05-16-2023, 09:20 PM
I suspect that courts will now add an additional pre-trial hearing or discussion to determine that there is evidence that the DNA in question is directly connected to the crime, whether it be murder, rape, burglary, or whatever. This goes to admissibility of evidence, just as it would for other types of evidence such as blood type, paint scraped from a car fender, or a recording of voices.
There could be a secondary use for DNA evidence to place a defendant at the scene of the crime, but without showing that the defendant committed the crime, and without showing when the defendant happened to be in the room.
I notice that the article in question only claims hits on some of the people who agreed to provide DNA samples. It wasn't clear that some were not identified, or that there was some mix of hits and misses. This potentially allows for another defense in a trial -- that the technology can miss the real murderer because it misses some of the people who walked through the room etc.
There could be a secondary use for DNA evidence to place a defendant at the scene of the crime, but without showing that the defendant committed the crime, and without showing when the defendant happened to be in the room.
I notice that the article in question only claims hits on some of the people who agreed to provide DNA samples. It wasn't clear that some were not identified, or that there was some mix of hits and misses. This potentially allows for another defense in a trial -- that the technology can miss the real murderer because it misses some of the people who walked through the room etc.