Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

General Law Topic

I have many debates in class and on this site about fingerprints and DNA being enough to charge a suspect with a crime. Many peoples opinions vary with this topic. I can see how DNA or fingerprints inside of a house that has been burglarized can be enough to question a suspect, but not enough to arrest. I also know that all that is needed to arrest a person is PC. Still how can the DNA or fingerprints of a person inside a house be enough to car a person with the crime. Without a confession or other supporting evidence it seems like a lack of evidence to go to court. All that you really have is a theory of what might have happened. So without a confession or other evidence would the DNA alone still be enough? If I were a prosecutor I dont think I would proceed in a case if that was all that I had. I am a CJ student and I love the law. This topic has just boggled me. Even in a burglary case where the DNA belongs to a stranger, it is still hard to prove that that person committed the crime, without a confession or stolen goods. What is your opinion on this.


Asked on 11/30/08, 9:09 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Timothy Klisz Klisz Law Office, PLLC

Re: General Law Topic

Please stop posting this!!! You have posted a variation of this probably 50 times and I have to keep reading it, because I read every posting in the category. You already have your opinions, so please move on. This site is used for giving advice to people who need it, not a message board. Thank You, Tim Klisz

Read more
Answered on 11/30/08, 9:54 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in Michigan