Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Paul David Crews - Research Paper Example

Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, Vs Paul David Crews Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, Vs Paul David Crews Introduction The advancementsbeing made in forensic DNA analysis continue to have a major impact on the criminal justice system. The advantage of this revolution is that it offers superior chances to exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. For example, updated DNA technologies allow the analysis of smaller and varying types of biological samples than was previously possible in the recent past. However, in order to realize the full potential of DNA in criminal cases, major obstacles need to be overcome. The case study of commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Paul David Crew is among the most valuable perspective pertaining to the use of DNA evidence in solving crime. The sensitive treatment of victims in DNA cases is essential across the entire criminal justice system; first beginning with the arrival of the responders at the crime scene and then continuing until long after suspects are convicted. All types of victims especially sexual assault victims should be subjected to fair and sensitive treatment with respect and dignity, especially during the collection of biological evidence from a wider range of crime scenes, which is now beginning to regularly occur in the United States. Problems regarding the security and privacy of a victim’s information in DNA cases are a major concern. The Victims’ DNA profiles are characteristically entered into databases which cause many victims to worry about the privacy of this information, whether it can be accessed by the perpetrators through the local databases or the internet. There is also concern about whether this technology can be used against victims who may have committed other crimes, which can possibly result in a decrease in reporting (PLJ, 2012). In this research paper, I chose the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Paul David Crews in which many unique talents pertaining DNA evidence were involved in prosecuting the culprit. I am going to study facets of this case which I deem necessary to mention for the purpose of this research. Here, there is a combination of professional unique talents, the respect, their dignity and strive to foster their commitment to excellence in their work that led to justice. Unity and diversity of people on the free exchange of ideas, on learning, living and working harmoniously is truly the pillar of a community’s strength in society as we shall observe in this paper. For the purpose of grasping the whole concept of the case, I will briefly touch on other facets of the case other than those pertaining DNA evaluation. It is the professional unbiased performance of each that slowly but surely led to justice (PLJ, 2012). Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, V Paul David Crews In the morning of September 13, 1990, two hikers, Geoffrey Hood and Molly LaRue, were murdered .The woman tied, raped, and stabbed, resulting to her death. Her boyfriend, shot three times. The suspect Paul David Crews was arrested week later and subsequently charged with the murders. There were a number of witnesses who presented themselves to testify. The first witnesses testified seeing the suspect visit a library seeking a map of the terrain where the couple was murdered while other witnesses testified the suspect seeking directions of the trail that coincidentally was the same with those of the murdered couple. These witnesses openly shared their knowledge to the relevant authorities. Some even vividly testified of seeing the suspect wearing the hiking gear belonging to the male victim along with other objects. A ballistics expert also testified that the handgun possessed by the suspect upon his arrest was the murder weapon which. An FBI DNA expert, after caring out his unique duty came to a conclusion thus testifying that the suspects DNA patterns matched with those obtained from semen samples the female victims vagina. The jury which comprises of carefully selected individuals of varying personalities and background unanimously passed a verdict of first degree murder (PLJ, 2012). A physician for the prosecution testified on the medical evidence upon his professional analysis that prior to being killed the female victims hands had been bound together. The defense presented their evidence claiming that the suspect had no neither criminal nor gross misconduct records from the police and his employer. Also presented by the defense was a psychiatrist who testified that the suspect suffered from an organic aggressive syndrome and also had a schizoid personality which he claimed due to the consumption of alcohol and cocaine it was aggravated resulting to his actions. It was also said that the suspect was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance thus his capacity to control his behavior was substantially impaired. The jury found all the aggravating circumstances leading to the murders, was to be considered as a great risk to the community thus the verdict of death. The jury found that every element of the crime committed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury stated that the evidence presented overwhelmingly established suspects guilt. Thus their guilty for murder in the first degree verdict and the court sentenced the murder suspect to two consecutive death sentences (PLJ, 2008). The journalist was active in following every facet of the trial, enlightening the public on the proceedings. However the accused claimed that the publicity was inherently prejudicial. The accused stated that press coverage prior to his trial revealed other crimes which he was accused of and widely credited "official sources" for sensational reporting about him would had a hand in influencing the jury’s decision . The defense argued that lack of a significant cooling off period to dissipate the prejudicial effect of the publicity is what led to the verdict. Journalist were professional since they publicity present information that was factual and objective. Some journalists referred to confessions, admissions or reenactments of the crime by the accused; the information being the product of reports by the police and prosecutorial officers. The Breakiron court summarized the law governing a decision whether pretrial publicity requires a new trial regardless of any showing of prejudice. The court stated that if the publicity was "inherently prejudicial," and if it saturated the community, and if the community did not have enough time to cool down from publicity effects, then a new trial is required. Breakiron, 524 Pa. at 287, 571 A.2d at 1037. It was concluded that the publicity cannot reasonably be deemed to be "so extensive, so sustained and so pervasive" to the extent of saturating the community was with it. The three newspapers that were found to have arguably inflammatory articles did not have a circulation that could affect the case (PLJ, 2008). The court must investigate what a panel of prospective jurors has said about its exposure to the publicity in testing whether there has been an enough cooling period. This factor is one indication of whether the cooling period was sufficient. Therefore, in determining the effectiveness of the cooling period, the court considered the direct effects of publicity, which is something a defendant does not need to allege or prove. It would have be a most unusual case if the court ordered a change of venue regardless of what the prospective jurors said pertaining to their ability to hear the case fairly and without bias. The jury was seen to be of dignity and strived to show their commitment in the duty they were called upon due to the way they conducted themselves especially by avoiding media. What the prospective jurors told the public regarding their ability to be impartial was a reliable guide to whether the publicity was fresh in their minds thus removed their ability to be objective which was clearly not the case. It is clearly establishes in the record that the community enjoyed a period in which emotional charge had a chance to cool before suspect’s trial. A large number of sensational news reporting occurred six to eight months prior to the trial (PLJ, 2012). However, the suspect claimed he was entitled to a Frye hearing in order to determine the admissibility of the DNA test results. He also claimed that the DNA opinion given by a prosecution witness (the scientist) was unduly prejudicial since it lacked statistical probabilities of coincidence, and demanded a continuance examination of the DNA evidence. It was explained that the DNA scientific principle had long crossed the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages. Somewhere in this twilight zone, the evidential force of the principle was recognized during this zone. Also the scientist had a vast experience and exemplary record in his unique duty to the community. Although the courts go a long way in admitting DNA expert testimony construed from a well-recognized scientific principle, the factor from which the decision is made must be established sufficiently so as to have gained general acceptance in its particular field. The conclusions was to be drawn from the statistical information which has been accumulated to the present date pertaining DNA matches which have not achieved widespread acceptance within the scientific community. This means that the match between the suspects DNA and the samples collected at a crime scene, in relation to the community population, cannot be known. Thus the trial court refused to condone statistical information regarding the match. This further showed the harmonious working of the science experts and the court (PLJ, 2008). The expert was allowed to testify that the sperm was a match with that of the defendant. The trial court refused to grant a mid-trial continuance citing many reasons. It was shown that it would take a lot of time to carry out independent analyses of the samples. This lengthy continuance would have exposed the jurors to the publicity surrounding the trial. This act showed that the court was impartial and greatly valued the jurors and both scientist (the defense and the defendant). This is because the defense had been given a chance to perform its testing and although he was unable to acquire convincing results as a result of partial degradation of the samples. The tests corroborated with the FBI results. The factual evidence pertaining the physical testing of the DNA samples and the matching alleles, even devoid of statistical Inferences, seemed to make the accused presence even more probable than it would have been in the absence of the evidence, therefore being relevant. In order to be construed as relevant, the evidence does not need to be conclusive. Being required to analyze the meaningfulness of proof of a DNA match in the absence of an accompanying statement based on statistical probability, the defendant DNA expert likened such testimony to testimony that a witness would say “I witnessed a blue Ford run over the dog." Pointing out the vehicle as a blue Ford does not specifically point out the offending vehicle, though it is useful, it is admissible identification evidence. It is in this similar way that the relevant, even though inconclusive, DNA evidence was permissible in this case; it was up to the jury to properly determine its weight and persuasiveness (Temple University School of Law, 1995). Conclusion In this paper the case relates to the core value of respect. Throughout the trial we see that indeed our community’s strength relays on the unity and diversity of our people, free exchange of ideas and on learning, living and working harmoniously. Here the accuracy of DNA and its ability to prove to a certainty whether Paul David Crews committed the rape and murders for which he was convicted. Since DNA obtains “uniquely precise “results, it is capable of ascertaining the truth once and for all. References PLJ. (2012). Opinions: Allegheny county court of common pleas. Pittsburgh Legal Journal, 160 (8), 165-192. PLJ. (2008). Opinions: Allegheny county court of common pleas. Pittsburgh Legal Journal, 156 (9), 125-150. Temple University School of Law. (1995). Temple Law Review. Philadelphia: Temple University School of Law. Read More