Category Archives: Law

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

By ANDREW POLLACK

AUG. 17, 2009

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

A version of this article appears in print on , on page D3 of the National edition with the headline: Scientists Show That It’s Possible to Create Fake DNA Evidence.

Advertisements

Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination

The right against self-incrimination is spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also extends to state and local jurisdictions. When someone exercises this right, we often say that they “plead the Fifth.”  Continue reading Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination

Discrimination Against “Discrete and Insular Minorities”

This episode of Crash Course in Government and Politics provides a general overview of the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “discrete and insular minorities.” Discussed is the historical instances of discrimination against Asian, European, and Latino immigrants, Native Americans, non-English speakers, people with disabilities, and LGBT people. Also discussed are federal and state responses to this discrimination and some brief historical context for the legal protection of vulnerable groups.

Employment Discrimination

This episode of Crash Course in Government and Politics provides a general overview of discrimination in the workplace. The video focuses on gender discrimination and sexual harassment claims, which are handled somewhat differently by the courts than racial or religious discrimination. In gender discrimination claims the court applies an intermediate level of scrutiny which is summarized in the video. Also discussed are disparate impact claims and how these cases are handled by the courts. Employment protections are guaranteed by federal statute, rather than the Constitution, therefore, apply in both, the private and public sectors.

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios

Equal Protection Under the Law

This episode of Crash Course in Government and Politics provides a general overview of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Discussed is the concept that the law should be applied equally to everyone and what this means in terms of our civil rights. As opposed to civil liberties, or our protections from the government, civil rights differ in that they involve how some groups or individuals are permitted to treat other groups or individuals (usually minorities) under existing laws. The video explains the process the Supreme Court follows in racial, ethnic and religious discrimination cases, known as “strict scrutiny,” and examines one landmark case, Brown v Board of Education, and its role in kick-starting the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Search and Seizure

This episode of Crash Course in Government and Politics provides a general overview of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures. The police generally need to secure a warrant issued by a judge based on proof of probable cause to search your home, but this isn’t always the case – exceptions exist for exigent circumstances, such as if there is a reasonable concern that there is a crime in progress or that evidence is in danger of being destroyed.  Also discussed are the vehicle exception to a warrant and the limited protections enjoyed by  students.

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios