Abstract
In criminal trials, eyewitness identification, confession of guilt, and scientific evidence are broad categories for evidencing to divulge the truth (Giannelli in Cleveland State L Rev 49:487–498 [1]; Griffiths and Milne in The psychology of criminal investigation: from theory to practice. Routledge [2]; Findley in Miss L Rev 81 [3]; Findley in Identifying the culprit: assessing eyewitness identification. The National Academies Press, Washington DC [4]).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108. Also see: Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 16 SCC 369: (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 837: 2015 SCC OnLine 1336.
- 2.
United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 568 (6th Cir. 1993).
- 3.
Joseph Wambaugh, “The Blooding” (1989) (discussing the investigation and capture of Colin Pitchfork for the rape-murders of Lynda Mann in 1983 and Dawn Ashworth in 1986); Nova, Murder, Rape and DNA (1988) (films for the humanities and sciences). DNA also proved innocence of Richard Buckland, 17 years old Narborough boy who was suffering from learning difficulties, despite his confession of committing rape with murder of Ashworth in July 1986.
- 4.
A probe is a short segment of DNA that can be used to help for finding specific sequences of bases in a DNA molecule. Probes make use of the basic link characteristics of DNA, that G (Guanine) will only link with C (Cytosine), the base pairs. The radioactively labelled probe of known bases seeks out matching sequences in a thicket of DNA and hybridises with them. This is then detected by autoradiography on an x-ray plate, to construe DNA Fingerprint.
- 5.
A Ghanaian mother was living in United Kingdom with two of her children and her other child had arrived later to UK. The immigration authority in UK had doubt on genuineness of the parentage mentioned on the passport. Prof. Jeffreys conducted the DNA Fingerprinting, which established that the alleged child as well as other children belong to the mother. Consequently, Home Office dropped the proceedings against the child. Thus, the first legal dispute was solved with the help of DNA.
- 6.
Edward Connors, Thomas Lundregan, Neal Miller and Tom McEwen, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial” U.S. Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice, at page xxvi (1996). It says: “[T]he O.J. Simpson case and other recent sensational trials have put law enforcement under an intensely powerful microscope, examining our most basic procedures for collecting, processing, and caring for evidence”.
- 7.
Id. at iii.
- 8.
The team was comprised of Prof. Alec Jeffreys, Peter Gill and Dave Werrett of the Forensic Science Services (FSS) at the University of Leicester, England, United Kingdom.
- 9.
Collin Pitchfork was 25 years old when was caught for rape and murder of two children in England. He was first person to be punished based on DNA Evidence and awarded life imprisonment for 30 years, which was reduced on appeal to 28 years in 2009. He has been released on September 1, 2021.
- 10.
Sheppard v. Maxwell 384 U.S. 333 (1966). Justice Clark of the US Supreme Court observed, “This federal habeas corpus application involves the question whether Sheppard was deprived of a fair trial in his state conviction for the second-degree murder of his wife because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive and prejudicial publicity that attended his persecution … We have concluded that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, reverse the judgement”. Also see: John Bender, “Cases and Questions for Mass Media Law”, University of Nebraska, p. 279.
- 11.
James F. McCarty, Body of Evidence, Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 10, 1996, Sunday Magazine at 9.
- 12.
Bruce H. Hanley and Steven C. Clark, Develo** National Guidelines for Death Scene Investigations, 14 CRIM. JUST. 26 (1999). Also see: Mark Hansen, Body of Evidence, 81 A.B.A. J. 60 (1995) (death investigations in U.S. are “no better than what they have in many Third World countries,” quoting Dr. Werner Spitz; “It’s a national disgrace,” quoting Dr. Michael Baden).
- 13.
Sam Reese was the only child of the couple, and was of about seven years old at the time of incident.
- 14.
The DNA testing was conducted by Mohammad Tahir, technical manager at the Indian Polis Marion County Forensic Service agency. DNA sample was extracted from Sam’s pants, wood chip taken from the basement stairs at place of incident, and from vaginal swab of the deceased lady. Testing of the swabs indicated semen in vagina. Blood and semen were consistent with a key DNA in Richard Eberling’s blood. Eberling was a likeliest suspect since he had washed the windows in Sheppard’s home around the time of murder and was familiar with the layout of the Sheppard home. However, unaccounted for DNA markers from crime scene samples made it impossible to link Eberling with crime beyond reasonable doubt. The blood stains on the paints of Sam and wood chip were inconsistent with Mrs. Marlyn’s blood, and these blood spots were neither from Sam himself. The trail of blood found at crime scene could only come from the killer. These DNA findings became basis for stam** exoneration of Sam. However, it was also alleged that rape evidences were selectively overlooked by investigators since it did not fit in prosecution story to fix the husband as killer. During civil suit the body of Dr. Merilyn was exhumed, in part to determine the paternity of fetus she was carrying. Although fetus was autopsied at time of her post mortem. The paternity could not be ascertained due to effect of formaldehyde on preserved content with passage of time.
- 15.
At age 19, Simpson got married to Marguerite L. Whitley in 1967 and blessed with three children, but both got divorced in March 1979. He started dating Nicole Brown in 1977 when she was 18 and working as a waitress private club, but married with her on February 2, 1985, five years after he retired from professional football. They went on to have two children, but their marriage last seven years since Simpson pleaded no contest to spousal abuse alleged by Nicole and both were divorced in 1992.
- 16.
The People of State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.
- 17.
George Anastaplo, “The O. J. Simpson Case revisited” 28 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 465 (1997). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol28/iss3/3 (Last visited on September …, 2021). The author on significance of circumstantial evidence, he opined, “Circumstantial evidence can be very strong; sometimes it can be superior to more direct evidence (such as eyewitness testimony). We rely upon circumstantial evidence all the time” (p. 465). He further observed, “An acquittal in a case does not mean that a defendant did not do the crime. Nor does it mean that the community at large should regard an acquitted defendant as not having done the crime of which he has been acquitted” (p. 466).
- 18.
The Jury was comprised of nine blacks, two whites and one Hispanic.
- 19.
Nuremberg, a city in Germany, was considered the ceremonial birthplace of Nazi Party. In Nuremberg, a series of military tribunals conducted trials in 1945 following World War II by the Allied Forces under the International Law to prosecute the prominent members of political, military, judicial and economic leadership of Nazi German responsible for atrocities during Holocaust and other war crimes.
- 20.
Ibid at 65.
- 21.
S. and Marper v. United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581, para 125. Also see: R v. RC [2005] 3 SCR 99: 2005 SCC 61. In his opinion Fish J. observed, “Of more concern, however, is the impact of an order on an individual’s informational privacy interests. In R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, at p. 293, the Court found that s. 8 of the Charter protected the ‘biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state'. An individual’s DNA contains the 'highest level of personal and private information’: S.A.B., at para. 48. Unlike a fingerprint, it is capable of revealing the most intimate details of a person’s biological makeup. … The taking and retention of a DNA sample is not a trivial matter and, absent a compelling public interest, would inherently constitute a grave intrusion on the subject’s right to personal and informational privacy”.
- 22.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1. Also see: Daniel J. Solove, “The Myth of the Privacy Paradox” 89(1) The George Washington Law Review 1–51 (2021).
- 23.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 at para.
- 24.
France observes Inquisitorial or Non-adversarial system, where the court is actively involved in investigation of a crime. This system is prevalent in few countries like France and Italy, and legal system following Islamic law such as Saudi Arabia, etc. On the contrary, most of the jurisdictions including common law countries follow adversarial system where police investigate the case and judge act a neutral umpire. United States, Unites Kingdom, India, etc. follow adversarial system.
- 25.
569 U.S. 435 (2013).
- 26.
Dr. Lalji Singh is known as “Father of DNA Fingerprinting in India”, since not only invented new probe, named Bkm, with the help of female Indian banded Krait snake, but he also first introduced this emerging technology in India courtroom. In 1988, before the chief judicial magistrate of Tellicherry, Dr. Singh presented evidence to a packed court for more than two hours in a paternity dispute. Kunhiraman, a wealthy bachelor was accused by E. Vilasini of being the father of her son, Manoj, but Kunhiraman denied paternity. Vilasini approached CCMB where DNA test strikingly revealed that every band in Manoj’s DNA profile was derived either from Kunhiraman or Vilasini. This was the first case, where DNA evidence was accepted by the court of law in India.
- 27.
State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253: 1999 (3) SCR 1.
- 28.
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1469: 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1130 at page 772, para 71.
- 29.
He was the President of Youth Congress at that time.
- 30.
Maxwell Pereira, who was Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi who was involved in the investigation of the case, in his book titled “The Tandoor Murder” [Westland: 2018], has said that Sharma did not chop the body of her deceased wife. However, even the Supreme Court mentioned chop** of the body. To his surprise the post mortem report rued out the use of firearm and opined cause of death due to burn injuries. The police also recovered the bullets at crime scene. However, second post-mortem conducted by a team of doctors reported two gunshot injuries in the head and neck region. Thus, it reveals the how extraneous factors sensationalize the crime and also showcase poor quality of expert opinion in India. “The same judge who tried the Priyadarshini Mattoo case and threw the DNA evidence…we had to educate him in the entire usage of DNA”, he said. Pereira further said, If you really follow the law you will never be able to get a conviction in this country. … We are a country that love to make heroes of criminals”.
Available at: Divya Narayanan, “The wrong theory that survives 23 years after Delhi’s infamous “tandoor murder case”.
- 31.
Sushil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 4 SCC 317: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 714: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 937.
- 32.
Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2018 SCC OnLineDel13277: 2019 Cri LJ 4123: (2019) 176DRJ 481.
- 33.
Amarmani Tripathi v. Sate (Through CBI) 2012 SCC OnLineUtt1428: 2013 Cri LJ (NOC 49) 17.
- 34.
Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 4 SCC 80: (2011) 2 SCC (Cri0 92: 2011 SCC OnLine SC 344. Also see: Thomas Mitchell Overton v. State of Florida, 976 So. 2d 536, 574–75 (Fla. 2007). Available at: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/Opinions?sort=opinion/disposition_date%20desc,%20opinion/type%20desc,%20opinion/case_number%20asc&type=written&view=embed_custom&searchtype=opinions&recent_only=1&hide_search=1&hide_filters=1&limit=25&offset=0.
- 35.
Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 5 SCC 509: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 626: 2014 SCC OnLine SC 321 at page 528, para 36.
- 36.
The Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013, commenced on February 03, 2013; and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commenced on December 09, 2013.
- 37.
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1: (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 533 at page 234, para 457.
- 38.
Pradeep Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Habeas Corpus WP. 733 of 2020 Allahabad High Court, decided on August 10, 2021.
- 39.
The axiom was propounded by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England, in Rex v. Sussex Justices [1024] 1 KB 256.
References
Giannelli PC. Scientific evidence in the Sam Sheppard case. Cleveland State L Rev. 2001;49:487–98. Available at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol49/iss3/12.
Griffiths A, Milne R. The psychology of criminal investigation: from theory to practice. Routledge; 2018.
Findley KA. Implementing the lessons from wrongful convictions: an empirical analysis of the eyewitness identification reforms issues. Miss L Rev. 2016;81.
Findley KA. Identifying the culprit: assessing eyewitness identification. A report published by National Research Council. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891.
McCrery N. Silent witnesses: the often gruesome but always fascinating history of forensic science. Chicago Review Press; 2014.
O’Connor CO. A novel forensic approach to DNA database construction and population genetic analysis. Doctoral dissertations (AAI3313292). Available at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3313292.
Mueller CB. Introduction: O.J. Simpson and the criminal justice system on trial. U Colo L Rev. 1996;67:727. Available at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/684.
William Hodes W. Lord Brougham, the dream team, and jury nullification of the third kind. U Colo L Rev. 1996;67:1075.
Jeffreys AJ, Allen MJ, Hagelberg E, Sonnberg A. Identification of the skeletal remains of Joseph Mengele by DNA analysis. Foren Sci Int. 1992;56:65–76.
Hagelberg E, Clegg JB. Isolation and characterization of DNA from archaeological bone. 244 Proc R Sec Londen Scr B. 1991;244:45–50.
Delattre EJ. Character and cops: ethics in policing. 6th ed. AEI Press; 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goswami, G.K., Goswami, S. (2022). DNA in Criminal Adjudication. In: Kumar, A., Goswami, G.K., Huffine, E. (eds) Handbook of DNA Forensic Applications and Interpretation . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0043-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0043-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-0042-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-0043-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)