Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In bioethics and law, gene theft or DNA theft is the act of acquiring the genetic material of another individual, usually from public places, without his or her permission. The DNA may be harvested from a wide variety of common objects such as discarded cigarettes, used condoms, coffee cups, and hairbrushes.
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000; Long title: An Act to make grants to States for carrying out DNA analyses for use in the Combined DNA Index System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide for the collection and analysis of DNA samples from certain violent and sexual offenders for use in such system, and for other purposes.
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The 2008 Reauthorization amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 by authorizing the appropriation of $151,000,000 each year for fiscal years 2009 through 2014 for grants to eligible states and local units of government to conduct DNA analyses of backlogged DNA samples collected from victims and criminal offenders.
Among the collaborators, only two were indicted – Zhang Renli of the Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences and Guangdong General Hospital, received a two-year prison sentence and a 1-million RMB (about US$145,000) fine, and Qin Jinzhou of the Southern University of Science and Technology received an 18-month prison sentence and a 500,000 RMB ...
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” [1] However, as a "bizarre conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding ...
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), [1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence to a party seeking a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Among the experts who testified in the case were DNA specialist Barry Scheck and forensic expert Henry Lee. [20] On October 13, 1999, district attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign the indictment, saying that the evidence was insufficient for prosecution. [20] [70] The public thought that the grand jury investigation had been inconclusive. [72]