Patriots Compete Judicially

By Broadside Staff Reporter Sonya Hudson

For students who are interested in biology, actual case files and forensics, a mock trial event was created to promote a biology course. The course titled, Biology 575 Forensic DNA Analysis, is geared towards investigative studies and is taught with Dr. Tom McClintock of the department of molecular and microbiology. McClintock’s spring semester class presented the mock trial on a fictitious case, U.S. Government v. Chapman.

The fictitious case is a capital crime of sexual assault. McClintock acknowledged that part of the job of a forensic scientist is testifying in court on the evidence of a case or on background knowledge of certain scientific ideas, like DNA.

McClintock enjoys teaching this course because of the mock trials, in which students have to apply what they have learned in class to reality-based scenarios. McClintock emphasized the point that all of the students were presented with the same evidence from the case.

After viewing the scientific evidence, the students divided into two sides, the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution is accusing David Chapman of raping his 13-year-old nephew. The defense is trying to convince the jury otherwise.

On Thursday night, prosecution presented their opening remarks, while the prosecution began by putting the crime into context. The prosecution informed the court that the victim is the 13 year-old nephew of the accused, the son of Chapman’s brother.

At a young age, the victim suffered a head injury resulting in permanent brain damage. The victim is considered legally blind and has difficulty speaking.

According to the prosecution, Chapman was sleeping on the couch of his brother’s house and returned to the house drunk the night of the crime.

Evidence of the rape was found on the victim’s bed sheets as well as on a washcloth the victim used after the fact. The DNA found on the bed sheets and the washcloth is the disputed evidence.

After the prosecution appealed to the emotions of the jury by describing the rape of the victim, the defense gave their opening remarks. The defense sighted that this case seemed deceptively simple but that the truth lies in the details.

In addition, the defense argued that science must be used properly, interpreted correctly, in order to attain the best results, the truth.

The prosecution presented their case with two experts. They had a forensics expert who provided a DNA lesson for the jury. They also presented an expert in DNA analysis who worked for the FBI and handled and examined the evidence from the case directly.

The defense had a chance to cross-examine each witness. The defense seemed to focus on small things like discrepancies in dates, some of which seemed irrelevant, such as the dates in which the expert in DNA analysis attended a conference five years prior to this case.

The defense also questioned the qualifications of the forensic expert. There seemed to be some debate over whether white blood cells had DNA.

The questions of the defense will probably make more sense once they get a chance to present their case and experts. The mock trial is now in recess until it will re-adjourn on Thursday, May 1 in Innovation Hall Room 103 at 7:30 p.m.

After the defense presents their case on Thursday night, the jury of 10 will decide the defendant’s fate. The jury consists of one graduate student, two students in high school and seven undergraduates.

In addition, all of the jury members have an interest in science and biology and were randomly selected and had no prior knowledge of the case.

Furthermore, both the prosecution and defense have worked hard to present their cases using only the scientific evidence, which is the purpose of their biology class.

McClintock emphasized the fact that all of the students, both the prosecution and the defense, were presented with the same DNA evidence, but came out with different interpretations. This was also based on the fact that both the defense and the prosecution came out with different perspectives and experts to support their theory and their objective in the case.

“Science reveals the truth,” McClintock said. But in this case, to the jury it may appear to have multiple truths.