NCJ Number
129610
Journal
Georgia Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1990) Pages: 669-704
Date Published
1990
Length
36 pages
Annotation
Because DNA typing is a relatively new forensic technique, commercial labs should not be the sole source for verifying DNA typing in criminal proceedings.
Abstract
A lack of expertise in DNA typing has prevented the defense in most cases from successfully challenging DNA typing. Because forensic application of DNA typing is not always reliable, courts should implement safeguards to prevent the blind acceptance of DNA typing. Another problem with the admissibility of DNA typing is determining who is qualified as an expert, since DNA typing combines forensics, molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry. In establishing legal standards for DNA typing, enough noncontaminated crime scene sample should be collected to develop a reliable DNA type. If the sample is too small, an inaccurate DNA type may result. Courts should impose a strict chain of custody requirement in the prosecution, since a DNA sample is easily contaminated. Upon the prosecution's acceptance of results, the court should allow the defense full discovery of the commercial lab's techniques and methodology. In addition to discovery of the lab's data, there should also be a standard for publishing the population genetics pool used as well as lab protocols. DNA typing can potentially rise to the importance of and even surpass the weight of fingerprinting. Currently, however, DNA typing is still too new and the procedures too questionable to be used accurately in criminal cases. The scientific theory of DNA typing is reviewed along with different admissibility standards presently used by courts, the impact of introducing DNA typing into a criminal case, and admissibility standards against which DNA typing evidence should be judged in future criminal trials. 162 footnotes