DNA is classified as circumstantial evidence as there are a variety of scenarios in which the DNA could have been there, say at a popular pub there was a murder, a police man finds some blood on the floor which was not that of the victim; this is not conclusive as the blood could have gotten there a variety of ways.
Added: In order to be admitted into evidence, as one of the qualifying exceptions of the "circumstantial evidence" rule, supporting facts and/or evidence must bolster its admission. Something more than mere conjecture must be offered in support of the collected DNA.
Hair is considered class evidence because it cannot be individualized to a single person based on microscopic characteristics alone. While hair can provide information on characteristics such as color and texture, it is not unique enough to definitively match to a single individual like DNA or fingerprints.
There are many arguments for and against DNA evidence. One argument is that it cannot be disproved as deciding evidence.
Class evidence is the category for most evidence. Class evidence is evidence associated with a group and not a single source. Example: general piece of something (like a paint chip) blood (we can only generalize) Individual evidence is evidence that can be virtually, unambiguously traced to a source. Example: finger prints DNA tool marks (under a microscope) anything torn or broken (must be very specific)
DNA is a nucleic acid.
Indiana's statute of limitations are based on the seriousness of the crime charged. Murder and Class A Felonies have no limit. The other felonies typically battery, but it could be a Class A, are set at 5 years with extensions for underage victims and DNA evidence. Absence from the state or concealing the evidence can toll the statute.
Yes, blood is considered class evidence because it does not have characteristics that are unique to a single individual. Blood can be classified based on blood type and other genetic markers, but it cannot definitively link to a specific individual without additional DNA analysis.
dna
DNA evidence says they are not.
DNA
you need many copies of DNA for DNA fingerprinting
DNA evidence from blood, hair, saliva, or other bodily fluids found at the crime scene can be used for DNA fingerprinting. This evidence is compared to the DNA profiles of suspects to determine if a match exists, helping to identify or exclude individuals involved in the crime.
Yes, DNA fingerprinting is a powerful tool for solving crimes because it can definitively link a suspect to a crime scene or victim. DNA evidence is scientifically reliable and has high accuracy, which can help prosecutors secure convictions or help exonerate innocent suspects. However, it is important to consider the chain of custody and proper handling of DNA samples to ensure the integrity of the evidence.