It depends on how the DNA testing is explained to the jury. Actually it has proved to be very effective in the last ten years. The first time I ran into it was in a paternity case several years ago. Up until that time HLA (Human Leukogen Antigen) testing had replaced the traditional blood test as being more conclusive in establishing paternity. The DNA testing proved to be even better.
However, the test results are only as good as the attorney introducing it to evidence to establish his case. The test is a very complicated process. If he can not explain it to the jury in a manner in which they are able to understand or rehabilitate a witness after damaging cross examination, it becomes worthless.
Barry Scheck ( of OJ trial team fame) is a master at its use in trial. I assume that is why he was included on the team. His examination of witnesses was brilliant. The defense team's performance far outclassed the prosecution.
I do agree with you that the last thing we need is another tax hike.
to post a reply:
login - or -
register