Courtroom Admissibility

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.