After 300+ exonerations, and the attraction to forensics engendered by television series, one might think that the recovery of DNA at a crime scene \u2013 DNA that does *not* match the defendant \u2013 would quickly lead to acquittal. The contrary has occurred, however, particularly where a \u2018good story\u2019 to \u2018explain\u2019 the foreign DNA is told.<\/p>\n
In NOTE: THE “ELASTICITY” OF DNA EVIDENCE? WHEN PROSECUTORIAL STORYTELLING GOES TOO FAR, 28 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Social Justice 138 (April, 2019), the following is reported:<\/p>\n
In the recent psychological study, When Self-Report Trumps Science: Effects
\nof Confessions, DNA, and Prosecutorial Theories on Perceptions of Guilt,
\nSara C. Appleby and Saul M. Kassin analyzed people’s perceptions of guilt
\nwhen presented with the following: a defendant who had confessed to a
\ncrime, DNA evidence exculpating that defendant, and a prosecutor’s theory
\nexplaining the contradictory evidence. Although the study confirms that
\npeople are more persuaded by DNA than by confessions, participants in the
\nstudy were three times more likely to convict when a prosecutor offered an
\nexplanation of why the exculpatory DNA conflicted with the confession than
\nwhen no explanation was presented.<\/p>\n
*Id.*, 139-140.<\/p>\n
The NOTE goes on to show that this occurs not just in the psychology lab but in the courtroom.<\/p>\n
The Center on Wrongful Convictions has reported 19 known cases in which a
\ndefendant confessed and was convicted despite exculpatory DNA, with
\nadditional cases having been reported since then. In rape-murder cases, a
\ncommon prosecutorial theory used to override exculpatory DNA in the form of
\nsemen is known pejoratively as “the unindicted co-ejaculator” theory. The
\nstory advanced by prosecutors in these cases is that the victim had prior
\nconsensual sex with an unknown male; afterward, the defendant raped her,
\nfailed to ejaculate, and killed her. Prosecutors have also argued
\nnecrophilia, conspiracy, and other questionable theories in order to
\ndiscount exculpatory DNA.<\/p>\n
*Id.,* 148.<\/p>\n
The proof of the potency of story-telling is in the guilty verdicts \u2013 the story triumphed over the science.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After 300+ exonerations, and the attraction to forensics engendered by television series, one might think that the recovery of DNA at a crime scene \u2013 DNA that does *not* match the defendant \u2013 would quickly lead to acquittal. The contrary has occurred, however, particularly where a \u2018good story\u2019 to \u2018explain\u2019 the foreign DNA is told.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,11],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-2881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brain-lessons","category-trial-advocacy"],"yoast_head":"\n