![]() |
Rosalind Franklin By MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology |
His defence could question the science, but that requires Mangione providing a sample of his DNA. Also, PA law says:
§ 58.2 . Authority of law enforcement officers.
The General Assembly has declared that nothing contained in the act shall limit or abrogate any existing authority of law enforcement officers to take, maintain, store and utilize DNA samples for law enforcement purposes. See section 506 of the act (35 P. S. § 7651.506). Failure to comply with this subchapter does not
form the basis for suppression of otherwise admissible evidence.
And Pennsylvania's law on DNA evidence (CHAPTER 58. DNA DETECTION OF SEXUAL AND VIOLENT OFFENDERS ACT) specifically mentions 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502 (relating to murder) as a reason for collecting DNA.
I mean, he was caught with the ID used to stay at the NYC hostel, the murder weapon, and his DNA links him to the crime scene. Of course, the defence wants to see this evidence suppressed.
My opinion is that it will be allowed unless the defence can discredit the science, which would probably require Mangione to submit a DNA sample.
No comments:
Post a Comment