COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, v Paul David CREWS Research Paper

soil of Pennsylvania, v capital of Minnesota David CREWS - Research Paper ExampleThe case study of commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. capital of Minnesota David Crew is among the most valuable perspective pertaining to the use of deoxyribonucleic acid evidence in solving crime. The lovesome treatment of victims in DNA cases is essential across the entire criminal justice system initial beginning with the arrival of the responders at the crime scene and then continuing until long after suspects are convicted. All types of victims curiously sexual assault victims should be subjected to fair and sensitive treatment with respect and dignity, especially during the collection of biological evidence from a wider range of crime scenes, which is now beginning to regularly hap in the United States. Problems regarding the security and privacy of a victims information in DNA cases are a major hit. The Victims DNA profiles are characteristically entered into databases which cause many victi ms to worry almost the privacy of this information, whether it spate be accessed by the perpetrators through the local databases or the internet. There is also concern about whether this technology can be used against victims who may have committed other crimes, which can possibly result in a decrease in reporting (PLJ, 2012). In this research paper, I chose the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Paul David Crews in which many comical talents pertaining DNA evidence were tough in prosecuting the culprit. I am going to study facets of this case which I deem necessary to pertain for the purpose of this research. Here, there is a combination of professional unique talents, the respect, their dignity and strive to foster their committal to excellence in their work that led to justice. Unity and diversity of people on the free metamorphose of ideas, on learning, living and working harmoniously is truly the pillar of a communitys intensity in society as we shall observe i n this paper. For the purpose of grasping the whole concept of the case, I will briefly touch on other facets of the case other than those pertaining DNA evaluation. It is the professional neutral performance of each that slowly but surely led to justice (PLJ, 2012). Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, V Paul David Crews In the morning of September 13, 1990, two hikers, Geoffrey Hood and Molly LaRue, were hit .The woman tied, raped, and stabbed, resulting to her death. Her boyfriend, shot tierce times. The suspect Paul David Crews was arrested week later and subsequently charged with the murders. There were a number of witnesses who presented themselves to testify. The start witnesses testified seeing the suspect visit a library seeking a map of the terrain where the couple was murdered while other witnesses testified the suspect seeking directions of the trail that coincidentally was the same with those of the murdered couple. These witnesses openly divided up their knowledge to the relevant authorities. Some even vividly testified of seeing the suspect wearing the hiking gear be to the male victim along with other objects. A ballistics expert also testified that the handgun have by the suspect upon his arrest was the murder weapon which. An FBI DNA expert, after caring out his unique duty came to a conclusion thus testifying that the suspects DNA patterns matched with those obtained from semen samples the female victims vagina. The jury which comprises of carefully selected individuals of change personalities and background