LSCI 106: ONLINE RESEARCH 1: INTRODUCTION TO ONLINE RESEARCH 

Student Project

RESEARCH QUESTION:

DNA evidence and its effect on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Used first in England in 1996 in which it helped to implicate a man on murder charges, DNA’s use in the courtroom has become a revelation in how we see “proof of guilt” in the courtroom.  With prosecutors and scientist touting its overwhelming odds and stratospheric statistics, it seems that the criminal justice system has finally found its magical “silver bullet”.  Unfortunately to the eyes of the average juror who may convict based on this evidence alone, we are faced now with the prospects of solely relying on scientific methodology to prove guilt rather than arriving at it through thorough consideration of all the available facts presented.  This psychological “premeditation” that DNA evidence creates brings up another interesting point, why do we seem content with the idea of DNA implicating a person of a crime, but find it not as plausible to explicate them for the same heinous acts?  These are issues that will be investigated as we examine the role and impact of DNA evidence and its effect on helping prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the courtroom.                                       

 

GENERAL SEARCH WORKSHEET

 

 

CONCEPT #

Search Terms

 

1

DNA

Restriction fragment length polymorphism

Polymerase chain reaction

Genetic

2

Evidence

Sampling

Tissue

Fingerprint

3

Reasonable doubt

Due process

Constitutional rights

Kelly-Frye test

 

 

WEBLIOGRAPHY
 

Banaszak, Ronald A. Fair Trial Rights of the Accused: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, c2002.

Cohen, Mark. “Hearing Must Determine if DNA Evidence is Admissible.” Minnesota Lawyer 26 Aug. 2002. InfoTrac OneFile. GaleGroup. 15 Mar. 2003. <http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/957/376/32720302w7/purl=rc1_ITOF_0_A98965195&dyn=26!xrn_24_0_A98965195?sw_aep=plan_skyline>.

Coleman, Howard and Eric Swenson. DNA in the Courtroom: A Trial Watcher’s Guide. Seattle, WA: GeneLex Corp, c1994

Howard C. Coleman is the president and chairman of GeneLex Corporation, the Seattle-based DNA laboratory he founded in 1987.  GeneLex has become a nationally recognized pioneer in the field of DNA testing usage for forensics and paternity.  Eric D. Swenson in the last decade has written or co-authored five books and has also written more than 80 magazine articles and broadcasted over 50 commentaries for National Public Radio affiliates in the Northwest.  The two collaborate in the 1994 book, DNA in the Courtroom: A Trial Watcher’s Guide, in which they give a well written insight into the world of DNA and its use in forensics.  They further demonstrate this new science in action by noting its use in the famed “trial of the century” involving O.J. Simpson.  As stated in her review in Berkeley Technology Law Journal Online (Issue 10:2, Fall 1995), Jasmine Samrad wrote, “Knowledge and information is the key to a better understanding of these revolutionary technologies. Jurists can no longer afford the scientific illiteracy that so characterizes the legal field. DNA in the Courtroom counteracts this phenomenon of illiteracy by providing a concise, yet comprehensive, introduction to the complex scientific and legal issues of DNA fingerprinting”.  

Connors, Edward, et al. “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.”  National Criminal Justice Reference Service. June 1996. U.S. Department of Justice. 4 Apr. 2003. <http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt>. 

“110 Wrongful Convictions and Counting.” Editorial.  The New York Times 27 Aug. 2002: A16+. InfoTrac OneFile. GaleGroup. 18 Mar. 2003. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/855/526/35626497w5/purl=rc1_SP00_0_CJ90779021&dyn=6!dgxrn_"Opinion+and+Editorial"_3_0_CJ90779021?sw_aep=plan_skyline>.   

“Our Opinions: Provide Equal Access to DNA Tests.” Editorial. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 7 Apr. 2003: A16. InfoTrac OneFile. GaleGroup. 20 Apr. 2003. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/855/526/35626497w5/purl=rc1_SP00_0_CJ99691070&dyn=15!dgxrn_"Opinion+and+Editorial"_3_0_CJ99691070?sw_aep=plan_skyline>. 

Fischetti, Mark. “DNA as a Forensic Instrument.” 21stC: The World of Research at Columbia University. Winter 1996. Columbia University. 4 Apr. 2003. <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.3/dna-forensic.html>. 

Kaye, D. H.  “The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 10.3 (Summer 2001): 455+. InfoTrac OneFile. GaleGroup. 15 Mar. 2003. <http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/957/376/32720302w7/purl=rc1_ITOF_0_A82471885&dyn=4!xrn_2_0_A82471885?sw_aep=plan_skyline>. 

Rudin, Norah. An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002.

Samrad, Jasmine. Rev. of DNA in the Courtroom: A Trial Watcher’s Guide, by Howard Coleman and Eric Swenson.                                                                                Berkeley Technology Law Journal Online 10.2 (Fall 1995). 15 Apr. 2003. <http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol10/Samrad/html/reader.html>.

Scheck, Barry C., et al. “DNA NEWS: May 16, 2003.The Innocence Project. 5 May 2003. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. 5 May 2003. <http://www.innocenceproject.org/dnanews/index.php>.

The Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law is a non-profit legal clinic created by attorneys and authors Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld.  It was created in order to help provide services pro bono to poor and often underrepresented clients in an attempt to utilize post-conviction DNA testing of evidence to help provide conclusive evidence of innocence and make the public more aware of problems with forensic science and its role in the criminal justice system. The support staff includes various practicing attorneys with an assortment of legal backgrounds ranging at the local level to the former New York State Supreme Court justice, the Honorable Peter J. McQuillan.  Information contained in this website is targeted at a fairly broad audience that possibly could include the well seasoned District Attorney to the citizen that has fairly little opinion or knowledge of the forensic use of DNA and the legal issues surrounding it. The amount of current, accurate, and relevant content on this website should be able to provide a plethora of insight into the principles of “justice being served”. (Suon, 2003)

Westervelt, Saundra D., John A. Humphrey, and Michael L. Radelet. Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice.                                                                       New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001.

Zolinger, Jay A.  “Defense Access to State-funded DNA Experts: Considerations of Due process.” California Law Review 85.6 (Dec. 1997): 1803-1839. InfoTrac OneFile. GaleGroup. 15 Apr. 2003.  <http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/957/376/32720302w7/purl=rc1_ITOF_0_A20502607&dyn=4!xrn_3_0_A20502607?sw_aep=plan_skyline>.

 


| Home | Syllabus | Assignments | Text | Student Projects | Instructor |


last revised: 5-16-03 by Eric Brenner, Skyline College, San Bruno, CA

These materials are copyrighted, but may be used for educational purposes if you inform and credit the author and cite the source as: LSCI 106 Computerized Research. All commercial rights are reserved. Send comments or suggestions to: Eric Brenner at brenner@smccd.net