Archival Notice
Home | Glossary | Resources | Help | Contact Us | Course Map
Occasionally in reopening closed or cold cases, a prosecutor may discover the relevant DNA evidence was not preserved or has been destroyed. Neither the destruction nor failure to preserve is a due process violation absent a showing of bad faith by the police, prosecutor, or laboratory Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51; 109 S.Ct. 333; 102 L. Ed.2d 281 (1988)].
Protecting the Record from Collateral Attack: The trial defense attorney's failure to conduct or request independent DNA typing is routinely raised as a post-conviction issue. To preempt such challenges, laboratory reports disclosed in discovery should contain a statement indicating whether or not remaining evidence samples exist for potential independent typing, and this information should also be placed on the record.
Additional Online Courses
- What Every First Responding Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence
- Collecting DNA Evidence at Property Crime Scenes
- DNA – A Prosecutor’s Practice Notebook
- Crime Scene and DNA Basics
- Laboratory Safety Programs
- DNA Amplification
- Population Genetics and Statistics
- Non-STR DNA Markers: SNPs, Y-STRs, LCN and mtDNA
- Firearms Examiner Training
- Forensic DNA Education for Law Enforcement Decisionmakers
- What Every Investigator and Evidence Technician Should Know About DNA Evidence
- Principles of Forensic DNA for Officers of the Court
- Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert
- Laboratory Orientation and Testing of Body Fluids and Tissues
- DNA Extraction and Quantitation
- STR Data Analysis and Interpretation
- Communication Skills, Report Writing, and Courtroom Testimony
- Español for Law Enforcement
- Amplified DNA Product Separation for Forensic Analysts