Scientists Prove DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated

Good reporting, but flawed potential impact (narrow-minded) - DNA is more often held up by prosecutors as evidence of guilt - if DNA evidence really can be fabricated by college students as originally reported in the NY Times, then how credible is that 'proof'?

Imagine a high-profile case where extreme pressure is applied to law enforcement to obtain an indictment or produce suspects - a counter-case could be made that Law Enforcement fabricated the DNA evidence (however unlikely that is) to satisfy those applying the pressure for a conviction....

My thoughts on this are simple.

In the American Justice System, we have a concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and that if any member of the Jury has any doubt - any doubt at all - then they must find the defendant not guilty.

In the case of DNA evidence, all someone has to do is present the Jury with the fact that it CAN be fabricated. A Lawyer wouldn't have to point the finger at the police. One could as well suggest that it is possible that "the real killer" is smart enough to do this. Even if there are very few people who can do it. If there are people who can, and it can be done, then DNA evidence alone won't make a conviction. Even if the chances of someone actually doing this is low, because it is possible, that in and of itself causes doubt to be cast on the evidence.

I do think that a smart lawyer who learns of this can go and say, "If the Jury was aware that DNA evidence can be fabricated they might have doubts which would have freed my client" which can be used as simple leverage to force retrials.

oh great.

now criminals know they can cover thier tracks with fake dna.

id think it be best if the israelis kept this secret.

I told you I didn't do it.

@Elliander

Its not the presence of any doubt at all, its the presence of reasonable doubt. We would probably have the definition be similar, but I'm sure the legal definition is something very different between the two.

@Elliander and fahrenamira:

fahrenamira is correct, an American jury has to be convinced of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. Different states have different instructions that are read to the jury, but in general a reasonable doubt exists when a person cannot say "with moral certainty" that a person is guilty. It must be more than an imaginary or "unreasonable" doubt, and it is often definted as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hestitate before acting in a matter of importance.

What's "reasonable"? Law schools spend weeks covering this in the first semester. (I know, because I'm a 3rd year law student).

Anyway, I think this article is fascinating because I can definitely see defense lawyers raising this as another weapon in the arsenal. Or, as suggested, to ask for another trial. But it probably won't do much:

1) because someone has to testify about the "chain-of-custody" of DNA evidence that goes to trial. So, it becomes a matter of whether or not the jury believes the people that handled it are lying.

2) I could be wrong, but I don't think this is something that most criminals would be able to do. To be convincing, you'd have to show that the defendant had the knowledge and opportunity to fabricate this evidence.

Still, this breaks down the idea that DNA evidence is 100% foolproof, all the time. Could it work with faking paternity tests, I wonder?

Most Judges have a hard enough time turning on their computers, much less understanding the possiblity that DNA can be forged to some extent. I'd put a hold on ordering anything besides more swabs for DNA collection... It's a good thing to keep in mind if a bunch of Israeli scientists become involved in a murder mystery though.

Beyond that, you would first have to believe someone out there had the interest and the ability to take a suspects DNA and inject it into a blood cell that didn't contain any DNA. In order to do that you would first have to extract all non-DNA producing blood cells and inject each of them with the fake DNA. I'm thinking that may take a while not to mention equipment and knowhow. Im not expecting any defense attorney to use this argument in front of any court any time soon, unless that is they would like to be laughed out of that court.

Sleep safe my friends DNA will continue to be solid evidence at least for a while.

This could be hard for everyone involved but taking paternity test through DNA test is also being responsible. Karen Sala looks like the newest parasite to try and get free money – unless she is telling the truth. For the moment, let's not give the leech the benefit of the doubt. Karen Sala, this tapeworm, a human remora, has slapped Keanu Reeves with a paternity suit, claiming that he is the father of at least one of her four children and his lawyers aren't amused. Reeves and his attorney will be meeting her in court, where a DNA test will either vindicate her claims or see this malignant sleaze go down in flames, and get destroyed like offal – her deal might be about to go down. If she is defeated like the virulent sleaze that she seems, Karen Sala will have to do the thing most people do for instant cash – we go out and get a job.
http://personalmoneystore.com/Payday-Loans/instant-Payday-Loans/instant-Cash/