Dupree is one of a growing number of convicted individuals proven innocent by the use of DNA evidence.
Because each person has a unique genetic code, comparisons can be done between DNA found at a crime scene or in a crime victim and the DNA of a suspect, to either identify or exclude the suspect as the culprit. DNA evidence was not allowed as evidence in court until 1988.
Throughout his ordeal, he maintained his innocence, even when he was twice offered parole if he would confess and admit to the crimes. A recent comparison of DNA evidence recovered from storage proved the State had convicted the wrong person.
The idea was simple: if DNA technology could prove people guilty of crimes, it could also prove that people who had been wrongfully convicted were innocent. Research shows that 99.9% of human DNA is identical, but that.1% can be used in forensic labs to differentiate one individual from another.
Who makes the final decision as to whether or not a person may be tried by the judicial system? Courts ask for mental health professionals to help determine if defendants are: responsible for the crimes they commit and capable of defending themselves in court.
What must be true before a person may be tried for a crime and potentially found guilty? The person must be capable of helping to defending himself or herself in court.
Which of the following is the MOST accurate statement regarding the relationship between eyewitness testimony and how it is used in the legal system? Confident witnesses are more likely to be believed, but are probably no more accurate.
The focus of the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986 was to: set up an advocacy system to investigate possible abuse and neglect of the mentally ill.
Generally, all the jurors must vote for conviction before a person can be convicted of a crime.
equivalent to "near-total certainty." In an emergency, if a person is clearly suicidal or homicidal because of hallucinations and delusions, that person can be involuntarily committed by: A. the person's parents.
What is the most accurate statement about eyewitness testimony? Witnesses who are "absolutely certain" in their identification are no more likely to be accurate than those who are only "fairly sure."
In which defense is mental instability considered an extenuating circumstance in a crime? Guilty with diminished capacity.
Civil commitment - The legal process of placing a person in a mental institution, even against his or her will. Criminal commitment - The legal process of confining a person found not guilty by reason of insanity in a mental institution.
Which statement made by a client raises the greatest concern that the client may be experiencing relationship violence? "I don't know what else I can do to keep him from getting angry at me."
When health care professionals detect signs of elder abuse in clients, the law requires them to take which action? 1. Report the abuse to the state authorities.
If a court decides that a defendant is mentally unstable, the defendant will: not be punished in the usual way. Defendants who are judged mentally unstable at the time when they are said to have committed the crime, are MOST likely to: be judged not guilty by reason of insanity.
Dupree is one of a growing number of convicted individuals proven innocent by the use of DNA evidence. Since 1989, 273 people have been released from prison after DNA evidence proved their innocence, according to the Innocence Project, a national organization whose primary goal is to help exonerate the wrongly convicted.
DNA evidence was not allowed as evidence in court until 1988. It would take another six years for the first state to pass a law allowing inmates to appeal their convictions if DNA testing could prove their innocence. Since that time, nearly all of the states have passed similar laws.
Once considered the best form of evidence, eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. 75 percent of the convictions that are reversed each year because of DNA evidence were based on eyewitness misidentification according to Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck.
Cornelius Dupree, Jr. was convicted of rape and robbery in 1979 and spent the next 30 years in a Dallas County prison. Throughout his ordeal, he maintained his innocence, even when he was twice offered parole if he would confess and admit to the crimes. A recent comparison of DNA evidence recovered from storage proved the State had convicted ...
The hope is that false convictions can be reduced by using the federal “CODIS” database of the DNA, which stores the genetic records of many state and convicted felons to compare to the DNA collected at crime scenes.
DNA is found in the type of genetic material that may be left behind at crime scenes, including bodily fluids, hair, and skin. Because each person has a unique genetic code, comparisons can be done between DNA found at a crime scene or in a crime victim and the DNA of a suspect, to either identify or exclude the suspect as the culprit.
Throughout that time, DNA testing and DNA exonerations have increased. In nearly half of the cases pursued by the Innocence Project, DNA exonerates the convicted, and in over 40 percent of the cases in which a convicted person is exonerated by DNA evidence, that same DNA evidence is used to eventually identify the actual guilty person.
DNA’s Revolutionary Role in Freeing the Innocent. In 1992, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld started the Innocence Project as a legal clinic at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law . The idea was simple: if DNA technology could prove people guilty of crimes, it could also prove that people who had been wrongfully convicted were innocent.
In 1984, British Geneticist Alec Jeffreys was the first person to use DNA profiles or “DNA fingerprint tests” that are now used around the world to resolve questions of paternity and solve crimes.
In the early 1990s, Bloodsworth learned about DNA testing and the potential it had to prove his innocence. The prosecution agreed to DNA testing for his case in 1992. The victim’s shorts and underwear, a stick found at the scene and an autopsy slide were compared against DNA from the victim and Bloodsworth.
This is the gold standard of DNA testing and the method used by all forensic DNA laboratories. This type of testing is highly sensitive and discriminatory. Mitochondrial DNA: Analysis of DNA from a person’s maternal lineage. Tests crime scene evidence for mitochondrial DNA that is inherited maternally.
Research shows that 99.9% of human DNA is identical, but that .1% can be used in forensic labs to differentiate one individual from another.
In March 1985, Webb recanted her testimony, admitting that she fabricated the rape to hide a consensual sexual encounter with her then-boyfriend.
The state’s attorney office, however, decided not to prosecute based on the DNA test results. Dotson’s conviction was finally overturned on August 14, 1989, after he had served 10 years in prison.
He is likely to be sent to a mental institution because: he was mentally unstable at the time of the trial and unable to defend himself. An important current distinction between psychologists and psychiatrists that is changing is that: psychiatrists may prescribe drugs and psychologists may not.
A forensic psychologist would be likely to do all of the following EXCEPT: write legislation to regulate the practice of psychology in the courts.
In addition, Sam's lawyer learns that the store's security guard was at the end of a long overtime shift and had been drinking alcohol. Sam's lawyer can use these facts in an argument for Sam's acquittal. Before trial, Sam's lawyer can argue to the D.A. that the D.A.'s case is too weak to prosecute.
Just because the defendant says he did it doesn't make it so. The defendant may be lying to take the rap for someone he wants to protect, or may be guilty, but only of a different and lesser crime than the one being prosecuted by the district attorney.
A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime. In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime.
Example: Sam is charged with shoplifting. Sam admits to his lawyer that he took a watch, as charged.
But Sam's lawyer cannot ethically state in his argument that Sam "didn't do it," only that the D.A. didn't prove that Sam did do it. While the line between ethical and unethical behavior may seem like—indeed, is—a fine one, it is a line that criminal defense lawyers walk every day on the job.
Before trial, Sam's lawyer can argue to the D.A. that the D.A.'s case is too weak to prosecute. At trial, Sam's lawyer can argue to a judge or jury to acquit Sam. No matter what Sam has done, Sam is not legally guilty unless the prosecutor can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But Sam's lawyer cannot ethically state in his argument ...
Defendants who have done the act that forms the basis of their criminal charge often wonder whether they should tell their lawyers. Even if they remain silent, they are concerned that their lawyers will believe that they are guilty, and either won't want to represent them, or will do a poor job. First, understand that what's at stake in your case ...