DNA Profiles - The Problems of Technology Transfer
![handle is hein.journals/nylshr8 and id is 189 raw text is: DNA PROFILES - THE PROBLEMS
OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER*
Since its introduction in September of 1984, DNA
Fingerprinting' has been heralded as the single greatest advance in the
'search for truth', and the goal of convicting the guilty and acquitting the
innocent, since the advent of cross-examination2 and denigrated as
nothing less than scientific fraud. 3 The inherent controversy lies in the
struggle between a technique that is scientifically acceptable in a clinical
and diagnostic arena, yet is largely disputed when transferred to a forensic
* This Note would not have been possible without the Memorandum in Opposition
to the Introduction of DNA Evidence written for the defendant in People v. Castro by
Professor Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, Esq. Their tireless efforts mounted a
successful investigation into the alleged flawlessness of DNA profiles by exposing grave
problems in the scientific community's method of peer review and more importantly with
DNA profiling itself. Professor Scheck teaches at Cardozo School of Law and is a
member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' DNA Task Force.
Peter Neufeld, Esq., is an Adjunct Professor at Fordham School of Law and was co-
counsel for the defendant in People v. Castro.
1. As termed by University of Leicester, England, geneticist Alec Jeffreys whose
rights to the technique were bought by ICI, the parent company of Cellmark Diagnostics
whose laboratory can test 250 blood samples a week by such a method. Connor, Genetic
Fingerprinting Goes on Sale, NEW SCIENTIST, July 23, 1987, at 30. This Note
elect[s] not to use the descriptive phrase DNA
fingerprinting because (1) it tends to trivialize
the intricacies of the processes by which
information for DNA comparisons is obtained
(when compared to the process of fingerprinting)
and (2) the word fingerprinting tends to suggest
erroneously that DNA testing of the type
involved in this case will identify conclusively,
like real fingerprinting, the one person in the
world who could have left the identifying
evidence at the crime scene.
Commonwealth v. Cumin, 409 Mass. 218, _, 565 N.E.2d 440, 441 n.2 (1991).
2. Address by Harlan Levy, N.Y. County Lawyers Association (Oct. 18, 1989)
(quoting People v. Wesley, 140 Misc. 2d 306, 308, 533 N.Y.S.2d 643, 644 (N.Y.
Crim. Ct. 1988)).
3. Memorandum in Opposition to the Introduction of DNA Evidence at 38, People
v. Castro, 144 Misc. 2d 956, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989) (No. 1508/87)
[hereinafter Memorandum] (emphasis in original).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nylshr8&div=10&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
DNA Profiles - The Problems of Technology Transfer
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most