Combined DNA Index System in the Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

Use of STR/CODIS in the Criminal Justice System by number] The direction of this paper will be with respect to how STR/CODIS aids in facilitating both the justice system in putting criminals behind bars as well as aiding in freeing men and women wrongly convicted prior to DNA fingerprinting. The advancement of STR in DNA analysis to the point of having complete records of these samples in CODIS allows for present and past criminals residing in correctional institutions to be either tied to a crime or set free from unjustifiable incarcerations. This paper will examine both the negative and positive role that DNA sampling has with respect to our justice system and the methodologies utilized. STR DNA Analysis and the CODIS Database Definitions To understand the relationship between STR and DNA, there needs to be a basic definition of what STR is. As the online newsletter site Silent Witness Newsletter written by the American Prosecutors Research Institute, provide the relationship between STR and DNA as: All animals and plants are composed of a collection of specialized cells that have varied roles and functions. Despite their different functions, all human cells (except mature red blood cells) have a nucleus that houses deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is the building block of life. Its structure, often described as a twisting ladder, consists of two long strands of sugar and phosphates forming the sides of the ladder, and pairs of nucleotides forming the rungs. DNA nucleotides (called "bases") come in only four types: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). Each strand of DNA contains nearly 3 billion base pairs and would stretch to nearly five feet long if uncoiled. STRs are small, repeating sequences of DNA, usually three to five base pairs in length. (American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), 1999) CODIS has "been a revolutionary tool for law enforcement in that it enables investigators to compare evidentiary samples found at a crime scene with DNA samples collected from known convicted offenders." (APRI, 1999). Through the utilization of both DNA typing and housing these samples inside CODIS, law enforcement agencies have put many criminals away and has reduced the wait time on identifying samples from crime scenes by referencing the database. Background Information Since the pilot project of CODIS in 1990 begin with 12 states, it has become an important crime solving tool for police departments for both recent cases involving the criminal element as well as an effective tool for cold case detectives. This technology also allows detectives and prosecutors the opportunity to review controversial cases where convictions have been suspect, but, where DNA analysis was not available at the time of trial. Arguments for DNA Collection in Court Cases One of the most important aspects of collecting DNA and STR analysis information is with respect to how much it provides to the identification and arrest of criminals and Examples do exist of the power of both technology and organizational innovation to improve performance and effectiveness. In 1996 the Broward County Sheriff's Office crime lab in Fort Lauderdale had a backlog of less than 1 percent of the overall caseload, analyzing evidence from low priority property crimes and cases in which no suspect has been identified (Schwabe, Davis, and Jackson 76) As technology advances there is a need for the DNA/STR analysis to be a commonality in the courtroom to ensure both validity and culpability. There are many cases in the past where DNA evidence would have been extremely important to have in the courtroom if only to provide proof of criminal activity. There is also a problem whereby DNA evidence has proven to be a downfall for the prosecution in their effort to introduce it as evidence of a defendant's culpability. The most serious of these situations was through the infamous case of O.J. Simpson in 1993 where forensic evidence including DNA evidence proved guilt, but, since evidence was tampered with or not handled correctly (including bagging of evidence), the defense team was successful in providing reasonable doubt for the jury. Arguments Apposed to DNA Collection in Court Cases There is frank discussion regarding the use of STR and DNA analysis with respect to the judicial governance in "the idea that the Bill of Right's protections for the accused skew the adversarial system in the defendant's favor"(Mellon). This has been outlined in the following argument made by Judge Hand whereby he contends Under our criminal procedure the accused has every advantage. While the prosecution is held rigidly to the charge, he need not disclose the barest outline of his defense. He is immune from question or comment on his silence; he cannot be convicted when there is the least fair doubt in the minds of any one of the twelve. Why in addition he should in advance have the whole evidence against him to pick over at his leisure, and make his defense, fairly or foully, I have never been able to see. (106)(Mellon) This argument is a basic reference to a person's basic fundamental right provided under the Constitution under the Fifth Amendment respecting the Rights of Silence. If DNA evidence is presented as absolute science in a court case, the possibility of the defendant exercising his fundamental rights and that they could be in fact infringed upon. How DNA Can Free the Innocent There are many instances in recent history of the public acknowledgement of officials that many prisoners being freed after spending twenty years or longer in correctional institutions have actually proven what they have professed. Some of the more infamous cases have involved David Milgaard in Canada and the Death Penalty Information Centre's website provides a few examples of cases where DNA evidence has freed those inmates on Death Row. 2005 Derrick Jamison Ohio Conviction 1985 Charges Dismissed 2005 On February 28, 2005, Ohio Common Pleas Judge Richard Niehaus dismissed all charges against Derrick Jamison for the death of a Cincinnati bartender after prosecutors elected not to retry him in the case. (Associated Press, March 3, 2005). The prosecution had withheld critical eyewitness statements and other evidence from the defense resulting in the overturning of Jamison's conviction in 2002. Jamison was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1985 based in part on the testimony of Charles Howell, a co-defendant who received a lesser sentence in exchange for his testimony against Jamison. The prosecution withheld statements that contradicted Howell's testimony and that would have undermined the prosecution's theory of how the victim died, and would have pointed to other possible suspects for the murder. Two federal courts ruled that the prosecution's actions denied Jamison of a fair trial. (Jamison v. Collins, 291 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2002)). One of the withheld statements involved James Suggs, an eyewitness to the robbery. Suggs testified at trial that he had been unable to make a positive identification when the police showed him a photo array of suspects. In fact, police records show that Suggs identified two suspects, neither of which Derrick Jamison was. Additional withheld evidence consisted of a series of discrepancies between Jamison's physical characteristics and the descriptions of the perpetrators given to police investigators by eyewitnesses. The co-defendant Howell recently testified that he could not remember anything about the crime, and state prosecutors decided not to proceed against Jamison. He remains incarcerated on other unrelated charges. (See also, K. Perry, "'85 Murder Conviction Dismissed," Cincinnati Post, Mar. 1, 2005). Harold Wilson Pennsylvania Conviction 1989 Acquitted 2005 More than 16 years after a Pennsylvania jury returned three death sentences against Harold Wilson, new DNA evidence helped lead to his acquittal. During his 1989 capital trial, Wilson was prosecuted by former Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Jack McMahon, a man best known for his role in a training video that advised new Philadelphia prosecutors on how to use race in selecting death penalty juries. In 1999, Wilson's death sentence was overturned on state post-conviction review when a trial-level court determined that his defense counsel had failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence during his original trial. (Commonwealth v. Harold C. Wilson, Philadelphia Cnty. Com. PL.Nos. 3267-73, Aug.19, 1999). A later appeal led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to remand for a new hearing because of evidence that McMahon used racially discriminatory practices in jury selection. In 2003, a trial court found that McMahon had improperly exercised his peremptory strikes to eliminate potential black jurors and granted Wilson a new trial, a decision that the District Attorney's office did not appeal. The court stated that in the new trial the death penalty could not be sought. The new jury, which did not have to be "death-qualified" and which was chosen without the prior race bias, acquitted Wilson of all charges on November 15, 2005. New DNA evidence revealed that blood from the crime scene did not come from Wilson or any of the victims, thereby suggesting the involvement of another assailant. (Associated Press, Nov. 18, 2005). Conclusion The cases described above show how 122 overturned death row cases in the United States have been attributed to DNA evidence and the importance for both the defendant and prosecutor in either eliminating or convicting suspects. Moreover, it is important for law enforcement to continually rely on the CODIS system for those DNA samples provided by suspects to ensure they are arresting and detaining the correct individuals. Another aspect of the technology of STR/DNA analysis is the need for more qualified technicians as well as more funding provided for DNA labs to remove the backlog that is occurring so that suspects are caught and brought to trial in a timely fashion. This is also inclusive of the cold case detectives that require old cases to be revisited and have the DNA evidence put into the CODIS system before samples degrade further. Some cases are very old and the retrieval of specimens was performed much differently prior to new technologies being introduced. Works Cited Death Penalty Information Centre. "Cases of Innocence: 1973 to Present" DPIC. (2005). 1 Feb 2006 Herd, Kim, Irving, Kimberley. "Silent Witness: A Short Primer on STRs. Why Do Prosecutors Need to Learn About STRs". APRI DNA Legal Assistance Unit. 4.5 (1999). 1 Feb 2006 Mellon, Jennifer N. "Manufacturing Convictions: Why Defendants Are Entitled to the Data Underlying Forensic DNA Kits." Duke Law Journal 51.3 (2001): 1097+. Questia. 1 Feb. 2006 . Schwabe, William, Lois M. Davis, and Brian A. Jackson. Challenges and Choices for Crime-Fighting Technology: Federal Support of State and Local Law Enforcement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2001. Questia. 1 Feb. 2006 . Spencer, Jack. "Do Iraq, Iran and North Korea Truly Constitute an Axis of Evil." USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education) May 2002: 20+. Questia. 1 Feb. 2006 . Stephens, Gene. "Crime in Cyberspace." The Futurist Sept.-Oct. 1995: 24+. Questia. 1 Feb. 2006 . Read More