In an article for Vanity Fair, Lili Anolik traced the origins of the reality TV genre of entertainment to the 1995 murder trial of O.J. Simpson. Not only are some of the world’s most famous for being famous reality stars the daughters of Robert Kardashian, one of the criminal defense lawyers who represented Simpson, Anolik argued, but the televised trial, not to mention the low-speed car chase that preceded Simpson’s arrest, managed to hold viewers’ attention like almost nothing that had come before. While the Simpson trial may have whetted television audiences’ appetites for the lurid details of the lives of people with no other obvious claim to fame, it also had another enduring effect. Almost everyone in 1995, with the exception of forensic scientists and the lawyers who rely on their reports, first learned about forensic DNA evidence because of its role in the Simpson trial. Today, it is nothing out of the ordinary for courts to introduce DNA evidence in murder cases, if sufficient evidence could be recovered from the crime scene.
Can the Authorities Identify Your DNA Without Your Knowledge?
Since 1995, the methods of analyzing DNA have become increasingly sophisticated. It is now possible to amplify DNA, such that one can identify a person based on a very small DNA sample. In some cases, defendants have been convicted or arrested based on DNA evidence simply because the DNA of one of their relatives provided a lead. This usually happens because DNA from a crime scene provides a near match, but not a perfect match, with DNA samples on file for people previously convicted of crimes. Here are some famous examples.
- Lonnie Franklin, Jr., known as the “Grim Sleeper” committed nine murders over the course of several decades. The DNA collected from the crime scenes did not exactly match any DNA on file. It did however, nearly match that of Franklin’s son Christopher, whose DNA was on file for a felony weapons charge.
- Jeffrey Gafoor murdered Lynette White in 1998, and three innocent men were convicted of her killing. In 2003, DNA evidence from Gafoor’s teenaged nephew was similar enough to Gafoor’s to lead to Gafoor’s arrest. The nephew had not been born at the time of the murder.
What About the Fourth Amendment?
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Critics of familial DNA matching, such as that used to apprehend Franklin and Gafoor, argue that it violates the Fourth Amendment because it constitutes an invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court decision of California v. Greenwood, however, ruled that it is legal for courts to use evidence when there is no expectation of privacy. Therefore, if you discard a coffee cup in the trash can of a McDonald’s, the police can obtain your DNA from the coffee cup.
Contact Madrid Law About Felony Cases
If you are facing felony charges, you need a criminal defense lawyer who understands the ins and outs of forensic science. Contact Madrid Law in Houston to discuss your case.
