dnawellnessinfo.com» DNA and the Law http://dnawellnessinfo.com Wellness and DNA Information Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:24:25 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 How DNA Evidence Works http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-evidence-works/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-evidence-works/#comments Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:58:48 +0000 DNAWellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=1444 How DNA Evidence Works is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
How DNA Evidence Works

howstuffworks.com

by William Harris

he CBS drama “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” routinely draws more than 20 million viewers per episode, making it one of television’s greatest successes. The show’s popularity owes a great deal to the writers and actors who bring the stories to life. But another intriguing element is the cutting-edge technology used by the Las Vegas crime lab trying to solve crimes. Collecting and analyzing DNA evidence tops the list of the lab’s forensic toolkit, and its ubiquity in shows like “CSI” and “Cold Case” has increased public awareness to the point that many jurors in real-world courtrooms expect to see DNA evidence presented — whether a case calls for it or not.It’s hard to believe that DNA evidence has come so far so fast. The techniques that make it possible to identify a suspect using his or her unique genetic blueprint have only been around since 1985. That’s when Alec Jeffreys and his colleagues in England first demonstrated the use of DNA in a criminal investigation. Since then, DNA evidence has played a bigger and bigger role in many nations’ criminal justice systems. It has been used to prove that suspects were involved in crimes and to free people who were wrongly convicted. And, in the United States, it has been integral to several high-profile criminal cases.

At the heart of DNA evidence is the biological molecule itself, which serves as an instruction manual and blueprint for everything in your body (see How Cells Work for details). A DNA molecule is a long, twisting chain known as a double helix. DNA looks pretty complex, but it’s really made of only four nucleotides:

  • Adenine
  • Cytosine
  • Guanine
  • Thymine

These nucleotides exist as base pairs that link together like the rungs in a ladder. Adenine and thymine always bond together as a pair, and cytosine and guanine bond together as a pair. While the majority of DNA doesn’t differ from human to human, some 3 million base pairs of DNA (about 0.10 percent of your entire genome) vary from person to person.

In human cells, DNA is tightly wrapped into 23 pairs of chromosomes. One member of each chromosomal pair comes from your mother, and the other comes from your father. In other words, your DNA is a combination of your mother’s and your father’s DNA. Unless you have an identical twin, your DNA is unique to you.

This is what makes DNA evidence so valuable in investigations — it’s almost impossible for someone else to have DNA that is identical to yours. But catching a criminal using DNA evidence is not quite as easy as “CSI” makes it seem, as this article will demonstrate. Our first step in exploring DNA evidence is the crime scene — and the biological evidence gathered there by detectives.

DNA Analysis: Specialized Techniques

Although most labs use either RFLP or STR techniques for their DNA analysis, there are situations that require a different approach. One such situation is when there are multiple male contributors of genetic material, which sometimes happens in sexual assault cases. The best way to resolve the complex mixture and sort out exactly which men were involved is Y-marker analysis. As its name suggests, this technique examines several genetic markers found on the Y chromosome. Because the Y chromosome is transmitted from a father to all his sons, DNA on the Y chromosome can be used to identify DNA from different males. Y-marker analysis can also be used to trace family relationships among males.

Another situation involves identifying old remains or biological evidence lacking nucleated cells, such as hair shafts, bones and teeth. RFLP and STR testing can’t be used on these materials because they require DNA found in the nucleus of a cell. In these cases, investigators often use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis, which uses DNA from a cell’s mitochondria. Investigators have found mtDNA testing to be very useful in solving cold cases, which are murders, missing-person cases or suspicious deaths that are not being actively investigated. Cold cases often have biological evidence in the form of blood, semen and hair that has been stored for a long time or improperly stored. Submitting those degraded samples for mtDNA testing can sometimes break the case open and help detectives find the perpetrator.

A relatively new technique — SNP analysis — is also useful in certain cases where forensic labs are presented with highly degraded DNA samples. This technique requires that scientists analyze variations in DNA where one nucleotide replaces another. Such a genetic change is called a single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP (pronounced “snip”). SNPs make excellent markers and are most often used to determine a person’s susceptibility to a certain disease. But forensics labs turn to SNP analysis on occasion. For example, forensic scientists used SNP technology successfully to identify several Sept. 11 World Trade Center victims for whom other methods had failed.

In reality, analyzing a DNA sample is just a first step. Up next, we’ll take a look at what happens after the analysis is complete.

Matching DNA

The main objective of DNA analysis is to get a visual representation of DNA left at the scene of a crime. A DNA “picture” features columns of dark-colored parallel bands and is equivalent to a fingerprint lifted from a smooth surface. To identify the owner of a DNA sample, the DNA “fingerprint,” or profile, must be matched, either to DNA from a suspect or to a DNA profile stored in a database.

Let’s consider the former situation — when a suspect is present. In this case, investigators take a DNA sample from the suspect, send it to a lab and receive a DNA profile. Then they compare that profile to a profile of DNA taken from the crime scene. There are three possible results:

  • Inclusions — If the suspect’s DNA profile matches the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an inclusion or nonexclusion. In other words, the suspect is included (cannot be excluded) as a possible source of the DNA found in the sample.
  • Exclusions — If the suspect’s DNA profile doesn’t match the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an exclusion or noninclusion. Exclusions almost always eliminate the suspect as a source of the DNA found in the sample.
  • Inconclusive results — Results may be inconclusive for several reasons. For example, contaminated samples often yield inconclusive results. So do very small or degraded samples, which may not have enough DNA to produce a full profile.

Sometimes, investigators have DNA evidence but no suspects. In that case, law enforcement officials can compare crime scene DNA to profiles stored in a database. Databases can be maintained at the local level (the crime lab of a sheriff’s office, for example) or at the state level. A state-level database is known as a State DNA index system (SDIS). It contains forensic profiles from local laboratories in that state, plus forensic profiles analyzed by the state laboratory itself. The state database also contains DNA profiles of convicted offenders. Finally, DNA profiles from the states feed into the National DNA Index System (NDIS).

To find matches quickly and easily in the various databases, the FBI developed a technology platform known as the Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS. The CODIS software permits laboratories throughout the country to share and compare DNA data. It also automatically searches for matches. The system conducts a weekly search of the NDIS database, and, if it finds a match, notifies the laboratory that originally submitted the DNA profile. These random matches of DNA from a crime scene and the national database are known as “cold hits,” and they are becoming increasingly important. Some states have logged thousands of cold hits in the last 20 years, making it possible to link otherwise unknown suspects to crimes.

Using DNA Evidence Beyond the Courtroom

DNA evidence plays a pivotal role in the modern criminal justice system, but the same techniques that prove guilt or exonerate an innocent person are just as useful outside the courtroom. Here are a few examples:

  • Paternity testing and other cases where authorities need to prove whether individuals are related or not — One of the more infamous paternity cases of late occurred after Anna Nicole Smith’s death in 2007. Five different men claimed to be the father of Smith’s baby daughter, Dannielynn. After a DNA test, Larry Birkhead was proven to be the child’s father.
  • Identification of John or Jane Does — Police investigators often face the unpleasant task of trying to identify a body or skeletal remains. DNA is a fairly resilient molecule, and samples can be easily extracted from hair or bone tissue. Once a DNA profile has been created, it can be compared to samples from families of missing persons to see if a match can be made. The military even uses DNA profiles in place of the old-school dog tag. Each new recruit must provide blood and saliva samples, and the stored samples can subsequently be used as a positive ID for soldiers killed in the line of duty. Even without a DNA match to identify a body conclusively, a profile is useful because it can provide important clues about the victim, such as his or her sex and race.
  • Studying the evolution of human populations — Scientists are trying to use samples extracted from skeletons and from living people around the world to show how early human populations might have migrated across the globe and diversified into so many different races. In the 1980s, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, used mitochondrial DNA analysis to speculate that all living humans are related to a single woman — “Eve” — who lived roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa. Other scientists, using increasingly more sensitive DNA analysis, have since confirmed this to be true.
  • Studying inherited disorders — Scientist also study the DNA fingerprints of families with members who have inherited diseases like Alzheimer’s disease to try to ferret out chromosomal differences between those without the disease and those who have it, in the hope that these changes might be linked to getting the disease.DNA testing can also reveal a person’s susceptibility to certain diseases. Several companies, such as 23andMe, deCODEme and Navigenics, offer at-home genetics tests that can evaluate your risk for hundreds of diseases and traits, including breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and Type 2 Diabetes.
  • Catching poachers — Wildlife biologists are now turning to DNA tests to catch people who hunt illegally. For example, the hunting season for doe on public lands lasts only two days in many states. If a wildlife official suspects a hunter has shot a female deer after the official close of the season, he can analyze DNA from the meat and determine the species and gender of the animal.
  • Clarifying history — Historians are turning to DNA evidence to learn more about the past. For example, Y-chromosome testing was used in 1998 to determine whether Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, fathered children with one of his slaves or not. And in May 2009, a group of historians asked a Philadelphia museum if they could have access to a strip of a pillowcase stained with the blood of Abraham Lincoln. Their goal was to analyze Lincoln’s DNA to see if he suffered from a rare genetic cancer syndrome called multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B, but the museum’s board would not allow the test at the time.

Limitations of DNA Evidence

DNA evidence is powerful, but it does have limitations. One limitation is related to misconceptions about what a DNA match really means. Matching DNA from a crime scene to DNA taken from a suspect is not an absolute guarantee of the suspect’s guilt. Instead, forensic experts prefer to talk about probability. For example, they might make a statement like this: The chance is 1/7,000 that an unrelated person would by chance have the same DNA profile as that obtained from the evidence. Combine that statistical analysis with other evidence, and you can see how prosecutors can make strong cases against a suspect.

A contributing factor to public misconception is how DNA analysis is portrayed in movies and television. Some lawyers and judges complain that a so-called “CSI effect” is influencing criminal justice. The CSI effect manifests itself when jurors demand DNA tests in cases where they are unnecessary or rely too heavily on DNA evidence to the exclusion of other physical evidence taken at a crime scene.

Even more troubling are cases of DNA fraud — instances where criminals plant fake DNA samples at a crime scene. In 1992, Canadian physician John Schneeberger planted fake DNA evidence in his own body to avoid suspicion in a rape case. Planting fake DNA obtained from someone else is only part of the problem. Scientists at Nucleix, an Israeli company, recently reported that they could, with access to profiles stored in one of the DNA databases, manufacture a sample of DNA without obtaining any tissue from that person.

Nucleix has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones, with the goal of selling the test to forensic laboratories. But taking these extra precautions to ensure the validity of its results will only slow down busy labs even more. In fact, forensic casework backlogs are becoming a serious problem. A study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that more than half a million cases were backlogged in forensic labs, which means felons and other violent offenders could be walking the streets while their DNA evidence sits in a queue, waiting to be tested [source: Houck].

As advances in DNA testing are made, some of these challenges may become less severe. But other, unforeseen challenged will likely emerge. Up next, we’ll examine some of these advances and their implications.

Collecting DNA Evidence

For many years, fingerprints were the gold standard for linking suspects to a crime scene. Today, the gold standard is DNA evidence because DNA can be collected from virtually anywhere. Even a criminal wearing gloves may unwittingly leave behind trace amounts of biological material. It could be a hair, saliva, blood, semen, skin, sweat, mucus or earwax. All it takes is a few cells to obtain enough DNA information to identify a suspect with near certainty.

For this reason, law enforcement officials take unusual care at crime scenes. Police officers and detectives often work closely with laboratory personnel or evidence collection technicians to make sure evidence isn’t contaminated. This involves wearing gloves and using disposable instruments, which can be discarded after collecting each sample. While collecting evidence, officers are careful to avoid touching areas where DNA evidence could exist. They also avoid talking, sneezing and coughing over evidence or touching their face, nose or mouth.

The following list shows some common sources of DNA evidence:

  • A weapon, such as a baseball bat, fireplace poker or knife, which could contain sweat, skin, blood or other tissue
  • A hat or mask, which could contain sweat, hair or dandruff
  • A facial tissue or cotton swab, which could contain mucus, sweat, blood or earwax
  • A toothpick, cigarette butt, bottle or postage stamp, all of which could contain saliva
  • A used condom, which could contain semen or vaginal or rectal cells
  • Bed linens, which could contain sweat, hair, blood or semen
  • A fingernail or partial fingernail, which could contain scraped-off skin cells

When investigators find a piece of evidence, they place it in a paper bag or envelope, not in a plastic bag. This is important because plastic bags retain moisture, which can damage DNA. Direct sunlight and warmer conditions may also damage DNA, so officers try to keep biological materials at room temperature. They label the bags with information about what the material is, where it was found and where it will be transported. These are chain-of-custody procedures, which ensure the legal integrity of the samples as they move from collection to analysis.

Analysis occurs in a forensic laboratory, the topic of our next section.

DNA Analysis: Traditional Techniques

From the crime scene, a piece of DNA evidence travels to a forensic laboratory. These labs vary quite a bit, both in terms of how they are structured and what kind of analyses they offer. Public laboratories are often associated with a law enforcement entity or the district attorney’s office, while others are independent government entities. Private forensic laboratories, some dedicated just to DNA analysis, also exist.

Many labs have the ability to conduct testing on nuclear DNA, which is the copy of DNA that exists in the nucleus of every cell. But only a few labs offer more specialized techniques, such as Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA analysis. Let’s look at some of these techniques in greater detail.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis was one of the first forensic methods used to analyze DNA. It analyzes the length of strands of DNA that include repeating base pairs. These repetitions are known as variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs) because they can repeat themselves anywhere from one to 30 times.

RFLP analysis requires investigators to dissolve DNA in an enzyme that breaks the strand at specific points. The number of repeats affects the length of each resulting strand of DNA. Investigators compare samples by comparing the lengths of the strands. RFLP analysis requires a fairly large sample of DNA that hasn’t been contaminated with dirt.

Many laboratories are replacing RFLP analysis with short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. This method offers several advantages, but one of the biggest is that it can start with a much smaller sample of DNA. Scientists amplify this small sample through a process known as polymerase chain reaction, or PCR. PCR makes copies of the DNA much like DNA copies itself in a cell, producing almost any desired amount of the genetic material.

Once the DNA in question has been amplified, STR analysis examines how often base pairs repeat in specific loci, or locations, on a DNA strand. These can be dinucleotide, trinucleotide, tetranucleotide or pentanucleotide repeats — that is, repetitions of two, three, four or five base pairs. Investigators often look for tetranucleotide or pentanucleotide repeats in samples that have been through PCR amplification because these are the most likely to be accurate.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has chosen 13 specific STR loci to serve as the standard for DNA analysis. The likelihood that any two individuals (except identical twins) will have the same 13-loci DNA profile can be as high as 1 in 1 billion or greater.

Advances in DNA Evidence

In 1985, DNA entered the courtroom for the first time as evidence in a trial, but it wasn’t until 1988 that DNA evidence actually sent someone to jail. This is a complex area of forensic science that relies heavily on statistical predictions. In early cases where jurors were hit with reams of evidence heavily laden with mathematical formulas, it was easy for defense attorneys to create doubt in jurors’ minds. Since then, a number of advances have allowed criminal investigators to perfect the techniques involved and face down legal challenges to DNA fingerprinting. Improvements include:

  • New testing procedures — RFLP analysis required large amounts of relatively high-quality DNA. Newer procedures require far less DNA and can be completed faster.
  • Source of DNA — Science has devised ingenious ways of extracting DNA from sources that used to be too difficult or too contaminated to use. And in some cases, detectives are using DNA analysis in ingenious ways to get a conviction. For example, detectives in Phoenix, Ariz., were able to link a suspect to a murder victim by testing the DNA of a palo verde tree found at the crime scene. Palo verde trees feature pods containing seeds. Some of these pods were found in the suspect’s truck. To prove that the pods came from the tree found at the crime scene and not some other palo verde tree, detectives turned to DNA analysis. The pods found in the truck matched each other — and matched the pods taken from the tree at the crime scene. It was the first time the DNA fingerprint of a plant was used in a criminal trial.
  • Expanded DNA databases — The databases managed by the CODIS software continue to expand. Prior to 2006, only convicted felons were required to have their DNA profiles entered into the database. But a January 2006 law, which was signed by President Bush and funded in 2008, has expanded collection of DNA samples beyond convicts to include federal arrestees, as well as suspected illegal immigrants or captives in the war on terrorism. Justice officials estimate the new collecting requirements will add DNA from an additional 1.2 million people to the database each year [source: UPI].
  • Training — Crime labs have developed formal protocols for handling and processing evidence, reducing the likelihood of contamination of samples. On the courtroom side, prosecutors have become savvier at presenting genetic evidence, and many states have come up with specific rules governing its admissibility in court cases. See How CSI Works for more details.

The advances that have made DNA evidence an invaluable tool in the criminal justice system have also galvanized public interest. Classroom study of DNA and its properties has become more in-depth and widespread in many schools. And television crime dramas that feature DNA evidence so prominently continue to flourish. All of that awareness brings good news and bad news, but the real bad news is reserved for criminals, who will find it increasingly difficult to leave a crime scene without leaving a piece of incriminating biological evidence behind.

DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource:  http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/dna-evidence.htm

How DNA Evidence Works is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-evidence-works/feed/ 0 DNA handling under the microscope http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-handling-microscope/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-handling-microscope/#comments Mon, 31 May 2010 13:15:04 +0000 DNAWellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=1433 DNA handling under the microscope is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
DNA handling under the microscope

By ACT court reporter Katherine Pohl

Updated Mon May 31, 2010 8:27am AEST

The use of DNA evidence in criminal court cases is under the spotlight with state and territory attorneys-general backing a review into collecting and testing procedures.

Questions have been raised about contamination and the risks of convicting someone on DNA evidence alone.

“Those two areas are of critical concern, not only to defence lawyers but to prosecutors as well,” New South Wales Deputy Senior Public Defender Andrew Haesler said.

Those issues have been recently examined by the High Court.

Benjamin Forbes was found guilty of sexually assaulting a Canberra teenager in 2005 as she walked home from work.

DNA was the only evidence linking him to the crime scene.

The High Court ruled that it was not a suitable test case on which to base a DNA challenge.

But Mr Haesler predicts it will not be long before such a case comes along.

“Judges and juries have to be very critical when evidence is presented that identifies an offender solely on the basis of DNA,” he said.

Contamination of DNA evidence is also a major issue.

Simon Walsh from the Australian Federal Police admits DNA evidence can be a double-edged sword.

“One of the advantages of the testing progress and technology is that it allows us to test very small amounts of DNA,” he said.

“The corollary of that is that it makes it potentially more susceptible to contamination.”

Contamination issues were at the centre of a case in Victoria earlier this month in which a man was wrongly convicted of rape because of tainted DNA evidence.

The case has prompted all state and territory attorneys-general to back a review of DNA collection and analysis.

ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell says there is a lot to learn from that particular case and he is encouraging prudent collection and testing procedures.

A working group is examining the issues.

DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2913474.htm

DNA handling under the microscope is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-handling-microscope/feed/ 0 Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/justice-dept-review-bush-policy-dna-test-waivers/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/justice-dept-review-bush-policy-dna-test-waivers/#comments Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:08:34 +0000 DNAWellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=852 Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 11, 2009

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has ordered a review of a little-known Bush administration policy requiring some defendants to waive their right to DNA testing even though that right is guaranteed in a landmark federal law, officials said.

The practice of using DNA waivers began several years ago as a response to the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, which allowed federal inmates to seek post-conviction DNA tests to prove their innocence. More than 240 wrongly convicted people have been exonerated by such tests, including 17 on death row.

The waivers are filed only in guilty pleas and bar defendants from ever requesting DNA testing, even if new evidence emerges. Prosecutors who use them, including some of the nation’s most prominent U.S. attorneys, say people who have admitted guilt should not be able to file frivolous petitions for testing. They say the wave of DNA exonerations has little impact in federal court because all those found to be innocent were state prisoners, and the waivers apply only to federal charges. DNA evidence is used far more frequently in state courts.

But DNA experts say that’s about to change because more sophisticated testing will soon bring biological evidence into federal courtrooms for a wider variety of crimes. Defense lawyers who have worked on DNA appeals strongly oppose the waivers, saying that innocent people sometimes plead guilty — mainly to get lighter sentences — and that denying them the ability to prove their innocence violates a fundamental right. One quarter of the 243 people exonerated by DNA had falsely confessed to crimes they didn’t commit, and 16 of them pleaded guilty.

“It’s a mean-spirited policy. Truth, ascertained by science, should trump the finality of a conviction,” said Peter Neufeld, co-director of the New York-based Innocence Project. He said the waivers are effectively “gutting the impact” of the 2004 law because 97 percent of federal convictions result from guilty pleas.

Interviews and documents show that language allowing for DNA waivers was inserted into the law at the behest of Republican senators and that the Bush Justice Department lobbied against the measure even with the waiver provision. Soon after the law passed with bipartisan support, the department sent a secret memo to the nation’s 94 U.S. attorney’s offices urging them to use the waivers, several federal officials familiar with the memo said.

Holder, a former U.S. attorney in the District, has called for expanded DNA testing in federal courts. After inquiries by The Washington Post, his spokesman, Matthew Miller, said Holder “has ordered that the department review its DNA waiver policy.”

“The attorney general believes that DNA testing is a crucial law enforcement tool both in solving crimes and exonerating the innocent,” Miller said, adding that if new evidence arises after conviction, “prosecutors have an obligation to act.”

The waivers run counter to the national movement toward post-conviction DNA testingas the forensic tool has revolutionized criminal justice. Nearly all 50 states have passed laws giving inmates the right to seek testing in state courts, and most allow for petitions after guilty pleas.

Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis, who sits on the executive committee of the National District Attorneys Association, said he’s never heard of DNA waivers in state court and that the organization opposes the concept. “I think it’s important to always leave the door open for actual proof of innocence,” he said.

In federal court, the waivers are part of the standard plea agreement filed by prosecutors in the District, Alexandria and Manhattan, which are among the nation’s highest-profile U.S. attorney’s offices. Waivers are used in some or all pleas by at least 16 other offices, including such large ones as Chicago and Los Angeles and such smaller ones as Arkansas and West Virginia. Prosecutors in Maryland rarely use the waivers.

“It saves us a lot of spurious litigation down the pike,” said G.F. Peterman III, acting U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Georgia. “All they have to do is say I’m not guilty, go to trial and they’ve waived nothing. It’s their decision.”

Defense attorneys disagree, saying prosecutors give defendants the choice of signing the waiver or not getting the benefits of a plea agreement, which usually include a lighter sentence.

“It’s a horrendous provision, and I can never get them to take it out,” said Christopher Amolsch, a lawyer whose client recently waived DNA testing rights in a cigarette smuggling case in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. Other lawyers said they don’t usually fight the waivers, considering it a losing battle.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria declined to comment.

At least 24 U.S. attorneys don’t use the waivers. It could not be determined how many inmates have been affected by the policy, because the remaining 50 U.S. attorney’s offices did not respond to inquiries or declined to comment. It is also unclear how many federal prisoners have filed petitions seeking post-conviction DNA testing since 2004. Justice Department officials said the number is small but have also said they expect more petitions over time.

At the heart of the debate is the question of how often the innocent plead guilty. Michael Volkov, a former federal prosecutor who as counsel to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) pushed to insert waiver language into the 2004 law, said he thinks it is “extremely rare.”

But experts who have studied DNA exonerations say it is more common. “The idea that people who plead guilty are always guilty is false,” said Brandon Garrett, a University of Virginia law professor. He said the waivers “send a terrible message: that federal prosecutors take a dim view of truth telling.”

Arthur Lee Whitfield, for example, was convicted in 1982 of raping a woman in Norfolk and was about to go on trial in a second rape. Facing a possible life term, he pleaded guilty for a lighter sentence. He was exonerated of both crimes by DNA in 2004 after more than 22 years in prison.

“I figured I can put my life on the line and take a chance, or I can take the plea and have a shot at coming home to my family,” Whitfield said in a recent interview. “You never know what you’d do until you’re put in that situation.”

Justice Department officials who favor DNA waivers say the 2004 federal law wouldn’t have affected such defendants because their cases were in state courts. Violent crimes in which suspects are more likely to leave their DNA have traditionally been prosecuted locally.

But federal prosecutors have been tackling more violent crimes in recent years, especially involving gangs or drugs. And experts say the arrival in the next few years of more sophisticated DNA testing will allow DNA to be used in more federal cases both to convict and to exonerate.

For example, DNA tests can’t discern whether DNA came from blood, semen or other tissues; they show only that a DNA profile is present. When that changes, said Dan Krane, a biological sciences professor at Wright State University, defendants might be able to show that they never touched key pieces of evidence in drug, gun, forgery and other cases.

These types of scientific advances were among the reasons that Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) originally proposed the Innocence Protection Act in 2000. The waiver provision emerged from intensive negotiations with Republican senators, who insisted on it as one price for their support, congressional sources said.

The language inserted into the final bill says federal judges can order post-conviction DNA testing if the inmate did not “knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to request DNA testing of that evidence in a court proceeding.” The law also says the government can destroy biological evidence if there is a DNA waiver.

With the waiver provision in the law, the Justice Department in April 2004 sent a 22-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that said allowing any defendant who pleaded guilty to seek DNA testing would amount to “an unjustified attack on the integrity of guilty pleas which . . . are the means by which most cases are resolved.”

“The purpose [of post-conviction DNA testing] is not to enable killers, rapists and other criminals to re-open old wounds of crime victims and their survivors years and decades after the normal conclusion of criminal proceedings,” the letter said.

DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/10/AR2009101002348_2.html

Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/justice-dept-review-bush-policy-dna-test-waivers/feed/ 0 O’Malley: DNA Samples Akin to Fingerprints http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/omalley-dna-samples-akin-fingerprints/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/omalley-dna-samples-akin-fingerprints/#comments Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:49:27 +0000 DNAWellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=753 O’Malley: DNA Samples Akin to Fingerprints is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
OMalley: DNA Samples Akin to Fingerprints

Washington Post.com – 9/10/09

In Gov. Martin O’Malley’s “ideal world,” Maryland would take DNA samples as readily from suspected criminals as it now takes fingerprints.

“I think we should,” O’Malley (D) said following an appearance at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He added, however, that he has no plans to push for an expansion of a 2008 law on DNA samples passed by the General Assembly.

O’Malley was at the school to talk about that law, which marked the first time Maryland legislators agreed to take DNA samples prior to a criminal conviction. Under the measure — which was the subject of great debate and compromise — individuals charged with crimes of violence, certain burglaries and attempts of those crimes are required to provide a DNA sample.

Fingerprints are commonly taken at the time of booking for a far wider range of suspected crimes.

O’Malley was asked about the “ideal world” scenario by a student and later expanded on his answer for reporters. He said he believes that eventually public anxiety and “Orwellian conspiracies” about DNA collection will subside and it will be seen as “very akin to fingerprints.”

During his remarks, O’Malley touted the state’s use of an expanded DNA database to solve more crimes.

O’Malley’s appearance was part of a law and policy series organized by his father-in-law, J. Joseph Curran, Maryland’s former attorney general. Katie Curran O’Malley, the governor’s wife and district court judge in Baltimore, will appear at a future session to discuss domestic violence.

– John Wagner

DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource:  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2009/09/in_gov_martin_omalleys_ideal.html

O’Malley: DNA Samples Akin to Fingerprints is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/omalley-dna-samples-akin-fingerprints/feed/ 0 DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-evidence-fabricated-scientists-show/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-evidence-fabricated-scientists-show/#comments Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:52:38 +0000 DNAWellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=661 DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
Published: August 17, 2009

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-evidence-fabricated-scientists-show/feed/ 0 Law expanded to allow DNA samples from suspects http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/law-expanded-dna-samples-suspects/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/law-expanded-dna-samples-suspects/#comments Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:06:11 +0000 DNAWellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=487 Law expanded to allow DNA samples from suspects is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
Law expanded to allow DNA samples from suspects

Updated: July 10, 2009 04:09 PM CDT – koamtv.com

CARTHAGE, MO. – A new law signed Thursday by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon expands on an existing law about DNA extraction.

Governor Jay Nixon signed Missouri House Bill 152, which allows law enforcement officers to take DNA samples from suspects when they are arrested or charged with certain felonies and misdemeanors.

The current state law calls for DNA samples from all convicted felons.

Law enforcement officials say this new law has many advantages, such as allowing them to do their job more efficiently, and also helps to protect the public.

“Any additional tools that we can have to make our job better, more productive, and ultimately, we’re going to, we’re going to be accountable to the taxpayers and provide the taxpayers a service,” says Sgt. Mike Watson of the Missouri Highway Patrol.  “I think anything tool-wise that we can have to make that service better to the public is going to work out good.”

The new law takes effect on August 28.

DNAWellnessinfo.com Resource:  http://www.koamtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10708247

Law expanded to allow DNA samples from suspects is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/law-expanded-dna-samples-suspects/feed/ 0 DNA self-tests: More hype than help? http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-self-tests-more-hype-than-help/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-self-tests-more-hype-than-help/#comments Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:37:13 +0000 dna4wellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=94 DNA self-tests: More hype than help? is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
DNA self tests: More hype than help?

Posted on 03/23/2009

By Maria M. Perotin

McClatchy Newspapers

With a little spit and a few keyboard strokes, you can unlock the secrets of your DNA.

At least, it seems that simple at an array of Internet sites that are pitching genetic tests directly to consumers.

The businesses claim to examine customers’ genes for conditions grave or mundane — from their risk of cancer to their likelihood of baldness.

They offer a tantalizing peek at the most personal facets of health. But the tests have raised eyebrows among genetic counselors and government regulators, who are skittish about consumers tapping into their DNA without a doctor’s involvement.

“Genetic counselors are very concerned about people ordering some of this predisposition testing on their own on the Internet,” said Becky Althaus, a genetic counselor at Texas Health Dallas hospital. “A lot of times, this stuff is very complicated. And the results are not that easy to interpret.”

Alex Wong, director of products at a California-based company named 23andMe, said consumers have a right to access their own genetic details.

“We try to make it understandable to the average person,” Wong said. “We don’t just say that your risk has been increased by X-number percent and that’s that.”

Wong’s business markets do-it-yourself kits that are supposed to reveal details about buyers’ genealogy and health traits. The company, which includes Google among its investors, invites customers to “get the latest on your DNA with $399 and a tube of saliva.”

The 23andMe test addresses dozens of conditions, from life-threatening diseases to genetic curiosities. Among them: whether you have a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, your risk of celiac disease, what type of earwax you have, whether you can taste bitter flavors and whether you’re resistant to malaria.

Some of the tests are well-established among scientists, while the significance of others is far less certain.

“We’re actually very careful to educate our users about the relative reliability of that information,” Wong said.

Among the other tests available to consumers:

Colorado-based Sciona sells “personalized genetics assessments” that purport to reveal how your genetic makeup affects metabolism, diet, nutritional processing and lifestyle.

California-based Psynomics offers a test for two genetic mutations supposedly associated with bipolar disorder.

California-based HairDX says its test, only available from certain doctors, can predict the risk of baldness.

ScientificMatch.com pitches help finding a mate with “physical chemistry” based on your immune system genes. The Florida company says this boosts your chances of having a satisfying sex life, making healthy babies and avoiding infidelity. A lifetime membership is on sale for $995.

GOVERNMENT WARNINGS

Skepticism abounds about the tests.

The Federal Trade Commission — together with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — issued a warning in 2006 against at-home genetic tests.

The federal Government Accountability Office also sounded caution in 2006 after the agency investigated four DNA-testing Web sites — including one that sold “personalized” dietary supplements and another that said its pills could repair damaged DNA.

Its findings: The businesses made misleading, medically unproven predictions. And they offered ambiguous recommendations based on consumers’ lifestyles — not any unique genetic profile.

Last year, regulators in California and New York stepped up their scrutiny of the industry. And in April, a federal advisory committee concluded that there’s insufficient oversight of the labs that market genetic tests to consumers and raised concern about potentially “adverse patient outcomes.”

Jame Restau, a clinical nurse specialist at Baylor Medical Center at Irving, Texas, said patients are often curious about new research and which genetic tests may become available.

She tells them that many potentially meaningful tests are in the pipeline but warns that some businesses are promoting unproven tests.

“I think you have to be one of those cautious consumers,” Restau said. “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

Althaus, of Texas Health Dallas, said genetic testing gets a lot of hype but holds a lot of promise. “Right now, we’re just starting with tests for some pretty specific cancer genes. And now, there’s a test for Alzheimer’s, and there’s a test for a predisposition for heart disease. So we really are getting some new information that can help people,” she said. “Every day, they’re discovering new things that can be valuable in helping us in treatment and in prevention.”

——

BEFORE YOU BUY A GENETIC TEST

Know that at-home tests aren’t a substitute for a traditional health evaluation with conventional lab tests.

Realize that genetic tests provide only one piece of information about your susceptibility to a disease. Other factors, such as family background, medical history and environment, are also important.

Keep in mind that finding a particular gene doesn’t necessarily mean a disease will develop.

Be wary of claims that you can protect against serious disease with nutritional supplements. The same goes for predictions about your ability to withstand environmental exposures, such as cigarette smoke.

Talk to your doctor beforehand about whether a genetic test might provide useful information and which test would be best for you.

Ask your doctor or a genetic counselor to help you understand your test results. Do that before making any dietary or other health-related decisions.

Check the testing company’s privacy policy to see how it may use your personal information, including sharing it with marketers, and whether it posts results online.

Source: Federal Trade Commission

DNA Nutritional Breakthrough:  http://www.dnaguidedwellnessproducts.com

127x16 1 DNA self tests: More hype than help?

DNA self-tests: More hype than help? is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/dna-self-tests-more-hype-than-help/feed/ 0 $2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/27-million-for-man-set-free-by-dna-evidence/ http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/27-million-for-man-set-free-by-dna-evidence/#comments Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:27:09 +0000 dna4wellness http://dnawellnessinfo.com/?p=78 $2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]>
$2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence

March 16, 2009 4:57 PM

A Chicago man would receive $100,000 for each of 27 years he spent behind bars before DNA testing set him free, under a settlement endorsed Monday by the City Council Finance Committee.

The money, $2.7 million, would be paid to the estate of Paul Terry, who suffered profound mental damage behind bars.

“He will have enough money for the rest of his life to take care of his psychological problems and needs,” said Flint Taylor, one of his attorneys.

Terry and Michael Evans were both convicted at age 17 for the 1976 South Side rape and murder of 9-year-old Lisa Cabassa. They were released in 2003, after a former prosecutor’s misgivings led to DNA tests that excluded them as perpetrators of the assault.

The charges against them came out of Area 2 police headquarters, where former Cmdr. Jon Burge allegedly tortured suspects, but at a time when Burge was not there. Detectives in the case, however, had worked under him, Taylor said.

Evans alleged in a federal lawsuit he was railroaded by overzealous officers, but jurors determined police had sufficient evidence to arrest him. The city had offered Evans $2.7 million before trial.

Terry’s case, filed in state court, was stronger, Corp. Counsel Mara Georges said. For example, Terry wasn’t arrested until 10 months after the crime, and the witness against him was aging and out of town, she said.

– Hal Dardick

DNA Nutritional Breakthrough:  http://www.dnaguidedwellnessproducts.com

127x16 1 $2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence

$2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence is a post from: dnawellnessinfo.com

]]> http://dnawellnessinfo.com/dna-and-the-law/27-million-for-man-set-free-by-dna-evidence/feed/ 0