Followup from last post about DNA double-speak from myopic (or worse) District Attorneys.
MONDAY FEB 24, 2014
CRIME LABs: New DNA TECH vs “outdated” DNA methods
The history of DNA technology, its standards and population statistics use in criminal courts goes back to the time (and earlier) of this original trial. This should be interesting to say the least. According to this appellate litigation strategy, early DNA claims of specificity (using RFLP, I assume) may vary when compared to PCR and STR profiling in use today. Any variance could be ruled not material by the judge (a true “non-science” kinda guy) and fail to overturn the conviction (i.e. this variance “would not have changed the outcome of the trial). The article, however, does not describe the DNA method being scrutinized but “retesting the test” theory seems thin, absent the scenario where the crime lab itself flubbed up.
THE CASE WITH LEGAL ARGUMENT FROM BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.
View original post 186 more words