Most of us understand we have seen television shows such as CSI how DNA forensic firms have impacted a monumental effect by raising public and jury awareness about DNA’s role in the criminal investigation process. The use of DNA evidence has undergone a careful and a steady evolution to become a standard form of admissible foolproof evidence in today’s courtrooms.Early Days DNA evidence those days was originally used as a method of determining paternity, in which samples taken under clinical conditions and examined for possible genetic evidence that could link parent to child. It first made its way into the courts in 1986, when police in England asked molecular biologist Alec Jeffreys, who had begun investigating the use of DNA for forensics, to use his new DNA debut-technique to verify the confession of a 17 year-old boy involved with two rape-murders in the English Midlands. The tests proved the teenager was in fact not the perpetrator and the actual attacker was eventually caught, also using DNA testing and forensic evidence. The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrewsof rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim’s sexual organs and clothes. This led to the marking of the first ever event whereby a high court in America to rule in favor of admitting DNA evidence two years later in West Virginia. Subsequently the following years these groundbreaking cases. The admissibility of DNA evidence was not largely disputed that time and soon lawyers and defense attorneys start to challenging the admissibility of DNA tests in criminal judicial systems.The Significance of DNA Evidence in CourtThe unbinding confidentiality and trust that has been placed on DNA evidence over couple years is due not only to the relative newness of the technique in the judicial system, but also to the sheer power of DNA in discriminating individuals and hence to convict or exonerate wrongly accused people. In recent years, legislative affairs have been dominated by the scientific evidence, that now then demonstrating very clearly as concrete proof beyond reasonably daunt to send the convict to jail. For that excellence asserted by scientific evidence, this prompted many nations rushing toward the policy of implementing DNA databases in order to be par front with the growing DNA technology globally. The new forensic trendies and the database movement allow deep exams for post-conviction with the help DNA testing.
Evidence generally is a piece of information that supports a conclusion. And Scientific evidence basically are empirical information that serves either to support or counter a legal theory in court of law. The evidence is expected to be truthful and its veracity interpretation should be reliable.