-
Misleading Labels. "By capitalizing
on the deep-seated public confidence in the uniqueness of fingerprints...,
the name DNA fingerprinting may 'create unsubstantiated beliefs and expectations
in the minds of judges and jurors.'" William C. Thompson & Simon Ford,
DNA Typing: Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification Tests,
75 Va.L.Rev. 45, 53 n.46 (1989) (quoting Dan L. Burk, Abstract, DNA Fingerprinting:
Possibilities and Pitfalls of a New Technique, 28 Juremetrics J. 455, 468-69
(1988))
-
Need for Education. "The complexity
of forensic DNA analysis requires that an attorney or judge have more than
just a nodding acquaintance with the subject. This Court would hope that
future CLE seminars may provide the needed familiarity for any attorney
or judge involved in a case where forensic DNA testing is an issue." Polk
v. Mississippi, 612 So.2d 381, 394 (Miss. 1992).
-
Demonstrative Explanation. "Finally,
this Court notes that any testimony on the subject should be supplemented
by drawings, graphs, charts, or other exhibits; as well as detailed explanations
in language readily understandable by the general public. Neither a judge
nor a jury should rely solely on the testimony of expert witnesses in the
evaluation of forensic DNA evidence." Polk v. Mississippi, 612 So.2d 381,
394 (Miss. 1992).
-
Population Data Bases Used to Calculate
Random Match Probability Problematic. "Interpreting a DNA typing analysis
requires a valid scientific method for estimating the probability that
a random person might by chance have matched the forensic sample at the
sites of DNA variation examined....
To say that two patterns match, without
providing any scientifically valid estimate (or, at least, an upper bound)
of the frequency with which such matches might occur by chance is meaningless.
Substantial controversy has arisen concerning
the methods for estimating the population frequencies of specific DNA typing
patterns. Questions have been raised about the adequacy of the population
databases on which frequency estimates are based and about the role of
racial and ethnic origin in frequency estimation. Some methods based on
simple counting produce modest frequencies, whereas some methods based
on assumptions about population structure can produce extreme frequencies.
The difference can be striking. The discrepancy not only is a question
of the weight to accord the evidence...but bears on the scientific validity
of the alternative methods used for rendering estimates of the weight."
NRC Report, pp. 74-75 (footnote omitted).
-
Not Conclusive. "Evidence of this type
[DNA] should not be regarded as conclusive on the issue of guilt, for it
is but one piece of evidence among many. There is still a presumption of
innocence that must remain with the defendant until the State proves guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The ultimate determination of whether or not
the State has met its burden of proof is the province of the jury, not
of experts." Polk v. Mississippi, 612 So.2d 381, 394 (Miss. 1992).
-
Premature Acceptance. "[E]quating the
procedure with fingerprinting, a forensic technique considered so reliable
that courts take judicial notice of its reliability, has contributed to
the premature acceptance of DNA profiling as reliable in criminal prosecutions."
Janet C. Hoeffel, Note, The Dark Side of DNA Profiling: Unreliable Scientific
Evidence Meets the Criminal Defendant, 42 Stan.L.Rev. 456, 456 n.3 (1990).
-
Steamrolling. "Although it usually
takes many years for the engines of justice to churn out a personal injury
suit or a criminal appeal, in less than two years the combined efforts
of commercial laboratories and prosecutors have steamrolled the so-called
'DNA fingerprinting' technique through the courts. The technique has been
easy to sell. The current national obsession with crime-fighting and the
apparent decrease in concern for individualized justice create a receptive
environment for a cutting-edge technology, dazzling in its promise of identifying
criminals with 'virtual' or '99 percent certainty.' Courts lost all sense
of balance and restraint in the face of this novel scientific evidence,
embracing it with little scrutiny of its actual reliability and little
concern for its impact on the rights of individuals
|
