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

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

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

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.htm 5 . 99. an individual‘s DNA cannot be changed by him even through operation. skin. DNA samples can also be collected from blood. 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. 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. At the very beginning the reliability of this particular method was challenged.medindia. The DNA fingerprinting process starts by collecting some sample of individual‘s DNA. DNA prolifiling is permanent identifier of an individual by exclusion of all others. 4 http://www.net/patients/patientinfo/Dnafingerprinting_criminalcases.c. 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. Though. This sample is usually referred as the “Reference sample”. hair.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. it has been recommended to improve the procedures employed in collection of reference samples and their tests. Further.t. tissues or semen e. Thus. The DNA samples obtained in such manner have less chances of being contaminated. 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. Thus.

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

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

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

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

and researchers using the database have access to people‘s DNA without their consent. John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. never showing a match. if an individual had been at a crime scene earlier or had a similar DNA profile to the actual criminal. for instance.   Sensitive genetic information. 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. This occurs even with innocent people. a criminal even planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: Dr. This raises the concern of an institutionalized ethnic bias in the criminal justice system. show that ethnic minorities are over represented in the population of arrestees and are. Disadvantages  Arrestees often are found innocent of crimes. Banking arrestees' DNA instead of banking only that of convicted criminals could result in financial savings in investigation.  Studies of the United Kingdom‘s criminal database. This can be seen as an intrusion of personal privacy and a violation of civil liberties. and incarceration. In one case. can be obtained from DNA samples. prosecution. forensic science services. It turned out 10 .  Even the most secure database has a chance of being compromised. such as family relationships and disease susceptibility. Police. overrepresented in the criminal DNA database. they might be identified as matches or partial matches to DNA found at crime scenes. which retains the DNA samples of all suspects. The retention of innocent people's DNA raises significant ethical and social issues. therefore. 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. Detailed information on database laws in each state can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures website. failing to destroy a used coffee cup. the Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibited private individuals from covertly collecting biological samples (hair. Naina Sahni or the Tandoor case (New Delhi). DNA TESTING IN USA: There are state laws on DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United States. courts often claiming that there was no expectation of privacy.) for DNA analysis. there is no way to avoid abandoning one‘s DNA in public. Moreover. SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING: Police forces may collect DNA samples without the suspects' knowledge. Legality of this mode of proceeding has been questioned in Australia. 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. it has been accepted. 11 . WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE:   Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (Chennai. fingernails. etc." In the UK. and use it as evidence. Greenwood (1985). INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING. 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. In the United States.that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood andanticoagulants. Tamil Nadu). even if they do realize it. but excluded medical and criminal investigations from the offence. citing California v.

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

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

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

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

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

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

& DNA PROFILING: Sections 45 & 46 of Indian Evidence Act-1872. India does not have a national law that empowers the government to collect and store DNA profiles of convicts. 9 states require DNA samples from those convicted of certain misdemeanors. New Mexico. deal with expert opinion o evidences. As of September 2007. North Dakota. Kansas. Louisiana. Texas. The evidence considered irrelevant would be given relevance in the eyes of law if they are consistent with the opinion of experts. 18 . all 50 states have laws that require convicted sex offenders to submit DNA. Arizona. but DNA collection and testing and is taking place in many states. and 11 states—including Alaska. 44 states have laws that require convicted felons to submit DNA. DNA TESTING IN INDIA: At present. For instance. Evidence Law. Tennessee. Minnesota. The court will rely on bonafide statement for proof given by the expert concluded on the basis of scientific techniques. and Virginia—have laws authorizing arrestee DNA sampling. LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING: 1. 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.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. California. 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.

3. Jeffreys said he was "disappointed" with the proposals. to be universally accepted as a tool. 2. 3. There is also 1 in 50 billion chance of two DNA sequence being similar.C. more often in criminal justice system.2007 still hanging). There are only a few reliable labs around the world that can give accurate results. 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. experts are routinely involved in administration of justice. 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. P. 1973 further provides for the examination of the arrested person by the registered medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person. which came after a European court ruled that the current policy breaches people's right to privacy.  Sec.53 and Sec. Cr. 1973 provides for DNA tests implicitly and they are extensively used in determining complex criminal falacies.Thus. 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. There is a presumption not of innocence but of future guilt here … which I find very disturbing indeed" DISADVANTAGES OF DNA FIGERPRINTING: 1. Sec.. P. 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. & DNA PROFILING: Though there is no specific DNA legislation enacted in India (DNA Bill. 54 of the Cr. It requires further standardization and quality control. 19 . 2. C.

CONCLUSION: Thus. 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. DNA fingerprinting is a very vital tool in criminal investigation process. However. Thus. It helps to identify the criminals and authenticate their conviction. Proper care and caution in collecting DNA samples should be taken and further their reliability should be duly established. Otherwise it would lead to injustice to innocent persons. this technique is subject is certain care and caution. 20 .

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful