Selling Your Competence 35
D: No.
P: Is it likely that the DNA symbol of anyone in this country would
match exactly with any of these three?
D: No.
P: Doctor, would you call the DNA as accurate an identification
as a handwriting sample?
D: More accurate.
P: And, Doctor, would you call it as accurate an identification as
a fingerprint?
D: More accurate.
P: Doctor, if I told you there were samples of this DNA (points to
“A”) on the body of the murdered woman, on the body of the
murdered man, on the defendant’s clothing, on his driveway, in
his Bronco, and inside his house, would you say that we have
the equivalent of an eyewitness to two murders?
D: Yes.
P: No further questions.
•••
What they need to know
That’s all the jury needed to know.
Yes, the defense will object.
They’ll cross-examine.
They’ll put their own DNA expert witnesses on the stand.
I’m not saying that this line of questioning would have changed
the outcome of the trial, but it would have been more effective
than two weeks of agonizing detail and would have made it harder
for the jury to acquit.
The jury needed to know the DNA evidence. It was the criti-
cal part of the trial. But the prosecution made the mistake of think-
ing those 12 people needed to know lots more than they really did.
DNA evidence became overkill, which reinforces this final point:
When you’re finished, stop.