.

By now, everyone knows of the sad end to the search for Annie Le.  Her body was discovered earlier this week in the walls of a Yale campus research building.  Many hoped her disappearance would lead to her safe return to her family and fiancé.  The 24 year old went missing a week ago,  and less than seven days before her wedding was to take place.

An arrest was made on Wednesday.  Raymond Clark, III, a custodian on Yale’s payroll, has been charged with murder.  Unlike other well-publicized American homicide cases, the authorities involved with this case have remained tight-lipped.  In a peculiar statement that was released by police that reads, in part, “…charges will be filed against anyone whose DNA matches evidence found at the crime scene”, it almost appears as though there might be other persons of interest.  Still, these same authorities insist they’re nearly certain Clark is the only suspect.

The irony is that Clark is described as a control freak who complained to the victim that he didn’t like the way she handled the lab mice.  His duties included cleaning cages and other custodial work.  In an email that hasn’t been released, it’s said Le apologized and assured Clark she would take his complaints into consideration.  If he’s found guilty, his control issues will only serve as a hindrance as he attempts to adjust to life in prison.  He didn’t enter a plea during his arraignment in Connecticut on Thursday and only replied when the judge asked him if he understood his Miranda rights.  He remains in jail on a $3 million dollar bond and will most likely remain there since he doesn’t have the financial resources to meet the obligations of posting bail.

The police chief in this case stated this case had little to do with university crime, domestic crime or urban crime, but rather it’s a clear cut example of workplace violence.  He then goes on to say it’s a growing concern in this country.

Just as Le had a fiancé who now must pick up the pieces, Clark too has left behind a stunned fiancé who surely must be trying to figure out how someone she loves could be accused of such a heinous crime.

.

Could it be that the big mystery is finally solved over who fathered Rielle Hunter’s child?  Maybe.  Several media outlets are reporting a secret DNA test was performed on a bit of John Edward’s biological matter and it proves with certainty that he indeed fathered this little girl.

This is all happening as a federal grand jury is deciding whether or not hush money was paid to Hunter two years ago as well as who knew about it if was paid.  Both Hunter and Andrew Young have testified over the past few weeks.  Young is the one who took the fall when the story broke and announced he was the father of this child, despite the potential of jeopardizing his own marriage.  That was his last public appearance and statement since 2007.  Even as he approached the courthouse, he had no comment over his role in this cover-up, if there was one.  Lawyers for both Young and Hunter have said their clients are fully cooperating in the investigation.

The grand jury is investigating whether campaign funds from Edwards’ run as the Republican candidate for vice president were used to pay Hunter to keep quiet about who fathered her now-two year old daughter, Frances.  It’s also seeking to find out the truth about whether or not payments for “videography” were legitimate.

This, of course, reopens the question of what Elizabeth Edwards might now do.  Many have said she was simply waiting for confirmation before filing divorce papers.  Other, however, insist she intends to stand by her man.  This has all taken place as she’s struggled with cancer.

If the grand jury determines the money given to Hunter was done so illegally, Edwards could be facing jail time.  Even worse, the good deed he convinced Young to do could also land his former confidant in jail too, even though that’s unlikely.

There are reports Edwards will be making a public announcement about his paternity.  In the meantime, all eyes are on the missus and are waiting to see what she does, or rather, what she doesn’t do.

.

New Jersey just passed a law, slated to take affect January 1, 2010, that allows people who’ve lied in murder trials to no longer have the luxury of a statute of limitations to protect them should they get caught.  Currently, there are three states that have similar laws, including Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania.  One of the state’s representatives, Renny Cushing (NH-D), said, “It’s one thing if you give false information about somebody stealing a bike, it’s another thing if you give false information about somebody stealing somebody’s life.”  This Senate bill passed unanimously.

With the advances of DNA, it’s become easier to identify those who’ve committed crimes, thereby ensuring the ease in identifying those who provide false alibis or other untrue information to law enforcement.  The punishments will vary depending on one’s involvement of a murder, but the potential for jail time is great.  Law enforcement is hoping it will serve as a deterrent for those who might consider lying or provide alibis to those suspected of killing another.  Further, when enough evidence isn’t available for a murder conviction but law enforcement finds evidence that proves the suspect tampered with evidence, the law will allow for tougher sentences.

Currently, the crimes that qualify for the death penalty in New Jersey are first degree murder, being a leader of a narcotics/drug trafficking network that ordered a murder or murder committed through the commission of a terroristic attack.  Further, the death penalty isn’t applicable to anyone under the age of 18, regardless of his crime.

Renny Cushing is the founder and Executive Director of Murder Victims’ Families.  His father was murdered in 1988 by two shotgun blasts by a neighbor.  He’s also responsible for New Hampshire’s Victims Bill of Rights law, passed in 2001.

As mentioned, there are only a few states with similar laws; however, other states are expected to follow suit in the near future.

It was this week in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled capital punishment was both cruel and unusual, especially due to some states’ “capricious and arbitrary” ways of employing the death penalty.  The Court ruled race placed too large a role in determining who lived or died.  It didn’t stop there, however.  The Court recommended new legislation be instituted so that the death penalty might become constitutional again and went on to say legislation should directly address racial problems regarding capital punishment and that new guidelines should be put into place.  This, of course, wasn’t what opponents of the death penalty wanted, but for many, it was a start.

Then, in 1976, a substantial new study revealed over 65% of Americans not only supported the death penalty, but wanted it made constitutional again.  The Supreme Court heard the majority loud and clear and after having been satisfied of the changes it had strongly encouraged some four years earlier, the death penalty was once again deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the first execution only a year later was commissioned via the firing squad.  Gary Gilmore, a Utah killer, faced the squad and in a split second, his life was over.  Still, many groups, including Death Penalty Focus, a group committed to abolishing the death penalty once and for all, insist racism is still too big a priority of those deciding the lives of others.   Further, it also reiterates the many who were convicted and executed, only to be found innocent later due to DNA or other evidence not available prior to the execution.  Currently, nearly 130 people across the country who were facing execution dates have been found innocent and not only taken off death row, but released from prison completely exonerated.  To date, there are over 3,300 prisoners who are on death row awaiting conviction.

It becomes difficult to reconcile those who adamantly insist the system is racist, especially since almost 45% of those currently on death row are white.  African Americans follow with slightly less than 42% of the total death row population, followed by Latinos (11.3%), Native Americans (1.10%) and Asian (1.10%).

With so much crime in today’s headlines, each story more evil than the one before, the odds of the death penalty being deemed unconstitutional again in the near future are practically nil.

We knew at some point DNA would be collected during every arrest, just as fingerprints are.  There are currently twelve states that collect DNA anytime anyone’s arrested for any crime.  Washington is attempting to become one of those states and insists swabbing a cheek is no more invasive than collecting

.

fingerprints.  The law currently allows for DNA to be collected only after a felony conviction and some misdemeanors and only after either a search warrant is obtained or permission from the accused.  The two bills now being considered include one that allows the DNA collection before one’s convicted but after formal charges are filed.  The other bill, of course, allows DNA samples be provided by suspects at the time of arrest. 

The ACLU says it’s unconstitutional and is preparing for a court battle.  Part of the controversy has to do with minors.  No one has to be notified nor will police have to wait until a juvenile’s parents or lawyers show up before demanding - and collecting - the sample. 

The plan is, provided either or both of these bills are passed, to send it to a national database via the FBI for comparison against any open cases.  If there are no matches, the sample should be destroyed.   That sounds reasonable, although it’s worth mentioning fingerprint cards aren’t destroyed and are kept on file indefinitely at police departments across the country.  Fingerprints identify or clear people every day.  It’s not considered an invasion on any level.  So is it equal footing?  Should there be a clause that demands destruction of DNA samples if they don’t send up red flags?

And what about the costs associated with these samples?  In Washington State, a single DNA test costs over $80.00 to process.  One graph shows two million dollars spent on DNA testing in only two years should either of these bills be passed.

Lawyers with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers say it’s unfair to demand these samples, that they reveal too much and should be considered an unreasonable search and seizure. 

Regardless of what happens, Washington, as well as most other states, is facing financial cutbacks and growing backlogs of samples waiting to be tested.

Seems like people are making decisions in efforts to offset temporary money problems, but that will affect them on a permanent basis and for the rest of their lives.  Whether it’s a woman in California auctioning her virginity to pay for school or a new report that indicates a 30% increase in egg and sperm sales, it’s clear life-changing decisions are being made to offset monetary problems caused by the weak American economy.

I couldn’t understand how Natalie Dylan (not her real name), a 22 year old grad student, was legally auctioning off her virginity.  Turns out, she’s pulling this off in Nevada, where prostitution is legal.  Too

Natalie Dylan

many times we do things when we’re young with no thought to how it can affect the rest of our lives.  This goes so far beyond tattoos and other spur of the moment decisions that might affect us, but rarely alter our lives.  I’m still waiting for that day I’ll regret that cowboy hat on my ankle that my mom swears is coming.  It’s been fifteen years, but this was a decision that won’t affect anyone else.  I won’t have a child who, upon discovering I auctioned off an irreplaceable act, will be ashamed of me.  Nor will I have to worry about that same child marrying his sister because of an egg donation years earlier when I needed to make the car payment.

Not to be misunderstood, choosing to play a role in a couple’s desire to have children is a selfless act, when done for the right reasons.  But to sell it when it would never be a consideration if there wasn’t a dollar figure attached to it is sure to bring bad karma.  And just what is the price for donated eggs?  $10,000.  Not that it matters because according to some facilities that are in the business, there are those who are willing to do it for a lot less.  They know this because they receive calls months later by the same donors who wish to negotiate lower fees when told they’re not eligible for another extraction at that time.

No one will ever know for sure about this young woman who’s making such a decision to help cover her education.  Only she will be able to look back on this and wonder if the $3.7 million dollars (this is the current figure - the auction’s not over yet) was worth it.  And too, no one will ever know about those who sell their sperm and eggs.  We can’t know if they will ever see someone on the streets and wonder, “he has my eyes” or will recognize a birthmark located in the same area on a stranger’s arm and wonder if this person shares their DNA.

links to Family Law Lawyers, Lawyers

With DNA exonerating more and more innocent people on a daily basis, law makers and police departments around the country are looking for ways to ensure more accurate photo lineups.  A new computer program slated to be put into use by Dallas, TX police will hopefully provide some insight as to why there are so many inaccurate choices made by witnesses. 

The procedure in Dallas is for a detective to show an eyewitness six photos of “suspects”.  Five are photos that are somewhat similar and the sixth photo of the suspect.  Since 1989, DNA has exonerated 220 people across the country.  Of those, 75% were initially convicted based on photo lineups.  Further, Dallas County leads the country in inaccurate lineup picks.  Of the 19 exonerations in Dallas County, all but one was due to inaccurate eyewitness picks during photo lineups. 

The new study, designed to lessen the possibility of an inaccurate pick, will include at least 800 lineups and will only be done in Dallas County’s robberies and assaults divisions.  Police will load six photographs into a computer; one of the suspect and the remaining five that are similar in size, hair color, etc. of the suspect.  The computer program will then randomly determine if the photographs will be viewed simultaneously with all six photos on one screen, or sequentially, with one photo at a time via a slide show.  The computer program will also determine if the computer itself will conduct the lineup or if a detective will lead the photo display. 

These tests, conducted by The Urban Institute in Washington, DC, will hopefully determine if a detective’s body language and unconscious verbal cues influence a witness’s pick. 

One of the first cases that was overturned by DNA was that of Ronald Cotton.  He was accused, identified via photo lineup and convicted of raping a North Carolina woman in 1984.  He was 22 years old.  Eleven years later, DNA proved he wasn’t the rapist.  There are a group of psychologists who are using this case as an example of how wrong eyewitness accounts can be.  Their recommendations include limited feedback from police during a lineup as well other methods that lend towards a more scientific approach and less of an emotional scenario.  That seems near impossible.  Anyone who’s ever been a victim of a crime can tell you that removing the emotions is simply not possible.  Still, everyone agrees a better solution, via technological advances, must be found that will prevent innocent people from serving any jail time.

In the meantime, Dallas County, TX is expected to implement the study immediately.

Finding a Criminal Lawyer, Lawyers for your Legal Needs is now easy as step 1,2,3.  Learn More.

Think back to the early and mid-90s, when personal computers were really beginning to pop up on secretaries’ desks and throughout homes across the country. There were many discussions and fears based on how personal computers would be the downfall of the human race. Of course, we know the internet has its shortcomings and even very real dangers, but the human race is still only threatened by - well, the human race. As a whole, society is sometimes very resistant to change and if it’s something that can be challenged through any kind of court battle, the lines and swords are usually drawn. The latest resistance comes out of Vermont as lawmakers ponder changes that affect the state’s DNA databank. Some are proposing DNA be collected from those charged with crimes, versus the current law that says only those convicted of crimes are prone to contributing their genetic data to the DNA banks. The ACLU has weighed in with concerns that people who haven’t had their day in court and who are presumed innocent risk having their rights violated if they’re forced to provide DNA for the databanks. Further, they say even those who stand to be convicted on lesser charges, including misdemeanors, also risk their rights being violated if they’re forced to supply DNA prior to any convictions. Concerns are mounting over what to do with all of these collections that could be forced from innocent people.

Believe it or not, I tend to agree with this reasoning. Once this begins, where does it stop? Who’s to say a lab technician can’t be paid to match a couple of samples in an effort to find adopted children or biological parents? The possibilities are endless and the repercussions could be major if every potential problem isn’t addressed now. With that said, I also understand the general public’s right to safety. This is another point the ACLU is making - why would the public need to be protected from someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything? And too, what really happens to DNA collected from those simply charged and arraigned but never found guilty? Would there be guidelines in place to ensure these genetic blueprints are destroyed? And who’s the babysitter? Who ensures any future guidelines are followed? It seems as though technology is moving at faster paces with each new day; unfortunately, the laws can’t be written fast enough to address these advances. Still, is this any reason to not incorporate every scientific advance we can as we study the mysteries of the universe? These are all questions that must be addressed. We’re doing a huge disservice to the rights American citizens count on if we fall short of underestimating the power of DNA and the consequences of forcing samples from anyone. Think of it this way: There are two people, with the same job descriptions and the same Monday through Friday workdays, with families, mortgages and car payments. Citizen A is arrested and charged with an armed robbery. During his processing of taking fingerprints and mug shots, his cheek is swabbed for a DNA sample. A week later, the real robber turns himself in and charges are dropped against Citizen A. He returns to his predictable and normal life, but now, he’s as different from Citizen B as he could possibly be. Citizen B continues living his life and not feeling as though he’s been invaded, while Citizen A must now live with the fact a part of what makes him who he is floats through a state-run lab with the potential of an insurance company winning some future court case that allows it to use any DNA any state has collected over the years. Meanwhile, Citizen B has no problem buying a life insurance policy just as Citizen A is denied coverage because of a false identification made years earlier. Had there not been a DNA sample on file, he could expect the same approval process as Citizen B.

Clearly, this is yet again another one of those social dilemmas that have no easy answers; and it will most likely be hitting a court docket near you in the very near future.