You are on page 1of 21

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

PROJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC:
Evidentiary value of DNA fingerprinting in the light of O.J.Simpon’s case

SUBMITTED BY: Swati Shanker 2010B.A.L.L.BO5

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. Gargi Rajvanshi

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank, Director Professor S. S. Singh, for giving us this opportunity to make this project and explore our subjects which was helpful in broadening our thinking prospective. I am thankful to Professor Gargi Rajvanshi as without her continuous guidance through thick and thin, the completion of this project could not have been possible. Also, I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for providing us with the relevant material as and when required. Last but not the least I would like to thank my friends who helped me in this project and for their undue guidance without which this project would not have been possible.

2

..................................................C...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2................... 4 DNA PROLIFILING PROCESS: ....... 11 THE PEOPLE V............................ 5 APPLICATION OF DNA FINGERPRINTING: ..................... P.................................. 19 DNA Profile & Human Rights: ....................................................................... 19 CONCLUSION: ................TABLE OF CONTENT: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................... 13 DNA TESTING IN INDIA:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING.................................................................... ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON .... 9 FAKE DNA EVIDENCE: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 DISADVANTAGES OF DNA FIGERPRINTING: .......................................... 11 DNA TESTING IN USA: ........................................................... 10 SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... & DNA PROFILING: ...................................... 6 DNA DATABASES: ........... 18 Cr.... 18 LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING: ................................................................................................... WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE: ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Evidence Law......... & DNA PROFILING: ............................................................ 3........ 2 INTRODUCTION: .................................... 21 3 ............................. 18 1...............................................................................

Dr. DNA analysis was first introduced into policing in 1986 by UK police in a murder investigation. DNA typing.wikipedia.wikipedia. This project analyses the evidentiary value of DNA fingerprinting in the light of various case laws and especially with reference to O.org/2011/03/legal-issues-related-to-dna-fingerprinting-in-criminal-justicesystem/ 4 . the admissibility of DNA fingerprinting as evidence in the court of law is still a matter of debate.INTRODUCTION: DNA fingerprinting also known as DNA testing.t. has given police and the courts a means of identifying the perpetrators of rapes and murders with a very high degree of confidence. which can also be used as the person's identifier.J. DNA fingerprinting. Alec Jeffereys of the University of Leicester is known as the father of DNA fingerprinting.Simpson‘s murder trial case.indianscholars.org/wiki/DNA_profiling 3 http://goswamigk. or Genetic fingerprinting is a technique employed by forensic scientists to assist in the identification of individuals by their respective DNA profiles.2 A DNA fingerprint of an individual remains same throughout his lifetime and further it is unique for every individual. In this project an attempt has been made to address various disputes associated with the admissibility of DNA evidence in the court of law.org/wiki/DNA_profiling http://en. This serves as the basis of DNA fingerprinting. DNA fingerprinting is used for a variety of purposes like criminal investigation or parental testing e. 1 2 http://en.3 However.1 DNA profiles are encrypted sets of numbers that reflect a person's DNA makeup.c. The arguments given against this usually focuses on the misuse of such techniques and raises concerns over various moral and ethical aspects of this particular technique.

4 http://www.medindia. At the very beginning the reliability of this particular method was challenged.c. it has been recommended to improve the procedures employed in collection of reference samples and their tests. This sample is usually referred as the “Reference sample”.DNA PROLIFILING PROCESS: The very basis of the DNA fingerprinting process is that except for the identical twins DNA sequences are unique in each and every individual. hair. The best method of obtaining a DNA reference sample is the‖ Buccal Swab‖ in which DNA samples are collected from the inside cells of mouth. DNA prolifiling is permanent identifier of an individual by exclusion of all others. DNA samples can also be collected from blood. skin. Though. The technology today has proved to be so powerful that even the blood-stained clothing of Abraham Lincoln was used and the DNA analyzed for evidence of a genetic disorder called Marfan's Syndrome. The DNA fingerprinting process starts by collecting some sample of individual‘s DNA. It was argued that the outcomes of DNA fingerprinting cannot be accepted as substantial evidences in the court of law because they sometimes may produce faulty results either due to contamination of the sample or due to faulty preparation procedures. Thus.htm 5 . Thus.t. Further. tissues or semen e.9% of human DNA sequences are identical in every individual enough DNAs are different to help the scientists identify a person at the exclusion of others. 99.net/patients/patientinfo/Dnafingerprinting_criminalcases. an individual‘s DNA cannot be changed by him even through operation. The DNA samples obtained in such manner have less chances of being contaminated. 4 This reference sample is then analyzed through certain chemical reactions and the final patterns are compared with the samples of another DNA to arrive at a particular conclusion.

It is currently employed in paternity disputes 2. Establish paternity and other family relationships 10. Determine pedigree for seed or livestock breeds 14. The specimen required also is very small. The DNA method for personal identification is far superior to the dental records and blood typing methods that were popularly being used. To diagnose inherited disorders in both prenatal and newborn babies. soil. Personal Identification . Identify endangered and protected species as an aid to wildlife officials (could be used for prosecuting poachers) 11. Biological Evidence to Identify Criminals: Where fingerprints are not available but biological specimens are available like blood or semen stains. and food 12. 4.DNA maybe the best way to identify a person as all body tissues and organs contain the same DNA type. Authenticate consumables such as caviar and wine 6 . In fact the US army has been doing DNA fingerprinting of all its soldiers and has a huge databank. Detect bacteria and other organisms that may pollute air. 3. water. hair.APPLICATION OF DNA FINGERPRINTING: 1. Match organ donors with recipients in transplant programs 13. Identify crime and catastrophe victims 9. Identification of bodies of soldiers killed in war. 6. Exonerate persons wrongly accused of crimes 8. or items of clothing at the scene of the crime then these items may prove to be valuable sources of DNA of the criminal. 5. Identify potential suspects whose DNA may match evidence left at crime scenes 7.

He was allegedly found alive eight months later in the custody of William Cantwell Walters.  In 1987. This may be the first known example of the DNA of an innocent yet related individual being used to identify the actual criminal. for raping a woman during a burglary.  In 2004. and sentenced to 22 years in prison. Richard Buckland was exonerated.[46][47]  In 2003. a four-year-old boy who vanished during a fishing trip. he was convicted on November 6. the city where DNA profiling was first discovered. Florida rapist Tommy Lee Andrews was the first person in the United States to be convicted as a result of DNA evidence. Dennis Halstead. Josiah Sutton was released from prison after serving four years of a twelve-year sentence for a sexual assault charge. via "familial searching". genetic fingerprinting was used in criminal court for the first time in the trial of a man accused of unlawful intercourse with a mentally handicapped 14-year-old female who gave birth to a baby.  In March 2003. This was the first use of DNA finger printing in a criminal investigation. Welshman Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of the 1988 murder of Lynette White. because of new DNA evidence. and in many cases to prove their existence.  In 1987. British baker Colin Pitchfork was the first criminal caught and convicted using DNA fingerprinting. In 1987. in the same case as Buckland.HISTORY OF DNA FINGERPRINTING: CASE LAWS  In 1986. but another woman 7 .  The trial of Robert Pickton (convicted in December 2003) is notable in that DNA evidence is being used primarily to identify the victims. John Kogut and John Restivo won a re-trial on their murder conviction. 1987. Questionable DNA samples taken from Sutton were retested in the wake of the Houston Police Department's crime lab scandal of mishandling DNA evidence. when crime scene evidence collected 12 years earlier was re-examined using STR techniques. resulting in a match with his nephew.  In June 2003. The three men had already served eighteen years of their thirty-plus-year sentences. DNA testing shed new light into the mysterious 1912 disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester.

8 . DNA in a drop of blood on Mixer's hand was matched to John Ruelas. The boy was raised and known as Bobby Dunbar throughout the rest of his life. The courts disbelieved her claim and convicted Walters for the kidnapping. 22.  In December 2005. Leiterman's defense unsuccessfully argued that the unexplained match of the blood spot to Ruelas pointed to cross-contamination and raised doubts about the reliability of the lab's identification of Leiterman. Clark is the 164th person in the United States and the fifth in Georgia to be freed using post-conviction DNA testing.  In 2005. convicted of killing Teresa De Simone. a law student at the University of Michigan. whom she had entrusted in Walters' custody.claimed that the boy was her son. in her car in Southampton 30 years ago was released by senior judges. thus establishing that the boy found in 1912 was not Bobby Dunbar. Bruce Anderson. Gary Leiterman was convicted of the 1969 murder of Jane Mixer. Tests prove DNA from the scene was not his.  In March 2009. Evan Simmons was proven innocent of a 1981 attack on an Atlanta woman after serving twenty-four years in prison. British police have now reopened the case. DNA tests on Dunbar's son and nephew revealed the two were not related. However. who was only four years old in 1969 and was never successfully connected to the case in any other way. after DNA found on Mixer's pantyhose was matched to Leiterman. whose real fate remains unknown. Sean Hodgson who spent 27 years in jail. Mr.

S.S.S. Some are private. where police have wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal The U. these individuals could have been proven innocent and thereby avoided incarceration. and its rate of growth. When a match is made from a National DNA Databank to link a crime scene to an offender who has provided a DNA Sample to a databank that link is often referred to as a cold hit. Patriot Act of the United States provides a means for the U. is giving concern to civil liberties groups in the UK. holding over 5 million records as of 2007. government to get DNA samples from other countries if they] are either a division of. The United States maintains the largest DNA database. 9 . which is of similar size. The size of this database. the American offices of the company can't divulge to their subsidiaries/offices in other countries the reasons that these DNA samples are sought or by whom. with the Combined DNA Index System. despite the UK's smaller population.DNA DATABASES: There are now several DNA databases in existence around the world. A cold hit is of value in referring the police agency to a specific suspect but is of less evidential value than a DNA match made from outside the DNA Databank. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Banking Arrestee DNA Advantages  Major crimes often involve people who also have committed other offenses. Having DNA banked potentially could make it easier to identify suspects. In India also it has been recommended to form a DNA database. a company operating in the U. Under the act.  Innocent people currently are incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. just as fingerprint databases do. if DNA samples had been taken at the time of arrest. or head office of.. but most of the largest databases are government controlled. The United Kingdom maintains the National DNA Database (NDNAD).

This can be seen as an intrusion of personal privacy and a violation of civil liberties. which retains the DNA samples of all suspects. and incarceration. can be obtained from DNA samples.  Even the most secure database has a chance of being compromised. and researchers using the database have access to people‘s DNA without their consent. In one case. a criminal even planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: Dr. prosecution. if an individual had been at a crime scene earlier or had a similar DNA profile to the actual criminal. Disadvantages  Arrestees often are found innocent of crimes. therefore.   Sensitive genetic information. show that ethnic minorities are over represented in the population of arrestees and are. John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. Police drew what they believed to be Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions. for instance. overrepresented in the criminal DNA database. This raises the concern of an institutionalized ethnic bias in the criminal justice system.  Studies of the United Kingdom‘s criminal database. It turned out 10 . they might be identified as matches or partial matches to DNA found at crime scenes. If people‘s DNA is in police databases. FAKE DNA EVIDENCE: The value of DNA evidence has to be seen in light of recent cases where criminals planted fake DNA samples at crime scenes. The retention of innocent people's DNA raises significant ethical and social issues. such as family relationships and disease susceptibility. forensic science services. never showing a match. Police. Banking arrestees' DNA instead of banking only that of convicted criminals could result in financial savings in investigation. This occurs even with innocent people.

Detailed information on database laws in each state can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures website. Naina Sahni or the Tandoor case (New Delhi). Moreover. Critics of this practice underline the fact that this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by. courts often claiming that there was no expectation of privacy.that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood andanticoagulants. but excluded medical and criminal investigations from the offence. 11 . it has been accepted.) for DNA analysis. the Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibited private individuals from covertly collecting biological samples (hair. fingernails. during which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. etc. INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING. In the United States. WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE:   Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (Chennai. for instance. failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Greenwood (1985). citing California v. Tamil Nadu). and use it as evidence." In the UK. there is no way to avoid abandoning one‘s DNA in public. DNA TESTING IN USA: There are state laws on DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United States. Legality of this mode of proceeding has been questioned in Australia. even if they do realize it. SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING: Police forces may collect DNA samples without the suspects' knowledge.

Kerla H.‖ Recently in Oct‘2010 SC has sentence him for life imprisonment. Andhra Pradesh). by her fellow student S.Vilasini. I acquit him. Warangal hospital child swapping case (Warangal. a son of a senior IPS officer. U P). 12 . K. Jharkhand Mukthi Morcha (JMM) Case. Karnataka).C. Delhi in Jan 1996. (New Delhi). Swaminarayan Ashram (Nadiad. 23. paternity test was conducted and Hon‘ble H. Chandradevi vs. Gujarat). Andhra Pradesh). The Session Judge pronounced:―Though I knew. Priyadarshini Matoo.)To sort-out the paternity dispute to a unmarried woman. Peacocks etc. Black Buck killing case (Jodhpur. who committed the crime. Rajasthan) Beanth Singh Assassination Case (Punjab) etc. State of Tamil Nadu (MANU/IN/2335/2002): Anantnag False encounter Case (Jammu & Kashmir).  Identifying 9/11 victims: Remains of only 1585. Assam Minister‘s rape case (Assam). was allegedly raped and strangulated to death in her house in N. of the 2792 people known to have died had been identified till 2005 and by invent of Bode Technology the small body segments were again processed to identify the remaining unidentified victims. New Zealand tourist murder case (Varanasi. giving him the benefit of doubt. Wild pig. But Defence argued and challenged the ―scientific procedure‖ adopted in DNA probe. CRPF false gang rape case (Bhongir. Priyadarshini Mattoo (New Delhi). Sambar deer. Rape of minor by 72 year old man (Adilabad. DNA test was conducted and test confirmed and connects the crime with criminal. Kunhiraman (March 1991. he is the man (Santosh Singh). Sishu Vihar Child adoption case (Hyderabad. Singh . Swami Premananda (Puddukkotai. Indian Airforce Pilots identification case of Goa.C. Swami Shraddananda (Bangalore. found Kuhiraman – ‗the father‘. Tamil Nadu). Villainy Vs.                  Wildlife cases involving tiger poaching. Andhra Pradesh). Andhra Pradesh).

Jack Routley after one year since her last call. murder case in Varanasi :A religious tourist and young lady from New Zealand visited Varanasi in1997 and was reported missing by her father L.N."(13) At no time in history has someone as well-known and well-liked as O. As part of the media frenzy. Due to the sensationalizing in the media. The State of Punjab: Solved the riddle of family property dispute where a child was taken away from mother‘s custody at the age of 06 months and produced another child in the court after 04 years. received unprecedented attention. throat and knifing to death her friend. DNA profiling. was "the single most suspenseful moment in television history. Session‘s Court awarded the principal accused. it is important to note that the existence of DNA evidence. the announcement of the verdict in the O.J. However. regardless of DNA. The prosecution's case was based essentially on DNA evidence. The body was identified as deceased using dental record analysis. 1995. the public perception was that the prosecution in the Simpson case had a mountain of evidence based on DNA. Simpson been accused of such a heinous crime as slitting his ex-wife. THE PEOPLE V.hanging till death and confirmed by H. Nirmaljeet Kaur Vs.J. was interrogated as suspect and buried skeleton of a human body was recovered from the cemented floor of a room in the house of the accused in district Gazipur. Ronald Goldman. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON According to Time magazine. when in reality they had little more than a molehill.C. The Simpson case was a riveting spectacle for the American public. an unregistered tourist guide. Nicole Brown Simpson's. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a bloody glove found at Simpson's Rockingham estate. the crucial evidence in the case.  Diana R. The circumstances of a case are the most important factors in determining guilt or innocence. skull super imposition and ultimately by DNA technology. 13 . does not necessarily lead to a conviction. Dharam Dev Yadava. Simpson murder trial on October 2. This glove. obsessed as it is with celebrity.

and limb hair from a black man.'s Ford Bronco. Even more damning was the fact that LAPD Detective Vannatter carried around O. In actuality. Due to the blunders and poor handling of the DNA evidence by the prosecution. the blood found at the back gate of the crime scene. since the blood on the gate at the crime scene was not found during the initial investigation. In addition. Simpson's blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of coffee before booking it. which matched all three of them. and that is the way in which this evidence was collected. those tests were irrelevant because 14 . Trial evidence allowed the defense to argue that 1. and the blood in O. Brown's and Goldman's hair. she had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a crime scene. They claimed that these test results pointed to a lab error rate of 2% (1 in 50 tests). in a style he had worn. This created a strong doubt in the minds of the jurors. The defense suggested that this blood was planted by Vannatter. The defense also brought up the results of a 1987 test in which both Cellmark and Forensic Science Associates reported out false results.'s Bronco. Laboratory negligence is a big issue concerning the admissibility of DNA evidence.5 cc's of blood could not be accounted for by the prosecution. Other important pieces of evidence included the bloodstained socks found on Simpson's bedroom floor. In addition.allegedly Simpson's size. It came to light that the prosecution and the Los Angeles Police Department had made serious mistakes in the handling of the DNA evidence during the early hours of the investigation. was said to contain fibers consistent with Goldman's shirt. It was an extremely powerful case. These included sending a trainee to collect blood samples. which contained blood that was a DNA match for both Simpson and Brown. the defense experts were able to shoot holes in what would have been a solid case. and a match for the one found at the crime scene.J. under cross examination. and Simpson. The blood was said to be a match for Goldman. it was discovered that the prosecution's apparently solid mountain of evidence was not without its faults and crevices. If all of the above evidence had been accepted as authentic by the jury. O. The other side to this story turned out to be more important than the DNA evidence. On deeper investigation. which was a DNA match for Simpson. and the defense used that to its benefit. LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung conceded to a litany of procedural errors. Brown. DNA testing as well as conventional serology testing linked Simpson to the drops of blood near the victims at the crime scene.J. it would have led them to convict Simpson.J.

the other side to this issue is that if DNA can provide conclusive evidence that a suspect committed a crime. The National Research Council (NRC) report. there are many moral and ethical issues involved. in essence. Instead. there is the issue of whether DNA evidence prevents defendants from getting fair trials. the defense was victorious and Simpson was acquitted. Simpson case will likely be greater scrutiny by defense lawyers of the prosecution's forensic DNA evidence presented in criminal cases. In the Simpson case. First. despite the glaring amount of DNA evidence against Simpson. the defense's claim struck a chord with many who are wary of laboratory errors falsifying DNA test results. entitled DNA Technology in Forensic Science. Defense attorney Robert Brower believes unequivocally that DNA evidence does threaten the constitutional right to a fair trial. "In rape cases. so too was the future of DNA admissibility." The quality and reliability of forensic laboratories is only one of the many concerns about DNA fingerprinting. O. In addition to the question of its admissibility in court. states: "There is no substantial dispute about the underlying [DNA] scientific principles. the adequacy of laboratory procedures and the competence of the experts who testify should remain open to inquiry. when the semen has been matched with the defendant's and the chance that it came from another person is 33 billion to 1." Of course. you don't need a jury. Would another defendant have been able to refute the DNA evidence on grounds of negligence by the prosecution? The DNA experts that Simpson's defense team employed cost millions of 15 .changes in protocols were made as a result of these tests and since then many thousands of tests have been successfully completed. put the crime laboratory on trial.J. Simpson was not the only one on trial. The future of DNA in the legal system remains uncertain. Simpson had. One of the lasting effects of the O. some would say that it is an obstruction of justice and inherently unconstitutional not to present this evidence in court.J.J. Something else to consider is that few defendants have the resources available to them that O. However. Despite this. Many scientists were hoping that the conviction of a celebrity murderer based on DNA profiling would open doors for DNA in the courtroom. the defense.

and perhaps 16 .dollars for their time. The tests are most useful in sex crimes. DNA profiles are different from fingerprints. The primary concern is privacy. A person of lesser means might very well have been convicted by tainted evidence. there is an extremely high probability that the samples came from the same person. DNA has made it a lot harder for violent offenders to prey on women with impunity. the odds that a match between DNA found at the crime scene and DNA taken from the suspect could be the result of coincidence.if someone is convicted using data determined in this way. In the meantime. is that fair? How accurate do the results have to be before they should be admitted in court? Proponents of this theory insist that extensive and expensive population studies must be completed before reliable estimates could be introduced into the courtroom. While the debate ensues. Ninety percent of the victims of crimes involving DNA identification are committed against women. investigators calculate the frequency with which each variation occurs in the suspect's population group. which are useful only for identification. then any estimates calculated using the widely accepted methods could be considerably off the mark. or public policy issue. DNA can provide insights into many intimate aspects of people and their families including susceptibility to particular diseases. how many felons will go free if the evidence is not allowed? There are no easy answers to these questions. To quantify these findings. DNA is admitted or excluded on a case-by-case basis. To find a match. If these sites match. DNA testing is not just an ethical. Only about half of the reported rapes result in arrests. traditionally the toughest to solve and among the most under-reported. it is also a women's issue. crime labs look at several sites where the DNA is known to vary. and less then half of the men arrested are convicted. even if this takes a decade or more. legal. The frequencies for each site are then multiplied together to arrive at a figure for the complete DNA profile. determined by the quality of the tests performed on the DNA samples and the circumstances of the case. If this is so. a temporary solution is in place. legitimacy of birth. The question then arises. The most contentious issue is the matter of how to calculate statistical probability. Therein lies the problemsome population geneticists maintain that the frequencies of genetic markers in population subgroups (based on race) could differ widely from the frequencies found in larger population groups.

the purging happens only after the arrest. Previous New Mexico laws required DNA to be sampled only from convicted felons. Collected samples are stored. and others. This information increases the potential for genetic discrimination by government. Her killer had been arrested. whose 2003 murder went unsolved until her killer's DNA entered the database in 2005 when he was convinced of another felony. An enormous backlog of over half a million DNA samples waits to be entered into the CODIS system. In the United Kingdom. The bill is named for Katie Sepich. insurers. employers." In the United States each state legislature independently decides whether DNA can be sampled from arrestees or convicts. for burglary prior to 2005. a law that requires the police to take DNA samples from suspects in most felony arrests. This empowers police officers. banks. and many state laws do not require the destruction of a DNA record or sample after a conviction has been overturned. Practicality is a concern for DNA sampling and storage. Civil liberties advocates say that Katie's 17 . While Katie‘s Law does allow cleared suspects to petition to have their DNA samples purged from the state database. to provide the state with intimate evidence that could lead to "investigative arrests. In 2006. for example. which are not known to code for proteins. So there is a chance that a person's entire genome may be available —regardless of whether they were convicted or not.predispositions to certain behaviors and sexual orientation. Although the DNA used is considered "junk DNA". but not convicted. Who is chosen for sampling also is a concern. Opponents of the law assert that it infringes on the privacy and rights of the innocent. schools. The statute of limitations has expired in many cases in which the evidence would have been useful for conviction. in the future this information may be found to reveal personal information such as susceptibilities to disease and certain behaviors. all suspects can be forced to provide a DNA sample. rather than judges and juries. all arrestees --regardless of the degree of the charge and the possibility that they may not be convicted--can be compelled to comply. single tandem repeated DNA bases (STRs). the New Mexico state legislature passed Katie's Bill. Likewise.

Tennessee. India does not have a national law that empowers the government to collect and store DNA profiles of convicts. California. all 50 states have laws that require convicted sex offenders to submit DNA. but DNA collection and testing and is taking place in many states. in Pune the army is currently considering creating DNA profiles of troops who are involved in hazardous tasks in order to help identify bodies mutilated beyond recognition. Texas. North Dakota. Arizona. The ingredients of section 45 and section 46 highlight that: The court when necessary will place its faith on skills of persons who have technical knowledge of the facts concerned. For instance. Minnesota. Kansas. and 11 states—including Alaska. Evidence Law. Louisiana. and Virginia—have laws authorizing arrestee DNA sampling. The court will rely on bonafide statement for proof given by the expert concluded on the basis of scientific techniques. New Mexico. LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING: 1. 44 states have laws that require convicted felons to submit DNA. 18 . 9 states require DNA samples from those convicted of certain misdemeanors. & DNA PROFILING: Sections 45 & 46 of Indian Evidence Act-1872. The evidence considered irrelevant would be given relevance in the eyes of law if they are consistent with the opinion of experts.Bill still raises the question of Fourth Amendment violations against unreasonable search and seizure and stress that the law could be abused to justify arrests made on less than probable cause just to obtain DNA evidence. DNA TESTING IN INDIA: At present. As of September 2007. deal with expert opinion o evidences.

P. There is also 1 in 50 billion chance of two DNA sequence being similar. to be universally accepted as a tool. DNA Profile & Human Rights: The DNA fingerprinting pioneer Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys condemned UK government plans to keep the genetic details of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in England and Wales for up to 12 years. 1973 provides for DNA tests implicitly and they are extensively used in determining complex criminal falacies. experts are routinely involved in administration of justice. examination of the accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an examination of such person will provide evidences in relevence to the commission of the offence. It requires further standardization and quality control. There is a presumption not of innocence but of future guilt here … which I find very disturbing indeed" DISADVANTAGES OF DNA FIGERPRINTING: 1.. more often in criminal justice system. 2. 54 of the Cr. P. & DNA PROFILING: Though there is no specific DNA legislation enacted in India (DNA Bill. C. He further said "It seems to be as about as minimal a response to the European court of human rights judgment as one could conceive. 2. 3.Thus. 19 . There are only a few reliable labs around the world that can give accurate results. Cr. which came after a European court ruled that the current policy breaches people's right to privacy. Jeffreys said he was "disappointed" with the proposals.2007 still hanging). 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3.53 and Sec. Sec. 1973 further provides for the examination of the arrested person by the registered medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person.  Sec.C.

Proper care and caution in collecting DNA samples should be taken and further their reliability should be duly established.CONCLUSION: Thus. DNA fingerprinting is a very vital tool in criminal investigation process. Otherwise it would lead to injustice to innocent persons. 20 . Thus. However. It helps to identify the criminals and authenticate their conviction. this technique is subject is certain care and caution. DNA fingerprinting technique if used with proper care will result into justice to people as well as will be a boon to criminal justice system.

epw." Genentech's Access Excellence. Reasonable Doubts (New York: Simon and Schuster. and R.edu. (June 1994).REFERENCES  Howard Coleman and Eric Swenson.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.ornl.shtml#6 http://www.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india. 46. Wolf. "DNA Fingerprinting in Human Health and Society. G. 1991). Dershowitz. A. eds.J.  T. 1. DNA in the Courtroom (Seattle:GeneLex Press. Betsch. (October 1994).sir. http://esg~www. 30. http://www.html http://www. 1994).edu/projects/Newton/13/lessons/dna.      Alan M.html http://www.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1997/KatieLachter. 1996).8001/esgbio/rdna/fingerprint." Newton's Apple. Jeffreys.html.  David F. http://ericir.html 21 .dartmouth.  "DNA Fingerprinting. Burke. Dolf..html. DNA Fingerprinting: Approaches and Applications (Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india.mit.epw.