DNA Evidence Inclusion In Murder Case Study

Paul House’s murder conviction in 1985 set the stage for the importance of DNA evidence inclusion in murder cases. The fact that it took 22 years to overturn his conviction gives the reason for reform in our criminal justice system (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2009). The public should realize that Hollywood is all lights, camera, action, and does not represent factual information. Most of these shows have that disclaimer at the beginning or end of the segment.

Law enforcement agencies can deal with the fictional depiction of instant forensic processing in several ways. In 2007, President Bush issued a DNA nationwide initiative through the National Institute of Justice to fund law enforcement agencies across the U.S. to combat violent crimes

that could be solved with forensic evidence. Millions of dollars were allocated to support this initiative and examine thousands of pieces of evidence from cold cases (Markey, 2007). Federal government funding for processing forensic evidence is still available and should be utilized by law enforcement agencies if DNA evidence is made a priority. According to Markey (2007), departments should consider assigning a task force or team of investigators to process DNA evidence which may decrease the amount of backlogged kits. Cases should of course be classified from highest to lowest in priority by these teams.

Juries should not expect law enforcement officers to become scientists overnight. The amount of training required to do basic investigative techniques such as fingerprinting requires a significant amount of classroom and field training to become a novice. However, departments should update their training strategies to compete with the demand of evidence collection and processing. Mertens (2006) states, “having an experienced expert witness is essential in today’s age”. This statement leads to the responsibility of judges to advise jurors on definitions of law and the prosecutor's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges are the highest authority in courts whether elected or appointed by the President (Neubaeur & Fradella, 2009).