Indicting DNA instead of people

[annaplurabelle]

*Originally posted by Roger_Mexico *
**I wonder if you can get a DNA profile from a ham sandwich? **

You know, I always suspected the ham sandwich fingered in the Mama Cass case was railroaded.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Hamlet *
However, an indictment based solely on a name, or even a John Doe indictment with descriptors, goes to the identification of the person who committed the crime.

IANAL, but I have a hard time believing that “going towards the identification of the person who committed the crime” is sufficient. Do you a cite of a case in which a name, with nothing else in the indictment or supporting documents, was found to be sufficient?

This is just wrong. Once again, there is a difference between knowing who committed a crime and knowing what he looks like, where he was born, and how to catch him.

Simply stating that I am wrong is not a counterargument, and your followup statement is irrelevant. I am not disputing that such a difference exist.

[quote]
It’s an objective statement of confidence,[/qutoe]
No, it’s not. Not unless there is some objective basis for it. Your “cite” is simpy a webpage repeating your claim, with no further support. In fact, the number given doesn’t make sense, since the probability that the culprit has an identical twin is surely more than that.

And as I said before, “the guy who committed the crime” would fail the reasonable certainity requirements for indictments.

What are those requirements?

If I were John Smith, I’d think I’d rather that the DNA indictment.

Well, of course you would. A “John Smith” indictment could lead to your arrest, whereas a DNA indictment probably wouldn’t.

It’s completely unnecessary to include ALL the suspects DNA before identification is possible.

But if you don’t, then claiming that no two people have the same DNA is irrelevant.

[Kalt]

I agree w/ the OP. If the state can indict EVIDENCE to toll the statute of limitations, that effectively tosses out all statutes of limitations–they become meaningless.

[Bricker]

Hamlet:

I touched on this earlier, but let’s explore it: given that fingerprints are highly accurate means of identification as well, would you support the ability of the prosecution to indict a fingerprint?

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by godzillatemple
In instances where a “John Doe indictment with descriptors” was used, did they actually have a person in custody (i.e., who refused to give his name), or was that indictment used against somebody the police had not located yet?

In almost every case, John Doe indictments are used when they don’t have the person in custody.

Originally posted by annaplurabelle
You know, I always suspected the ham sandwich fingered in the Mama Cass case was railroaded.

I’m pretty sure it was the chicken-fried steak who actually did it. The authorities just needed to find a patsy, and the ham sandwhich had a criminal history and was in the area.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
IANAL, but I have a hard time believing that “going towards the identification of the person who committed the crime” is sufficient. Do you a cite of a case in which a name, with nothing else in the indictment or supporting documents, was found to be sufficient?

The sufficiency of an indictment is generally determined by statute on a State by State basis. For example, Missouri requires the indictment to :"[s]tate the name of the defendant if known, or if his name is not known, the defendant may be designated by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty." New Mexico requires an indictment to state the name of defendant, and if defendant’s name is not known, “he may be described by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty”); and Texas requires that the indictment “contain the name of the accused, or state that his name is unknown and give a reasonably accurate description of him”. IIRC, the Feds don’t even require that much identification. In addition, minor variance in spelling of a defendant’s name, i/e Foust on the indictment when the defendant’s name was Faust, will not make the indictment insufficient.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Simply stating that I am wrong is not a counterargument.

It’s not? You said having a DNA profile doesn’t identify a defendant with any more information than “the guy who did this” and I stated that it does, with a strong level of certainity, identify the suspect. It may not be physically apparent at first glance, but it certainly does identify who the prosecutor is indicting. Seems like a damn good counterargument to me, but YMMV.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
What are those requirements?

Again, they vary State by State.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**But if you don’t, then claiming that no two people have the same DNA is irrelevant. **

Huh? You lost me here. I have no clue what point/argument/question you are trying to make with this statement. That DNA identification can only be done if you use every bit of the DNA? I suggest you do a little research and then rephrase.

Originally posted by Kalt
If the state can indict EVIDENCE to toll the statute of limitations, that effectively tosses out all statutes of limitations–they become meaningless.

Nobody is indicting evidence. None of these indictments are for “the blob of semen left in the victim,” or the “blood left on the victim’s body”. What they are doing is indicting a person who has a extremely particular DNA profile, and identifying the person by said profile.

Originally posted by Bricker
I touched on this earlier, but let’s explore it: given that fingerprints are highly accurate means of identification as well, would you support the ability of the prosecution to indict a fingerprint?

Once again, the prosecution is not indicting a fingerprint or DNA, despite the title of the thread. They are indicting a person, and identifying him/her by DNA profile. I understand the rhetoric, but it’s not accurate. As to indicting a person and identifying him by fingerprint, I would think, if the fingerprint is sufficiently tied to the offender (i/e the fingerprint is found made in the blood of the victim on the murder weapon) the indictment would be fine. However, as Wang-Ka pointed out, if it were a fingerprint left at a bank, I think you would have a definite probably cause issue. And, to answer your next question, I don’t know why it hasn’t been done yet. I haven’t found a single case involving a fingerprint indictment, but I have found the one for DNA indictments.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Hamlet *
Once again, the prosecution is not indicting a fingerprint or DNA, despite the title of the thread. They are indicting a person, and identifying him/her by DNA profile. I understand the rhetoric, but it’s not accurate.

Fair enough. I’d aver that “indicting a DNA profile,” is perfectly acceptable and understood verbal shorthand for “indicting the person identified only by this DNA profile,” but if it makes you unhappy, far be it from me to continue.

Earlier, I said:

Without corroboration, DNA evidence merely proves that a particular person was in a particular place at some point before the sample was taken. The capacity of the accused to offer an innocent explanation for his presence his highly relevant, and highly evanescent. Even the smoking gun of DNA - semen collected as part of a rape kit - is not necessarily dispositive as to guilt. If the accused claims consent, the evidentiary value of the DNA is slight. But what would a tolling of fifteen or twenty years do to an accused’s ability to corroborate a legitimate consent defense with witnesses and other evidence?

I must have missed your answer to this question.

A married man goes to a bar and meets a newly-separated woman, where they drink, carouse, flirt, and grope in full view of the bar’s patrons, and ultimately rent a hotel room and have sexual intercourse. The next morning, the woman learns that her husband wishes to reconcile with her, and, unwilling to risk losing him over this flight of fancy, accuses the man of rape.

If the trial occurs that year, the man should have little trouble locating witnesses and securing testimony about the events of the evening prior to the sexual intercourse.

If, however, the man is gone, and the DNA kit entered into evidence, only to be unearthed after a “hit” fifteen years down the line, surely you’ll concede that the man’s ability to offer corroborating witnesses has diminished.

• Rick

[Hamlet]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**A married man goes to a bar and meets a newly-separated woman, where they drink, carouse, flirt, and grope in full view of the bar’s patrons, and ultimately rent a hotel room and have sexual intercourse. The next morning, the woman learns that her husband wishes to reconcile with her, and, unwilling to risk losing him over this flight of fancy, accuses the man of rape.

If the trial occurs that year, the man should have little trouble locating witnesses and securing testimony about the events of the evening prior to the sexual intercourse.

If, however, the man is gone, and the DNA kit entered into evidence, only to be unearthed after a “hit” fifteen years down the line, surely you’ll concede that the man’s ability to offer corroborating witnesses has diminished.**

Certainly I’ll concede that the man’s ability to offer corroboration witnesses has been diminished in your example. I’ll also concede that if one of his witnesses died before trial, his ability would diminish. I’ll concede that his ability to form a defense was diminished when he wasn’t arrested the next day and had the ability to find the people who were in the bar. I’ll also concede that, if law enforcement knew his name and put it on the indictment and he wasn’t arrested for 15 years, his ability would diminish. I’ll concede that there are a ton of things that could happen to diminish his ability to defend himself. That’s one of the reasons for the line of cases regarding delays in getting a defendant to trial could violate the Due Process Clause, which, as I explained earlier, is a much better tool for determining these things. Unfortunately, the Statute of Limitations would not be concerned with an actual inquiry into whether or not his ability has diminished but would rather pick a date for the foreclosure of any charges.

The Statute of Limitations in Illinois specifically allows: “any offense involving sexual conduct or sexual penetration . . ., in which DNA profile of the offender is obtained and entered into a DNA database within 10 years after the commission of the offense and the identitity of the offender is unknown after a diligent investigation by law enforcement authorities, may be commenced at any time. . . [This] only applies if the victim reported the offense to law enforcement authorities within 2 years after the commission of the offense…”

Using your example, there wouldn’t be a violation of the Statute of Limitations at all, as long as the protective language of the S of L was met. That’s why I would like any analysis into the issue of delay before trial to be determined using the Due Process analysis.

[Roger_Mexico]

*Originally posted by annaplurabelle *
**You know, I always suspected the ham sandwich fingered in the Mama Cass case was railroaded. **

Yes! Recent DNA evidence has exonerated the ham sandwich. It turns out that Mama Cass died of a self-inflicted heart attack due to chronic obesity.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/mamacass.htm

Upon his release from prison, the ham sandwich stated:

“This is a victory, not just for me, but for ham sandwiches everywhere. No longer will prosecutors joke about indicting ham sandwiches. After I win my lawsuit for wrongful prosecution, I will be laughing all the way to the deli.”

As a side note, I read in one of Russ Kick’s books (Everything you know is wrong, I think) an article by Paul Krassner about the Tate-La Bianca murders. He said that police recovered homemade porn video tapes from Sharon Tate’s house. One of them featured Mama Cass having sex with Yul Byrnner. Now that is scary. The LAPD were selling the tapes on the black market.

[annaplurabelle]

This just in…

**New York, NY (OP) – The infamous Mama Cass Ham Sandwich was arrested yesterday while lunching at the Grand Deli in NYC with his attorney Barry Scheck.

The Ham Sandwich, recently exonerated for the death of Cass Elliot – due in part to the efforts of Mr. Scheck’s The Innocence Project – was allegedly seen laughing as he entered the Glatt Kosher eatery.

He was charged with violating several Kashrut laws.

According to our source in the DA’s office: “They’ve got the mustard on the ham this time. The charges will stick”.

Prosecutors nationwide looked forward to the return of the Ham Sandwich Indictment Joke.

On condition of anonymity, one prosecutor admitted: “The alternate cliché about indicting the pope was already losing it’s appeal – hehe – losing it’s appeal, get it?”

Mr. Scheck could not be reached for comment.**

[Roger_Mexico]

OOps…well maybe it was a goyim deli! Thanks for the laugh.

[dalovindj]

Heck, if the biological determinists are correct, then selfish DNA is the only thing we should ever be Inditing!

Skinner suggests that “man [is] not responsible for his actions because everything man is, everything man makes, everything man thinks, is completely, one hundred percent, determined by his environment.” By environment, Skinner refers both to our genetic make-up and to our social experience. Both, he argues, predetermine us to act in a certain way. In other words, we do not choose our actions. We have no free will. . .

As far as neuroscience is concerned, the human individual, the person, the essential you that is sat listening to me now, has no freedom to choose. Any freedom you feel you may have is an illusion; a consequence of having an over-developed brain, because as Wolfe notes, “genetics determine not only things such as temperament, role preferences, emotional responses, and levels of aggression, but also many of our most revered moral choices, which are not choices at all in any free-will sense, but tendencies imprinted in [our brains].”

DaLovin’ Dj

[dalovindj]

Here is a much better page in regards to understanding the complex issues bilogoical determinism takes up. Alot more informative than the one I linked to in my last post.

DaLovin’ Dj