Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I thought some of you might be interested in this. The Time has passed, a California appellate panel told convicted rapist Scott A. Wright, for challenging the admissibility of DNA evidence based on polymerase chain reaction testing. Not a single defense expert testified "that this evidence was not scientifically valid," the court noted in a unanimous opinion Feb. 17. People v. Wright, A068667 (1st App. Dist.). Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, analysis has been a hot-button issue for prosecutors and defense attorneys because it allows wider processing of crime scene materials than does the more commonly accepted method of analysis, restriction fragment length polymorphism. PCR, which has been compared to molecular photocopying in a test tube, provides genetic profiles in hours rather than weeks and requires only the merest speck of blood, saliva or semen. Last year, for the first time, a federal appellate court signaled the end of challenging PCR as junk science. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, of a number of state courts that had considered the PCR-processed evidence, the "vast majority" had accepted it. U.S. v. Beasley, 95-3362. By year's end, three more state high courts--Massachusetts', New Jersey's and Tennessee's--had come into the fold. Particularly significant was New Jersey's opinion in the Nathaniel Harvey prosecution because that state has a more rigorous standard for DNA than that provided by the federal rules of evidence. (In New Jersey, there must be a finding the test is "nonexperimental.") The Next Frontier The newest crop of cases on the DNA front offers further proof that the frontier has moved from the laboratory to the trenches: * If human DNA is acceptable, how about dog DNA? Prosecutor Timothy Bradshaw says the best evidence he has showing that defendants George Tiulefano and Kenneth Leuluanialiu were at the scene of a 1996 murder of a South Seattle couple is the splatters of blood from the couple's mortally wounded pit bull on the defendants' jackets. Earlier this month, King County Superior Court Judge Richard Jones held dog DNA admissible. * What about DNA derived from a virus? A Louisiana appellate court found that the legal standards for assessing DNA tests on humans also apply to viruses. The case involves a physician accused of injecting his former girlfriend with HIV-tainted blood. Prosecutors say the virus later found in the woman closely resembles the virus in an HIV-positive patient from whom the doctor had had a sample drawn. Louisiana v. Schmidt, 97-0249 (La. Ct. App. 3d Dist.). * And how about that old favorite: Can we trust the police? Cuyahoga County, Ohio, prosecutor Stephanie Tubbs Jones has refused to ask a grand jury to consider whether Richard Eberling is the real killer of Marilyn Sheppard. Dr. Sam Sheppard's son is pressing for a review based on newly developed evidence that shows a DNA match between the blood of Mr. Eberling, a Sheppard family handyman now doing time for another murder, and blood found at the murder scene. Ms. Tubbs Jones says that the sample traveled to California before being lost and that 43-year chain-of-evidence problems are insurmountable. -- Kathy E "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow isn't looking too good for you either" http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
