About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


24 U. Tol. L. Rev. 87 (1992-1993)
DNA Identification Testing: Assessing the Threat to Privacy

handle is hein.journals/utol24 and id is 97 raw text is: DNA IDENTIFICATION TESTING: ASSESSING THE THREAT TO PRIVACY* Dan L. Burk** .0 INTRODUCTION T HE recent application of DNA profiling technology to a forensic setting has generated numerous unresolved legal issues. To date, much of the legal commentary' and virtually all of the case law concerning DNA identification testing has focused upon the adnissibility of these tests as legal evidence.2 The majority of courts have admitted this type of DNA evidence,3 although serious concerns remain concerning the statistical basis and interpretation of such tests.4 However, even before the evidentiary questions in this area have been resolved, a new round of legal commentary has appeared regarding DNA identification and issues of privacy @ 1993 by Dan L. Burk. All rights reserved. *Portions of this article were presented in an address by the author on DNA Identification Testing and Issues of Constitutional Privacy at the symposium on Forensic DNA Technology: Update '91, sponsored by the American Chemical Society, Division of Chemistry and the Law, at the Fourth Chemical Congress of North America, August 27, 1991. ** B.S., Microbiology, Brigham Young University, 1985; M.S., Molecular Biology and Biocheustry, Northwestern University, 1987; J.D., Arizona State University, 1990. Mr. Burk is a Teaching Fellow and J.S.M. candidate at Stanford Law School. 1. See Laurel Beeler & William R. Weibe, Comment, DNA Identification Tests and the Courts, 63 WASH. L. R-v 903 (1988); Adrienne M. Grover, Comment, A New Twist in the Double Helix: Admissibility of DNA Fingerprinting' in California, 5 SANTA CLAsu Comp & HIGH TEcH L.J. 469 (1989); Suzanne Hickman Stenton, Comment, Admit it! DNA Fingerprinting s Reliable, 26 Hous. L. REv 677 (1989); Lori L. Swafford, Comment, Admissibility of Genetic Profiling, 18 PPP. L. REv 123 (1990). 2. See Commonwealth v. Curmin, 565 N.E.2d 440 (Mass. 1991) (criminal evidence); State v Ford, 392 S.E.2d 781 (S.C. 1990) (same); State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1989) (same); People v. Shi Fu Huang, 546 N.Y.S.2d 920 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (same); People v. Wesley, 533 N.Y.S.2d 643 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (same); Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988) (same); People v Castro, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (same). See also In re Baby Girl S, 532 N.Y.S.2d 634 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (paternity determination); In re Paternity of J.L.K., 445 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) (same). 3. See, e.g., Smith v. Deppish, 807 P.2d 144, 159 (Kan. 1991) (cataloging the jurisdictions that have admitted DNA identification evidence); see also generally Kenneth E. Melson, Legal and Ethical Considerations in DNA FiNoERPRINTm11o: AN INTRoDUCTiON 189 (Lomne T. Kirby ed., 1990) (discussing court decisions on admissibility of DNA evidence). 4. See Donald A. Berry, Inferences Using DNA Profiling in Forensic Identification and Paternity Cases, 6 STAT. Sc. 175 (1991); David H. Kaye, Comment: Uncertainty in DNA Profile Evidence, 6 STAT. Sci. 196 (1991); Donald A. Berry, DNA Fingerprinting: What Does It Prove?, CHANCE, Summer 1990, at 15; Joel E. Cohen, DNA Fingerprinting: What (Really) Are the Odds, CHANcE, Summer 1990, at 26.