The process of DNA profiling was developed by British geneticist Alec Jeffries in 1984 and has been instrumental in the forensic analysis of crime scene evidence leading to the conviction of perpetrators and the freeing of innocent convicts. This segment looks at the use of DNA fingerprinting as an additional way to identify children in the event of their disappearance.
All 50 Secrets of the Sequence videos have an accompanying classroom-tested lesson that encourages students to further explore the video topics. Each lesson includes background information, state and national science standards, discussion questions and answers, teacher notes and an activity that will ensure a hands-on, "minds-on" experience. To see lessons for this series, visit http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/secretsofthesequence/.
All 50 Secrets of the Sequence videos have an accompanying classroom-tested lesson that encourages students to further explore the video topics. Each lesson includes background information, state and national science standards, discussion questions and answers, teacher notes and an activity that will ensure a hands-on, "minds-on" experience. To see lessons for this series, visit http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/secretsofthesequence/.
Forensic experts use science when examining a crime scene and examining evidence.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO ALIBI
In Malaysia, it is possible to revert to Section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 as possibly applying to the defence of alibi. However none of the decided cases make reference to this section and to the relevant illustration to the section.
However it has to be borne in mind that if relevance is to be placed on Section 103, then the burden is on the accused to prove that he was elsewhere, ie the probative burden is on him. Of course such proof is on a balance of probabilities.
The defence of alibi is subject to Section 402A which requires a notice to be given of a defence of alibi. The section interpolates strict compliance of a written notice in support of a defence of alibi to be given to the Public Prosecuter at least ten days before the commencement of the trial. The notice shall also include particulars of the place where the accused claims to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged together with the names and addresses of any witnesses whom he intends to call for the purpose of establishing his alibi.
In considering whether a defence of alibi has been established, the learned judge is not limited to the evidence as to alibi but must consider all the other evidence as well (Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v. Public Prosecuter [1983] 2 MLJ 232).
Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON) A122879
However it has to be borne in mind that if relevance is to be placed on Section 103, then the burden is on the accused to prove that he was elsewhere, ie the probative burden is on him. Of course such proof is on a balance of probabilities.
The defence of alibi is subject to Section 402A which requires a notice to be given of a defence of alibi. The section interpolates strict compliance of a written notice in support of a defence of alibi to be given to the Public Prosecuter at least ten days before the commencement of the trial. The notice shall also include particulars of the place where the accused claims to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged together with the names and addresses of any witnesses whom he intends to call for the purpose of establishing his alibi.
In considering whether a defence of alibi has been established, the learned judge is not limited to the evidence as to alibi but must consider all the other evidence as well (Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v. Public Prosecuter [1983] 2 MLJ 232).
Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON) A122879
EXHIBITS
A prosecution's case does not fail merely because the exhibit which is the subject of the offence has ceased to be in the original state and condition at the time when it is tendered in court if there is reasonable and acceptable explanation as to how the change had taken place (Public Prosecution v. Abd Aziz b Anuar & Anor [1989] 1 CLJ 1117). A search list becomes a written statement amounting to a confession once the accused puts his signature on it. If it was meant to be the receipt of the exhibit itself, it could be acknowledged by some other clear means, not by putting the accused's name and signature on the exhibit itself. Accordingly since no caution would have been administered to the accused before he signed the search list, the document is inadmissable (Public Prosecution v. Lim Mung Shaing [1989] 2 CLJ 475.
In Mohd Osman b Pawan v. Public Prosecuter [1989] 2 CLJ 388 SC, the relevant exhibits were kept in a strong room with other exhibits relating to other cases. They were not labelled nor marked. No register was kept of what other exhibits were kept in the room together with the present exhibits. The possibility of sending different exhibits to a chemist for analysis was highly probable in a situation such as this. However in Public Prosecution v. Teng Boon How [1990] 2 CLJ 1033, the court held that there are no binding authorities to the effect that the arresting officer should mark exhibits recovered by him; lack of such marking did not mean that there was a break in the chain of evidence if the prosecution could show that the exhibits were not mixed up with others.
Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON) A122879
In Mohd Osman b Pawan v. Public Prosecuter [1989] 2 CLJ 388 SC, the relevant exhibits were kept in a strong room with other exhibits relating to other cases. They were not labelled nor marked. No register was kept of what other exhibits were kept in the room together with the present exhibits. The possibility of sending different exhibits to a chemist for analysis was highly probable in a situation such as this. However in Public Prosecution v. Teng Boon How [1990] 2 CLJ 1033, the court held that there are no binding authorities to the effect that the arresting officer should mark exhibits recovered by him; lack of such marking did not mean that there was a break in the chain of evidence if the prosecution could show that the exhibits were not mixed up with others.
Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON) A122879
LYING WITNESS
If a witness demonstrably tells lies on one or two points, then it is clear that he is not a reliable witness, and as a matter of prudence, the rest of his evidence must be scrutinised with great care and indeed with suspicion. To say, however, that because a witness has been proved a liar on one or two points then the whole of his evidence must in law be rejected is to go too far and is wrong (Khoon Chye Hin v. Public Prosecuter [1961] MLJ 105, 107). If a witness is shown to be telling lies, the rest of his evidence must be treated with caution (Gulwant Singh v. Abdul Khalik [1964] MLJ 286).
The contradictions and discrepancies or even demonstrable falsehoods in the evidence of a witness are not sufficient reasons for rejecting the whole of the evidence of such witness. The proper approach is to view the evidence with suspicion and to treat it with caution. Discrepancies and contradictions there will always be in any case. In considering them, what the court has to decide is whether they are of such a nature as to discredit the witness entirely and render the whole of his evidence worthless and untrustworthy (De Silva v. Public Prosecution [1964] MLJ 81, 83). The rule is that if a witness had lied on one or two points, it does not necessarily follow that his whole evidence should be rejected. But it is the duty of the court to sieve the evidence and to ascertain what are parts of the evidence tending to incriminate the accused which could be accepted (Tua Kin Ling v. Public Prosecuter [1970] 2 MLJ 61).
Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON) A122879
The contradictions and discrepancies or even demonstrable falsehoods in the evidence of a witness are not sufficient reasons for rejecting the whole of the evidence of such witness. The proper approach is to view the evidence with suspicion and to treat it with caution. Discrepancies and contradictions there will always be in any case. In considering them, what the court has to decide is whether they are of such a nature as to discredit the witness entirely and render the whole of his evidence worthless and untrustworthy (De Silva v. Public Prosecution [1964] MLJ 81, 83). The rule is that if a witness had lied on one or two points, it does not necessarily follow that his whole evidence should be rejected. But it is the duty of the court to sieve the evidence and to ascertain what are parts of the evidence tending to incriminate the accused which could be accepted (Tua Kin Ling v. Public Prosecuter [1970] 2 MLJ 61).
Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON) A122879