DNA - Technology's Smoking Gun

It did not seem to be the kind of room in which battles would be fought. The Radisson Grove Hotel Ballroom in Sacramento, Calif., had seen many conventions over the years, but none were quite like this one -- because this time the convention involved murder and rape.

Criminalists, serologists, district attorneys, cops and even a few defense attorneys gathered together for the Second National Conference on the Future of DNA: Implications for the Criminal Justice System. DNA is on the cutting edge of forensic science, a genetic fingerprint that can help identify or rule out suspects in a violent crime. And even in the staid atmosphere of the convention, where the traditional combatants met without the pressures of court, there was tension in the air. While the science behind DNA is largely accepted, it provides such decisive evidence of guilt or innocence that it is still surrounded by controversy. Defense attorneys usually hate it, and will do anything to have DNA evidence ruled inadmissible, while prosecutors build entire cases around the identification of body fluids left at the scene of a crime.

"Defense attorneys use DNA evidence wholeheartedly ... when the DNA evidence will help to exonerate and rule out their clients," said Ken Konzak, assistant lab director for the California Department of Justice, Division of Forensic Services. "It is only when the evidence will tend to convict that it is suddenly 'unreliable science.'" It is, perhaps, not surprising that this conflict rose quickly to the surface when a defense attorney and a prosecutor attempted to share a podium at the DNA convention.

Traditional Enemies
When Jim Sherriff, Jr., a Sacramento-based defense attorney and founder of the DNA Litigation Project, took the stage, he quickly put the audience -- primarily forensic scientists -- at ease with his complete support for DNA science. "As a defense attorney, it is my job to make it as difficult as legally and ethically possible for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof. But the truth is that DNA is great evidence. In fact, DNA analysis is creating a revolution in the evidentiary process. The theory is sound and the evidence is better -- more accurate -- than having an eyewitness, though not quite as good as fingerprinting," said Sherriff.

Case closed, it seemed, until Geoff Lauter, a Sacramento County assistant district attorney, followed Sherriff to the podium. "That sounds great, but I have found myself in an admissibility hearing with Sherriff and I don't remember him saying anything like this before," said Lauter. "When he says the role of the defense attorney is to be the best advocate for their client they can legally and ethically be, I wonder if that includes creating confusion and distracting the eyes of the judge and jury from the truth. Even here, right now, while I respect Jim's abilities, I have to remind him that in our case, he didn't come in and say DNA was good evidence or solid science, but instead said it wasn't proven or accepted and actually called it 'a bunch of hooey.' I wonder, what has changed so suddenly?"

DNA Today
DNA analysis is used in the investigation of approximately 10,000 criminal cases -- 75 percent of which involve sexual assault -- and about 130,000 civil paternity cases each year. As DNA science has become more refined and been given broad support by members of the scientific community, DNA evidence is being accepted in the courtroom to a degree not previously seen. While only five years ago law enforcement officials found themselves fighting to bring DNA into the courtroom, there are now three states -- Nevada, Oklahoma and Tennessee -- where the legislature has specifically passed laws stating DNA evidence can be used in the courtroom, and only four states -- Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Utah -- where it