Group 1 – Jessica, Julie and Alex Evidence and admissibility in court Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW); - the danger associated with acceptance of DNA testing as infallible by juries http://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/speeches/Forensic%20Science%20in%20Criminal%20Law.htm http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/8/7/%7BA8774CDA-3A9A-4445-9D88 583757A48003%7Dti226.pdf http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+59+2000+FIRST+0+N http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/dna-evidence-befuddles-jurors/story- e6frg97x-1226035635488 Alex The writer (Nicholas Cowdery, QC former DPP) uses the term ‘magic marker’ because it makes it seem fake or unreal since referred to the use of magic. He relates DNA to the term ‘magic marker’ because he believes that DNA doesn’t provide certain or flawless results therefore cannot always be relied on to make judgements. This could mean that using DNA in criminal law shouldn’t be seen as the only option to suspect criminals and to convict them. To a prosecutor, DNA evidence may mean the difference between an arguable case and a case against which there is no reasonably sustainable argument. To a defence lawyer, it may spell grim news – or it may mean complete exoneration for the client. Whichever side of a case the lawyer is on, the issues surrounding the sources and use of such evidence need to be understood. All trails are not equally clear. Experience with DNA sampling shows that blood has a 90% chance of producing a DNA profile; saliva on a cigarette butt 67% but on a balaclava only 43%; sweat on the handle of a weapon 17%; fallen hair (with dead roots) 25% but plucked hair much higher. A mass screening is where a large number of people are told to or volunteer to give their DNA to the police to see which of them the suspect is. This is very helpful since the suspect wouldn’t be able to get away since everyone has to give their DNA in, and if they refuse they are turned into the suspect making mass screening very helpful to crime fighters. There are a number of concerns relating to DNA evidence including: DNA isn’t always enough to convict someone just because there was a link A match only provides only a statistical probability of a link Mass screenings cause financial and human right costs and aren’t always accurate or right The right to privacy is at risk DNA sampling may not always be right Risk of faulty laboratory results Matches may occur incorrectly time to time Jessica - Evidence and Admissibility in Court - the danger associated with acceptance of DNA testing as infallible by juries “DNA evidence befuddles jurors “ Nicola Berkovic From: The Australian April 08, 2011 12:00AM They researched 3600 potential jurors and discovered that: -they generally had little knowledge of DNA -they had a test based on DNA. Only 24% of questions were correctly answered, but after 20 minute tutorial and DNA expert testimony, it changed to 63 % -Juries who had better knowledge of the DNA were less likely to rely on DNA it to convict someone while people who had less understanding of DNA were convinced to use it. -those who tended to watch crime shows tended to know less about DNA and even learnt the less during the tutorial The white coat effect -where people tend to weigh the evidences in low depth because their little understanding make them be blinded by science -innocent people could potentially end up in prison because of over-reliance on problematic DNA evidence. This is because the jurors have the power to convict a person guilty or innocent, yet their over-reliance on DNA evidence could lead up to convicting an innocent person. Suggestions Dr McDonald makes to safeguard defendants: - Courts should use a standard tutorial to educate jurors and lawyers about DNA evidence and the problems associated with it. - Policy makers around the country should introduce standardised reporting guidelines for scientific evidence. Julie - How can DNA be used to link “people and crimes”? DNA profile used by Crime investigators come from two sources. They are human bodies and small samples of human bodily material. It can be obtained from human bodies by analysing samples removed from those bodies. Forensic procedures used to obtain such samples including blood sampling by injection, pulling out hair at the root and taking swabs from inside the mouth, known as buccal swabs. In many cases, DNA profiles can be produced from bodily samples which have become separated from a human body. The most important use of DNA identification by crime investigators is to compare a profile believed to be from a crime perpetrator (for example, derived from semen in a rape victim’s vagina, or blood, hair or skin cells at a crime scene or on a victim’s body) with a known person’s profile. Other uses of DNA identification include: • comparing a profile from foreign samples on a suspect’s body or possessions with a victim’s profile (to test the suspect’s prior contact with the victim); • comparing a profile from an unidentified person or corpse with a known person’s profile (to test identity); or • comparing profiles in two crime scene samples (to infer the details of a crime or the common involvement of one person in separate crimes.) Why is it difficult to present DNA evidence in a criminal trial? Presenting DNA evidence in a criminal trial can be difficult for a few reasons. The first reasons is that DNA identification evidence contains a number of facts, including the circumstances in which the relevant body samples were obtained, their secure transportation to a laboratory, their analysis and the detection and recording of DNA profiles. The need to prove all of these facts can be avoided with the agreement of the defendant. Secondly, evidence law requires opinions about forensic interpretation to be presented by a person with specialised knowledge based on study or experience that supports the opinion. The most important method of mass comparison is through the use of databases of DNA profiles from known persons, each of which can be easily compared with every crime profile, potentially yielding “cold hits”, that is, entirely unsuspected links between known persons and crimes. How can DNA evidence form the basis for a criminal appeal? Where people may have been wrongly convicted, for example on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identification, exculpatory DNA evidence may form the basis of an appeal against conviction. In Australia there have also been several prominent miscarriages of justice, including convictions based substantially on questionable scientific evidence (Carrington et al.1991). However, DNA identification has not so far featured in the post-conviction detection of such errors by Australian appeal courts. A notable exception is the recent case of Button, in which the Queensland Court of Appeal unanimously accepted that a DNA test conducted after a rape conviction indicated that someone other than the appellant had committed the offence (see Table 3). The introduction of new or “fresh” evidence in Australian criminal appeals is not a straightforward matter. Courts of Criminal Appeal are statutorily empowered to receive evidence if this is deemed “necessary or expedient in the interests of justice”. However, there is a general common law requirement that the evidence be “cogent” and “fresh”. Australia’s highest appellate court, the High Court, has no power to receive fresh evidence in a criminal appeal and so may be unable to hear an appeal based on new DNA evidence (Urbas forthcoming). Group 2 – Nicole, Sam, Haman and Colin Potential over-reliance by police and courts on DNA testing and the possibility of mistakes Use of DNA by the state to prove guilt rather than innocence Case: R v Button  QCA 133 where the prosecution withheld DNA evidence http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2002/6.html http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/ll_pdo.nsf/vwPrint1/PDO_dnadealingwithincourt http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/2000s/2489-ARTICLE-JOURNAL-OF-LAW- INFORMATION--SCIENCE.pdf http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/issues-of-dna-and-race-taint-justice-20100509- ulnm.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732280097.html?from=storyrhs http://www.smh.com.au/national/dna-lab-error-led-to-false-conviction-20091002-ggj6.html DNA EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL APPEALS AND POST-CONVICTION INQUIRIES: ARE NEW FORMS OF REVIEW REQUIRED? DNA is about justice – it will provide the evidence to help prove the guilt of the guilty and set the innocent free. Where the claims for protection of the innocent become more difficult to assess is in relation to the use of DNA evidence in criminal appeals and other post-conviction proceedings. Certainly, information obtained from criminal investigations can be re-examined with the aid of DNA testing years after a conviction has been obtained, in some cases showing conclusively that the convicted offender was not the person who committed the crime. The promise of DNA evidence in overturning wrongful convictions depends heavily on the capacity of the criminal justice system, through the criminal appeals process and other post-conviction proceedings, to recognise and correct errors. This capacity depends in turn on the criminal justice system’s appreciation of its own fallibility, including its capacity to deal with mistakes of fact as well as procedural irregularities or mistakes of law in criminal trials. The reference to ‘express statutory provisions leading to a different result’ is directed to substantial modifications which were made to the corresponding legislation in the United Kingdom, resulting in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (UK). In 1968, which was changed due to new technology such as DNA. Australian courts of criminal appeal are largely modelled on the Court of Criminal Appeal established in 1907 under the Criminal Appeals Act 1907 (UK). In particular, the powers to overturn convictions on grounds specified in that Act are replicated in what are known as the ‘common form’ provisions of analogous Australian statutes. A court of criminal appeal should conclude that a verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence if, on the evidence, it considers it to be unsafe or unsatisfactory. In what was described by the Queensland Court of Appeal as ‘a black day in the history of the administration of criminal justice in Queensland’, the conviction of Frank Button for the rape a 13 year-old girl was quashed when the court unanimously accepted that a DNA test conducted after the trial indicated that someone other than the appellant had committed the offence. It may well be that laboratory testing is expensive, particularly if it is to be as extensive as in my view it should be, but the cost to the community of that testing is far less than the cost to the community of having miscarriages of justice such as occurred here. Dealings Within The Court Overview of DNA Statistics - DNA individual profiles only occur every 1 in 10 billion individuals (Impossible for a reoccurrence of another individuals profile) - Nine samples of locus are taken from suspects as the multiplexing technique allows us to find matches in alleles inside each locus, thus any miss-matches in any stage can eliminate suspects - DNA samples are taken from hundreds of people to determine an estimate of how many types of alleles are located on specific points on the locus, linking it back to the suspects - The Balding and Nichols formula is used to calculate the improbabilities of suspects by using the matches of alleles inside the locus samples and the statistics of matching alleles in locus’s in the general/sub-population - The U.S.A holds 3 different DNA databases comprising of Caucasian Hispanics African Americans - NSW uses a single database, with 2500 of its samples taken from Indigenous Australians Issues related to persons handling DNA, being called as a witness OR being called in to be cross examined - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) can subject all persons in the collection and processing of the DNA to be called on for cross examination, but if not required by the defence(usually), the court will rely on the professional interpretations and results of the final report. - Cases which has called persons in the collection& processing of the DNA consists of: Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486 Wolper v Poole (1972) 2 SASR 419 Bray CJ and R v Karger (2001) 83 SASR 1 Problems with DNA analysis - Partial Matches are a problem as it does not ensure a 100% match, it allows a collaborated calculation of the Balding & Nichols formula and a statistical assumption made my expert statistical analysts - Closely related to a Partial Match, a weak reading consists of a very difficult display of a locus or alleles, misreading of an analysts on a point of locus, and a graph glitch on the computer case relation: Hillier v R  ACTCA 3, Madgwick, Weinberg and Dowsett JJ - Three or more Alleles at a point of locus can indicate more than 1 suspect, it can be hard to ‘match’ DNA with a suspect due to this. Scientists make a presumption of relation to a suspect on the basis of the peak heights, as this presumption has not failed to this point of time, but still holds a small chance of miss-matching - Contamination may occur in any testing laboratary as procedures and protocols are held to prevent this, accidents still may occur, which results to retesting. Reasons why DNA evidence is not sufficiently reliable to be used as sole evidence against a defendant - The possibility of the DNA reading coming out incorrectly has been known in the past so relying 100% on the DNA data cannot be acceptable - The innovation of DNA sampling and reading is still quite recent, and thus restricting the reliability and innovative ideas to ensure 100% correctness - There are potentials for human error and tampering - There is room for contamination and alteration by natural environment - Handling and collection errors, improper bagging, misuse of gloves etc. - DNA could be planted by the several individuals that handle the evidence Concluding Collaboration Overview of DNA Statistics - DNA individual profiles only occur every 1 in 10 billion individuals (Impossible for a reoccurrence of another individuals profile) - DNA samples are taken from hundreds of people to determine an estimate of how many types of alleles are located on specific points on the locus, linking it back to the suspects Issues related to persons handling DNA, being called as a witness OR being called in to be cross examined - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) can subject all persons in the collection and processing of the DNA to be called on for cross examination, but if not required by the defence(usually), the court will rely on the professional interpretations and results of the final report. - Cases which has called persons in the collection& processing of the DNA consists of: Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Problems with DNA analysis - Partial Matches are a problem as it does not ensure a 100% match, it allows a collaborated calculation of the Balding & Nichols formula and a statistical assumption made my expert statistical analysts - Closely related to a Partial Match, a weak reading consists of a very difficult display of a locus or alleles, misreading of an analysts on a point of locus, and a graph glitch on the computer case relation: Hillier v R  ACTCA 3, Madgwick, Weinberg and Dowsett JJ Reasons why DNA evidence is not sufficiently reliable to be used as sole evidence against a defendant - Handling and collection errors, improper bagging, misuse of gloves etc. - DNA could be planted by the several individuals that handle the evidence - The possibility of the DNA reading coming out incorrectly has been known in the past so relying 100% on the DNA data cannot be acceptable - The innovation of DNA sampling and reading is still quite recent, and thus restricting the reliability and innovative ideas to ensure 100% correctness FORENSIC EVIDENCE MALLARD CASE: - Andrew Mallard was convicted in WA for the murder or Mrs. Lawrence in 1994. The jury found him guilty of the murder and after the conviction, Mallard appealed to the Court of the Criminal Appeal of WA. This appeal was dismissed so he sought special leave to the High Court, which was also refused. He proceeded to serve his life imprisonment but then appealed for the 2nd time to the High Court. This time, special leave was granted and it was found that certain evidence had been excluded from the trial such as a polygraph test that would have proved in favour for his innocence, and a chemical analysis that showed that the distribution of blood was inconsistent with evidence present at the scene of the crime. Andrew Mallard was proven innocent for a crime the jury found him guilty for. GASSY CASE: - A jury in Adelaide found the accused guilty of murdering the Senior State Medical Officer. There was no DNA evidence, CCTV or any other reliable film to prove he was even in the vicinity of the crime scene. The evidence presented by the prosecution included the use of the accused’s telephone in Sydney at the relevant times, the use of the computer, the deposit, contents of a white bag linked to the accused in a garbage bin at a service station between Adelaide and Sydney, ballistic evidence and handwriting evidence. The crime - The High Court ordered for a second trial to take place. The jury of the second trial also found him guilty of the crime. CARR CASE: - The limitation of forensic evidence was also demonstrated in the decision of the High Court in Carr v Western Australia. Technological evidence played an important part of the trial. Mr Carr was accused of a serious bank robbery. Mr Carr was ked to a part of the police station where CCTV cameras were in position and was able to record and film anything he said and did. The police engaged him in conversation and began to argue. Mr Carr said things that were highly suggestive of his guilt of the offence charged. The High Court argued on the admissibility of the evidence. BUTTON CASE: - Wrongful convictions have occasionally been proved by DNA evidence. In 1999 in Queensland, the allegation of rape of a thirteen year old girl in an indigenous community arose. Initially, the girl denied she knew her rapist, but then she changed her original statement and claimed that Frank Button was the rapist. DNA evidence was not presented in the trial, and he was found guilty and convicted. After the rape was reported, vaginal swabs were taken from the victim and these revealed the presence of sperm. The swabs had failed to conclude whose sperm it was and could not establish whether or not Mr Button was guilty or innocence. Mr Button started to serve his sentence, but later, sheet and pillow cases from the victim’s bed were sent to the lab for testing. It revealed a DNA profile that did not match that of Mr. Button’s. Concerned, the lab tested the vaginal swabs again. This time, they were able to pull off a DNA profile from the swabs, and again, the DNA did not match Mr. Button’s, but matched the DNA profile of the bed sheets and pillow. They ran the profile through a Convicted Offence Data Base and it matched the DNA profile of a convicted rapist, one that matched the original description of the offender (Mr Button did not). Mr Button’s conviction was quashed after he had served 10 months in prison, where he claimed he was bashed and sexually assaulted. CHARACTERISTICS OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT NEED PARTICULAR ATTENTION: - Although a substantial case can be built based on forensic evidence, it does not necessarily make it an open and shut case. - Sometimes, forensic evidence is not determinative on its own and other evidence must prove absolute guilt/innocence. - The availability of evidence from technology is not always conclusive of all issues in the criminal trial as there are always other issues that concern the fairness and admissibility of the evidence provided. - The evidence presented at court will always require separate and careful determination by judges. Issues of DNA and race taint justice – Farah Jama case DNA was first discovered and used to convict a murderer 22 years ago in Britain, and from then on the forensic technique became a use for convicting people of innocence or guilt. Due to its accuracy and ability to prove a person, better then witnesses and other evidence, has led to DNA being solely relied on then to take heed of other evidence and witnesses, An example would be the Farah Jama case, where he was convicted of rape and served 15 months in jail before his conviction was rejected last December. The police had failed to consider other evidence of Jama’s innocence, such as witness’s statement and an alibi, sorely relaying on the results of Forensic evidence. An international group of experts soon discovered that DNA could be contaminated and this led to DNA traces being unreliable but having to be corroborated like every other evidence. DNA testing and human error – Jaidyn Leskie Case DNA evidence is never wrong, but in certain cases human tampering may affect the result of the evidence, making it unreliable. An example would be the Jaidyn Leskie case, where his DNA was taken from his dead body and tested with results linking to a rape victim. The rape victim, P (does not want to be named) denied having any contact with Jaidyn. John Scheffer, the assistant director of the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre told the Coroner’s Court that clothing from both cases had been received within 7 minutes of each other on January 30, 1998, and that contamination was highly unlikely as the items were in sealed paper bags. DNA is a very powerful ally to the legal system, most suspects would admit to a crime when told that forensic evidence had been found. The issue with this powerful ally is that it can be bought with money. Clients of defence lawyers who have lots of money and access to independent forensic expertise are able to challenge the way DNA sample are taken, handled, tested and stored. In March this year thousands of convictions have been questioned after evidence was found that DNA could be contaminated in police laboratories. DNA lab error led to false conviction A man had been wrongly convicted of a burglary due to DNA being falsely processed in the laboratory. The man had been convicted of burglary before for breaking, entering and stealing, and his DNA was falsely recorded and discovered in another crime scene as his second offence. He was then put on nine month suspension and would have been sent to jail, if not for the Wyong local court overthrowing the man’s conviction. The error came to light when the forensic team was moving a copse. It then emerged that some individual genetic profiles, unconnected to crimes, featured impossible DNA combinations. This indicated genetic material from different people had been inadvertently introduced. Concerned that a similar error - caused by mishandling of samples on the laboratory bench - might have affected cases involving living people, the department reviewed all 17,000 DNA tests in which a link had been made to a cold case. . Group 3 – Tori and Emily Testing a community to identify a guilty party, thereby overturning the presumption of innocence R v Boney (unreported, Moree District Court, 20 October 2000) Wee Waa sexual assault case in which the men of the community volunteered for testing http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35727 http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s118504.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/testing_times/default.htm Explain why community DNA testing was welcomed in this case. Most of the town’s 1,900 residents supported the DNA testing program because they saw it as a way to catch a perpetrator that still walked around unpunished. What concerns would civil libertarians have with this issue? Civil libertarians worry such testing programs could shift the focus of police work towards presuming potential suspects guilty until cleared, rather than innocent until implicated. What is a benchmark? How could this case set a benchmark? A benchmark is any standard or reference by which others can be measured or judged. This case could set a benchmark by being the first case to use community DNA testing and therefore allowing other similar cases to do the same. Examine how community testing could potentially be a waste of money. Norman Sweetman believes “it’s all been a waste of time and money, an estimated $60,000, because the offender would have long since absconded from the town.’ Does the interview recognise a need for law reform in the collection of DNA evidence? Yes, the interview recognises a need for law reform saying ‘the NSW parliament is set to introduce legislation relating to police powers to collect and use DNA and establish a DNA data base next year. But mass voluntary screenings such as that held in Wee Waa aren’t covered by the new legislation. How can science ‘play a valuable role in shaping society’? The influence of science on people’s lives is growing. The proponents of these scientific tests say they promise to usher in a new era of safety in our society. Why have critics dubbed community DNA testing as a ‘frightening glimpse of a future police state in NSW’? Critics of DNA testing believe that this type of community testing takes away the rights of the individual, but because of the majority of support that communities such as Wee Waa have for the DNA tests, they will become a lot more common and frequent. Making critics dub the tests as a ‘frightening glimpse of a future police state’. Why might there be a need for a national database? It allows DNA from suspects to be compared with the 15,000 samples stored from crime sites, it could revolutionise crime detection by revealing links when police had no other reason to suspect a person’s involvement in a crime. Does the author recognise a need for law reform? Yes, Cathy Johnson, the author of Testing Times recognises a need for law reform in the case of communal DNA testing. She says ‘until legislation is finalised, fear remains’. How does this debate relate to a potential violation of our human rights? One of the major concerns people have voiced about the DNA database is its potential conflict with the presumption of innocence. As an individual does not even have to have been charged to have their DNA sample taken (let alone convicted of an offence) entirely innocent people could end up having their information stored on the database. Additional concerns include that having a DNA database could be discriminatory. For example; because black men are statistically more likely to be arrested than other members of society they represent a disproportionately high number of those who have their DNA profile stored on the database. Group 4 – Kylie and Laura DNA databases E.g. The National Criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD) Application to past crimes http://www.crimtrac.gov.au/systems_projects/NationalCriminalInvestigationDNADatabaseNCIDD.ht ml http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-insist-on-own-dna-database-20100118-mgt4.html http://www.abc.net.au/tv/lawmatters/s330325.htm Examine why NCIDD was established CrimTrac's National Criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD) provides Australian police and forensic scientists with a powerful investigative tool to match DNA profiles Australia-wide. DNA profiling has uses in criminal and missing persons' investigations, and for disaster victim identification. How does it work to assist law enforcement agencies? compare DNA profiles from crime scenes with DNA profiles from convicted offenders to either identify or eliminate them as potential suspects in other crimes; compare DNA profiles from suspects with profiles from unsolved crime scenes where legislation allows; eliminate persons from crime scene investigations; identify missing persons, unknown deceased persons and disaster victims; and Provide police investigators with intelligence. How does NCIDD protect individual’s privacy? The NCIDD DNA database automatically destruct profiles on the database to meet legislative and privacy requirements. Profiles are removed from the NCIDD when destruction dates are specified. No trace of the DNA profile/s or associated remain, exception for the record of the destruction date with audit logs. The DNA markers held on the NCIDD have been specifically chosen for forensic use because they do not reveal any details about age, ethnicity, race, appearance or medical conditions. Researchers are not able to link a DNA profile to an individual’s medical history or conditions. They are derived from nine points of non-coding or ‘junk’ DNA and a sex determinant. Summarise one of the NCIDD successes Rape (Queensland match with the Northern Territory) In 1993, a man raped a female in Mitchelton. An unidentified male DNA profile was obtained from the crime scene samples and placed onto NCIDD. The Queensland crime sample linked to the profile of a 35 year old male from the Northern Territory. The man was extradited from the NT and was sentenced to eight years jail. Why does CrimTrac claim DNA is the modern forensic investigate tool Because DNA is the same in all cells of the body, DNA profiles extracted from different types of samples at different times and in different places can be compared to determine whether they may have come from the same person. Therefore, if human biological samples are found at a crime scene, DNA profiling can be used to determine whether a suspect could be a possible source of a sample. The National criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD) Application to past crimes; Police insist on own DNA database: 1. Why would the inclusion of police profiles prove useful in solving crimes? Crime scenes are roamed with uniformed officers and detectives, possibly leaving accident DNA behind which could lead investigations down the wrong track once the Forensic Officers arrive at the crime scene, in protective clothing, to collect samples and DNA from the scene. 2. What concerns the police association may have. The concern of the police association is that the police know how the information held can be misused. This concern is that they want to ensure that there DNA kept on the database is not used for other testing which is not what they have initially supplied the DNA for, such as purposes including disciplinary matters or paternity testing. Each profile should also be removed from the database when an officer leaves the police force. 3. Analyse this quote from the NSW Civil Liberties ‘’if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear….or do they fear it because they…understand how holding information like this can be misused?’’ This quote is suggesting how the police association is concerned not for the discovering of possible criminal involvement in a crime but that there DNA on the database will be used against them for other purposes such as paternity testing or disciplinary matters. What is Nick Cowdery’s view of DNA as a crime fighting tool? Nick Cowdery believes using DNA is an important technology in the investigation and prosecution of crime. It is also going to direct investigations on the right track at an earlier stage and leave the innocents unhassled by the government enforcement (police). How will prisoner testing improve justice? They might be found guilty of something else if they have committed that offence, or be eliminated from an enquiry into a further offence of a similar kind. No inference can be drawn against that person simply from the profile. The profile becomes a tool that can be used to see whether or not the person has engaged in other offending. How and why can DNA testing be categorised as a guilty or innocent testing? Guilt testing testing prisoners to see whether they've been involved with other crimes testing suspects to see if they're linked with a specific crime Innocence testing: testing prisoners with a view to proving innocence and overturning their convictions testing populations to eliminate people as suspects Outline Chris Maxwell QC’s fears regarding DNA testing DNA’s system of compulsory testing relies on State sponsored violence. The coercion/force of individuals to provide body samples against their will. The criminal justice system requires prosecution to prove guilt, not a person to prove innocence and don't require people to incriminate themselves, yet this is what forceable DNA sampling involves, and this is fundamentally wrong. Group 5 –Eric, Theju and Mia Establishing the innocence of those wrongly convicted E.g. Death row inmates in the US Note: the establishment of an Innocence Panel to consider applications by prisoners in NSW http://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/resources/media/show-mediarelease.php?id=167 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/a-test-of-innocence/story-e6frg8h6- 1111114224070 http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2003/s926344.htm http://www.innocenceproject.org/ ESTABLISHING THE INNOCENCE OF THOSE WRONGLY CONVICTED Alan Newton was wrongly accused of rape, robbery and assault charges after a woman was assaulted outside a store. The culprit then stabbed her in the eye to prevent her from identifying him. The women identified him as the culprit in a series of line-ups and photos, just before court she mentioned that she wasn’t 100% sure that he was the criminal. Newton asked for DNA testing in 1994 and was deemed innocent. Eddie Joe Lloyd was exonerated in August 2002 after 17 years of imprisonment. Lloyd had a history of mental health problems and for some reason pleaded guilty in order to bring the real criminal forward. But he did not commit the murder/rape of the Detroit teenager. Larry Peterson was sentenced to jail after a jury found him guilty in a murder and sexual assault case. Peter sought DNA testing in the 1990’s and he was exonerated on May 26, 2006. Innocence Panel Lost – ABC Interview by Quentin Dempster Peter Breen believes that according to the DNA test, the “Shorty” in prison isn’t the right guy and even the co-offender says that from day1 that they got the wrong guy. “If someone who was involved in the crime is still out in the community you would have thought, or I would've thought, that you would want to see the justice system go through all its processes to make sure that we have got the right person. If the right person is still out there, wandering around the Queen Street Mall, which is what I believe is happening, and then anyone really concerned about justice would want to make sure that that person comes into the system and is tested and then if there is someone innocent in jail, we let them out.” John Watson believe that having providing those evidence to Peter from the panel, it would put the family through great pain and relive all the shame and the anguish. They don’t want to have to go through all the pains, facing the killers and continuously being reminded of the horrible death of their beloved person. It would also be a concern that the reputation of them. Brett Walker do put himself in the shoe of the victims family and do feel their pain, however he believes the innocent panel exist for a reason if the law set up the panel and serve its purpose in revealing innocence or the true criminal. Facts from USA related to the Innocence Project 1. There have been over 180 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the USA to date. 2. 14 DNA exonerates were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row 3. At Cardozo law school Innocence Project in NY, they found that only four out of ten cases are possible to be proved innocent. 4. Describe the aims and missions of the innocence project. The aims and missions of the innocence project are simple and straightforward. They aim to assist prisoners who could be found innocent through DNA testing. Currently innocence project has proven that it is striving to achieve this aim, this is apparent among the 272 people in the United States who have already been released. Their mission therefore is to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain in prison and therefore bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment. 5. Select on case profile and explain how the convicted person was exonerated. Johnny Pinchback is an innocent man who was released from jail on the 8th of June 2011, after 26.5 years of false imprisonment. Mr. Pinchback was sent to jail on the 5/10/1984 after being falsely accused of rape on two accounts. The reason for his imprisonment was misidentification through eyewitness, Mr Pinchback states he has no animosity towards the girls who misidentified him and he has till date not received compensation from the state for taking away almost three decades of his life. Innocence Project also aims to improve loopholes in misidentification, 75% of all people who are wrongly convicted are convicted due to misidentification. The advances of DNA technology and evidence assisted in his exoneration. No more details have been provided about the evidence behind his release; the reason for this may be that the state would rather other criminals to stay oblivious to advances in technology so that they do not safeguard themselves getting caught. 6. What relationship does the Innocence Project have to campaigning for compensation? Innocence project believes that all victims who have been incarcerated in prison receive compensation the minute they are exonerated. This belief comes from the fact that innocence project understands the amount of pain and challenges that exonerated people go through. Congressmen and Ex – President Bush stated that the fixed sum of money would approximately be around $50, 000 per year that they were incarcerated. Furthermore Innocence project believes that exonerated criminals should be provided with funs that I will allow than to access job training, education, health, work, etc. To achieve this innocence project works with law makers, prosecutors, defence attorneys, crime victims and exonerated victims. 7. Watch the three minute Conviction Movie about Betty Anne and Kenny water – why do you think this case was made into a Hollywood Movie?
Pages to are hidden for
"DNA testing and human error � Jaidyn Leskie Case"Please download to view full document