of properly collected and analyzed DNA data should not be in doubt."21 At this time, 46 States admit DNA evidence in criminal proceedings. In 43 States,courts have ruled on the technology, and in 3 States, statutes require admission (see exhibit 1).