Counsel in a trial are arguing that a DNA analysis isn’t proof that a particular person was at the scene of a crime. As a DNA an
alyst, you’ve identified a point that clearly matches the DNA sample and the suspects DNA. What should your response as an expert witness be? A.
Agree with the lawyer that one matching point is likely to be a coincidence
B.
Argue that the DNA, combined with other testimony, makes the suspect likely to have been there
C.
Argue that even one point of similarity in a DNA profile means the chances of a mistake are one in a billion
D.
Argue that the suspect is clearly guilty, and the DNA analysis is irrelevant
B. Argue that the DNA, combined with other testimony, makes the suspect likely to have been there
Explanation:
If the subject's DNA was at a crime scene, they are likely to have been there. However, this doesn't automatically mean they are guilty; they could have just been a bystander. You also have to take into account where the DNA sample was found and other testimonies.
Yes because if we did not have those laws in place, anyone could vote. Would you think its okay to let a 15 year old vote? Personally, i believe it would be good, but also illegal.
African American Spirituals had developed by the African American tradition/ belief and cultural diffusion which is the spread of good's and ideas among people of different cultures
people in the south favored the decision because they could take their slaves to the North. The north feared this decision because they thought slavery would become legal everywhere
