In any criminal trial in which DNA evidence is presented, one side, usually the prosecutorial side, are those that believe in DNA as a crime-solving technique that is nearly error free. On the other side, which is usually the defense, are those who believe DNA evidence should be used only to prove someones innocence, not their guilt. If only it were that simple.
(PRWEB) November 5 2003--Ever since the Scott Peterson preliminary trial began nearly two weeks ago, I have been having flashbacks.
Sometimes the flashbacks are so strong that I could swear it is 1994 again, when former football star OJ Simpson was accused of stabbing to death his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. I covered the Simpson trial for USA Today and was in the courtroom for much of the testimony during the ensuing 10-month trial.
I left the practice of daily journalism soon after the trial ended in not guilty verdicts for Simpson. But nine years later, as the Peterson preliminary hearing dominates the days news coverage, many of the same issues that confounded Simpson trial-watchers are surfacing again in the Peterson case.
By now, pretty much everyone who cracks open a newspaper knows that Peterson is accused of killing his 27-year-old wife, Laci, who was eight months pregnant with the couples son. Peterson says he was fishing in San Francisco Bay last Christmas Eve when Laci disappeared. Prosecutors contend that Petersons fishing trip was really a ruse so that Peterson could dump his wifes body into the sea.
A central piece of evidence: A six-inch-long strand of hair found tangled in a pair of pliers found on Petersons boat.
Prosecutors say that DNA testing proves the hair belonged to Laci and because there is no evidence Laci ever stepped foot on Petersons boat, therefore implicates Peterson in her murder. Petersons defense says that the DNA testing methods and statistical analyses are fraught with errors and cant be used to prove Petersons guilt.
The same arguments boiled over in the Simpson case. But the argument was never resolved because many trial watchers portrayed the conflict as one between those who believe in DNA science and those who dont. If only it were that simple.
The real conflict is a much more complex one that is rooted in dearly-held principles that are as American as apple pie, no matter which side you are on. Many who are following the Peterson trial dont realize that because all they see on the TV news are each side yelling at each other. But I learned it was much more than angry rhetoric while covering months of tedious DNA testimony during the Simpson trial.
In any criminal trial in which DNA evidence is presented, one side, usually the prosecutorial side, are those that believe in DNA as a crime-solving technique that is nearly error free. On the other side, which is usually the defense, are those who believe DNA evidence should be used only to prove someones innocence, not their guilt.
They have their reasons. For one thing, they say, DNA must be handled with care because contamination can skew test results. For another, they say, the statistics that result from DNA testing are so phenomenally large that the very numbers could bias jurors.
In the OJ Simpson case, for example, some of the statistics that the prosecutors put out there were that only one in several billion people could have supplied the various blood splatters found by investigators on Simpsons property. The defense said that those numbers were ridiculous – at times, more than the number of people alive at the time of the crime. If the jury were to hear those numbers without any query into the methodology, the defense said, we might as well throw out the presumption of innocence. Besides, if DNA samples are not handled with the utmost of care, the results are not trustworthy.
That is the real debate, whether it is the Peterson trial or the Simpson case. In America, if you are accused of a crime, you dont have to prove anything. You are presumed to be innocent. It is the prosecution that needs to prove their case before they lock you up and throw away the key.
And in the case of DNA, that deeply-held belief is not just splitting hairs.
###
|
