Secondary DNA Evidence Putting Innocent Men and Women Behind Bars

DNA evidence has been consider "the magic bullet" used by prosecutors to convict a defendant in a criminal trial. When a jury hears DNA evidence, a phenomenon called the CSI-effect occurs. The CSI-effect is when the existence of television crime shows effect the minds of jurors. These shows often inform its audience that DNA is concrete evidence of who committed the crime. A number of studies show that jurors rate DNA evidence as accurate 95 percent of the time and convincing of a defendant's guilt 94 percent of the time.

Recently a small number of reports regarding DNA has questioned the reliability of such evidence. Reports of secondary DNA and flawed forensics testing procedures are starting to come to light. The President's Council Advisors of Science and Technology and the National Institute of Standard and Technology has produced these reports.

For sake of explanation, secondary DNA is an occurrence of an individuals DNA being transferred to an object or location without such individual touching the object or  being at location of the found DNA.

The individual's DNA can be transferred in several ways:
-Person A and person B touch hands. Person B then touch an object. Person A's DNA has now been transferred to that object.
-Person A and person B  touch the same object. Person B then touch a second object. The second object now has Person A's DNA.
-Person A touch an object, the object then touch another object. Both objects now contain Person A's DNA.

These are just a few examples of secondary DNA transfer.

In past news articles, the National Institute of Justice and other institutes showed little interest for secondary DNA research. However in a recent article, the National Institute of Standard and Technology withheld a report regarding secondary DNA for five years. The report could have been used by criminal defendants and stop wrongful convictions.

The report titled "NIST Interlaboratory Studies Involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13) Variations Observed and Lesson Learned" showed in a research experiment, that 74 out 108 laboratories put an innocent individual DNA at a crime scene. It also showed due to complexity, the evidence used in the research produced DNA of two individuals, when indeed there were five individual DNAs in the mixture. Only 7 laboratories testing procedures did produce accurate results.
In conclusion, the report showed how DNA testing procedures could be flawed. Either putting an innocent person at the crime scene or causing people to believe there was only two individual DNAs on an item or scene, when actually there were five DNA sources.

Withholding such report gave jurors five years of bad interpretation of DNA evidence.

In the case of Peter Bin, police found a Boston Red Sox baseball cap at the crime scene. The witness described a white male with blonde hair and blue eyes wearing the same baseball cap. Upon testing the hat for forensics, two DNAs were found. One to an unknown source, the other allegedly linked to Peter Bin. But the problem was, Bin had an alibi and was not a white male. Bin was a Cambodian male with brown skin.

Although there was alibi evidence and a non matching description, the CSI-effect took over the jury. Bin was convicted and sentence to life without parole.

If the report was available, an analyst would been able to go into court and effectively school a jury and judge there are other explanations for this DNA to be there. The DNA could of been placed innocently or through secondary transfer. The defense could of reviewed the testing procedures and found flaws. Most certainly of all, the report could have prevented Peter Bin's wrongful conviction.

People on a jury and in society need to be educated on DNA and understand it is not the magic bullet.