Court Case Analysis: Andrews vs. the State of Florida

Introduction

The case of Andrews vs. the State of Florida involves one Tommie Lee Andrews who was convicted by the State of Florida on October 20, 1988, on charges of aggravated battery, sexual battery and armed robbery of a dwelling (Moss, 1989). His appeal of a rehearing was later denied on November 22, 1988. According to the victim, Andrews allegedly jumped on her in the early morning hours, held a sharp object against her neck when she woke up and threatened her with murder if she ever saw his face (Moss, 1989). The perpetrator then raped the victim and stole her purse containing $40 before leaving the house. The victim later submitted herself to a physical examination, from which a swab sample revealed the presence of semen in the victim's vagina. The semen sample was analyzed by Lifecodes Inc. and a match was found between the assailant's blood and that in the semen (Moss, 1989). The case allowed DNA tests to make the verdict, terming the tests admissible.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Parties Involved

Through analysis of the swab sample, analysts managed to pinpoint the population group from where the assailant belonged. Further investigations conducted in the victim's house yielded fingerprints matching that of the assailant's right index and middle fingers (Moss, 1989). During the trial, the jury ruled Mr Andrews guilty of sexual assault, aggravated battery, and armed robbery, hence convicting him. The DNA sample tests that convicted Mr Andrews was analyzed by Lifecodes Inc., which comprised three DNA samples: a sample from semen from the rapist, one from the blood of the victim and another sample taken from the perpetrator's blood (Moss, 1989). The case further involved Lifecode's senior scientist and a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who testified to matching DNA of Mr Andrews' blood and that in the rapist's semen (Moss, 1989).

Main Legal Issue

The issue with the court case, however, involves whether or not DNA samples are admissible as evidence enough to convict someone. According to Hal Uhrig, the defence attorney, there were less than enough checks and balances that could prevent shoddy lab work, thereby making the tests unreliable. The Assistant State Attorney, Tim Berry, however, insisted that the test results were as admissible as could be since they had been effective in paternity cases for more than a decade. He claimed that the chance of two people sharing the same DNA fragments was close to 1 in 10 billion (Moss, 1989). Therefore the tests, according to Tim Berry, were enough to convict a rapist.

Additionally, the appellant contented the statistical significance of the sample used. Analysts used the Hardy Weinberg statistical formula to establish the frequency of appearance of DNA bands in the population, using a reputable statistical database. However, the appellant claimed that the database used, of 710 samples, was too small to establish statistical significance, enough to convict him (Moss, 1989). He further claimed that the sole proof in the case supported the statistical value of samples selected randomly (Schanfield, 2001).

How Was Legal Issue Resolved?

The ruling, however, came out that the court used its discretion accordingly, by allowing the tests outcomes in the case to convict the assailant. Resultant proof from the identification by DNA prints often appears based on scientific principles, unlike those derived from Hypnosis, polygraphs and truth serum (Schanfield, 2001). Given the particular case, the tests were administered in a manner that conforms to acceptable scientific procedures. It, therefore, ensured that the results were reliable to the greatest possible degree. The appellant, Mr Andrews, failed to realize an error on the DNA testing point.

On the issue of statistical significance, unfortunately for the appellant, a testimony revealed that probability numbers do not change statistically as the database expands. Further, the American Association of Blood Banks declared that a database of samples between two hundred up to five hundred could provide adequate statistical results (Schanfield, 2001). However, unlike the fingerprint evidence, the DNA evidence is admittedly technical and requires the jury either accept or reject conclusions from the scientist. Despite the scientific evidence being susceptible to examination by the jury, the evidence cannot be rendered unreliable (Schanfield, 2001). Therefore, the decision by the court upheld the test results for Andrew's conviction.

Impact on Forensic Admissibility or Expert Testimony

With the novelty in the use of DNA profiling on perpetrators in the United States, a rule on the evidence had to be put in place. Similarly, Florida has a law equivalent to the Federal Rule of Evidence. According to the rule, an expert witness ought to be present to testify about the scientifically technical knowledge (Schanfield, 2001). The testimony should then be used to help in understanding the evidence. With the case against Andrews, the testimony of Dr David Housman, a professor of biology and a molecular geneticist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was used. Dr Housman needed to visit the labs where the DNA tests were done to examine the company's protocols, on-site performance and to qualify control measures used at the company. Additionally, Dr Housman was supposed to ensure that standard procedures were used, by going through the company's laboratory notebooks (Moss, 1989). The expert's testimony, therefore, is supposed to be used to rule on the admissibility of the forensic procedures.

Recent Case Similar to Andrews vs. the State of Florida

Barely two years after the famous conviction of Tommie Lee Andrews, was Joseph Castro charged in the Bronx of murdering his neighbour and her two-year-old daughter (Lee, 1993). However, Mr Castro's watch was discovered to have a blood stain. Therefore, the court allowed DNA testing to be conducted and be included in the evidence as long as they showed that the bloodstain did not belong to the defendant. A match between the bloodstain and Mr Castro's DNA would exonerate him (Lee, 1993).

How Recent Case Challenges Main Case

After the DNA testing, Dr Richard Roberts testified for the state, being an expert and a co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of the DNA. His testimony convicted Mr Castro (Lee, 1993). However, the case got heated up when Dr Eric Lander, a scientist at MIT, challenged the match criteria used by Lifecodes as well as other laboratory procedures. The lengthy battle led to the trial excluding DNA evidence. However, Mr Castro still pleaded guilty to the crime but received a lesser sentence than if the DNA had been ruled admissible (Lee, 1993). The incident made the press sceptical about DNA testing, with some declaring it unreliable though they once hailed DNA testing as a major advance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as long as DNA testing pass admissibility hearing in a court of justice, it means that there was proper handling of the test (Prinz, 2007). Therefore, DNA testing can be considered a gold standard of forensics. However, if a DNA test cannot pass an admissibility hearing, then its effectiveness in forensics leads to more questions than answers. Despite facing many challenges and stirring up controversies, DNA typing remains the best way to determine suspects (Prinz, 2007).

References

Lee, T. F. (1993). DNA in Court. In Gene Future. Boston: Springer.

Moss, D. C. (1989). DNA PROOF: Typing upheld on appeal. ABA Journal, 75(1), 20-21.

Prinz, M. A. (2007). DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Science International: Genetics, 1(1), 3-12.

Schanfield, M. (2001). Forensic science: Taking giant steps forward. Croatian medical journal, 42(3), 219-220.