Rule 702 and 403 requires the court to establish the admissibility of evidence by harmonizing its practical input against the potential for misunderstanding by the jury. As such, the court should factor in the reliability and soundness of the technique or process applied in generating evidence for it to be admissible. However, there is a possibility that is admitting the evidence might overwhelm, mislead, or confuse the jury and the proffered relationship between the scientific researches under consideration, and then disputed factual issues in the case. Such scenarios occur when the defendant is not the source of the implicating evidence (Smit, Ruth & David 132). Thus, evidence would confuse, overwhelm, or mislead a jury if its general acceptance test is controversial.
As a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case, presenting the findings of a DNA analysis without misleading the jury of exaggerating the significance of the evidence is by formulating a relevant hypothesis. In submission, assessing the relationship between the DNA analysis and hypothesis of the case is essential in ensuring that it is admissible in the court. Defining a sub-hypothesis that has a close relationship with the recovered DNA evidence in a manner that offers transparency in the process of reasoning would be critical to ensure the jury is not misled.
One of the approaches of addressing the jury after presentation of a DNA evidence that incriminates the defendant is by disputing the hypothesis and validity of the evidence. Such address would focus on questioning the validity such as digital evidence, fingerprint, and handwriting evidence (Smit, Ruth & David 132). A defendant attorney may challenge the conditions under which the evidence was collected through subjectivism of forensic analysis techniques that could have influenced the process.
Unquestionably, DNA evidence is beneficial for solving criminal cases, especially in cases where the offender is identified. In such scenarios, DNA evidence would provide an accurate comparison of evidence collected from the crime scene. The outcome of such a comparison would help find whether the suspect committed the crime. Even though there are scenarios where DNA evidence has to mislead the jury, such issues are rare and form a small portion of all cases. DNA evidence has also helped in exonerating those jailed wrongfully. Thus, the DNA technique is beneficial for both offenders and victims in judicial processes.