More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the oj simpson case
Analysis of the oj simpson case
Essay on using dna evidence in crime scene investigations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of the oj simpson case
Problems with DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid or as it has become known DNA is defined in our text as “The basic building code for all of the human body’s chromosomes” it also states that DNA is found in every cell in a person’s body and is unique as fingerprints to each individual. The first time DNA was used according to “History of DNA Testing in Criminal Cases” written by J. Hirby. “DNA was first used in a criminal case in England in 1986. DNA samples collected from the men living and working within the neighborhood of two rape and murder scenes resulted in two positive outcomes. The one man original convicted was proved to be innocent and the guilty criminal was caught. One year later, DNA was first used in a United States criminal case in Florida. The forensic evidence collected from a rape victim was positively matched to a suspect’s DNA and when presented in court, the suspect was found guilty of the crime.” DNA, over the last twenty years has become one of the most well-known types of forensic evidence tools.
…show more content…
According to the forensic outreach website DNA in the OJ Simpson case was nullified, the defense alleged that the samples were tainted they wrote this about the case “The 1995 trial of OJ Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend resulted in a ‘not guilty’ finding for OJ. Evidence from the scene including the “bloody gloves” and copious amounts of blood left on the bodies was collected. Samples matched OJ’s genetic identity without a doubt. The DNA testing was done not only by the police crime lab, but by two independent labs hired by the defendants. It looked to be a simple road to conviction. And then began the ‘DNA
...on’s blood was found at the scene of the crime. There may be ways to plant such evidence, but it would be rather difficult to draw blood from a man without him realizing it and planting it at the scene of a crime. I also would have expressed that O.J. had a motive to kill his ex-wife, as well as a history of violent outbursts towards her. With all of the evidence that the prosecution had at their disposal, they should have been able to pin the murder on O.J. beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything pointed to O.J. and showed that he was the murderer. The only thing the prosecution was not able to do was fit the bloody glove on O.J’s hand. The only issue is, the glove was made of leather and had been soaking in blood prior to being found. When leather is soaking in a liquid, it tends to shrink. If only the prosecution had realized this, the case would have been theirs.
that they couldn't bring it in for D.N.A testing. How could they be sloppy in their work the are trained to do. If this is true are they covering up what O.J. actually did, because he's a famous football star, and actor? O. J. Simpson had
Because Simpson was the prime suspect, the judge legally ordered searches on O.J’s house as well as the crime scene. The goal was to find proof that he did commit the crime, by finding DNA or items. Shortly after the searches and tests began, evidence was found. DNA from the crime scene matched the DNA of O.J. Although proof was found, Simpson continued to plead not guilty. Surprisingly enough, O.J st...
The prosecution says DNA tests place Simpson's genetic markers on the drops of blood leading away from the bodies. There were also blood samples, similar to Simpson's and the victims, found on O.J.'s Bronco truck. Simpson's blood was also found on his driveway and his foyer. The prosecution says Simpson cut his hand during the murder. The defence says Simpson cut his hand when he reached for his phone in his Bronco and later cut his hand on a glass. The main focus of the defence is the contamination of physical evidence.
Abstract; This paper explors the effects DNA fingerprinting has had on the trial courts and legal institutions. Judge Joseph Harris states that it is the "single greatest advance in the search for truth since the advent of the cross examination (Gest, 1988)." And I tend to agree with Judge Joseph's assertion, but with the invention and implementation of DNA profiling and technology has come numerous problems. This paper will explore: how DNA evidence was introduced into the trial courts, the effects of DNA evidence on the jury system and the future of DNA evidence in the trial courts.
OJ “The Juice” Simpson is clearly responsible for the tragic deaths of his wife Nicole Brown, and Ron Goldman.There are more than enough proof that suspect that the verdict of this should be reconsidered.The shoes print which were indeed Simpson’s,blood marks that were left on OJ’s car the blood spots left on his gloves,his suicide note.All of these were compelling facts that OJ was the murdered.However due to the miscarriage of justice Simpson was unfortunately found not guilty.Wealth played a major role for the conclusion of the verdict, OJ had a very good legal team that raised questions over much of the evidence and testimony against him. If the average person were charged of crimes that OJ has committed, he/she couldn't afford the lawyers and staff to mount the defense OJ could.
It was in 1984 when Alec Jeffreys, a British geneticist, discovered that specific sequences of DNA did not add to the function of a gene but were still constant throughout it. (Britannica). Jeffreys called these minisatellites and determined that each individual organism had a unique arrangement of minisatellites (Britannica). In the early uses of DNA fingerprinting, it was only used for identifying genetic diseases and disorders but people quickly realized that it could be used in many different areas of science (hubpages). Years after the discovery of DNA fingerprinting, it had been used to solve the first immigration case, the first paternity case, and even helped identify the first identical twins (le.ac.uk). The first methods of DNA fingerprinting were accurate, but you would have had needed to acquire a large amount of DNA. Over time, the advancement of science has led to major advances that formed the basis of DNA profiling techniques. These newer methods are still used today and allow scientist to use skin, blood, semen, and hair to gather DNA (le.ac.uk). In 1988 DNA fingerprinting was used for the first time in a criminal investigation. Timothy Spe...
DNA in forensic science has been around for a long time. DNA has had help in solving almost every crime committed. There have been a lot of crimes where people are raped or murdered and the person who did it runs free. Scientists can collect the littlest item they see at the scene, such as a cigarette butt or coffee cup and check it for DNA. People have spent years in jail for a crime they didn’t commit till DNA testing came into effect. People are getting out of jail after 20 years for a crime they didn’t commit, cause of the DNA testing. DNA has helped medical researchers develop vaccines for disease causing microbe. DNA has become a standard tool of forensics in many murders and rapes.
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic exists in all living organisms, is self-replicating and gives a person their unique characteristics. No two people have the same matching DNA. There are many different forms of DNA that are tested for situations such as criminal. Bodily fluids, hair follicles and bone tissues are some of the most common types of DNA that is tested in crime labs today. Although the discovery of DNA dates back to 1866 when Gregor Mendel proved the inheritance of factors in pea plants, DNA testing is relatively new and have been the prime factor when solving crimes in general. In 1966, scientists discovered a genetic code that made it possible to predict characteristics by studying DNA. This lead to genetic engineering and genetic counseling. In 1980, Organ was the first to have a conviction based off DNA fingerprinting and DNA testing in forensics cases became famous in 1995 during the O.J. Simpson trial (SMC History , 2011).
Forensic genetics has other applications . The " fingerprint " DNA represents a valuable tool for forensic science . As is the case with an ordinary fingerprint genetic fingerprint is unique to each individual (except identical twins ) . The determination involves the observation of specific DNA sequences which can be obtained from extremely small tissue samples , hair, blood or eventually left at the scene . As Fifty microliters of blood, semen or five microliters of ten roots of hairs are enough , and nozzles secretions and cells from the fetus . In addition to its use in the capture of criminals , especially rapists , the genetic fingerprints can be used to establish family relationships . People involved in the conservation of species use them to be sure that captive breeding is among individuals who do not belong to the same family .
According to the Innocence Project (2006), “On September 17, 2001, Chad wrote the Innocence Project in New York, which, in 2003, enlisted pro bono counsel from Holland & Knight to file a motion for DNA testing on Tina’s fingernail scrapings.” The state had tested the DNA that was under Tina’s nail from the first case but at that time it was inadequate and could not be tested. It was not until now that we have the technology capable enough to test it. In June 2004, the test came back negative to matching both Jeremey and Chain Heins but did come from an unknown male. The state argued that it was not enough to overturn the conviction so Chad’s attorney asked the state to do some further testing and to compare the DNA from under the fingernails to the hairs that was found on Tina’s body. It was in 2005 that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that there was a match between the DNA under Tina’s nail and the pubic hair. According to LaForgia (2006), “this particular type of DNA, the report stated, was found in only about 8 percent of Caucasian American men.” During this process there was a new piece of evidence that Chad’s attorney had learned about during the appeals process, a fingerprint. There were some accusations that the prosecutors never disclosed this information about this third fingerprint and if they did it was too late. The jurors did not even know about this fingerprint and if they did this could have changed the whole case. This fingerprint was found on several objects that included the smoke detector, a piece of glass, and the bathroom sink. It was soon discovered that this fingerprint matched with the DNA found on the bedsheets that Tina was on. This was finally enough evidence to help Chad Heins become exonerated in
Things only got worse when it was alleged that he transported and planted one the gloves on the Simpson estate, and the defendants legal team stating the officer wanted to frame Simpson because he was black and he disliked blacks an considering the jury was made up of mostly minorities this helped O.JSimpson even more.(2015) The key to winning a case apart from collecting evidence there must be a clear way to paint a picture that the people of the jury can understand whether or not you done the crime one must be convincing. Even though Simpson’s blood was on majority of the evidence collected it was argued that he was framed along with the contamination of evidence even if he had done it his team used all the weaknesses exposed by police involved in the case to paint a picture of innocence to the jury which proves perception of wrongdoing as persuasive to a jury as actual wrongdoing. I am sure with O.J Simpson being acquitted of the charges left a bad taste in the mouth of both police and some people in the legal field. There were too many mistakes made by the people that were tasked with the duty of collecting evidence and also in the department of how the evidence was handled but there are many lessons to be learned in every mistake the obvious one would be to not make the same ones
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an acclaimed extraordinary discovery that has contributed great benefits in several fields throughout the world. DNA evidence is accounted for in the majority of cases presented in the criminal justice system. It is known as our very own unique genetic fingerprint; “a chromosome molecule which carries genetic coding unique to each person with the only exception of identical twins (that is why it is also called 'DNA fingerprinting ')” (Duhaime, n.d.). DNA is found in the nuclei of cells of nearly all living things.
On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues so that the issues do not repeat themselves in the future from the lack of knowledge and from learning from the mistakes of previous cases such as this one.
When the forensic anthropologists gave the DNA Analyser their findings, there was a problem. The police gave the DNA Analyser all of the missing people in the St. Charles area within the past year and they matched the persons up with results from the forensic anthropologists. It appeared that there were two missing persons who had fit the description of an African-American woman that's in between the ages of 25 and 30 with a height range of 5 feet 0.9 inches to 5 feet and 4.7 inches. Since two people who have been reported missing in the past year fit the description for “Skeleton A” found in the park, a DNA test was going to be the best way to narrow them down to the people who were found at the park. Running the