Book Review: D. Kaye The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. 323 pp. $45.00. ISBN 978-0-674-03588

• Author: Ronald L. Carlson
• Published date: 01 June 2011
• Date: 01 June 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016810385304
• Subject Matter: Articles

222
Criminal Justice Review 36(2)
medicine? Will marijuana be able to escape designations—criminal and medicinal—that continue to
be subjected to government regulation?
While some may welcome the change of tide from criminalization to medicalization, London
urges us to explore alternative designations: ‘‘In their eagerness to choose the lesser of two public
policy evils, Americans run the risk of failing to consider the availability of alternatives’’ (p. 146).
His caution arises in considering that both criminal and medicinal definitions reflect the power of
branding from the federal government. Given the history and conclusions London provides, we
should take care going from one form of social control to another.
D. Kaye
The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence Boston, MA: Harvard University Press,
2010. 323 pp. $45.00. ISBN 978-0-674-03588
Reviewed by: Ronald L. Carlson, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
DOI: 10.1177/0734016810385304
Professor David Kaye has delivered a book that is loaded with scientific history, coupled with
technical detail. The evolution of DNA methodology is ably set forth, and landmark cases such
as the O. J. Simpson trial establish important milestones.
Few will remember that team O. J. initially moved to exclude DNA and then ultimately withdrew
the motion. After that, it was revealed that DNA linked bloodstains leading from the bodies to
O. J. Bloodstains were also on the socks that O. J. discarded in his bedroom and this blood on the
socks belonged to O. J. and his murdered wife Nicole. Kaye leaves no doubt about the conclusions he
draws from this compelling evidence: ‘‘In the course of the killings, the knife slipped and cut O. J. on
his hand. After the butchery, he returned to his car, ‘leaving a trail of bloody footprints’ (as well as
five drops of his own blood).’’
The fact of O. J.’s acquittal in the face of such evidence stands in stark contrast to the views of
some DNA critics. These dissenters urge that jury exposure to DNA...