DNA evidence is often hailed as an infallible, irrefutable pathway toward streamlined convictions. Defendants may find it challenging to push back against the dogmatic, almost monotheistic "truth" of science in this situation. DNA evidence has proven particularly prevalent in cold cases, allowing the Commonwealth to try those linked with murders in Boston that occurred decades ago. But is DNA evidence really as reliable as we think? A recent case illustrates that police have ways of using your statements against you – even when DNA evidence seems questionable.
Jury Selection Begins After DNA Evidence Leads to Murder Charges in Boston
In 1988, a deceased woman was discovered in Boston. Her body showed signs of strangulation, and the death was ruled a homicide. Based on biological evidence, police also concluded that her murderer had sexually assaulted her. The DNA evidence was submitted to the FBI, but the case went cold for the next few decades. No DNA matches were found until 2011, but the authorities were reluctant to press charges – believing that they still lacked sufficient evidence to link the suspect to the crime. Recently, prosecutors stated that they came across "additional evidence" that allowed them to proceed. The defendant has pleaded not guilty, and a trial will commence.
Victim's Sex Worker Status Complicates DNA Evidence
Media reports fail to mention several crucial details. First, the victim was apparently a sex worker – and she was working at the time of her death. This assumedly explains the prosecutors' reluctance to bring charges despite the DNA match.
Without going into too much detail, the defendant's DNA may have been deposited at the murder scene before the murder actually took place. If the sex worker dealt with numerous customers, it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that the murderer was the same person who left this DNA evidence behind. Prosecutors may have concluded that this evidence would not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – and many legal observers would undoubtedly agree with this conclusion.
This shows how DNA evidence is not always as irrefutable as people might think. Putting aside the innovative technology behind this evidence, there are still certain factors that may affect its strength – including the profession of the victim and the circumstances of the crime scene.
So, what made the prosecutors change their mind? The "additional evidence" mentioned by the media seems to be a single statement made by the defendant while being questioned. During this interview with police, he reportedly denied ever visiting prostitutes. This, according to the prosecutors, was enough to move forward with charges.
If he never visited prostitutes, then he could not have been one of the prior customers of the murder victim. As such, the previous barrier to prosecution vanished with one simple sentence. This highlights the importance of remaining silent when being questioned by police. Always wait until your defense attorney arrives before communicating with the police. Even if you are attempting to deny your involvement in an alleged crime, police may still use your statements against you.
Find an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Boston
Whether you are facing DNA evidence, "firearms forensics," or some other form of scientific evidence, it is all too easy to give up hope. However, this evidence may not be as strong as you think. An experienced criminal defense attorney in Boston can point out flaws in seemingly irrefutable technical data, making these "facts" much less convincing than they initially appear. To discuss this topic in greater detail, book a consultation with Edward R. Molari today.