NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

PROJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC:

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

case

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Swati Shanker Prof. Gargi Rajvanshi

2010B.A.L.L.BO5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank, Director Professor S. S. Singh, for giving us this opportunity to

make this project and explore our subjects which was helpful in broadening our thinking

1

prospective. I am thankful to Professor Gargi Rajvanshi as without her continuous guidance

through thick and thin, the completion of this project could not have been possible. Also, I would

like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for providing us with the relevant material

as and when required. Last but not the least I would like to thank my friends who helped me in

this project and for their undue guidance without which this project would not have been

possible.

TABLE OF CONTENT:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.............................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION:........................................................................................................................................4

DNA PROLIFILING PROCESS:..................................................................................................................5

APPLICATION OF DNA FINGERPRINTING:..........................................................................................6

2

DNA DATABASES:.....................................................................................................................................9

FAKE DNA EVIDENCE:...........................................................................................................................10

SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING:..................................................................................................11

DNA TESTING IN USA:............................................................................................................................11

INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING, WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE:.........................................................................................................................................................11

THE PEOPLE V. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON...................................................................................13

DNA TESTING IN INDIA:.........................................................................................................................18

LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING:........................................................18

1. Evidence Law. & DNA PROFILING:.............................................................................................18

2. Cr. P.C. & DNA PROFILING:........................................................................................................19

3. DNA Profile & Human Rights:........................................................................................................19

DISADVANTAGES OF DNA FIGERPRINTING:....................................................................................19

CONCLUSION:...........................................................................................................................................20

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................21

3

INTRODUCTION:DNA fingerprinting also known as DNA testing, DNA typing, or Genetic fingerprinting is a

technique employed by forensic scientists to assist in the identification of individuals by their

respective DNA profiles.1 DNA profiles are encrypted sets of numbers that reflect a person's

DNA makeup, which can also be used as the person's identifier.2 A DNA fingerprint of an

individual remains same throughout his lifetime and further it is unique for every individual.

This serves as the basis of DNA fingerprinting. DNA fingerprinting is used for a variety of

purposes like criminal investigation or parental testing e.t.c.

Dr. Alec Jeffereys of the University of Leicester is known as the father of DNA fingerprinting.

DNA analysis was first introduced into policing in 1986 by UK police in a murder investigation.

DNA fingerprinting, has given police and the courts a means of identifying the perpetrators of

rapes and murders with a very high degree of confidence.3 However, the admissibility of DNA

fingerprinting as evidence in the court of law is still a matter of debate. 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.

This project analyses the evidentiary value of DNA fingerprinting in the light of various case

laws and especially with reference to O.J.Simpson’s murder trial case. In this project an attempt

has been made to address various disputes associated with the admissibility of DNA evidence in

the court of law.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling

3 http://goswamigk.indianscholars.org/2011/03/legal-issues-related-to-dna-fingerprinting-in-criminal-justice-system/

4

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. Though, 99.9% 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. Further, an individual’s DNA cannot be changed by him even

through operation. Thus, DNA prolifiling is permanent identifier of an individual by exclusion of

all others.

The DNA fingerprinting process starts by collecting some sample of individual’s DNA. 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. The DNA samples obtained in such manner have less chances of being contaminated.

DNA samples can also be collected from blood, skin, hair, tissues or semen e.t.c. 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.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.

At the very beginning the reliability of this particular method was challenged. 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. Thus, it has been recommended to improve the

procedures employed in collection of reference samples and their tests.

4 http://www.medindia.net/patients/patientinfo/Dnafingerprinting_criminalcases.htm

5

APPLICATION OF DNA FINGERPRINTING:

1. It is currently employed in paternity disputes

2. Identification of bodies of soldiers killed in war.

3. To diagnose inherited disorders in both prenatal and newborn babies.

4. Biological Evidence to Identify Criminals: Where fingerprints are not available but

biological specimens are available like blood or semen stains, hair, or items of clothing at

the scene of the crime then these items may prove to be valuable sources of DNA of the

criminal.

5. Personal Identification - 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. In fact

the US army has been doing DNA fingerprinting of all its soldiers and has a huge

databank. The DNA method for personal identification is far superior to the dental

records and blood typing methods that were popularly being used.

6. Identify potential suspects whose DNA may match evidence left at crime scenes

7. Exonerate persons wrongly accused of crimes

8. Identify crime and catastrophe victims

9. Establish paternity and other family relationships

10. Identify endangered and protected species as an aid to wildlife officials (could be used for

prosecuting poachers)

11. Detect bacteria and other organisms that may pollute air, water, soil, and food

12. Match organ donors with recipients in transplant programs

13. Determine pedigree for seed or livestock breeds

14. Authenticate consumables such as caviar and wine

HISTORY OF DNA FINGERPRINTING: CASE LAWS

6

In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and

murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first discovered.

This was the first use of DNA finger printing in a criminal investigation. In 1987, in the

same case as Buckland, British baker Colin Pitchfork was the first criminal caught and

convicted using DNA fingerprinting.

In 1987, 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.

In 1987, Florida rapist Tommy Lee Andrews was the first person in the United States to

be convicted as a result of DNA evidence, for raping a woman during a burglary; he was

convicted on November 6, 1987, and sentenced to 22 years in prison.[46][47]

In 2003, Welshman Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of the 1988 murder of Lynette White,

when crime scene evidence collected 12 years earlier was re-examined

using STR techniques, 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, via "familial searching".

In March 2003, Josiah Sutton was released from prison after serving four years of a

twelve-year sentence for a sexual assault charge. Questionable DNA samples taken from

Sutton were retested in the wake of the Houston Police Department's crime lab scandal of

mishandling DNA evidence.

In June 2003, because of new DNA evidence, Dennis Halstead, John Kogut and John

Restivo won a re-trial on their murder conviction. The three men had already served

eighteen years of their thirty-plus-year sentences.

The trial of Robert Pickton (convicted in December 2003) is notable in that DNA

evidence is being used primarily to identify the victims, and in many cases to prove their

existence.

In 2004, DNA testing shed new light into the mysterious 1912 disappearance of Bobby

Dunbar, a four-year-old boy who vanished during a fishing trip. He was allegedly found

alive eight months later in the custody of William Cantwell Walters, but another woman

claimed that the boy was her son, Bruce Anderson, whom she had entrusted in Walters'

custody. The courts disbelieved her claim and convicted Walters for the kidnapping. The

7

boy was raised and known as Bobby Dunbar throughout the rest of his life. However,

DNA tests on Dunbar's son and nephew revealed the two were not related, thus

establishing that the boy found in 1912 was not Bobby Dunbar, whose real fate remains

unknown.

In 2005, Gary Leiterman was convicted of the 1969 murder of Jane Mixer, a law student

at the University of Michigan, after DNA found on Mixer's pantyhose was matched to

Leiterman. DNA in a drop of blood on Mixer's hand was matched to John Ruelas, who

was only four years old in 1969 and was never successfully connected to the case in any

other way. 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.

In December 2005, Evan Simmons was proven innocent of a 1981 attack on an Atlanta

woman after serving twenty-four years in prison. Mr. Clark is the 164th person in the

United States and the fifth in Georgia to be freed using post-conviction DNA testing.

In March 2009, Sean Hodgson who spent 27 years in jail, convicted of killing Teresa De

Simone, 22, in her car in Southampton 30 years ago was released by senior judges. Tests

prove DNA from the scene was not his. British police have now reopened the case.

8

DNA DATABASES:

There are now several DNA databases in existence around the world. Some are private, but most

of the largest databases are government controlled. The United States maintains the largest DNA

database, with the Combined DNA Index System, holding over 5 million records as of

2007. The United Kingdom maintains the National DNA Database (NDNAD), which is of

similar size, despite the UK's smaller population. The size of this database, and its rate of growth,

is giving concern to civil liberties groups in the UK, where police have wide-ranging powers to

take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal

The U.S. Patriot Act of the United States provides a means for the U.S. government to get DNA

samples from other countries if they] are either a division of, or head office of, a company

operating in the U.S. Under the act, 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.

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. 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.

In India also it has been recommended to form a DNA database.

Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Banking Arrestee DNA

Advantages

Major crimes often involve people who also have committed other offenses. Having

DNA banked potentially could make it easier to identify suspects, just as fingerprint

databases do.

Innocent people currently are incarcerated for crimes they did not commit; if DNA

samples had been taken at the time of arrest, these individuals could have been proven

innocent and thereby avoided incarceration..

9

Banking arrestees' DNA instead of banking only that of convicted criminals could result

in financial savings in investigation, prosecution, and incarceration.

Disadvantages

Arrestees often are found innocent of crimes. The retention of innocent people's DNA

raises significant ethical and social issues.

If people’s DNA is in police databases, they might be identified as matches or partial

matches to DNA found at crime scenes. This occurs even with innocent people, for

instance, if an individual had been at a crime scene earlier or had a similar DNA profile

to the actual criminal.

Sensitive genetic information, such as family relationships and disease susceptibility, can

be obtained from DNA samples. Police, forensic science services, and researchers using

the database have access to people’s DNA without their consent. This can be seen as an

intrusion of personal privacy and a violation of civil liberties.

Studies of the United Kingdom’s criminal database, which retains the DNA samples of

all suspects, show that ethnic minorities are over represented in the population of

arrestees and are, therefore, overrepresented in the criminal DNA database. This raises

the concern of an institutionalized ethnic bias in the criminal justice system.

Even the most secure database has a chance of being compromised.

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. In one case, a criminal even planted fake DNA evidence in his

own body:

Dr. John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her

underwear. Police drew what they believed to be Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA

against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out

that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood

andanticoagulants.

10

SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING:

Police forces may collect DNA samples without the suspects' knowledge, and use it as evidence.

Legality of this mode of proceeding has been questioned in Australia.

In the United States, it has been accepted, courts often claiming that there was no expectation of

privacy, citing California v. Greenwood (1985), 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. 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 instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if they do

realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one’s DNA in public."

In the UK, the Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibited private individuals from covertly collecting

biological samples (hair, fingernails, etc.) for DNA analysis, but excluded medical and criminal

investigations from the offence.

DNA TESTING IN USA:

There are state laws on DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United States. Detailed information

on database laws in each state can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures

website.

INDIAN CASES WHERE IN DNA TESTING, WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE JUDICIAL TRIALS WERE: 

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (Chennai, Tamil Nadu),

Naina Sahni or the Tandoor case (New Delhi),

Priyadarshini Mattoo (New Delhi), Priyadarshini Matoo, 23, was allegedly raped and

strangulated to death in her house in N. Delhi in Jan 1996, by her fellow student S. K.

Singh , a son of a senior IPS officer. DNA test was conducted and test confirmed and

11

connects the crime with criminal. But Defence argued and challenged the “scientific

procedure” adopted in DNA probe. The Session Judge pronounced:“Though I knew, he is

the man (Santosh Singh), who committed the crime; I acquit him, giving him the benefit

of doubt.” Recently in Oct’2010 SC has sentence him for life imprisonment.

Wildlife cases involving tiger poaching, Sambar deer, Wild pig, Peacocks etc.

Swami Premananda (Puddukkotai, Tamil Nadu),

Swami Shraddananda (Bangalore, Karnataka),

Swaminarayan Ashram (Nadiad, Gujarat),

Assam Minister’s rape case (Assam),

Jharkhand Mukthi Morcha (JMM) Case, (New Delhi),

Indian Airforce Pilots identification case of Goa,

Sishu Vihar Child adoption case (Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh),

CRPF false gang rape case (Bhongir, Andhra Pradesh),

Rape of minor by 72 year old man (Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh),

Warangal hospital child swapping case (Warangal, Andhra Pradesh),

New Zealand tourist murder case (Varanasi, U P),

Chandradevi vs. State of Tamil Nadu (MANU/IN/2335/2002):

Anantnag False encounter Case (Jammu & Kashmir),

Black Buck killing case (Jodhpur, Rajasthan)

Beanth Singh Assassination Case (Punjab) etc.

Villainy Vs. Kunhiraman (March 1991, Kerla H.C.)To sort-out the paternity dispute to a

unmarried woman- Vilasini, paternity test was conducted and Hon’ble H.C. found

Kuhiraman – ‘the father’.

Identifying 9/11 victims: Remains of only 1585, 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.

Nirmaljeet Kaur Vs. 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.

Diana R. murder case in Varanasi :A religious tourist and young lady from New

12

Zealand visited Varanasi in1997 and was reported missing by her father L.N. Jack Routley

after one year since her last call. Dharam Dev Yadava, an unregistered tourist guide, 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 body was

identified as deceased using dental record analysis, skull super imposition and ultimately by

DNA technology. Session’s Court awarded the principal accused- hanging till death and

confirmed by H.C.

THE PEOPLE V. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON

According to Time magazine, the announcement of the verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial

on October 2, 1995, was "the single most suspenseful moment in television history."(13) At no

time in history has someone as well-known and well-liked as O.J. Simpson been accused of such

a heinous crime as slitting his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson's, throat and knifing to death her

friend, Ronald Goldman. The Simpson case was a riveting spectacle for the American public,

obsessed as it is with celebrity. As part of the media frenzy, DNA profiling, the crucial evidence

in the case, received unprecedented attention. However, it is important to note that the existence

of DNA evidence, does not necessarily lead to a conviction. The circumstances of a case are the

most important factors in determining guilt or innocence, regardless of DNA. Due to the

sensationalizing in the media, the public perception was that the prosecution in the Simpson case

had a mountain of evidence based on DNA, when in reality they had little more than a molehill.

The prosecution's case was based essentially on DNA evidence. One of the most important

pieces of evidence was a bloody glove found at Simpson's Rockingham estate. This glove,

allegedly Simpson's size, in a style he had worn, and a match for the one found at the crime

scene, was said to contain fibers consistent with Goldman's shirt, Brown's and Goldman's hair,

O.J.'s Ford Bronco, and limb hair from a black man. The blood was said to be a match for

Goldman, Brown, and Simpson. 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

13

Simpson and Brown, the blood found at the back gate of the crime scene, which was a DNA

match for Simpson, and the blood in O.J.'s Bronco, which matched all three of them. In addition,

DNA testing as well as conventional serology testing linked Simpson to the drops of blood near

the victims at the crime scene.

It was an extremely powerful case. If all of the above evidence had been accepted as authentic by

the jury, it would have led them to convict Simpson. The other side to this story turned out to be

more important than the DNA evidence, and that is the way in which this evidence was collected.

On deeper investigation, it was discovered that the prosecution's apparently solid mountain of

evidence was not without its faults and crevices. 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. These included sending a trainee to collect blood

samples; she had never before had primary responsibility for collecting blood evidence from a

crime scene. Even more damning was the fact that LAPD Detective Vannatter carried around

O.J. Simpson's blood in a vial in an unsealed envelope for three hours and went for a cup of

coffee before booking it. Trial evidence allowed the defense to argue that 1.5 cc's of blood could

not be accounted for by the prosecution. The defense suggested that this blood was planted by

Vannatter, since the blood on the gate at the crime scene was not found during the initial

investigation. This created a strong doubt in the minds of the jurors. In addition, under cross

examination, LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung conceded to a litany of procedural errors.

Due to the blunders and poor handling of the DNA evidence by the prosecution, the defense

experts were able to shoot holes in what would have been a solid case. Laboratory negligence is

a big issue concerning the admissibility of DNA evidence, and the defense used that to its

benefit. The defense also brought up the results of a 1987 test in which both Cellmark and

Forensic Science Associates reported out false results. They claimed that these test results

pointed to a lab error rate of 2% (1 in 50 tests). In actuality, those tests were irrelevant because

changes in protocols were made as a result of these tests and since then many thousands of tests

have been successfully completed. Despite this, the defense's claim struck a chord with many

who are wary of laboratory errors falsifying DNA test results. O.J. Simpson was not the only one

on trial; so too was the future of DNA admissibility. Many scientists were hoping that the

conviction of a celebrity murderer based on DNA profiling would open doors for DNA in the

14

courtroom. Instead, despite the glaring amount of DNA evidence against Simpson, the defense

was victorious and Simpson was acquitted. The future of DNA in the legal system remains

uncertain.

One of the lasting effects of the O.J. Simpson case will likely be greater scrutiny by defense

lawyers of the prosecution's forensic DNA evidence presented in criminal cases. In the Simpson

case, the defense, in essence, put the crime laboratory on trial. The National Research Council

(NRC) report, entitled DNA Technology in Forensic Science, states:

"There is no substantial dispute about the underlying [DNA] scientific principles.

However, the adequacy of laboratory procedures and the competence of the experts who

testify should remain open to inquiry."

The quality and reliability of forensic laboratories is only one of the many concerns about DNA

fingerprinting. In addition to the question of its admissibility in court, there are many moral and

ethical issues involved. First, there is the issue of whether DNA evidence prevents defendants

from getting fair trials. Defense attorney Robert Brower believes unequivocally that DNA

evidence does threaten the constitutional right to a fair trial. "In rape cases, when the semen has

been matched with the defendant's and the chance that it came from another person is 33 billion

to 1, you don't need a jury." Of course, the other side to this issue is that if DNA can provide

conclusive evidence that a suspect committed a crime, some would say that it is an obstruction of

justice and inherently unconstitutional not to present this evidence in court. Something else to

consider is that few defendants have the resources available to them that O.J. Simpson had.

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

dollars for their time. A person of lesser means might very well have been convicted by tainted

evidence.

The most contentious issue is the matter of how to calculate statistical probability, the odds that a

match between DNA found at the crime scene and DNA taken from the suspect could be the

result of coincidence. To find a match, crime labs look at several sites where the DNA is known

15

to vary. If these sites match, there is an extremely high probability that the samples came from

the same person. To quantify these findings, investigators calculate the frequency with which

each variation occurs in the suspect's population group. The frequencies for each site are then

multiplied together to arrive at a figure for the complete DNA profile. Therein lies the problem-

some population geneticists maintain that the frequencies of genetic markers in population sub-

groups (based on race) could differ widely from the frequencies found in larger population

groups. If this is so, then any estimates calculated using the widely accepted methods could be

considerably off the mark. The question then arises- if someone is convicted using data

determined in this way, 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, even

if this takes a decade or more. In the meantime, how many felons will go free if the evidence is

not allowed? There are no easy answers to these questions. While the debate ensues, a temporary

solution is in place. DNA is admitted or excluded on a case-by-case basis, determined by the

quality of the tests performed on the DNA samples and the circumstances of the case.

DNA testing is not just an ethical, legal, or public policy issue; it is also a women's issue. Ninety

percent of the victims of crimes involving DNA identification are committed against women.

The tests are most useful in sex crimes, traditionally the toughest to solve and among the most

under-reported. Only about half of the reported rapes result in arrests, and less then half of the

men arrested are convicted. DNA has made it a lot harder for violent offenders to prey on women

with impunity.

The primary concern is privacy. DNA profiles are different from fingerprints, which are useful

only for identification. DNA can provide insights into many intimate aspects of people and their

families including susceptibility to particular diseases, legitimacy of birth, and perhaps

predispositions to certain behaviors and sexual orientation. This information increases the

potential for genetic discrimination by government, insurers, employers, schools, banks, and

others.

Collected samples are stored, and many state laws do not require the destruction of a DNA

record or sample after a conviction has been overturned. So there is a chance that a person's

16

entire genome may be available —regardless of whether they were convicted or not. Although

the DNA used is considered "junk DNA", single tandem repeated DNA bases (STRs), which are

not known to code for proteins, in the future this information may be found to reveal personal

information such as susceptibilities to disease and certain behaviors.

Practicality is a concern for DNA sampling and storage. An enormous backlog of over half a

million DNA samples waits to be entered into the CODIS system. The statute of limitations has

expired in many cases in which the evidence would have been useful for conviction.

Who is chosen for sampling also is a concern. In the United Kingdom, for example, all suspects

can be forced to provide a DNA sample. Likewise, 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, rather than judges and juries, to provide the state with intimate

evidence that could lead to "investigative arrests."

In the United States each state legislature independently decides whether DNA can be sampled

from arrestees or convicts. In 2006, the New Mexico state legislature passed Katie's Bill, a law

that requires the police to take DNA samples from suspects in most felony arrests. Previous New

Mexico laws required DNA to be sampled only from convicted felons. The bill is named for

Katie Sepich, whose 2003 murder went unsolved until her killer's DNA entered the database in

2005 when he was convinced of another felony. Her killer had been arrested, but not convicted,

for burglary prior to 2005.

Opponents of the law assert that it infringes on the privacy and rights of the innocent. While

Katie’s Law does allow cleared suspects to petition to have their DNA samples purged from the

state database, the purging happens only after the arrest. Civil liberties advocates say that Katie's

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.

As of September 2007, all 50 states have laws that require convicted sex offenders to submit

DNA, 44 states have laws that require convicted felons to submit DNA, 9 states require DNA

17

samples from those convicted of certain misdemeanors, and 11 states—including Alaska,

Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee,

Texas, and Virginia—have laws authorizing arrestee DNA sampling.

DNA TESTING IN INDIA:At present, India does not have a national law that empowers the government to collect and

store DNA profiles of convicts, but DNA collection and testing and is taking place in many

states. For instance, 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.

LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNED WITH DNA FINGERPRINTING:

1. Evidence Law. & DNA PROFILING:

Sections 45 & 46 of Indian Evidence Act-1872, deal with expert opinion o evidences. 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. The court will

rely on bonafide statement for proof given by the expert concluded on the basis of scientific

techniques. The evidence considered irrelevant would be given relevance in the eyes of law if

they are consistent with the opinion of experts.

Thus, experts are routinely involved in administration of justice, more often in criminal justice

system.

2. Cr. P.C. & DNA PROFILING:

Though there is no specific DNA legislation enacted in India (DNA Bill- 2007 still hanging),

Sec.53 and Sec. 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for DNA tests implicitly and

18

they are extensively used in determining complex criminal falacies. Sec. 53 deals with

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.

Sec. 54 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 further provides for the examination of the arrested person

by the registered medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person.

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. Jeffreys said he was "disappointed" with the proposals, which came after a

European court ruled that the current policy breaches people's right to privacy. 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, to be universally accepted as a

tool. 

2. There are only a few reliable labs around the world that can give accurate results.

3. There is also 1 in 50 billion chance of two DNA sequence being similar.

CONCLUSION:

Thus, DNA fingerprinting is a very vital tool in criminal investigation process. It helps to

identify the criminals and authenticate their conviction. However, this technique is subject is

certain care and caution. Otherwise it would lead to injustice to innocent persons. Proper care

and caution in collecting DNA samples should be taken and further their reliability should be

19

duly established. Thus, 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.

REFERENCES

Howard Coleman and Eric Swenson, DNA in the Courtroom (Seattle:GeneLex Press,

1994), 30.

David F. Betsch, "DNA Fingerprinting in Human Health and Society," Genentech's

Access Excellence, http://esg~www.mit.edu.8001/esgbio/rdna/fingerprint.html, (June

1994).

"DNA Fingerprinting," Newton's Apple,

http://ericir.sir.edu/projects/Newton/13/lessons/dna.html, (October 1994).

20

T. Burke, G. Dolf, A.J. Jeffreys, and R. Wolf, eds., DNA Fingerprinting: Approaches and

Applications (Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 1991), 1.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Reasonable Doubts (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 46.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1997/KatieLachter.html

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml#6

http://www.epw.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india.html

http://www.epw.in/web-exclusives/rethinking-dna-profiling-india.html

21