Dna

I would like to respond to Dan Rodricks ' column on taking DNA samples from people who are arrested ("DNA: Why wait for an arrest?" May 3). I support his opinion, but I think he could have included more reasons, especially for a general gathering of DNA. If all of us gave samples, the medical world would benefit tremendously. Close matching organ donors could be located immediately. Untold information could ease the tracking of diseases from the common cold to virulent cancers.

A Baltimore judge postponed the trial of a second man accused of nearly beheading three young relatives nine years ago until October so that lawyers have more time to prepare arguments on DNA evidence. Adan Canela, 26, is charged with multiple murder and conspiracy counts in the deaths of three of his young relatives, who were killed in May 2004. His uncle, Policarpio Espinoza Perez, 31, was convicted on murder conspiracy charges in the case earlier this year and sentenced to life in prison last month.

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to strike down Maryland's controversial DNA collection law, the House of Delegates on Thursday voted to extend it.  The 2009 law allows police to collect DNA samples from people arrested for certain violent crimes. It is set to sunset at the end of the year. By a 135-1 vote, the House decided to make it permanent.  The measure now moves to the Senate. In late February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the law violated the Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. - Louis D. Brandeis Just a few words and little thought separate yet another stronghold of the American economy from ruin. It doesn't have to be that way. The U.S. patent system has made America's biotech and pharmaceutical industries the envy of the world. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case posing the question: "Are human genes patentable?"

A bipartisan group of Maryland lawmakers today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a state law that allows police to collect DNA samples from those arrested for violent crimes and some burglaries.  The lawmakers, led by Montgomery County Del. Sam Arora (D), said the law is a critical tool for law enforcement, has helped put rapists and other criminals behind bars and should be reinstated. Eighteen others signed on to the amicus brief. Attorney General Doug Gansler has also asked the court to uphold the state law. The 2008 DNA collection law was overturned by the Maryland Court of Appeals in April, when judges agreed with civil liberties groups that have argued that people are presumed innocent at the time of arrest.

HERE'S WHAT'S scary about the case against Bernard Webster, the Baltimore man who spent 20 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit: There was no prosecutorial misconduct. Police didn't beat a confession out of him. He had a good lawyer at trial. And three eyewitnesses said they saw him near the crime scene. If not for DNA evidence collected after he had sat in a cell for nearly half his life, and a lawyer hellbent on determining the indisputable truth, nothing about this case would have suggested he wasn't guilty.

The residents of Scarlett Place should be ashamed of themselves. Some lady has her delicate sensibilities offended because she saw some dog waste, so now they are going to the trouble and expense of DNA testing every animal in the building. There are a lot of more important things in this world that are far more offensive to most people. Rather than waste time and money on silly DNA testing, they should be donating their time and money to the local food bank or homeless shelter instead.

The criminal defense lawyers make the fair and typical plea for the "right to privacy" on behalf of the violent suspects they represent, but they ignore that the victim of a crime, be it an individual, a store or whatever, has not only lost their privacy but considerably more in the process ("Maryland police continue to collect DNA samples," April 26). There are consequences to bad behavior and if giving up your DNA is one of them, so be it. Peter Bell, Monkton

Police around Maryland said Wednesday that they would continue to collect DNA samples when suspects are arrested for violent crimes and burglaries, despite a recent ruling by the state's top court limiting the practice. Several law enforcement agencies, including the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, were awaiting a decision on whether the state will appeal before they make changes. Gov. Martin O'Malley, Baltimore's mayor and a chorus of state and local officials called for an appeal of what they see as a crucial tool that has linked suspects to other, unsolved crimes.

A DNA match led police to make a second arrest in the abduction and murder of a 24-year-old man found shot to death in a West Baltimore alley last April, according to court records. Aaron J. Davis, 24, faces 23 criminal charges in connection with the death of Qonta Waddell, who was hogtied and carried away from his mother's home by two men with handguns. Waddell was later found shot to death in the 3100 block of Windsor Ave. Charging documents say the men took $3,000 from Waddell and drove him around the city trying to scrounge up more cash.

I assumed that finding Policarpio Perez and Adan Canela guilty of the murders of their young relatives would be a slam dunk ("Split verdict in child killings," March 27). After all, the prosecution had the blood of the victims on both of the defendants' jeans as well as a pair of gloves and shoes belonging to the suspects with the victims' blood. What could be more compelling than the blood of the victims on clothing with the suspects' DNA? Thus I was flabbergasted when the judge ruled most of the blood evidence inadmissible.

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to strike down Maryland's controversial DNA collection law, the House of Delegates on Thursday voted to extend it.  The 2009 law allows police to collect DNA samples from people arrested for certain violent crimes. It is set to sunset at the end of the year. By a 135-1 vote, the House decided to make it permanent.  The measure now moves to the Senate. In late February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the law violated the Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.

The Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland is pushing legislation to close what it describes as loopholes in state law that allow police to keep DNA samples from people never convicted of crimes. Del. Jill P. Carter, a Baltimore Democrat, said Friday she is preparing — with caucus backing — to introduce a bill that would subject all DNA collected by Maryland police to the restrictive standards used for genetic information taken from people charged with violent crimes and burglaries.

Even as the U.S Supreme Court reviews Maryland's law on police collection of DNA samples, many law enforcement agencies in the state are collecting and holding genetic material from murder victims and people never convicted of crimes. The practices have raised concerns among some legislators and the public defender's office, who fought for privacy protections and other restrictions in a 2009 state law that allows DNA collection from people arrested on suspicion of serious crimes.

Maryland's practice of collecting genetic information from people arrested — but not convicted — on serious charges took the national stage Tuesday, as the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on what Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called "perhaps the most important criminal procedure case" in decades. The four-year-old DNA collection law, overturned by Maryland's top court last year and appealed to the highest level of the federal justice system, drew questions from the justices about where to draw the line on police powers.

In a Maryland case that's garnered the attention of the other 49 states, the federal Department of Justice and the national science community, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday over whether to restrict police in collecting DNA to solve crimes. The justices will rule on a police practice common in Maryland: taking genetic information from individuals arrested — but not convicted — to link them to unsolved crimes. In the past, the court has acknowledged the power of DNA but has not allowed it to run afoul of fundamental American rights such as the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

A reporting system set up to provide Maryland lawmakers with data on crime scene DNA testing by state and local law enforcement agencies has major flaws, a state auditor's review has found. The report by the state Office of Legislative Audits said that a "lack of clear guidance" in the legislation, in implementing regulations and in the report forms provided to police, led to "inconsistencies" in the reporting that have rendered any conclusions drawn from the numbers "unreliable.

Maryland's practice of collecting genetic information from people arrested — but not convicted — on serious charges took the national stage Tuesday, as the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on what Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. called "perhaps the most important criminal procedure case" in decades. The four-year-old DNA collection law, overturned by Maryland's top court last year and appealed to the highest level of the federal justice system, drew questions from the justices about where to draw the line on police powers.

In an attempt to keep one of his signature initiatives alive, Gov. Martin O'Malley wants state lawmakers to reauthorize police to collect DNA samples from crime suspects before the current statute expires later this year. The release of the Democratic governor's legislative agenda comes about a month before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the state's 2008 law is constitutional or a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

NBC is promoting "1600 Penn," a midseason sitcom from Baltimore native Jason Winer, as " 'Modern Family' meets 'The West Wing.' " Forget "The West Wing" part. After seeing three episodes, including the pilot that premieres with a sneak preview at 9:30 p.m. Monday, after "The Voice," I can tell you that this series is going to sink or swim as a family sitcom. And how much viewers like or don't like it as a family series is mainly going to depend on their reaction to Josh Gad, the Broadway star of "The Book of Mormon" who plays the screw-up son of the president of the United States (Bill Pullman)