How Far Can Federal Officers Search in Connection with an Arrest

the grasp of the court, whereas it appears that the other putative fathers were not; so for practical purposes, either the defendant was the father or no father could be obtained. The present state of the law in this area seems much as it should be. Juries certainly should be entitled to any evidence of non-paternity which the defendant can provide, and should be allowed to give that evidence determinative weight if they wish. In cases where the only evidence of paternity is the unsupported testimony of the mother, juries should not be allowed capriciously to reject scientific proof in an effort to aid her in shopping for a father for her child. But in those cases involving scientific proof, where opposing evidence is adequate, a jury should be given a certain amount of leeway. It should be permitted occasionally to find that the legal father is someone other than the biological father. In all types of cases, allowing juries apparently to reject scientific proof adds to the individualization of the application and administration of the law. While entirely too frequently juries defeat justice when acquitting defendants scientifically proven guilty, or when finding them guilty although scientifically proven innocent, the remedy is not in denying the juries the power to do this. The remedy lies in better selection of the jurors, and more adequate instruction.19 It would be regrettable indeed to deprive our legal machinery of one of its most effective mechanisms for the promotion of justice in the individual case by denying juries the power to individualize the treatment of the parties

Computer Science · Criminal Law and Evidence · Engineering · Jury Decision Making Processes · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Mechanical Engineering