Recent cases suggest that DNA fingerprinting evidence is slowly becoming accepted by the courts; first in civil suits and then in criminal cases. A New York trial court found that because of the enormous reliability and acceptability of DNA fingerprinting in criminal courts, it would revolutionize the administration of criminal justice, reducing to insignificance the standard alibi defense.1
The reliability of the theory behind DNA analysis is not disputed. DNA analysis has proven itself reliable in the realm of genetic research. However, unless a standard which sets requirements for more than general acceptance of only the theory underlying DNA profiling, the courts are able to ignore the shortcomings of the various techniques when applied to samples acquired from a crime scene.2
While DNA testing is often referred to as DNA "fingerprinting," this term is disfavored because of its tendency to create unsubstantiated beliefs and expectations in the minds of judges and jurors.3
As the newest method of establishing identity, DNA profiling has been widely touted as the most powerful, most accurate piece of forensic evidence that has ever been created. Using minute tracers of genetic material extracted from seemingly harmless sources such as a single strand of hair, a speck of dried blood, a drop of saliva, or a semen stain on a bedsheet, DNA testing attempts to identify criminals by "matching" the suspect's own DNA with samples acquired at the crime scene.4 The human body is composed of individual units called cells. Each cell contains 46 chromosomes arranged in 23 sets of two. One chromosome per pair is inherited from each parent. It is these chromosomal capsules which hold the genetic information known as deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly referred to as DNA.5
DNA profiling operates under a very simple premise: No two individuals have identical ordering of DNA base sequences; therefore, two samples which match must ...