STORY: "Weak DNA evidence could undermine justice," experts say: Defence attorneys fear wrongful convictions, confusion from juries when statistical probabilities of 'match' aren't rare," by reporter Steve Mills, published in the Chicago Tribune on July 5, 2012.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Cleveland Barrett was accused of the sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl and prosecutors presented DNA evidence at his trial earlier this year. But the probabilities that Barrett was not linked to the DNA were not of the 1-in-several-billion sort; instead, a crime lab analyst said the DNA would match 1 in 4 African-American males. Barrett was acquitted."
GIST: "When Cook County prosecutors brought Cleveland Barrett to trial earlier this year for the predatory criminal sexual assault of a 9-year-old girl, they presented the jury hearing the case testimony from the alleged victim plus the kind of evidence that long has won convictions with its scientific certainty: DNA. Indeed, Assistant State's Attorneys Krista Peterson and Jane Sack told jurors in closing arguments that the DNA obtained from the victim after the alleged incident in July 2010 was a match to Barrett's genetic profile and evidence that corroborated the victim's trial testimony. "Who is the major profile in the DNA that's found?" Sack asked the jury, according to a transcript from the trial. "The defendant." But this DNA was different. It was not from semen, as is often the case in rapes; instead it came from male cells found on the girl's lips. What's more, the uniqueness of the genetic link between the DNA and Barrett was not of the 1-in-several-billion sort that crime lab analysts often testify to in trials with DNA evidence. Instead, when Illinois State Police crime lab analyst Lisa Fallara explained the statistical probabilities, she testified the genetic profile from the cells matched 1 in 4 African-American males, 1 in 8 Hispanic males and 1 in 9 Caucasian males. Fact is, the DNA profile from the cells on the victim's lips could have matched hundreds of thousands of men in the Chicago region.........O'Reilly said trial court judges need to be vigilant in weighing whether a jury should hear such DNA evidence or whether it should be kept out. "It doesn't only run the risk of convicting an innocent person or letting bad science into the courtroom, but you're going to undermine the very power that's behind DNA in the public consciousness," O'Reilly said. "The meaning of 'match' will become so trivialized that you'll mix powerful science with junk science, powerful evidence with junk evidence. It's going to lead to a lot of confusion. Because this is DNA.""
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-dna-questions-20120705,0,4187485.storyPUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring DNA related forensic issues. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
