|
DNA testing has been admitted into
the federal and state courts, and even into several
justice systems around the world. The tests are,
for the most part, highly accurate and usually very
conclusive.
In federal courts, DNA tests are only
admissible if they pass the Federal Rules of Evidence
standards and guidelines (meaning that the tests
can only be presented if the evidence is relevant
to the case and will help the jury or judge reach
a decision). The residing judge of each trial must
decide if the DNA tests is generally accepted accurate
by a majority of scientists (called the Frye rule)
and has the right to withhold the results if he/she
feels the test will only hinder the jury (if they
will be confused or misinterpret the test).
States have different laws concerning
DNA tests. Some accept all forms of the tests (there
are other methods besides the RFLP and PCR, but
they aren’t as precise or accurate) while others,
like California, will accept only the RFLP test
because of its greater accuracy. Some states allow
DNA test evidence to be admitted freely; others
take a more cautious approach and examine the benefits
of a test during each trial.
In 1994, President Clinton signed
the DNA Identification Act which has many benefits.
Under the new law, the Federal government has issued
grants to various states to develop new forensic
research laboratories (crime labs where DNA tests
are given and studied). The act also initiated a
national DNA index in which all states have access.
The index is run by the FBI who established the
Forensic Science Research and Training Center several
years ago. A DNA standards advisory board was created
to establish certain guidelines forensics laboratories
must follow, as well.
|
