DNA and the law

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by tsarskoe

I should say Hallux Vulgus is not at all rare. It is a coincidence that both AA and ANR had it, but since it is not rare this fact is not very impressive.

And how many teenagers do you know who has "the big toe bent over in the middle so that it forms a bunion"?

[Elspeth]

And of course the answer to that question will be posted in the Anna Anderson Claims thread, right? On account of it isn't about DNA.

[tsarskoe]

Sorry Elspeth, I will repost this in the correct forum.

Thank you

[Anna was Franziska]

List of legal cases decided by mtDNA testing like AA's. Legal precedence proving the DNA test on AA WOULD hold up in court!

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Cases

1. State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C., Apr 05, 1999) (NO. 2493 2) council.PDF
2. People v. Klinger, 713 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 20450 (N.Y.Co.Ct., Sep 05, 2000) (NO. 0849/00) klinger1.PDF
3. State v. Smith, 100 Wash.App. 1064, 2000 WL 688180 (Wash.App. Div. 2, May 26, 2000) (NO. 23406-8-II) smith.htm
4. State v. Underwood, 134 N.C.App. 533, 518 S.E.2d 231 (N.C.App., Aug 17, 1999) (NO. COA98-648) underwood.htm
5. State v. Ware, 1999 WL 233592 (Tenn.Crim.App., Apr 20, 1999) (NO. 03C01-9705CR00164) ware.PDF
6. Adams v. Mississippi, 2001 WL 410800 (Miss.App., Apr 24, 2001) (NO. 2000-KA-00242-COA) adams.PDF
7. Connecticut v. Pappas (Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling, SC16257, release date 7/24/01) pappas1.PDF
8. Sheckells v. Texas, 2001 WL 1178828 (Tex.App.-Dallas) Sheckells.htm
9. Tennessee v. Scott (S.Ct. of Tennessee, No.96-C-1362, 10/3/00) scott.PDF
10. People v. Holtzer, 2003 WL 722452 Mich.App., Feb. 25, 2003. Holtzer.PDF
11. New York v. Ko, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 4/22/03 Ko.PDF
12. Magaletti v. State Fla.App. 2 Dist.,4/4/03 magaletta1.PDF
13. Lewis v. Alabama, Crim. App. Alabama, CR-99-1155. 5/30/02. lewis.PDF
14. U.S. v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, C.A.6 (Ohio), 2004. US V. Beverly.PDF
15. Wagner v. State, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, No. 2034 1/3/05. Wagner.PDF
16. Michigan v. Mason, Michigan Court of Appeals No. 251533, 12/21/04. Mason.PDF
17. U.S. v. Chase, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Criminal Division, No.F-7330-99, 1/10/05 chase.PDF
18. State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, --- A.2d ----, 7/26/05, The fact that mtDNA hair analysis is more precise than microscopic hair analysis does not render evidence regarding the latter inadmissible. The necessarily imprecise character of the hair identification goes to the weight of the microscopic hair analysis testimony, rather than its admissibility. west.PDF
19. People v. Sutherland, Illinois Supreme Court, # 99047, 9/21/06, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was not at issue on appeal but the trial court ruled it was admissible pursuant to Frye. Sutherland.PDF
20. Vaughn v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, No.S07A0740, 6/4/07, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was upheld. Vaughn v. Georgia.PDF
21. State v. Brochu, Vermont Supreme Court, 2008 VT 21, No. 2005-177, 3/7/08, the court concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion to admit mtDNA evidence under the relevancy standard where the defendant’s mtDNA profile was commonly found in the population. The defendant has not challenged the science and technology behind mtDNA evidence. Brochu.PDF

There are other rulings where courts have allowed mtDNA evidence in at trial. Some of those cases are listed below:

1. R.v. Murrin (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver). murrin.htm
2. Connecticut v. Pappas pappas.PDF (see above appellate decision)
3. Florida v. Magaletti magaletti.PDF (see above appellate decision)
4. Maryland v. Williams williams.PDF
5. Colorado v. Than than.PDF
6. Colorado v. Sierra-Omi ni Sierra-Omini.PDF
7. California v. Johnson (San Diego County) johnson.PDF
8. Delaware v. Hammons, Delaware Superior Court, 3/28/02 (NO. 9809019760) Hammons.PDF
9. U.S. v. Coleman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. coleman.PDF
10. Minnesota v. Zanter Zanter.PDF
11. California v. Scott Lee Peterson (Stanislaus County) 11/18/03 peterson.PDF
12. New Jersey v. Jimenez, 9/1/04 Jimenez.PDF
13. R. v. Woodcock, Ontario Superior Court of Justice O.J. No. 5186, Court File No. 8808-97, 8/18/06. Woodcock.PDF

[AGRBear]

If there were lawyers involved, they would use court cases to prove or disprove a point they were making. You can place a hundred more examples on this thread that support your case AWF, and, a lawyer could post a hundred examples that would support AA's case.

None of this is going into court.

Why?

AA is dead and and the Romanovs are happy with the DNA reports.

If this long lost child of AA's pops up and makes a claim, then we'd see this in a court.

Until then, we're just amateur sleuths posting now and then with various opinions on what we've read, seen or experienced.

And this amateur sleuth is still hovering over the problem of "chain of custody", which does cause doubts, in this case.

AGRBear