Deck 5: DNA Evidence and Wrongful Convictions: Causes, Consequences, and Remedies: Mai E.Naito Michael Vaughn

Question 1

Which type of DNA is unique to the individual because the DNA is inherited from both parents?

A) Mitochondria.
B) Vacuole.
C) Nuclear.
D) Centriole.

Answer 1

C

Question 2

Choose the correct statement:

A) DNA evidence is infallible.
B) DNA exonerations show wrongful convictions, but never lead to wrongful convictions.
C) DNA exonerations lead to wrongful convictions, but never show wrongful convictions.
D) DNA exonerations show and lead to wrongful convictions.

Answer 2

D

Question 3

Postconviction DNA testing has the power to prove innocence and lead to ________________ of exonerations.

A) Tens.
B) Hundreds.
C) Thousands.
D) Tens of thousands.

Answer 3

C

Question 4

DNA mistakes that may lead to wrongful convictions may be the result of

A) Unreliable or faulty analyses.
B) Contaminated specimens.
C) Overconfident expert testimony.
D) All of the above.

Question 5

One of the most critical steps in maintaining quality of evidence is

A) Analysis.
B) Presentation.
C) Collection and preservation.
D) Identification.

Question 6

Many forensic laboratories have had problems associated with analysis of DNA evidence. One of the major problems identified was

A) Backlog because of overwhelming amount of evidence.
B) Lab personnel taking shortcuts.
C) Both a and b.
D) None of the above.

Question 7

Presentation of DNA evidence in the courtroom can have an influence on the miscarriage of justice because of

A) Overzealous statements.
B) Lack of objections.
C) Lack of knowledge about the fundamentals of DNA by courtroom players.
D) All of the above.

Question 8

This case determined the admissibility of evidence for both federal and state courts on reliability and methods that are "generally accepted" in the scientific community.

A) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993).
B) Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923).
C) People v. Castro (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989).
D) Maryland v. King (2013).

Question 9

This case determined the admissibility of expert testimony of scientific evidence in federal court.

A) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993).
B) Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923).
C) People v. Castro (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989).
D) Maryland v. King (2013).

Question 10

This case determined that collecting DNA through a cheek swab from an arrestee is a legitimate police booking procedure like fingerprinting and photographing.

A) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993).
B) Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923).
C) People v. Castro (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989).
D) Maryland v. King (2013).