Despite all of the good that using science in criminal investigation has done. Like all things there have been some hiccups. DNA testing has both enhanced and eroded the status of forensic science in criminal cases. Conventional forensic disciplines were unable to identify a perpetrator with any true discrimination. For instance, conventional serology (the study antigen or antibodies) field analysis of blood group substances was largely used in sexual assault cases during the 1980s (Mosby's Medical Dictionary 8th edition, 2009). The basic method was sound and frequencies of the A, B, and O blood types were derived from scientifically sound databases. While serology could exclude or place an individual within a percentage of the population
…show more content…
Dotson was convicted in 1979 of rape, and he was sentenced to 25-50 years in prison. (Garrett & Neufel, 2009)In 1988, DNA testing was ran after the Governor of Illinois had denied Dotson a pardon, despite the victim's recantation in which she stated that she had falsely accused Dotson of rape to conceal consensual intercourse with her boyfriend. Edward Blake, who led the forensic application of the polymerase chain reaction ("PCR") technology, conducted the testing. He study found that the DNA results excluded Dotson as the source for the genetic profile, but was able to include the victim's boyfriend as matching the genetic profile found. Based on those findings, Dotson's conviction was overturned. Blake also found that the State's forensic analyst's testimony at Dotson's trial was misleading. The analyst had testified that both Dotson and the semen donor possessed the B blood type, a type shared by only eleven percent of Caucasians (Garrett & Neufel, 2009). The problem was the testimony in the courtroom. While on the witness stand, the analyst did not tell the jury that the victim was also Type B and that her fluids were mixed in the sample. The Type B substances found in the sample could have solely come from the victim. Her genetic markers might have overwhelmed those from the semen; as Blake put it, "no genetic information was obtained about the semen donor." Consequently, due to the testing methods available at the time, any man could have been the donor. It was misleading to suggest to the jury that a subset (11%) of the population including Dotson could have been the donor thereby excluding the remaining 89% (Garrett & Neufel, 2009). So even though the advances in forensics did grant Dotson's exoneration, the invalid forensic science testimony is what granted his
Dotson was convicted in 1979 of rape, and he was sentenced to 25-50 years in prison. (Garrett & Neufel, 2009)In 1988, DNA testing was ran after the Governor of Illinois had denied Dotson a pardon, despite the victim's recantation in which she stated that she had falsely accused Dotson of rape to conceal consensual intercourse with her boyfriend. Edward Blake, who led the forensic application of the polymerase chain reaction ("PCR") technology, conducted the testing. He study found that the DNA results excluded Dotson as the source for the genetic profile, but was able to include the victim's boyfriend as matching the genetic profile found. Based on those findings, Dotson's conviction was overturned. Blake also found that the State's forensic analyst's testimony at Dotson's trial was misleading. The analyst had testified that both Dotson and the semen donor possessed the B blood type, a type shared by only eleven percent of Caucasians (Garrett & Neufel, 2009). The problem was the testimony in the courtroom. While on the witness stand, the analyst did not tell the jury that the victim was also Type B and that her fluids were mixed in the sample. The Type B substances found in the sample could have solely come from the victim. Her genetic markers might have overwhelmed those from the semen; as Blake put it, "no genetic information was obtained about the semen donor." Consequently, due to the testing methods available at the time, any man could have been the donor. It was misleading to suggest to the jury that a subset (11%) of the population including Dotson could have been the donor thereby excluding the remaining 89% (Garrett & Neufel, 2009). So even though the advances in forensics did grant Dotson's exoneration, the invalid forensic science testimony is what granted his