dnawellnessinfo.com» DNA and the Law

DNA handling under the microscope

editor — Mon, 31 May 2010 13:15:04 +0000

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

Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers

editor — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:08:34 +0000

By Jerry Markon

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

O’Malley: DNA Samples Akin to Fingerprints

editor — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:49:27 +0000

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

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

editor — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:52:38 +0000

By ANDREW POLLACK

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

Law expanded to allow DNA samples from suspects

editor — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:06:11 +0000

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

DNA self-tests: More hype than help?

dna4wellness — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:37:13 +0000

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

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

$2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence

dna4wellness — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:27:09 +0000

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

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

dnawellnessinfo.com» DNA and the Law

DNA handling under the microscope

Related Posts:

Justice Dept. to Review Bush Policy on DNA Test Waivers

Related Posts:

O’Malley: DNA Samples Akin to Fingerprints

Related Posts:

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

Related Posts:

Law expanded to allow DNA samples from suspects

Related Posts:

DNA self-tests: More hype than help?

Related Posts:

$2.7 million for man set free by DNA evidence

Related Posts: