DNA Evidence Not as Reliable as Once Thought?

DNA evidence has been seen as the gold standard in both exonerating and convicting individuals accused of crimes ranging from theft to rape to murder. DNA evidence in the realm of courtroom drama was largely first introduced to the American public in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Generally thought of as infallible, the existence - or lack of - DNA evidence carried tremendous weight with a jury. However, a recent study published in Forensic Science International: Genetics calls into question the actual reliability of DNA evidence.

According to lead Israeli researcher Dan Frumkin, anyone with a relative understanding of biology could essentially manufacture a crime scene. The researchers contend that DNA evidence can be faked and planted at crime scenes using basic DNA analysis techniques. One of the techniques involves the use of police genetic profiles. Police departments usually maintain some type of genetic information database, which stores a sequence of numbers corresponding to 13 spots on a person's genetic code. These databases are used to track former offenders, and also to compare actual DNA evidence legitimately found at a crime scene in an attempt to locate a potential perpetrator. Frumkin and his researchers were able to clone small pieces of DNA and insert it into the right spot of a DNA sample stored by law enforcement, thus changing the results. According to some at the ACLU, DNA evidence is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints.

Fortunately, Frumkin and his team also say that it may be possible to tell when a DNA sample has been faked. According to the researchers, DNA that has been modified lacks certain molecules that are found attached to unenhanced DNA.

While the thought of law enforcement, or any other individual entrusted with the enormous responsibility of investigating a crime scene intentionally planting DNA evidence and framing an innocent individual is frightening, the possibility should not be ignored.