R v Adams

Last updated

R v Adams
DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png
The panel judgement, and its aftermath laid out the proper directions for the probability of a DNA match, where a good DNA sample was obtained from the crime scene and "matched" to the defendant
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Full case nameRegina v. Denis John Adams
DecidedApril 26, 1996 (1996-04-26)
Citations [1996] EWCA Crim 10
[1996] EWCA Crim 222
2 Cr App R 467
[1996] Crim LR 898, CA
[1998] 1 Cr App R 377
The Times, 3 November 1997
Case history
Prior actionTrial with conviction by jury
Appealed from Central Criminal Court
Subsequent actionRetrial by a properly-directed jury as to DNA evidence
Court membership
Judges sittingRose LJ, Hidden J, Buxton J
Case opinions
Decision byRose LJ
Keywords
DNA evidence

R v Adams [1996] EWCA Crim 10 and 222, are rulings in the United Kingdom that banned the expression in court of headline (soundbite), standalone Bayesian statistics from the reasoning admissible before a jury in DNA evidence cases, in favour of the calculated average (and maximal) number of matching incidences among the nation's population. The facts involved strong but inconclusive evidence conflicting with the DNA evidence, leading to a retrial.

Contents

Facts

A rape victim described her attacker as in his twenties. A suspect, Denis Adams, was arrested and an identity parade was arranged. The woman failed to pick him out, and on being asked if he fitted her description replied in the negative. She had described a man in his twenties and when asked how old Adams looked, she replied about forty. Adams was 37; he had an alibi for the night in question, his girlfriend saying he had spent the night with her. The DNA was the only incriminating evidence heard by the jury, as all the other evidence pointed towards innocence.

Judgment

Use of Bayesian analysis in the court

The DNA profile of the suspect fitted that of evidence left at the scene. The defence argued that the match probability figure put forward by the prosecution (1 in 200 million) was incorrect, and that a figure of 1 in 20 million, or perhaps even 1 in 2 million, was more appropriate. The issue of how the jury should resolve the conflicting evidence was addressed by the defence by a formal statistical method. The jury was instructed in the use of Bayes's theorem by Professor Peter Donnelly of Oxford University. The judge told the jury they could use Bayes's theorem if they wished. Adams was convicted and the case went to appeal. The Appeal Court judges noted that the original trial judge did not direct the jury as to what to do if they did not wish to use Bayes's theorem and ordered a retrial.

At the retrial the defence team again wanted to instruct the new jury in the use of Bayes's theorem (though Prof. Donnelly had doubts about the practicality of the approach). [1] The judge asked that the statistical experts from both sides work together to produce a workable method of implementing Bayes's theorem for use in a courtroom, should the jury wish to use it. A questionnaire was produced which asked a series of questions such as:

These questions were intended to allow the Bayes factors of the various pieces of evidence to be assessed. The questionnaires had boxes where jurors could put their assessments and a formula to enable them to produce the overall odds of guilt or innocence. Adams was convicted once again and again an appeal was made to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful but the Appeal Court ruling was highly critical of the appropriateness of Bayes's theorem in the courtroom.

Statistical analysis of DNA

The only evidence against Adams was the DNA evidence. His age was substantially different from that reported by the victim, the victim did not identify him and he had an alibi which was never disproved. The 1 in 200 million match probability calculation did not allow for the fact that the perpetrator might be a close relative of the defendant – an important point, since the defendant had a half-brother in his 20s whose DNA was never tested.

Court guidelines for using statistical evidence in DNA cases

The Court of Appeal after the appeal wrote the guidelines for the way that match probabilities should be explained to jurors. Judges should say something along the lines of the following.

"Suppose the match probability is 1 in 20 million. That means that in Britain (population about 60 million) there will be on average about 2 or 3 people, and certainly no more than 6 or 7, whose DNA matches that found at the crime scene, in addition to the accused. Now your job, as a member of the jury, is to decide on the basis of the other evidence, whether or not you are satisfied that it is the person on trial who is guilty, rather than one of the few other people with matching DNA. We don't know anything about the other matching people. They are likely to be distributed all across the country and may have been nowhere near the crime scene at the time of the crime. Others may be ruled out as being the wrong sex or the wrong age group." [1]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Donnelly, P. (2005). "Appealing statistics". Significance . 2: 46–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2005.00089.x .

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M'Naghten rules</span> Guideline governing legal pleas of insanity

The M'Naghten rule(s) (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) is a legal test defining the defence of insanity, first formulated by the House of Lords in 1843. It is the established standard in UK criminal law. Versions have been adopted in some US states, currently or formerly, and other jurisdictions, either as case law or by statute. Its original wording is a proposed jury instruction:

that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

Sally Clark was an English solicitor who, in November 1999, became the victim of a miscarriage of justice when she was found guilty of the murder of her two infant sons. Clark's first son died in December 1996 within a few weeks of his birth, and her second son died in similar circumstances in January 1998. A month later, Clark was arrested and tried for both deaths. The defense argued that the children had died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The prosecution case relied on flawed statistical evidence presented by paediatrician Roy Meadow, who testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering SIDS was 1 in 73 million. He had arrived at this figure by squaring his estimate of a chance of 1 in 8500 of an individual SIDS death in similar circumstances. The Royal Statistical Society later issued a statement arguing that there was no statistical basis for Meadow's claim, and expressed concern at the "misuse of statistics in the courts".

Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Barry Michael George is an English man who was found guilty of the murder of English television presenter Jill Dando and whose conviction was overturned on appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bain family murders</span> 1994 multiple homicide in New Zealand

On 20 June 1994, Robin and Margaret Bain and three of their four children – Arawa, Laniet, and Stephen – were shot to death in Dunedin, New Zealand. The only suspects were David Cullen Bain, the eldest son and only survivor, and Robin Bain, the father. David Bain, aged 22, was charged with five counts of murder. In May 1995, he was convicted on each of the five counts and sentenced to mandatory life in prison with a minimum non-parole period of sixteen years.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The use of evidence under Bayes' theorem relates to the probability of finding evidence in relation to the accused, where Bayes' theorem concerns the probability of an event and its inverse. Specifically, it compares the probability of finding particular evidence if the accused were guilty, versus if they were not guilty. An example would be the probability of finding a person's hair at the scene, if guilty, versus if just passing through the scene. Another issue would be finding a person's DNA where they lived, regardless of committing a crime there.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wrongful conviction of David Camm</span> American police officer wrongfully convicted of murder (born 1964)

David Ray Camm is a former trooper of the Indiana State Police (ISP) who spent 13 years in prison after twice being wrongfully convicted of the murders of his wife, Kimberly, and his two young children at their home in Georgetown, Indiana, on September 28, 2000. He was released from custody in 2013 after his third trial resulted in an acquittal. Charles Boney is currently serving time for the murders of Camm's wife and two children.

The Norfolk Four are four former United States Navy sailors: Joseph J. Dick Jr., Derek Tice, Danial Williams, and Eric C. Wilson, who were wrongfully convicted of the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko while they were stationed at Naval Station Norfolk. They each declared that they had made false confessions, and their convictions are considered highly controversial. A fifth man, Omar Ballard, confessed and pleaded guilty to the crime in 2000, insisting that he had acted alone. He had been in prison since 1998 because of violent attacks on two other women in 1997. He was the only one of the suspects whose DNA matched that collected at the crime scene, and whose confession was consistent with other forensic evidence.

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

Sharon Faye Keller is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. She is a Republican.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World's End Murders</span> Crime in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1977

The World's End Murders is the colloquial name given to the murder of two girls, Christine Eadie, 17, and Helen Scott, 17, in Edinburgh, in October 1977. The case is so named because both victims were last seen alive leaving The World's End pub in Edinburgh's Old Town. The only person to stand trial accused of the murders, Angus Robertson Sinclair, was acquitted in 2007 in controversial circumstances. Following the amendment of the law of double jeopardy, which would have prevented his retrial, Sinclair was retried in October 2014 and convicted of both murders on 14 November 2014. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years, the longest sentence by a Scottish court, meaning he would have been 106 years old when he was eligible for a potential release on parole. He died at HM Prison Glenochil aged 73 on 11 March 2019. Coincidentally, he died on the same day the BBC's Crimewatch Roadshow programme profiled the murders.

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to the prosecution, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members.

Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

On July 7, 2011, Richard Oland, a 69-year-old Canadian businessman and former vice-president for Moosehead Brewery, was bludgeoned to death in his office on Canterbury Street in Saint John, New Brunswick. His son, Dennis Oland, came under suspicion for the killing and was charged with second-degree murder.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Killing of Hae Min Lee</span> Unsolved 1999 homicide in Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Hae Min Lee was a Korean-American high school student who went missing on January 13, 1999, in Baltimore County, Maryland, before turning up dead on February 9, 1999, when her corpse was discovered in Leakin Park, Baltimore. Her autopsy revealed that she had been killed by way of manual strangulation.

The Eastburn family murders were the murders of Kathryn "Katie" Eastburn and her daughters, Kara and Erin, which occurred in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in May 1985. In 1986, United States Army Sergeant Timothy Hennis was tried and convicted for the three murders. In 1988, Hennis's conviction was overturned on appeal, and he was acquitted the following year. In 2006, the Cumberland County Sherriff's Office obtained DNA evidence linking Hennis to the crime. Despite the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause prohibiting retrials after acquittals, the United States Army was able to initiate prosecution and trial proceedings against Hennis under the dual sovereignty doctrine. In 2010, Hennis was tried and convicted by an Army court-martial for the triple murders and sentenced to death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius Jones (prisoner)</span> American prisoner (born 1980)

Julius Darius Jones is an American prisoner and former death row inmate from Oklahoma who was convicted of the July 1999 murder of Paul Howell. His case has received international attention due to claims of innocence and controversy surrounding his trial and conviction. Jones was convicted of the crime on the basis of what the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later characterized as an "overwhelming" body of evidence consisting of "a co-defendant who directly implicated Jones, eyewitness identification, incriminating statements made by Jones after the crime, flight from police, damning physical evidence hidden in Jones's parents' home, and an interlocking web of other physical and testimonial evidence consistent with the State's theory."