home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
082889
/
08288900.062
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
3KB
|
62 lines
<text id=89TT2259>
<title>
Aug. 28, 1989: DNA On Trial
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
Aug. 28, 1989 World War II:50th Anniversary
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
LAW, Page 63
DNA on Trial
</hdr><body>
<p>Mixed results for genetic tests
</p>
<p> The strange tale made banner headlines and gripping TV in
1985. Filled with remorse, Cathleen Crowell Webb publicly
declared that Gary Dotson was not the rapist her testimony sent
to prison in 1979. In fact, she said, there was no rape; she
made up the whole story out of fear that she might be pregnant
by her boyfriend. The best Dotson could obtain from that
admission was a commutation of the remainder of his
25-to-50-year sentence. Last week, however, his name was finally
cleared as Illinois prosecutors dropped all charges against him
after a state judge ordered a new trial. The reason: results of
DNA identification tests indicated that Dotson could not have
been the man who had sex with Webb.
</p>
<p> But in another case decided last week, a New York State
judge raised some doubts about the courtroom use of DNA
technology. Forensic DNA tests seek to compare the genetic
patterns of a suspect or victim with those of the human remains,
such as blood or semen, left at the scene of a crime. Proponents
of DNA identification have long insisted that the tests are so
precise that they can establish matches or exclusions to a near
certainty.
</p>
<p> In a precedent-setting ruling, New York Judge Gerald
Sheindlin questioned the reliability of certain procedures
employed by Lifecodes Corp., one of the nation's leading
DNA-testing firms. Sheindlin agreed that DNA techniques "are
generally accepted in the scientific community and can produce
reliable results." But he ruled that in the murder case of Bronx
janitor Joseph Castro, Lifecodes "failed in several major
respects to use the generally accepted scientific techniques and
experiments for obtaining reliable results."
</p>
<p> Specifically, the decision means that the tainted tests may
not be introduced to show that a bloodstain found on Castro's
watch came from the victim, though other acceptable DNA tests
by Lifecodes may be used to show that the blood does not belong
to Castro. Beyond this immediate case, the ruling is expected
to embolden many of the hundreds of defendants fingered by DNA
tests around the country to challenge the procedures used to
identify them.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>