Share
Explore BrainMass

Darryl Hunt Case (1984)

In regards to the Darryl Hunt case from 1984:

The blood type did not match the assailant's; could this be ignored today? Why or why not? Explain.
Are crimes still tied together today? Explain.
With today's studies, it is realized that most murders or rapes are intraracial, not interracial. Should people have realized that in 1984, or was it just a matter of bigotry?

Solution Preview

The blood type did not match the assailant's; could this be ignored today? Why or why not? Explain.

The un-matching blood type of an assailant in a criminal case could not be ignored today. Although formerly this was not recognised as a legal requirement (Cotton v. North Carolina, 318 N.C. 663 (1987), 99 N.C. App), it is now heavily relied on as part of advanced DNA testing which allows for the correct prosecution/defence of a suspect in indictable crimes.

Nowadays, blood testing is all art of DNA profiling; police may obtain a warrant to obtain such samples if the crime is classed as 'indictable' i.e. rape. The area of DNA testing has advanced so rapidly since the first case where DNA was admitted into evidence (which was Andrews v. Florida in 1988) that we cannot escape the results as singling out an assailant and pinning these to the crime. The greatest benefit that comes from DNA testing is the ability to identify who exactly was present at the time of a crime. If it is not a match, then the suspect can use that to defend against any charges filed. We can thus say that DNA testing is a double-edged sword, useful ...

Solution Summary

The expert determines why the blood type did not match the assailant's in the Darryl Hunt Case.

$2.19