When the principal, and perhaps sole, proof of guilt is a forensic test, such as DNA or fingerprint matching, there is a risk that credibility inflation or a “CSI” effect might unduly influence the jury.1 This is a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing convictions to rest primarily on a single type of forensic identification evidence without meaningful corroboration.
New concepts like “bacterial profiles” (allowing identification from the bacteria left by a person’s hands) and “forensic molecular photofitting” (generating an image from a DNA sample)2 might one day join the growing catalog of forensic detecting and identification tools. And before more additions to this genre of evidence attain an air of infallibility, it is necessary to consider the limitations of current “gold standard” forensics as standalone evidence of guilt.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
