Uncertainties Over the DNA Evidence as Highlighted by the Defense in the Simpson Trial - Essay Example

?Uncertainties over the DNA evidence as highlighted by the defense in the Simpson trial The O.J. Simpson case led to very accurate and reliable appreciation of the weaknesses and strengths of the DNA evidence that was produced against Simpson. The O.J. Simpson case has led to a lot of lessons being learned from the uncertainties over the DNA evidence highlighted in defense in the O.J. Simpson case. A lot of the discourse of the public about the O.J. Simpson case begins with the argument that the DNA evidence proved the guilt of Simpson conclusively and quickly proceeds to an analysis of elements that may explain the reason why the jury in spite of all the evidence voted to acquit Simpson. This premise and analysis leads generally to unflattering inferences concerning the intelligence or fairness of the jury of Simpson and more widely to skeptical conclusions concerning the aptitude and capacity of the system of criminal justice, as constituted currently, in order to produce results that are just (Jasanoff, 1998). This paper seeks to highlight the uncertainties over the DNA evidence as highlighted by the defense in the O.J. Simpson case, and argue that the Simpson jury could reasonably infer that the evidence of DNA in the O.J. Simpson case deserved no or little weight. The Account of Prosecution The argument of prosecution was that Simpson cut his hand as he murders the victims and left behind a “trail of blood” in the Bundy scene of crime, into his residence at Rockingham and into his Bronco. As put in the account of prosecution, the blood of the victim was transferred to Bronco since it splattered all over Simpson and had the glove saturated (Simpson carried him and threw him behind the house). The blood of Nicole Brown Simpson was evidently pressed on the sock at the scene of crime; conceivably the bloody hand of Simpson touched his ankle. Simpson perhaps disposed of his clothing to the scene of crime but forgot about the socks in his bedroom as he never realized the socks were stained with the blood of Nicole (Lynch, 1998). The Account of Defense There were several elements in the defense account. Simpson bled in the Bronco and his home. According to the defense, Simpson cut himself accidentally at home in the evening of the crime, may be when trying to retrieve a cell phone from his Bronco, and therefore the drops of his blood were left on his driveway, in the Bronco and the hallway of his home. Later Simpson travelled to Chicago and cut himself again, when he broke a glass in his Chicago hotel room, more seriously when he learned of his ex wife’s death. According to the testimony of Dr. Robert Huizenga, it was established that there were actually two cuts on the left middle and the smaller finger of Simpson, and that a much less conspicuous cut could have led to a sufficient bleeding to account for the quantity of the blood of Simpson found at his residence in Rockingham and in the Bronco (Thompson, 1996). The uncertainties of DNA evidence highlighted by defense The Rockingham glove and Bundy blood drops were contaminated with the DNA of Simpson at the LAPD Laboratory. Collin Yamauchi, the LAPD criminalist admitted that he practically spilled some blood of Simpson from a reference vial as he worked upon the processing of the evidence in the room and that he handled shortly thereafter the cotton swatches with the blood from Bundy drops and the Rockingham glove. The defense team suggested that some blood from Simpson was transferred inadvertently to these evidentiary samples conceivably on the instruments and gloves of Collin Yamauchi (Carbado, 1997). The defense also argued that the DNA of the possible true perpetrator (the person who left the drops of blood) could not be detected from the samples because it was destroyed and degraded as a result of mishandling of the Bundy samples. Collin Yamauchi, the LAPD criminalists swabbed the drops of blood during collection with a wet cotton swatch. These cotton swatches were placed in a plastic bag and for several hours were left in a hot truck. All the experts in the prosecution also acknowledged that DNA rapidly degrades when the samples of the blood are left in a warm, moist environment, and that the degradation can make the DNA originally in a sample undetectable, and that any subsequent contamination of that particular sample by another person's DNA can make it match falsely the second person on a DNA test (Brown, 1997). The defense also argued that the DNA test result pattern neatly fits with the theory of cross contamination. The DNA quantity recovered on the evidentiary samples was mild enough to be considered consistent with that kind of inadvertent transfer. On the Rockingham glove, the allele that was matching those of Simpson was detected from the samples recovered from the notch of the wrist in regions where Collin Yamauchi had his initials written and not in any other place. The swatches of the blood, the DNA quantity that were consistent with Simpson turned down in the order in which Collin Yamauchi handled them, that is to say, the very first handled sample had the most DNA followed by much less DNA in the later samples (Adam, 2010). In order to further bolster the theory of contamination, the defense team presented sloppiness evidence in the handling of the samples by LAPD prior to the testing of the DNA. Collin Yamauchi, the criminalist was trained poorly with regard to handling the sample, did not follow the protocol written, never understood the importance and purpose of the precautionary measures like changing the gloves, and made very serious errors as he attempted to demonstrate appropriate collection of sample and techniques of handling sample. Dr. John Gerdes, the defense expert after reviewing the results of the DNA test from the LAPD laboratory in the year before the case of Simpson, detected a history of serious problems of contamination that he largely attributed to DNA cross contamination due to poor procedures and techniques of handling sample (Aitken and Taroni, 2004). In addition, Dr. John Gerdes found cross-contamination startling evidence in the results of the DNA test of the case of Simpson itself. According to him, it seemed that the vials reference with the blood of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were contaminated with O.J. Simpson’s DNA. Extra alleles that were consistent with those of O.J. Simpson showed when the blood of the victims was typed at the LAPD laboratory and at other two laboratories in which the same reference vials were sent (Anderson, Schum and Twining, 2005). According to the prosecution, they contended that the Bundy blood drops’ cross contamination was ruled out due to the substrate controls that appeared negative; they had no traceable DNA. In case there was a contamination of Bundy drops with the DNA of Simpson, then the substrate controls too could have been contaminated. The defense gave out two responses to that prosecution’s argument (Balding, 2005). First, in the view of the defense, it appeared that the notes of the laboratory that LAPD failed to handle and process the substrate controls parallel to the Bundy blood drops left open the likelihood that there was no exposure of substrate controls during the occurrence of cross contamination, and secondly, the defense responded that it was established well that the substrate controls in some cases do not pick up contamination of DNA, even when handled parallel with the samples that are contaminated. Dr. John Gerded indeed testified that his previous review of the tests by LAPD laboratory showed various situations where controls that were designed to detect contaminations appeared negative although contamination had actually took place. This testimony was neither rebutted nor challenged by the prosecution (Lucy, 2006). Another uncertainty was that swatches were switched. Swatches after being used for collection of the blood samples at the scene of crime were sealed in plastic bags and kept in a truck. They were at the end of the day returned to the crime laboratory, LAPD and stayed in the test tubes to dry overnight. Criminalist Mazzola Andrea, in the next morning packed, in the paper bindles the already dry swatches (McCartney, 2006). Two months later in a pretrial hearing, Mazzola Andrea testifies that she placed her initials on every paper bindle. The experts from defense detected two startling discoveries when they examined the Bundy swatches in the paper bindles: not even one paper bindles had n14, the initials Andrea Mazzola, but some of them had what the defense expert and a renowned criminalist, Dr. Lee Henry characterized later as wet stains transfer, the kind of stains that could be produced through contact of swatches wet with blood. These startling observations led to a memorable conclusion and inference by Dr. Henry Lee: “something is wrong” (Jasanoff, 1998). The defense argued that the Bundy blood swatches ought not to be wet when being put in the paper bindles. According to the laboratory however, the Bundy swatches were allowed to air dry for fourteen hours in an open test tube before being put in the paper bindles. Dr. Henry Lee testified that the Bundy swatches ought to have dried completely within three hours. A study that was presented by the prosecution however showed that swatches do dry within fifty five minutes (Brown, 1997). According to the defense, one of the detectives recovered blood from the reference tube belonging to Simpson and made swatches out of it, and then stored them in plastic bags awaiting for an opportunity to arise to replace them with the Bundy swatches (possibly substituted even the paper bindles). The wet transfers tell tale took place due to the failure of the detective to allow the swatches to adequately dry after removing them from plastic bags. Through the experts of the prosecution cross examination, the defense established that the detectives of the LAPD laboratory are trained in blood sample collection; and therefore the detectives are I possession of plastic bags and swatches for that reason and usually submit blood swatches to the LAPD laboratory. In addition, the lead detective in the case of O.J. Simpson had full access to the LAPD laboratory (Lynch, 1998). Philip Vannatter, the O.J. Simpson lead detective had access to the blood samples of Simpson as well. The blood of Simpson was drawn by Peratis Thano, nurse who was employed a day after the crime by the LAPD laboratory. Thano Peratis gave detective Philip Vannatter unsealed envelope containing the tube with the blood of Simpson. The defense also established that the policy of LAPD requires such sort of evidence to be booked immediately, and that detective Philip Vannatter could have made the booking minutes at any of the two locations. He however did not do so, but kept the blood of Simpson with him for several hours and drove across the city with the blood to the residence of Simpson, in his account and gave it to Dennis Fung, a LAPD criminalist (Carbado, 1997). Whether the account of detective Philip Vannatter is accepted or not, the defense argued that Vannatter had in his sole possession the blood of Simpson long enough to remove the blood and make swatches if he had chosen to. Nevertheless, the blood missed in the reference tube of Simpson. Nurse Peratis Thano testified during the preliminary hearing that he drew 8 ml (milliliters) of Simpson blood. Due to intense questioning, Peratis disclosed confidently that the amount of blood was between 7.8 and 8.1 milliliters, n21. However, the records of LAPD Crime Laboratory showed only 6.5 milliliters of blood in the tube as received by the laboratory. The prosecution however responded that nurse Thano Peratis must have been, about the blood quantity, mistaken (Jasanoff, 1998). Another uncertainty was that the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson was practically planted on the sock. The blood that matched that of Nicole Brown Simpson that was detected on the sock was thick stain and slightly larger than quarter. The stain had a crunchy appearance and made the materials underlying the sock puckered and much stiffer. This stain would have been noticed had it been on the sock at the time of collection. This was the argument of the defense team. The stain on the sock was never noticed on three separate occasions when the sock was examined. Dennis Fung, the LAPD criminalist collected the sock from the bedroom of O.J. Simpson in 1994 June 13. He noted no blood on the sock at the time when he was searching for blood in the residence of Simpson (Carbado, 1997). Later on June 22, the LAPD laboratory supervisor, Michelle Kestler examined the sock together with two defense experts, Barbara Wolf and Michael Baden. There was no blood noted. Again the sock was examined on June 22 as part of the ordered inventory by Judge Ito. The express reason of this was to determine the available samples of the blood to be split with the defense. There was no blood detected on the sock. The notes of the laboratory stated “blood search, non obvious”. Then come 4th August 1994, there was a discovery of the blood stain in the sock. The defense argued that such sequence of events made the situation obvious that the blood on the sock was actually planted sometime after 29th June the same year. The laboratory notes say "blood search, none obvious." Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994 (Lynch, 1998). The experts of the defense, Professor Herbert MacDonnell and Dr. Henry Lee after a close examination of the sock made a conclusion that the stain of the blood was pressed onto the sock not while someone’s leg was in it, but while the sock was lying flat. The blood stain soaked through one sock side and left behind a wet transfer on the inner wall of the opposite side of the sock. The defense argued that the wet transfer is not consistent with the theory of prosecution because such a transfer would have been blocked by the leg of Simpson had he been wearing the sock at the time when the blood in question deposited on it. Founded on the estimates of the rate of dying blood on the sock by Professor MacDonnell, the defense team argued that the blood stain would have dried by the time Simpson got home and took off the socks, making it impossible for a wet transfer at that particular point (Thompson, 1996). The defense team argued that the theory of blood planting was also supported by the evidence that indicated that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), a chemical preservative was found in the blood stain. The blood samples of the victim were kept in the tubes with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) at the LAPD laboratory. When this blood planting theory was raised earlier by the defense team, the sock was sent by the prosecution to the FBI laboratory and requested that the sock be tested for ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Presumably, the absence of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) would have been indicated as proof that the stain never came from the tubes of the laboratory (Thompson, 1996). However, the performed tests by Roger Martz, an FBI agent examiner showed that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) was present in the sample. The defense called Martz as a witness after the prosecution declined to do so and he admitted that the blood stain indicated traces of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) though he opined that it was a small quantity to be consistent the reference tube blood. Dr. Reiders Fredrick after being presented by the defense testified that upon review of Martz test results, he detected that the stain was actually consistent with the blood stain that originated from the reference tube and are very high to be consisted with human blood. The defense argued further argued that Dr. Fredrick Reiders was more credible witness and a better qualified compared to Martz, who lacks an advanced degree, and that if the conclusion of Dr. Reider is true, proves that the blood was actually planted on the sock (Lynch, 1998). As another uncertainty in the DNA evidence, the blood of O.J. Simpson was planted on the back gate. Most of the samples of the blood were collected on 13th June 1994 a day after the murders. However, the 3 stains of blood discovered on the rear gate were collected after 3rd July the same year. As stated in the prosecution account, these 3 blood stains were missed at the initial collection and later noticed. The defense argued that these stains were not there and that is why they were not collected a day after the murders. The evidence presented by the defense was a photograph that was taken a day later showing no blood at all at the rear gate in which the stains were later found. When Barry Scheck introduced this photo in a Dennis Fung cross examination Mr. Fung could not answer him when he asked where the stains were. The defense team then argued that the theory of planting was actually consistent with the condition and quantity of the DNA in the blood samples discovered at the rear gate. The planting of blood at the rear gate was also supported by the tests carried out by FBI showing evidence of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in the blood samples collected from the rear gate (Thompson, 1996). Another uncertainty of the DNA evidence could be seen in the blood of the victim that was in the Bronco. The defense team presented numerous explanations for the possibility of the available DNA consistent with that of Nicole in the Bronco. The defense argued that the blood of the victim was planted by detective Fuhrman Mark so as to frame Simpson. Fuhrman perhaps swiped inside the Bronco the Rockingham glove to plant the blood of the victim there. The defense justified that Fuhrman opened the door of Bronco though the detectives testified that the door was locked when the saw it at first. Fuhrman testified that he saw blood stains on the Bronco’s door, however, the Bronco photographs revealed that these stains were there but could only be seen when the door is open; proving that Fuhrman had opened the door. Fuhrman might have also transferred the DNA of the victim unintentionally (Thompson, 1996). The crime scene photo showed Fuhrman standing in a pool of the blood of the victim pointing at the Rockingham glove. This then followed that Fuhrman proceeded to Rockingham with other detectives, and that he might have swiped his shirt cuff or sleeve onto the Bronco as he explored evidence. The blood of the victim could have also been planted in the Bronco while in the facility. The defense also argued that there might have been some tampering with the swatches of Bronco in the LAPD laboratory. If the blood of the victim was planted on the sock, then the same blood and that of Goldman Ronald could have been planted in the Bronco too (Carbado, 1997). Bibliography Adam, C. 2010. Essential Mathematics and Statistics for Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Aitken, C.G.G. and Taroni, F. 2004. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence (2nd Edition), Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Anderson, T., D. A. Schum and W. Twining 2005. Analysis of Evidence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balding, D. J. 2005. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles, London: Wiley. Brown, William J. 1997. Media coverage and public opinion of the OJ Simpson trial: Implications for the criminal justice system, Communication Law and Policy 2(2); 261-287. Buckleton, J., C. M. Triggs and S. J. Walsh, Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation, 2005, CRC Press. Carbado, Devon W. 1997. The Construction of OJ Simpson as a Racial Victim, Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review 32: 49. Jasanoff, S. 1998. The eye of everyman: witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial, Social Studies of Science, 28(5–6), 713–40. Lucy, D. 2006. Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Lynch, Mike 1998. The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson 'Dream Team' and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine, Social Studies of Science 28(5-6): 829-868 McCartney, C. 2006. Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk, New York: Willan Publishing. Thompson, William 1996. DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial, University of Colorado Law Review C.67 827 Read More