DNA fingerprinting is used in forensic science to convict or exonerate a defendant of a crime. During an investigation, crime samples are collected from a scene or from a victim that can be used for DNA testing. Samples could include hair, blood, semen, or skin. After collection, these samples are tested for their molecular characteristics because the purpose is to identify the polymorphic DNA locations of one’s genes. This is because everyone has different genetic variations and can be identified based on those variations obtained from their mother and father. Once the sample is collected from the crime scene or the victim it is then compared with a sample collected from an alleged perpetrator. If the samples match or are similar enough a
…show more content…
One such case was that of Juan Rivera. In 1994 Juan Rivera was found guilty of the rape and murder of an 11 year old girl. Some interesting points of the case include that police had interrogated Mr. Rivera for 4 days straight and it was in the early morning hours of the fourth day when they started to directly accuse Mr. Rivera who then broke down and shook his head “yes” when they asked if he committed the crime. Immediately afterward, Mr. Rivera began to hit is own head against the wall which was classified as a mental breakdown. Mr. Rivera previously had intellectual competency problems and was in special education classes while in school. He was 19 at the time of the conviction (Center on Wrongful Convictions, …show more content…
In the first they used his “confession” to the crime as the main piece of evidence. Juan was convicted to life in prison, but an Appellate court reversed the decision. The second trial also relied on the confession as the focal point but they also added eye-witness testimony. This testimony was presented by one of the children who was being babysat by the 11-year old victim, however, the child was only 2 years old at the time of the crime, and was 8 years old at the time of the second trial and the child’s testimony was used to identify Mr. Rivera. In 1998, He was again convicted to life in prison. In 2005 Mr. Rivera was eliminated as a suspect with the introduction of DNA fingerprinted assessed against the semen found on the victim. It was at this time a third trial was ordered. However, the prosecution made speculation that the 11 year old victim could have been sexual active at the time or that the DNA could have been compromised by the laboratory and so Rivera was still the most likely suspect, and in the third trial Mr. Rivera was again found guilty. The Center on Wrongful Convictions became involved at this time and appealed that there was not enough evidence to convict Mr. Rivera beyond a reasonable doubt and that assuming the child victim was sexually active or that the lab contaminated the results was speculation. Additionally, they argued that Mr. Rivera’s confessions were involuntary and could have been influenced by
One such case was that of Juan Rivera. In 1994 Juan Rivera was found guilty of the rape and murder of an 11 year old girl. Some interesting points of the case include that police had interrogated Mr. Rivera for 4 days straight and it was in the early morning hours of the fourth day when they started to directly accuse Mr. Rivera who then broke down and shook his head “yes” when they asked if he committed the crime. Immediately afterward, Mr. Rivera began to hit is own head against the wall which was classified as a mental breakdown. Mr. Rivera previously had intellectual competency problems and was in special education classes while in school. He was 19 at the time of the conviction (Center on Wrongful Convictions, …show more content…
In the first they used his “confession” to the crime as the main piece of evidence. Juan was convicted to life in prison, but an Appellate court reversed the decision. The second trial also relied on the confession as the focal point but they also added eye-witness testimony. This testimony was presented by one of the children who was being babysat by the 11-year old victim, however, the child was only 2 years old at the time of the crime, and was 8 years old at the time of the second trial and the child’s testimony was used to identify Mr. Rivera. In 1998, He was again convicted to life in prison. In 2005 Mr. Rivera was eliminated as a suspect with the introduction of DNA fingerprinted assessed against the semen found on the victim. It was at this time a third trial was ordered. However, the prosecution made speculation that the 11 year old victim could have been sexual active at the time or that the DNA could have been compromised by the laboratory and so Rivera was still the most likely suspect, and in the third trial Mr. Rivera was again found guilty. The Center on Wrongful Convictions became involved at this time and appealed that there was not enough evidence to convict Mr. Rivera beyond a reasonable doubt and that assuming the child victim was sexually active or that the lab contaminated the results was speculation. Additionally, they argued that Mr. Rivera’s confessions were involuntary and could have been influenced by