Printable View
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-040600-4102rQuote:
Even if the only evidence forensic analysts can pull from a crime scene is a fingerprint smudged beyond recognition, a new technique developed by Canadian scientists soon could harvest enough DNA from the print to produce a genetic identity.
Very interesting, allthough it wont be usefull when people start burning their finger prints off LOL :rofl:
Hmm I guess this means that alot of unsolved cases are now going to be solved. the people who thought they got away with what ever crime they have commited are now going to be brought to justice.
Yeah but theres double jeopardy, if someone was labeld innocent in the court of law, they cant be prosecuted again
Not how duble jeperdy works, they cannot be tried on the same eveadence, but if there is new evadence (ie DNA sample) then there could be a retrial.
bballad, you sure about that? Let's say I murder Ms. Smith because her little dogs wake me up at 5am everytime I have a hangover and I leave the body at her house because she is fat and I am tired. The state brings up murder charges because I made it well known that she was on my **** list. After a long trial the jury aquits me of that crime. I am innocent.
Now lets say that they had a finger print on a rake in Ms. Smiths garage that almost matched mine? They weren't able to lift enough points off the print to make a positive id.
With this new evidence, are you saying that they could come back and recharge me for the crime because they went back to the rake and the DNA off the rake matches my DNA? I would argue with that but I am not a lawyer, in fact I hate them. Raking is too good for them!
I remember some things like that when they first started using DNA but I think those were all cases where they didn't have enough evidence to go to a trial in the first place? Just wondering if that would be possible. I agree it's not double jepardy but I in this example I was already aquited of the horrbile rake murder of Ms. Smith.
?
Dosn't matter, if their is new evadence, and you can convince a judge of it the old ruleing is basicly invalidated and a new trial is run. Dubble jepordy is to keep the goverment from trieing sombody over and over on the same evadence untill they get the verdict they want.
Why is OJ still out then??? :D
I was thinking of Mr. Simpson when I typed that message. I remember several jurors saying that if they had known about this evidence or that evidence they may have "changed" their mind. Even the pizza guys parents weren't satisfied and they tried to get a re-trial but couldn't. They ended up filing a civil suit and winning that.
Sure that was evidence that was ruled out during the trial but it makes me think about it.