You are on page 1of 20

PROJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

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

SUBMITTED BY: Swati Shanker

1

TABLE OF CONTENT:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. INTRODUCTION: ....................................................................................................................................... 3 DNA PROLIFILING PROCESS: ................................................................................................................. 4 APPLICATION OF DNA FINGERPRINTING: ......................................................................................... 5 DNA DATABASES: .................................................................................................................................... 8 FAKE DNA EVIDENCE: ............................................................................................................................ 9 SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING: ................................................................................................. 10 DNA TESTING IN USA: ........................................................................................................................... 10 INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING, WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE: ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 THE PEOPLE V. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON .................................................................................. 12 DNA TESTING IN INDIA:........................................................................................................................ 17 LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING: ........................................................ 17 1. 2. 3. Evidence Law. & DNA PROFILING: ............................................................................................ 17 Cr. P.C. & DNA PROFILING: ....................................................................................................... 18 DNA Profile & Human Rights: ....................................................................................................... 18

DISADVANTAGES OF DNA FIGERPRINTING: ................................................................................... 18 CONCLUSION: .......................................................................................................................................... 19 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 20

2

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

t. DNA prolifiling is permanent identifier of an individual by exclusion of all others. This sample is usually referred as the “Reference sample”. 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. At the very beginning the reliability of this particular method was challenged. 4 http://www. Thus. Further. 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. The DNA fingerprinting process starts by collecting some sample of individual‘s DNA. an individual‘s DNA cannot be changed by him even through operation. 99. 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. Though.htm 4 . DNA samples can also be collected from blood. hair. 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.c. Thus. skin.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.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.medindia.net/patients/patientinfo/Dnafingerprinting_criminalcases. tissues or semen e.

Establish paternity and other family relationships 10. Identification of bodies of soldiers killed in war. water. Personal Identification . soil. hair. and food 12. or items of clothing at the scene of the crime then these items may prove to be valuable sources of DNA of the criminal. 4. Identify potential suspects whose DNA may match evidence left at crime scenes 7. 3. Exonerate persons wrongly accused of crimes 8. Authenticate consumables such as caviar and wine 5 .DNA maybe the best way to identify a person as all body tissues and organs contain the same DNA type. The specimen required also is very small. Identify crime and catastrophe victims 9. The DNA method for personal identification is far superior to the dental records and blood typing methods that were popularly being used. 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. Identify endangered and protected species as an aid to wildlife officials (could be used for prosecuting poachers) 11. It is currently employed in paternity disputes 2. To diagnose inherited disorders in both prenatal and newborn babies. Match organ donors with recipients in transplant programs 13. 5. 6. Detect bacteria and other organisms that may pollute air.APPLICATION OF DNA FINGERPRINTING: 1. Determine pedigree for seed or livestock breeds 14.

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

British police have now reopened the case. after DNA found on Mixer's pantyhose was matched to Leiterman.  In 2005. Gary Leiterman was convicted of the 1969 murder of Jane Mixer. The courts disbelieved her claim and convicted Walters for the kidnapping. who was only four years old in 1969 and was never successfully connected to the case in any other way. However. Bruce Anderson. 22. 7 . DNA tests on Dunbar's son and nephew revealed the two were not related. Evan Simmons was proven innocent of a 1981 attack on an Atlanta woman after serving twenty-four years in prison. 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. Sean Hodgson who spent 27 years in jail. Mr.  In December 2005. in her car in Southampton 30 years ago was released by senior judges.  In March 2009.claimed that the boy was her son. thus establishing that the boy found in 1912 was not Bobby Dunbar. whom she had entrusted in Walters' custody. The boy was raised and known as Bobby Dunbar throughout the rest of his life. convicted of killing Teresa De Simone. a law student at the University of Michigan. Tests prove DNA from the scene was not his. whose real fate remains unknown. DNA in a drop of blood on Mixer's hand was matched to John Ruelas.

The size of this database. The United States maintains the largest DNA database.  Innocent people currently are incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. a company operating in the U. which is of similar size. holding over 5 million records as of 2007. and its rate of growth. Having DNA banked potentially could make it easier to identify suspects. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Banking Arrestee DNA Advantages  Major crimes often involve people who also have committed other offenses. where police have wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal The U. Under the act. 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. 8 ..S. Some are private. The United Kingdom maintains the National DNA Database (NDNAD). with the Combined DNA Index System. 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.S. In India also it has been recommended to form a DNA database. government to get DNA samples from other countries if they] are either a division of.DNA DATABASES: There are now several DNA databases in existence around the world. but most of the largest databases are government controlled. if DNA samples had been taken at the time of arrest. 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. these individuals could have been proven innocent and thereby avoided incarceration. just as fingerprint databases do. is giving concern to civil liberties groups in the UK. Patriot Act of the United States provides a means for the U. or head office of.S.

It turned out 9 . show that ethnic minorities are over represented in the population of arrestees and are. prosecution. This raises the concern of an institutionalized ethnic bias in the criminal justice system. Police. therefore. John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. and researchers using the database have access to people‘s DNA without their consent. they might be identified as matches or partial matches to DNA found at crime scenes. forensic science services. for instance. This occurs even with innocent people. Police drew what they believed to be Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions. 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. Banking arrestees' DNA instead of banking only that of convicted criminals could result in financial savings in investigation. can be obtained from DNA samples. This can be seen as an intrusion of personal privacy and a violation of civil liberties. In one case.  Even the most secure database has a chance of being compromised. Disadvantages  Arrestees often are found innocent of crimes. a criminal even planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: Dr.  Studies of the United Kingdom‘s criminal database. and incarceration. If people‘s DNA is in police databases. if an individual had been at a crime scene earlier or had a similar DNA profile to the actual criminal. overrepresented in the criminal DNA database. such as family relationships and disease susceptibility. which retains the DNA samples of all suspects. The retention of innocent people's DNA raises significant ethical and social issues.   Sensitive genetic information. never showing a match.

DNA TESTING IN USA: There are state laws on DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United States. it has been accepted. SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING: Police forces may collect DNA samples without the suspects' knowledge. Greenwood (1985). Moreover. INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING. 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. In the United States. even if they do realize it. fingernails. 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.) for DNA analysis.that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood andanticoagulants. 10 . WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE:   Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (Chennai. for instance. Tamil Nadu). etc. citing California v. Legality of this mode of proceeding has been questioned in Australia. but excluded medical and criminal investigations from the offence. and use it as evidence. failing to destroy a used coffee cup. 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). the Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibited private individuals from covertly collecting biological samples (hair." In the UK. courts often claiming that there was no expectation of privacy. there is no way to avoid abandoning one‘s DNA in public.

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

it is important to note that the existence of DNA evidence. was "the single most suspenseful moment in television history. skull super imposition and ultimately by DNA technology. Simpson been accused of such a heinous crime as slitting his ex-wife. 1995. does not necessarily lead to a conviction.hanging till death and confirmed by H. obsessed as it is with celebrity. the announcement of the verdict in the O."(13) At no time in history has someone as well-known and well-liked as O. The body was identified as deceased using dental record analysis.J. Session‘s Court awarded the principal accused. DNA profiling. Due to the sensationalizing in the media. 12 . THE PEOPLE V. murder case in Varanasi :A religious tourist and young lady from New Zealand visited Varanasi in1997 and was reported missing by her father L. an unregistered tourist guide. regardless of DNA. The prosecution's case was based essentially on DNA evidence. The Simpson case was a riveting spectacle for the American public. This glove. Nicole Brown Simpson's. Dharam Dev Yadava. throat and knifing to death her friend. 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. the crucial evidence in the case.C. However. 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. when in reality they had little more than a molehill. received unprecedented attention. the public perception was that the prosecution in the Simpson case had a mountain of evidence based on DNA. Ronald Goldman.  Diana R. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a bloody glove found at Simpson's Rockingham estate. The circumstances of a case are the most important factors in determining guilt or innocence. Simpson murder trial on October 2. As part of the media frenzy. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON According to Time magazine. Jack Routley after one year since her last call.N.J. Nirmaljeet Kaur Vs.

The defense suggested that this blood was planted by Vannatter. Even more damning was the fact that LAPD Detective Vannatter carried around O. in a style he had worn. and a match for the one found at the crime scene.J. and that is the way in which this evidence was collected. Laboratory negligence is a big issue concerning the admissibility of DNA evidence. O. If all of the above evidence had been accepted as authentic by the jury. she had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a crime scene. In addition.5 cc's of blood could not be accounted for by the prosecution. The defense also brought up the results of a 1987 test in which both Cellmark and Forensic Science Associates reported out false results.J. and the blood in O. under cross examination. Other important pieces of evidence included the bloodstained socks found on Simpson's bedroom floor. which contained blood that was a DNA match for both Simpson and Brown. It was an extremely powerful case. On deeper investigation. was said to contain fibers consistent with Goldman's shirt.allegedly Simpson's size. since the blood on the gate at the crime scene was not found during the initial investigation. Brown's and Goldman's hair. Trial evidence allowed the defense to argue that 1. which was a DNA match for Simpson.'s Bronco. it was discovered that the prosecution's apparently solid mountain of evidence was not without its faults and crevices. Due to the blunders and poor handling of the DNA evidence by the prosecution. These included sending a trainee to collect blood samples. the defense experts were able to shoot holes in what would have been a solid case. and the defense used that to its benefit. which matched all three of them. and Simpson. In actuality. LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung conceded to a litany of procedural errors. Brown. This created a strong doubt in the minds of the jurors. 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. In addition. and limb hair from a black man. The other side to this story turned out to be more important than the DNA evidence. it would have led them to convict Simpson. The blood was said to be a match for Goldman. They claimed that these test results pointed to a lab error rate of 2% (1 in 50 tests). the blood found at the back gate of the crime scene.J. Simpson's blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of coffee before booking it. those tests were irrelevant because 13 . DNA testing as well as conventional serology testing linked Simpson to the drops of blood near the victims at the crime scene.'s Ford Bronco.

Instead. in essence. O. some would say that it is an obstruction of justice and inherently unconstitutional not to present this evidence in court. you don't need a jury. the defense was victorious and Simpson was acquitted.J. 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 14 . Simpson case will likely be greater scrutiny by defense lawyers of the prosecution's forensic DNA evidence presented in criminal cases. First. there is the issue of whether DNA evidence prevents defendants from getting fair trials. The future of DNA in the legal system remains uncertain. One of the lasting effects of the O. there are many moral and ethical issues involved. Defense attorney Robert Brower believes unequivocally that DNA evidence does threaten the constitutional right to a fair trial. the other side to this issue is that if DNA can provide conclusive evidence that a suspect committed a crime. Despite this." The quality and reliability of forensic laboratories is only one of the many concerns about DNA fingerprinting. so too was the future of DNA admissibility.J.changes in protocols were made as a result of these tests and since then many thousands of tests have been successfully completed. "In rape cases. However. the defense. the defense's claim struck a chord with many who are wary of laboratory errors falsifying DNA test results. put the crime laboratory on trial. The National Research Council (NRC) report. despite the glaring amount of DNA evidence against Simpson. states: "There is no substantial dispute about the underlying [DNA] scientific principles. Simpson had. when the semen has been matched with the defendant's and the chance that it came from another person is 33 billion to 1. entitled DNA Technology in Forensic Science. In the Simpson case. In addition to the question of its admissibility in court. Simpson was not the only one on trial. Something else to consider is that few defendants have the resources available to them that O. the adequacy of laboratory procedures and the competence of the experts who testify should remain open to inquiry.J. Many scientists were hoping that the conviction of a celebrity murderer based on DNA profiling would open doors for DNA in the courtroom." Of course.

To find a match. there is an extremely high probability that the samples came from the same person. To quantify these findings. crime labs look at several sites where the DNA is known to vary. The most contentious issue is the matter of how to calculate statistical probability.if someone is convicted using data determined in this way. DNA profiles are different from fingerprints. Only about half of the reported rapes result in arrests. or public policy issue. DNA testing is not just an ethical. The frequencies for each site are then multiplied together to arrive at a figure for the complete DNA profile. even if this takes a decade or more. DNA is admitted or excluded on a case-by-case basis. If these sites match. legal. and perhaps 15 . In the meantime. traditionally the toughest to solve and among the most under-reported. The tests are most useful in sex crimes. a temporary solution is in place. it is also a women's issue. and less then half of the men arrested are convicted. 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. Ninety percent of the victims of crimes involving DNA identification are committed against women. The primary concern is privacy. the odds that a match between DNA found at the crime scene and DNA taken from the suspect could be the result of coincidence. determined by the quality of the tests performed on the DNA samples and the circumstances of the case. The question then arises. A person of lesser means might very well have been convicted by tainted evidence. legitimacy of birth. then any estimates calculated using the widely accepted methods could be considerably off the mark. 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.dollars for their time. DNA can provide insights into many intimate aspects of people and their families including susceptibility to particular diseases. which are useful only for identification. While the debate ensues. If this is so. DNA has made it a lot harder for violent offenders to prey on women with impunity. how many felons will go free if the evidence is not allowed? There are no easy answers to these questions. investigators calculate the frequency with which each variation occurs in the suspect's population group.

for burglary prior to 2005. Civil liberties advocates say that Katie's 16 . schools. This information increases the potential for genetic discrimination by government. but not convicted. Her killer had been arrested. The statute of limitations has expired in many cases in which the evidence would have been useful for conviction. the New Mexico state legislature passed Katie's Bill. all arrestees --regardless of the degree of the charge and the possibility that they may not be convicted--can be compelled to comply. This empowers police officers. In the United Kingdom. which are not known to code for proteins. An enormous backlog of over half a million DNA samples waits to be entered into the CODIS system. single tandem repeated DNA bases (STRs). Who is chosen for sampling also is a concern. So there is a chance that a person's entire genome may be available —regardless of whether they were convicted or not. In 2006. Previous New Mexico laws required DNA to be sampled only from convicted felons. Likewise. Practicality is a concern for DNA sampling and storage. the purging happens only after the arrest. to provide the state with intimate evidence that could lead to "investigative arrests.predispositions to certain behaviors and sexual orientation. 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. employers. and others. The bill is named for Katie Sepich. a law that requires the police to take DNA samples from suspects in most felony arrests. for example. insurers." In the United States each state legislature independently decides whether DNA can be sampled from arrestees or convicts. While Katie‘s Law does allow cleared suspects to petition to have their DNA samples purged from the state database. in the future this information may be found to reveal personal information such as susceptibilities to disease and certain behaviors. whose 2003 murder went unsolved until her killer's DNA entered the database in 2005 when he was convinced of another felony. rather than judges and juries. Collected samples are stored. Opponents of the law assert that it infringes on the privacy and rights of the innocent. banks. Although the DNA used is considered "junk DNA".

North Dakota. Kansas. 17 . deal with expert opinion o evidences. & DNA PROFILING: Sections 45 & 46 of Indian Evidence Act-1872. 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. 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. Minnesota. For instance. and 11 states—including Alaska.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. The evidence considered irrelevant would be given relevance in the eyes of law if they are consistent with the opinion of experts. New Mexico. 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. India does not have a national law that empowers the government to collect and store DNA profiles of convicts. LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING: 1. As of September 2007. 44 states have laws that require convicted felons to submit DNA. Arizona. all 50 states have laws that require convicted sex offenders to submit DNA. California. DNA TESTING IN INDIA: At present. Louisiana. Evidence Law. 9 states require DNA samples from those convicted of certain misdemeanors. but DNA collection and testing and is taking place in many states. Tennessee. Texas.

2. 18 . 2. experts are routinely involved in administration of justice.53 and Sec. 3. 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..Thus. Jeffreys said he was "disappointed" with the proposals. & DNA PROFILING: Though there is no specific DNA legislation enacted in India (DNA Bill. 54 of the Cr. Sec. 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. 1973 provides for DNA tests implicitly and they are extensively used in determining complex criminal falacies. There are only a few reliable labs around the world that can give accurate results. more often in criminal justice system. P. 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. which came after a European court ruled that the current policy breaches people's right to privacy. to be universally accepted as a tool. C.2007 still hanging).  Sec.C. 1973 further provides for the examination of the arrested person by the registered medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person. Cr. There is also 1 in 50 billion chance of two DNA sequence being similar. 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. It requires further standardization and quality control. P.

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. 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. Otherwise it would lead to injustice to innocent persons. 19 .CONCLUSION: Thus. this technique is subject is certain care and caution. Thus. DNA fingerprinting is a very vital tool in criminal investigation process. However.

edu.  T.REFERENCES  Howard Coleman and Eric Swenson.8001/esgbio/rdna/fingerprint.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india. DNA Fingerprinting: Approaches and Applications (Basel: Birkhauser Verlag. 30.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.html.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1997/KatieLachter.      Alan M.html. (June 1994).  "DNA Fingerprinting. A.html http://www.ornl.dartmouth. Dershowitz.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india.epw.edu/projects/Newton/13/lessons/dna. "DNA Fingerprinting in Human Health and Society. http://esg~www.shtml#6 http://www. Reasonable Doubts (New York: Simon and Schuster. Jeffreys. DNA in the Courtroom (Seattle:GeneLex Press. (October 1994). Dolf.epw.J. Burke. and R. 1.mit. 1991). 46.html http://www.. http://www. Wolf." Genentech's Access Excellence. Betsch. 1996). eds.  David F.html 20 . 1994)." Newton's Apple. G.sir. http://ericir.