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.
Cite this document
(“Uncertainties over the DNA evidence as highlighted by the defence in Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/sociology/15090-discuss-the-uncertainties-over-the-dna-evidence-as
(Uncertainties over the DNA Evidence As Highlighted by the Defence in Essay)
“Uncertainties over the DNA Evidence As Highlighted by the Defence in Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/sociology/15090-discuss-the-uncertainties-over-the-dna-evidence-as.
Cited: 0 times
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…
As can be inferred, its inheritance is ruled by Mendelian codominance, wherein IA and IB are codominant alleles, while i is the recessive allele (Campbell and Reece, 2002). Thus, if a parent with a blood type A or B has an I-i, then it is possible that his or her child can have blood type O, especially when the other parent has an I-i or ii genotype.
This most publicized case brought trial by publicity in a whole different level, and brought so much attention on complex issues such as race, gender and status. The trial was held for nine months under Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lance Ito. On October 3, 1995, a twelve-man jury pronounced O.J.
On April 25th, 1953, the now famous scientific pair of Watson and Crick attempted to finally answer this question (Fredholm). They claimed that an elegant molecule called deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, was the “God Molecule”, the blueprint for every protein in our body (and the subsequent molecules those proteins go on to make), the stuff of life (What Is DNA?
The dog was in a restless state and brought his founder to 875 South Bundy, home of former American football player Orenthal James Simpson and spouse Nicole Brown Simpson, now taken by Nicole and their two offspring (Gilbert, 2008). On the path to the house, the corpses of a Caucasian pair were found.
(Committee on DNA Forensic Science, 1996). DNA identification is one of the most valuable instruments for the contemporary criminologists. This type of analysis provides a very high probability of tracing the criminal in case at least some genetic material that belongs to him is present on the crime scene.
In the Torah this is most overtly illustrated because its purpose is to set forth the rule of law as commanded by God. The New Testament of Christianity was a progressive move from completely commanding every aspect of the individual's life to allowing rights and freedoms with the hope that humanity was more civilized.
Since the DNA code does not change throughout a lifetime and is the same in every cell, the DNA in an infant's saliva will be the same as the DNA in the person's hair at death. Because of its uniqueness and consistency, the analyzing of DNA can be used to match evidence to a suspect.