DNA Evidence Issue to be Reviewed
DNA evidence is a critical component of some criminal investigations, and it is an essential component of most criminal investigations that take place on many popular network television shows. The acquisition of DNA evidence is often key in many criminal cases because the composition of the DNA in an individual is a combination of the DNA of that individual’s parents, and, unless that person has an identical twin, his or her DNA is unique. Thus, DNA evidence has been used not only to prove that persons were guilty of crimes but also that many individuals who were wrongly convicted in the past were actually innocent all along. Despite the advances DNA technology has offered to the world of criminal investigation, it is often not a foolproof method for determining whether someone committed a crime. The Tennessee Supreme Court has a case on its upcoming docket in which it will hear an issue regarding the strength of DNA evidence.
In the upcoming case styled State v. Lewter, the Tennessee Supreme Court will decide if the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of burglary and theft where the only evidence linking the defendant to the offense was a shirt that was left behind which contained skin cells matching the defendant’s DNA. The defendant was obviously convicted of the offenses based on this evidence at the trial court level or he would not have appealed. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court ruled that DNA is not like a fingerprint or blood sample in that its presence alone cannot prove that the defendant was present at the time of the theft and overturned the conviction. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, and the case now comes before the state’s highest court.
The issue in this case is interesting. It is clear that the presence of a shirt containing DNA does not prove that the defendant was at the location of the theft at the time the theft occurred. However, blood samples and fingerprints are often inconclusive on this point as well. It could even be argued that a blood sample doesn’t prove the defendant was there at all. While it is certainly much easier to take a piece of someone’s clothing and plant it at the scene of the crime in order to frame that person, it is not impossible to somehow obtain some of that persons blood and leave it behind at the scene as well. While this is a far-fetched example, it does illustrate that DNA evidence and blood samples may not be as different as they would initially seem. It will be interesting to see how the Tennessee Supreme Court looks at DNA evidence in considering whether or not it alone can give the jury a sufficient basis for a guilty verdict.
Source: State v. Lewter, 35 TAM 07-01 and 34 TAM 22-22 (Tenn.Cr.App. 2009), appeal granted 8/17/09, oral argument 2/12/10.
Bookmark: 
