Advances in forensic DNA analysis have led to tremendous improvements in identifying and confirming perpetrators and victims. This has added credibility to DNA evidence, resulting in cases where criminals are more likely to be forced to own up to their criminality and culpability. This paper addresses scientific and technical theories the DNA analytical technologies are founded on as well as the suitability of individual analytical procedures. Beyond these issues, it went on to discuss the requirements that need to be met in order for DNA evidence, collected through forensic DNA testing, to be admissible in court in Korea. DNA testing results are presented in court in the form of certified expert testimony. And according to Article 313, “Statement, etc.” of the Criminal Procedure Act, as long as the DNA evidence offered is free from errors in laboratory procedures and concluding interpretations of the person responsible for producing the expert opinion recording, such procedures and outcomes will be admissible as legitimate evidence in court. In other words, the aforementioned expert testimony is nothing short of legislative intent at acknowledging the testimony as admissible in court, thus should not be understood as standards with which the scientific evidence concerned is admissible and tried at court. For this reason, admissibility in court of DNA evidence from DNA forensic analysis should not only be based on whether it meets the requirements as expert testimony, but also whether its theories of reasoning and analyses are founded on acceptable scientific principles. Furthermore, the tools and methods used in DNAprofiling need to be validated, allowing the analyzed result in question to be assessed for admissibility in criminal court. Trends of precedents regarding DNA evidence seem to require that the relevancy of DNA analytical theories, suitability of DNA analytical methods that have implemented these theories, and maintenance of the chain of custody of evidence by applying scientific procedures to the targets concerned, be met for the evidence to be admissible in court. Furthermore, it may be fair to say that within the structure of Korea’s criminal prosecution, the processes involved in determining whether or not DNA evidence is credible may be part of what is needed to assess its probative value. At the moment, theoretical foundations of DNA analysis are deemed reliable with the overall approval of scientific circles, however there are improvements made all the time in standard analytical methodologies and procedures regarding their implementation and analytical techniques. This has created an unbridgeable gap between common knowledge and the outcomes of scientific research activities that legal experts, particularly trial judges, are left with no choice but to be more and more dependent on expert testimony when they assess the credibility of DNA evidence. Still, the more weight DNA analysis carries, the more likely serious errors in laboratory testing occur; thus, there is increased emphasis on how to keep the chain of custody in determining the admissibility of DNA evidence, for example, the qualification of those involved in testing, sample collection and preservation, stability of the testing methods that have been utilized, and conformance to analytical procedures. Therefore, if there is evidence that is crucial in determining guilt in crime, and the continuity of its preservation is closely related to the presence and integrity of the evidence concerned, namely DNA evidence, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity for the credibility of evidence to be tried in court during the entire processes of such evidence being collected, stored and analyzed to: prevent wrongful accusations; to make court proceedings more impartial; and to comply with appropriate procedures. To this end, cross examination of witnesses, disclosure of extensive evidence of the parties involved, and cross examinat
Read full abstract