Contrary to people believe, DNA evidence are available in fewer than 10 percent of violent crimes. These cases are typically rape and murder cases, where it is more likely the offender will leave skin tissue or bodily fluids that will yield DNA. More than 90 percent of the persons exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted of rape, murder, or both. DNA evidence is often available in these crimes of violence unless the perpetrator takes measures to remove all hair, semen, blood, and other bodily fluids from the crime scene. (Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson, 2016) All DNA’s data is keep on DNA banks. Both the federal government and many states maintain these data banks. Comparisons between a sample taken from a suspect and evidence maintained
…show more content…
They relate directly to the ultimate objective of every criminal investigation … the identification of the offender. Since a print of one finger has never been known to exactly duplicate another fingerprint, even of the same person or identical twin, it is possible to identify an individual with just one impression … a person’s fingerprints have never been known to change. The unchanging pattern thus provides a permanent record of the individual throughout life. 46" p.434
Fingerprints are a type of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which inferences must be drawn. It is impossible to determine the age of fingerprint, because the print could have been on an object for a long time before the crime was committed. As a general rule, the prosecution must first introduce fingerprint evidence by use of an expert witness and then show a chain of custody to prove that the evidence is authentic and genuine and has not been tampered with. (Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson, …show more content…
• Testimony that the surface had been washed or cleaned just prior to the crime.
• Fingerprints found in a home or an area to which the defendant did not have access (burglary, theft, and sometimes homicide cases). In Com. v. Netto, 783 N.E.2d 439 (Mass. 2003), the court held that evidence of fingerprints made by the defendant and found at a crime scene was “fairly fresh,” based on the speed with which it reacted to chemicals. The defendant had been prohibited by the victim from entering his apartment and, as a result, the court concluded sufficient evidence existed to prove the defendant made the fingerprint at the time of the victim’s murder.
• Fingerprints found in a victim’s blood smear that could not have been made prior to the blood smear. In State v. Williams, 2010 WL 3971765 (N.M. App. 2010), cert denied 228 P.3d 488 (N.M. 2010), the court held that expert blood splatter and fingerprint testimony established that defendant’s fingerprint found on the victim’s car could only have been made at the same time a blood smear on the car
They relate directly to the ultimate objective of every criminal investigation … the identification of the offender. Since a print of one finger has never been known to exactly duplicate another fingerprint, even of the same person or identical twin, it is possible to identify an individual with just one impression … a person’s fingerprints have never been known to change. The unchanging pattern thus provides a permanent record of the individual throughout life. 46" p.434
Fingerprints are a type of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which inferences must be drawn. It is impossible to determine the age of fingerprint, because the print could have been on an object for a long time before the crime was committed. As a general rule, the prosecution must first introduce fingerprint evidence by use of an expert witness and then show a chain of custody to prove that the evidence is authentic and genuine and has not been tampered with. (Thomas J. Gardner, Terry M. Anderson, …show more content…
• Testimony that the surface had been washed or cleaned just prior to the crime.
• Fingerprints found in a home or an area to which the defendant did not have access (burglary, theft, and sometimes homicide cases). In Com. v. Netto, 783 N.E.2d 439 (Mass. 2003), the court held that evidence of fingerprints made by the defendant and found at a crime scene was “fairly fresh,” based on the speed with which it reacted to chemicals. The defendant had been prohibited by the victim from entering his apartment and, as a result, the court concluded sufficient evidence existed to prove the defendant made the fingerprint at the time of the victim’s murder.
• Fingerprints found in a victim’s blood smear that could not have been made prior to the blood smear. In State v. Williams, 2010 WL 3971765 (N.M. App. 2010), cert denied 228 P.3d 488 (N.M. 2010), the court held that expert blood splatter and fingerprint testimony established that defendant’s fingerprint found on the victim’s car could only have been made at the same time a blood smear on the car