Interesting and legitimate. But how is this different, as far as the admissibility of evidence, than a rape victim pointing out a random guy in the street as her attacker 6 months after the crime and the guy being indicted even though none of the physical evidence implicates him? The jury hears it and decides if they believe her or not. …
Interesting and legitimate. But how is this different, as far as the admissibility of evidence, than a rape victim pointing out a random guy in the street as her attacker 6 months after the crime and the guy being indicted even though none of the physical evidence implicates him? The jury hears it and decides if they believe her or not. I had a case just like that . It took six years to clear my client based on the DNA evidence.
Interesting and legitimate. But how is this different, as far as the admissibility of evidence, than a rape victim pointing out a random guy in the street as her attacker 6 months after the crime and the guy being indicted even though none of the physical evidence implicates him? The jury hears it and decides if they believe her or not. I had a case just like that . It took six years to clear my client based on the DNA evidence.
How is it different? You told me how it's different. This IS "the DNA evidence", that is the gold standard for reliable.
DNA evidence has the stamp of certainty. "DNA doesn't lie."
It's possible to identify people using relatives who have supplied their DNA profiles. That's how some serial killers were finally identified.
A rape test kit is also DNA evidence.
Precisely so. My point.