Articles 1 - 1 of 1
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Defying Dna: Rethinking The Role Of The Jury In An Age Of Scientific Proof Of Innocence, Andrea L. Roth
Andrea L Roth
In 1946, public outrage erupted after a jury ordered Charlie Chaplin to support a child who, according to apparently definitive blood tests, was not his. Half a century later, juries have again defied apparently definitive evidence of innocence, finding criminal defendants guilty based on a confession or eyewitness notwithstanding exculpatory DNA test results. One might expect judges in such cases to direct an acquittal, on grounds that the evidence is legally insufficient because no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet few if any do. Instead, courts defer to juries when they form an actual belief in ...