Page 252 - Privacy in a Cyber Age Policy and Practice

240 NOTES

80. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, (1966), cited in Paul C. Giannelli, “ABA
Standards on DNA Evidence,” 25.
81. Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family,” 309; Henry T. Greely et al., “Family Ties,”
254; Jianye Ge et al., “Developing Criteria and Data to Determine Best Options
for Expanding the Core CODIS Loci.”
82. Butler v. Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957).
83. Andromachi Tseloni et al., “Exploring the International Decline in Crime
Rates,” European Journal of Criminology 7 (2010): 377.
84. Mike Weisser, “It’s Clear Violent Crime Is Decreasing, But Less Clear Why,”
Huffington Post, February 10, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-
weisser/violent-crime-cities_b_4760996.html.
85. Terry Frieden, “U.S. Violent Crime Down for Fifth Straight Year,” CNN, Octo-
ber 29, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/.
86. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States,”, http://www2.fbi.
gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html.
87. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2011: Clearances,” ,
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2011/clearances: The FBI defines a case as “cleared” when at least one per-
son has been arrested in connection with a crime, charged with the offense,
and turned over to the court for prosecution. This does not necessarily mean
that an individual is convicted of having committed the offense. Alternately,
situations in which law enforcement has identified the probable offender, has
probable cause for an arrest and prosecution, and knows the probable offend-
er’s exact location—but an “exceptional circumstance” such as the suicide of
the probable offender prevents the actual arrest and prosecution are consid-
ered to be “cleared by exceptional means.”
88. Ibid.
89. Chain of custody refers, for DNA and forensics in general, to “a record of indi-
viduals who have had physical possession of the evidence. Documentation is
critical to maintaining the integrity of the chain of custody. Maintaining the
chain of custody is vital for any type of evidence. In addition, if laboratory
analysis reveals that DNA evidence was contaminated, it may be necessary
to identify persons who have handled that evidence.” See National Institute
of Justice, DNA Evidence: Basics of Identifying, Gathering and Transporting,
August 9, 2012, http://nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/Pages/
identifying-to-transporting.aspx.
90. Ricky Ansell, “Internal Quality Control in Forensic DNA Analysis,” Accredita-
tion and Quality Assurance 18 (2013): 280.
91. Innocence Project, “Wrongful Convictions Involving Unvalidated or Improper
Forensic Science that Were Later Overturned through DNA Testing” (Febru-
ary 1, 2009) http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/DNA_Exonerations_
Forensic_Science.pdf.
92. William C. Thompson, “Subjective Interpretation, Laboratory Error and
the Value of Forensic DNA Evidence: Three Case Studies,” Genetica 96
(1995): 153.