document_title: Lucy Lane

question_text: who plays lois lane's sister on supergirl

question_tokens: who plays lois lane 's sister on supergirl

text: Lucy Lane

text: Publication history[edit]

text: Lucy Lane was created by Otto Binder and Curt Swan. She was introduced in Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen #36 (April 1959).[2] She is the daughter of Ella and Sam Lane, and the younger sister of Lois Lane.

text: Fictional character biography[edit]

text: In the Silver Age stories, Lucy was presented as an airline stewardess who was an on-again, off-again romantic interest of Jimmy Olsen. Lucy's Silver Age appearances often revolved around Jimmy's various attempts at romancing her. The character was believed to have died in Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane #120 (March 1972)[3] but was later revived in a story in Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen #160 (October 1973).[4]

text: Lucy was reintroduced into DC Comics' continuity in The Man of Steel #5 (December 1986). Lucy was an air traffic controller, but became affected by a mysterious blindness that was cured as a side-effect of the destruction of a Bizarro clone.[5] Lucy returned to her job and had a brief relationship with Jimmy Olsen. After many encounters with super-villains such as Sleez,[6] Deathstroke,[7] and even becoming a vampire bride,[8] she eventually started dating African-American Daily Planet staff member Ron Troupe. When Lucy became pregnant, her conservative father was enraged although Lucy explained "There's not a racist bone in Daddy's body. He hates all his daughters' beaus." Sam Lane eventually overcame his anger when Lucy and Ron were married and their child was born.

text: New Krypton[edit]

text: After a long disappearance from the principal storylines, Lucy Lane returns in the one shot Superman: New Krypton. Her past with Ron Troupe is unclear, they are possibly estranged (Troupe having resurfaced in the current storylines, working again with the Daily Planet). Her long disappearance is explained by her joining the military, in a desperate, post-mortem attempt to appease her (presumed) dead father's desire to have a son able to carry on his career in the military. Bitter and angrier than in her former appearances, she still blames Lois for General Sam Lane's apparent death during the war against Imperiex. Essentially, she thinks Lois broke his heart by putting her love for Superman before her duties as a daughter.

text: Lucy references her former appearances, even mentioning her "dating boys in Lois' circle" as failed attempts to live her life through her more successful sister, but she eventually chooses to sacrifice her life and live the military career her father intended for Lois, driving an even deeper wedge between the two sisters. Unbeknownst to her, their father is still alive, and working with the government.

text: Superwoman[edit]

text: Lucy first appeared as Superwoman in Supergirl #35, her costume a nod to that of the Bronze Age Superwoman Kristin Wells and containing a containment field that simulated Kryptonian powers. Lucy's identity was not revealed until near the story arc's end. During her tenure as Superwoman, she was ordered by her father, General Sam Lane, to kill Agent Liberty, who had been spying on General Lane and Lex Luthor.[9] She later attacked Reactron, which tipped off readers that Superwoman was not Kryptonian (in that the villain's Gold Kryptonite power source had no effect on her).[10] Supergirl unmasks Superwoman,[11] and accidentally kills her by rupturing the containment field of her suit, causing Lucy's body to contort and explode.[12]

text: In Supergirl Annual #1 readers are given the current modern backstory of Lucy Lane. In the story, Lucy, since the moment she was born, has felt overshadowed by her big sister Lois. Lucy always felt that Lois outperformed her, overshadowed her and was more loved by their father. Lucy never blames Lois but she blames her parents Sam and Ella. Feeling that by maybe being closer to Lois her father would pay more attention to her, Lucy moved to the same city but this came at the same time Lois and her father grew apart over Superman. After her father's death, Lucy joined the army. Being a great soldier and a woman, Lucy rose quickly in the ranks. During the Amazon attack on the United States, Lucy was nearly killed by two Amazons but was saved by Codename: Assassin. Awaking in Project 7734, her father is able to convince Lucy to put on the Superwoman suit, which possessed mystical qualities.

text: Although seemingly dead, Lucy's remains steal the lifeforce of a man who came too close.[13] When Lucy is recovered by General Lane's forces, they learn that the suit's mystic energies have somehow transformed her into an actual Kryptonian.[14]

text: Following the War of the Supermen storyline, Lucy is in custody in S.T.A.R. Labs by Kimiyo Hoshi and Gangbuster, who are attempting to remove Lucy's metahuman abilities. After interference by an object that crashes into a Metropolis park, before they leave Lucy's holding cell, it is shown seemingly to have lightly cracked.[15] Later, Lucy is visited by her sister Lois, who wants to talk. Lucy is unhelpful as she has completely given in to insanity.[16] Lois tells Lucy that she is disgusted by her and walks away leaving Lucy in S.T.A.R. Labs custody behind.[17] Although the crack in the cell seemed to hint at Lucy escaping at some point, nothing came of it, and once The New 52 was launched, all storylines in progress in DC were dropped in favor of the new continuity.

text: The New 52[edit]

text: In The New 52, a reboot of the DC Comics universe, Lucy Lane is first seen where she was picked up from the train station by Lois after Clark Kent was unable to fulfill his promise to Lois to do it himself.[18] Later to make up for it, Clark accompanies her, Lois, Johnathan Carrol, and Morgan Edge to the most expensive restaurant in town but is later forced to leave her with the check due to his duties as Superman.[19] Clark later makes it up to her by taking her bungee jumping, an activity which Lucy enjoys.[20] Lucy befriended and later became roommates with Olivia after they met while white water rafting. They also adopted a cat named Simon. Olivia became ill and Doctor Obeshian gave her drugs to take, the drugs having secretly been taken from an alien fungus which would mutate the user into a shapeshifting creature. Lucy and Olivia both took the pills resulting in the former turning into a wolf like creature and the latter into a giant insect-like creature. An organization named the Cartel began kidnapping users of the drug, which had begun circulating on the streets, for detox and they managed to capture Olivia. Lucy convinced Lois to save Olivia. In her insect form Lucy rescued Lois and Olivia from the Cartel's base. The issue ended with Lois comforting a hysterical Lucy.[citation needed]

text: Powers and abilities[edit]

text: Although Superwoman originally had no inherent powers, her powersuit altered her DNA via a containment field to resemble that of a Kryptonian and as such would potentially make her capable of all the same feats they possess under the yellow sun. The abilities she has used thus far are; vast superhuman strength, speed and durability, invulnerability, flight (normal and interstellar), freeze breath and heat vision. The powersuit protects her from the harmful effects of Kryptonite and grants her the ability to steal the life of someone nearby to resurrect herself. Any other non-Kryptonian abilities the suit may possess have yet to be revealed. Due to the launch of the New 52, it is unlikely that any of the suit's other powers will be revealed unless it makes an appearance in the new continuity.

text: As a result of her resurrection in Supergirl #50, she is said to have all the inherent abilities and weaknesses of "Those alien races" which were duplicated by the suit as the result of her return from the dead. While the exact number of alien races whose powers are duplicated by the suit are unknown, Kryptonian powers are among the powerset, as she displayed the ability to use Heat Vision shortly after her recovery by Sam Lane's forces when she was reborn. She confirms that she possesses super hearing when she murders a scientist working for Lane, though she does so with some form of energy blast from her hand, a power that is not among the abilities of a Kryptonian. If this statement is accurate, Lucy Lane now shares the inherent weakness to Kryptonite which all Kryptonians possess.

text: The original suit was destroyed by Supergirl but she appears to have acquired another as of Supergirl #50, and it is unknown if this suit is the same as the one she had been using to masquerade as a Kryptonian, or a non-magical one.

text: After her mutation due to drugs created from an alien fungus Lucy can transform from her mutated form to her normal form. In her mutated form Lucy can fly and apparently withstand tranquilizer darts.[citation needed]

text: In other media[edit]

text: Television[edit]

text:
A young version of Lucy Lane appears in "Monkey Fun", an episode of Superman: The Animated Series, voiced by Aria Noelle Curzon. Lucy and her sister Lois are seen in a flashback playing with Titano the monkey during their childhood. Lucy as an adult is never explicitly identified in person. She is mentioned by Lois while Clark is talking about his trouble with Mr. Mxyzptlk's visits.
Lucy Lane appeared in three episodes of the television series Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, where she was portrayed by Elizabeth Barondes and by Roxana Zal in one episode. Her most prominent role was in the episode "Metallo" when she dated small-time criminal Johnny Corben before he was identified as new villain Metallo.

text: Lucy Lane first appeared on the television series Smallville in the season four episode "Lucy"; she was played by Peyton List. In this version, Lucy has been attending school in Europe for some time, and has consequently been out of touch with her sister Lois. Lucy is briefly mentioned in the episode "Persuasion" when Lois (under the effects of Jewel Kryptonite crystals that cause Clark to unintentionally influence anyone who hears his words to obey him) believes she is marrying Clark and calls Lucy to tell her she's getting married. Lucy appears in season 10's seventh episode, as she surprises Lois along with General Sam Lane when they arrive on the Kent farm before Thanksgiving.

text: Lucy debuted in episode 3 of the Supergirl TV series, played by Jenna Dewan Tatum.[21] This version of the character is Jimmy Olsen's ex-fiancée,[22] with whom he soon reconciles.[23] In this continuity, Lucy is a major in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army assigned as a "trial counsel" (prosecutor). In the episode "Manhunter," she and Jim Harper interrogate Martian Manhunter and Alex Danvers before taking them into Project Cadmus. Supergirl reveals her identity to Lucy, who is made head of the D.E.O at the end of the episode.[24]

text: Film[edit]

text:
Lucy Lane appears in the 1984 movie Supergirl as a friend and schoolmate of Supergirl's alter-ego Linda Lee. Fame actress Maureen Teefy portrayed her here as a peppy teenager with a burgeoning relationship with Jimmy Olsen vaguely mimicking their relationship in the comics.
In Superman: The Movie, she is mentioned (not by name) by Lois Lane right before Superman makes his first public appearance. Here she is said to have three kids, two cats and a mortgage making it inconsistent with Lucy's later appearance, in the Supergirl movie which is set in the same continuity, where she is still a teenager.


document_title: Spencer Plaza

question_text: when was the first mall built in india

question_tokens: when was the first mall built in india

root

text: Spencer Plaza

text: History[edit]

text: Spencer Plaza was built in 1863–1864, established by Charles Durant and J. W. Spencer in Anna Salai, then known as Mount Road, in the Madras Presidency. The property originally belonged to Spencer & Co Ltd. Spencer & Co opened the first Departmental store in the Indian subcontinent in 1895 and the store had over 80 individual departments. After a few years, Eugene Oakshott, owner of Spencer's, shifted the department store to a new building, which was an example of Indo-Saracenic style of architecture. The building was designed by W. N. Pogson. In 1983, the original building was destroyed in a fire. The present Spencer Plaza was constructed on the same site measuring about 10 acres and was opened in 1991.[1] Spread across a million square feet built in three phases with parking space for 800 cars, the plaza is one of the major hangout for the people of Chennai. The mall was developed by Mangal Tirth Estate Limited in January 1993.[5]

tag: p

text: Building[edit]

text: The plaza is an eight-storey shopping-cum-office complex of approximately 1.068 million sq ft, consisting of nearly 600,000 sq ft of air-conditioned shopping units and 400,000 square feet (37,000 m2) of office units. The shopping arcade is located on the ground, first and second floors in all the three phases and the office units are spread between the fourth and the seventh floors. The car parks are spread over the basement, ground, second and third floors, in addition to double basement parking lots in the third phase of the building.[6]

text: The first phase of the building consists of about 300,000 sq ft, including about 125,000 sq ft of centrally air-conditioned shopping space and 100,000 sq ft of office units together with about 75,000 sq ft of service areas. The second phase consists of about 400,000 sq ft, with a provision for about 600 cars at the basement, with shops with various sizes ranging from 300 square feet (28 m2) to 2,000 sq ft. The third phase covers another 300,000 sq ft.[7] The theme of the third phase is based on colonnaded structure recreating the old Spencers around a full-height atrium.[8]

text: There are over 700 shops in the plaza, and over 22,000 people visit the plaza every day, with the number increasing to 40,000 on weekends and to 60,000 on festival days. The complex has three counters to keep track of footfalls. Over 20,000 two-wheelers check into the parking lot on weekends.[7]

text: Technical and safety aspects[edit]

text: Being a high-rise building, the complex has wet riser system and electronic fire alarm system installed. The underground sump has a storage capacity of 100,000 litres (22,000 imp gal; 26,000 US gal). A ring main surrounds the building from the pump room, and there are five wet risers running from basement to the second floor and three wet risers running from the fourth floor to the seventh floor. These risers are located at strategic points in each floor. The pump room has three pumps, one jockey pump, one main pump with electrical driven motor and one main pump connected with diesel engine. The electronic fire detection system comprises smoke detectors and manual call points located in various points in common areas in all floors, sub-stations, electrical rooms, A/C plant and so forth, which are connected to a centralized computer located at the enclosures of the chief security officer. Tere are also many portable fire extinguishers to fight different types of fires, installed at each floor in different locations. The rear periphery of the building has fire escape stairs, with the fire escape routes displayed with signboards at various points of the building. The car ramps can also be used as fire escape routes. The building has two entrances, one from Binny Road and another from Anna Salai, for fire engines.[9]

text: Fire safety include water capacity of 1.2 million litres, fire sprinklers, smoke and heat detection systems and fire extinguishers. The in-house fire department has six firemen per shift.[7]

text: Shops[edit]

text: The mall hosts major anchor stores such as Westside (spread across 20,000 sq ft) and Landmark (40,000 sq ft), and several local and international brands such as Nike, Adidas, Bata, Regal, Health & Glow, Vummidiars, Van Heusen, Proline, Allen Solly, Florshaim shoes, Lipton, Louis Philippe, Titan, Levi’s, Casio, V.I.P. Luggage, Spencer & Co (40,000 sq ft on the ground, first and second floors), Timex Watch Showroom, Swatch, Cookie Man, BPL (Profx), Color Plus, Navigator, Witco, Pantaloons (26,000 sq ft), Arrow, Lee, Music World(now closed), Food World, HSBC, ABN AMRO, American Express, Citibank (65,000 sq ft in second and third phases), First Flight[2] and Du Bowl (16,000 sq ft).[10]McDonald's, world's largest fast food chain has established an outlet .

text: On 26 February 2004, the Sri Lanka Export Development Board (SLEDB) established a trade centre at the complex at a cost of ₹ 17 million. The Sri Lanka Trade Centre is spread over 20,000 sq ft on the first floor at the third phase of the building.[11][12] Seventeen frontline Sri Lankan companies are displaying apparel, artificial flowers, confectionaries, footwear and leather products, gems and jewellery, herbal products, light engineering products, porcelain, tableware, Ceylon tea, toys, transportation and airlines.[13][14]

text: Incidents[edit]

text: On 4 September 2008, a fire erupted on the first floor of the building's first phase around 10:20 p.m. local time, perhaps due to a short circuit. A garment shop was burnt in the incident. However, with the help of 12 water tenders and 9 fire tenders, the fire was extinguished within 30 minutes, and no casualty was reported. The fire men had easy access to the spot, mainly due to the setback space available inside the building.[15][16]


document_title: DNA profiling

question_text: when was dna testing first used in court

question_tokens: when was dna testing first used in court

text: DNA profiling

text: Background[edit]

text: The modern process of DNA profiling was developed in 1984[5] by Sir Alec Jeffreys[6][7][8][9] while working in the Department of Genetics at the University of Leicester.[10]

text: Although 99.9% of human DNA sequences are the same in every person, enough of the DNA is different that it is possible to distinguish one individual from another, unless they are monozygotic ("identical") twins.[11] DNA profiling uses repetitive ("repeat") sequences that are highly variable,[11] called variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs), in particular short tandem repeats (STRs), also known as microsatellites, and minisatellites. VNTR loci are very similar between closely related individuals, but are so variable that unrelated individuals are extremely unlikely to have the same VNTRs.

text: DNA profiling process[edit]

text: Developed by Professor of Genetics Sir Alec Jeffreys,[12] the process begins with a sample of an individual's DNA (typically called a "reference sample"). A common method of collecting a reference sample is the use of a buccal swab, which is easy, non-invasive and cheap. When this is not available (e.g. because a court order is needed but not obtainable) other methods may need to be used to collect a sample of blood, saliva, semen, vaginal lubrication, or other appropriate fluid or tissue from personal items (e.g. a toothbrush, razor) or from stored samples (e.g. banked sperm or biopsy tissue). Samples obtained from blood relatives (related by birth, not marriage) can provide an indication of an individual's profile, as could human remains that had been previously profiled.

text: A reference sample is then analyzed to create the individual's DNA profile using one of a number of techniques, discussed below. The DNA profile is then compared against another sample to determine whether there is a genetic match.

text: RFLP analysis[edit]

text: The first methods for finding out genetics used for DNA profiling involved RFLP analysis. DNA is collected from cells, such as a blood sample, and cut into small pieces using a restriction enzyme (a restriction digest). This generates thousands of DNA fragments of differing sizes as a consequence of variations between DNA sequences of different individuals. The fragments are then separated on the basis of size using gel electrophoresis.

text: The separated fragments are then transferred to a nitrocellulose or nylon filter; this procedure is called a Southern blot. The DNA fragments within the blot are permanently fixed to the filter, and the DNA strands are denatured. Radiolabeled probe molecules are then added that are complementary to sequences in the genome that contain repeat sequences. These repeat sequences tend to vary in length among different individuals and are called variable number tandem repeat sequences or VNTRs. The probe molecules hybridize to DNA fragments containing the repeat sequences and excess probe molecules are washed away. The blot is then exposed to an X-ray film. Fragments of DNA that have bound to the probe molecules appear as fluoresent bands on the film.

text: The Southern blot technique is laborious, and requires large amounts of undegraded sample DNA. Also, Karl Brown's original technique looked at many minisatellite loci at the same time, increasing the observed variability, but making it hard to discern individual alleles (and thereby precluding paternity testing). These early techniques have been supplanted by PCR-based assays.

text: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis[edit]

text: Developed by Kary Mullis in 1983, a process was reported by which specific portions of the sample DNA can be amplified almost indefinitely (Saiki et al. 1985, 1988). This has revolutionized the whole field of DNA study. The process, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), mimics the biological process of DNA replication, but confines it to specific DNA sequences of interest. With the invention of the PCR technique, DNA profiling took huge strides forward in both discriminating power and the ability to recover information from very small (or degraded) starting samples.

text: PCR greatly amplifies the amounts of a specific region of DNA. In the PCR process, the DNA sample is denatured into the separate individual polynucleotide strands through heating. Two oligonucleotide DNA primers are used to hybridize to two corresponding nearby sites on opposite DNA strands in such a fashion that the normal enzymatic extension of the active terminal of each primer (that is, the 3’ end) leads toward the other primer. PCR uses replication enzymes that are tolerant of high temperatures, such as the thermostable Taq polymerase. In this fashion, two new copies of the sequence of interest are generated. Repeated denaturation, hybridization, and extension in this fashion produce an exponentially growing number of copies of the DNA of interest. Instruments that perform thermal cycling are readily available from commercial sources. This process can produce a million-fold or greater amplification of the desired region in 2 hours or less.

text: Early assays such as the HLA-DQ alpha reverse dot blot strips grew to be very popular due to their ease of use, and the speed with which a result could be obtained. However, they were not as discriminating as RFLP analysis. It was also difficult to determine a DNA profile for mixed samples, such as a vaginal swab from a sexual assault victim.

text: However, the PCR method was readily adaptable for analyzing VNTR, in particular STR loci. In recent years, research in human DNA quantitation has focused on new "real-time" quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques. Quantitative PCR methods enable automated, precise, and high-throughput measurements. Inter-laboratory studies have demonstrated the importance of human DNA quantitation on achieving reliable interpretation of STR typing and obtaining consistent results across laboratories.

text: STR analysis[edit]

text: The system of DNA profiling used today is based on PCR and uses simple sequences[13] or short tandem repeats (STR). This method uses highly polymorphic regions that have short repeated sequences of DNA (the most common is 4 bases repeated, but there are other lengths in use, including 3 and 5 bases). Because unrelated people almost certainly have different numbers of repeat units, STRs can be used to discriminate between unrelated individuals. These STR loci (locations on a chromosome) are targeted with sequence-specific primers and amplified using PCR. The DNA fragments that result are then separated and detected using electrophoresis. There are two common methods of separation and detection, capillary electrophoresis (CE) and gel electrophoresis.

text: Each STR is polymorphic, but the number of alleles is very small. Typically each STR allele will be shared by around 5 - 20% of individuals. The power of STR analysis comes from looking at multiple STR loci simultaneously. The pattern of alleles can identify an individual quite accurately. Thus STR analysis provides an excellent identification tool. The more STR regions that are tested in an individual the more discriminating the test becomes.

text: From country to country, different STR-based DNA-profiling systems are in use. In North America, systems that amplify the CODIS 20[14] core loci are almost universal, whereas in the United Kingdom the DNA-17 17 loci system (which is compatible with The National DNA Database) is in use, and Australia uses 18 core markers[15]. Whichever system is used, many of the STR regions used are the same. These DNA-profiling systems are based on multiplex reactions, whereby many STR regions will be tested at the same time.

text: The true power of STR analysis is in its statistical power of discrimination. Because the 20 loci that are currently used for discrimination in CODIS are independently assorted (having a certain number of repeats at one locus does not change the likelihood of having any number of repeats at any other locus), the product rule for probabilities can be applied. This means that, if someone has the DNA type of ABC, where the three loci were independent, we can say that the probability of having that DNA type is the probability of having type A times the probability of having type B times the probability of having type C. This has resulted in the ability to generate match probabilities of 1 in a quintillion (1x1018) or more. However, DNA database searches showed much more frequent than expected false DNA profile matches.[16] Moreover, since there are about 12 million monozygotic twins on Earth, the theoretical probability is not accurate.

text: In practice, the risk of contaminated-matching is much greater than matching a distant relative, such as contamination of a sample from nearby objects, or from left-over cells transferred from a prior test. The risk is greater for matching the most common person in the samples: Everything collected from, or in contact with, a victim is a major source of contamination for any other samples brought into a lab. For that reason, multiple control-samples are typically tested in order to ensure that they stayed clean, when prepared during the same period as the actual test samples. Unexpected matches (or variations) in several control-samples indicates a high probability of contamination for the actual test samples. In a relationship test, the full DNA profiles should differ (except for twins), to prove that a person was not actually matched as being related to their own DNA in another sample.

text: AmpFLP[edit]

text: Another technique, AmpFLP, or amplified fragment length polymorphism was also put into practice during the early 1990s. This technique was also faster than RFLP analysis and used PCR to amplify DNA samples. It relied on variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphisms to distinguish various alleles, which were separated on a polyacrylamide gel using an allelic ladder (as opposed to a molecular weight ladder). Bands could be visualized by silver staining the gel. One popular focus for fingerprinting was the D1S80 locus. As with all PCR based methods, highly degraded DNA or very small amounts of DNA may cause allelic dropout (causing a mistake in thinking a heterozygote is a homozygote) or other stochastic effects. In addition, because the analysis is done on a gel, very high number repeats may bunch together at the top of the gel, making it difficult to resolve. AmpFLP analysis can be highly automated, and allows for easy creation of phylogenetic trees based on comparing individual samples of DNA. Due to its relatively low cost and ease of set-up and operation, AmpFLP remains popular in lower income countries.

text: DNA family relationship analysis[edit]

text: Using PCR technology, DNA analysis is widely applied to determine genetic family relationships such as paternity, maternity, siblingship and other kinships.

text: During conception, the father’s sperm cell and the mother’s egg cell, each containing half the amount of DNA found in other body cells, meet and fuse to form a fertilized egg, called a zygote. The zygote contains a complete set of DNA molecules, a unique combination of DNA from both parents. This zygote divides and multiplies into an embryo and later, a full human being.

text: At each stage of development, all the cells forming the body contain the same DNA—half from the father and half from the mother. This fact allows the relationship testing to use all types of all samples including loose cells from the cheeks collected using buccal swabs, blood or other types of samples.

text: There are predictable inheritance patterns at certain locations (called loci) in the human genome, which have been found to be useful in determining identity and biological relationships. These loci contain specific DNA markers that scientists use to identify individuals. In a routine DNA paternity test, the markers used are short tandem repeats (STRs), short pieces of DNA that occur in highly differential repeat patterns among individuals.

text: Each person’s DNA contains two copies of these markers—one copy inherited from the father and one from the mother. Within a population, the markers at each person’s DNA location could differ in length and sometimes sequence, depending on the markers inherited from the parents.

text: The combination of marker sizes found in each person makes up his/her unique genetic profile. When determining the relationship between two individuals, their genetic profiles are compared to see if they share the same inheritance patterns at a statistically conclusive rate.

text: For example, the following sample report from this commercial DNA paternity testing laboratory Universal Genetics signifies how relatedness between parents and child is identified on those special markers:

text:
DNA marker
Mother
Child
Alleged father

D21S11
28, 30
28, 31
29, 31

D7S820
9, 10
10, 11
11, 12

TH01
14, 15
14, 16
15, 16

D13S317
7, 8
7, 9
8, 9

D19S433
14, 16.2
14, 15
15, 17

tag: table

text: The partial results indicate that the child and the alleged father’s DNA match among these five markers. The complete test results show this correlation on 16 markers between the child and the tested man to enable a conclusion to be drawn as to whether or not the man is the biological father.

text: Each marker is assigned with a Paternity Index (PI), which is a statistical measure of how powerfully a match at a particular marker indicates paternity. The PI of each marker is multiplied with each other to generate the Combined Paternity Index (CPI), which indicates the overall probability of an individual being the biological father of the tested child relative to a randomly selected man from the entire population of the same race. The CPI is then converted into a Probability of Paternity showing the degree of relatedness between the alleged father and child.

text: The DNA test report in other family relationship tests, such as grandparentage and siblingship tests, is similar to a paternity test report. Instead of the Combined Paternity Index, a different value, such as a Siblingship Index, is reported.

text: The report shows the genetic profiles of each tested person. If there are markers shared among the tested individuals, the probability of biological relationship is calculated to determine how likely the tested individuals share the same markers due to a blood relationship.

text: Y-chromosome analysis[edit]

text: Recent innovations have included the creation of primers targeting polymorphic regions on the Y-chromosome (Y-STR), which allows resolution of a mixed DNA sample from a male and female or cases in which a differential extraction is not possible. Y-chromosomes are paternally inherited, so Y-STR analysis can help in the identification of paternally related males. Y-STR analysis was performed in the Sally Hemings controversy to determine if Thomas Jefferson had sired a son with one of his slaves. The analysis of the Y-chromosome yields weaker results than autosomal chromosome analysis. The Y male sex-determining chromosome, as it is inherited only by males from their fathers, is almost identical along the patrilineal line. This leads to a less precise analysis than if autosomal chromosomes were testing, because of the random matching that occurs between pairs of chromosomes as zygotes are being made.[17]

text: Mitochondrial analysis[edit]

text: For highly degraded samples, it is sometimes impossible to get a complete profile of the 13 CODIS STRs. In these situations, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is sometimes typed due to there being many copies of mtDNA in a cell, while there may only be 1-2 copies of the nuclear DNA. Forensic scientists amplify the HV1 and HV2 regions of the mtDNA, and then sequence each region and compare single-nucleotide differences to a reference. Because mtDNA is maternally inherited, directly linked maternal relatives can be used as match references, such as one's maternal grandmother's daughter's son. In general, a difference of two or more nucleotides is considered to be an exclusion. Heteroplasmy and poly-C differences may throw off straight sequence comparisons, so some expertise on the part of the analyst is required. mtDNA is useful in determining clear identities, such as those of missing people when a maternally linked relative can be found. mtDNA testing was used in determining that Anna Anderson was not the Russian princess she had claimed to be, Anastasia Romanov.

text: mtDNA can be obtained from such material as hair shafts and old bones/teeth. Control mechanism based on interaction point with data. This can be determined by tooled placement in sample.[citation needed]

text: DNA databases[edit]

text: An early application of a DNA database was the compilation of a Mitochondrial DNA Concordance,[18] prepared by Kevin W. P. Miller and John L. Dawson at the University of Cambridge from 1996 to 1998[19] from data collected as part of Miller's PhD thesis. There are now several DNA databases in existence around the world. Some are private, but most of the largest databases are government-controlled. The United States maintains the largest DNA database, with the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) holding over 9 million records as of 2011.[20] The United Kingdom maintains the National DNA Database (NDNAD), which is of similar size, despite the UK's smaller population. The size of this database, and its rate of growth, are giving concern to civil liberties groups in the UK, where police have wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal.[21] The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition partially addressed these concerns with part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, under which DNA samples must be deleted if suspects are acquitted or not charged, except in relation to certain (mostly serious and/or sexual) offences.

text: The U.S. Patriot Act of the United States provides a means for the U.S. government to get DNA samples from other countries if they[clarification needed] are either a division of or a head office of a company operating in the U.S. Under the act; the American offices of the company may not divulge to their subsidiaries/offices in other countries the reasons that these DNA samples are sought or by whom.[citation needed]

text: When a match is made from a national DNA databank to link a crime scene to an offender having provided a DNA sample to a databank, that link is often referred to as a cold hit. A cold hit is of value in referring the police agency to a specific suspect but is of less evidential value than a DNA match made from outside the DNA Databank.[22]

text: FBI agents cannot legally store DNA of a person not convicted of a crime. DNA collected from a suspect not later convicted must be disposed of and not entered into the database. In 1998, a man residing in the UK was arrested on accusation of burglary. His DNA was taken and tested, and he was later released. Nine months later, this man's DNA was accidentally and illegally entered in the DNA database. New DNA is automatically compared to the DNA found at cold cases and, in this case, this man was found to be a match to DNA found at a rape and assault case one year earlier. The government then prosecuted him for these crimes. During the trial the DNA match was requested to be removed from the evidence because it had been illegally entered into the database. The request was carried out.[23]

text: The DNA collected from victims of rape is often stored for years until matched with the perpetrator's, usually when committing another crime. In 2014, Congress extended a bill that helps states deal with "a backlog" of unexamined evidence.[24]

text: Considerations when evaluating DNA evidence[edit]

text: In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines: Given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile. This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect's being the guilty one. This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country. In fact, a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons. Also, different DNA analysis processes can reduce the amount of DNA recovery if the procedures are not properly done. Therefore, the number of times a piece of evidence is sampled can diminish the DNA collection efficiency. Another spurious statistical argument is based on the false assumption that a 1 in 5 million probability of a match automatically translates into a 1 in 5 million probability of innocence and is known as the prosecutor's fallacy.

text: When using RFLP, the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in 100 billion (100,000,000,000), although the practical risk is actually 1 in 1000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human population.[citation needed] Moreover, the rate of laboratory error is almost certainly higher than this, and often actual laboratory procedures do not reflect the theory under which the coincidence probabilities were computed. For example, the coincidence probabilities may be calculated based on the probabilities that markers in two samples have bands in precisely the same location, but a laboratory worker may conclude that similar—but not precisely identical—band patterns result from identical genetic samples with some imperfection in the agarose gel. However, in this case, the laboratory worker increases the coincidence risk by expanding the criteria for declaring a match. Recent studies have quoted relatively high error rates, which may be cause for concern.[25] In the early days of genetic fingerprinting, the necessary population data to accurately compute a match probability was sometimes unavailable. Between 1992 and 1996, arbitrary low ceilings were controversially put on match probabilities used in RFLP analysis rather than the higher theoretically computed ones.[26] Today, RFLP has become widely disused due to the advent of more discriminating, sensitive and easier technologies.

text: Since 1998, the DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA Database in the UK is the SGM+ DNA profiling system that includes 10 STR regions and a sex-indicating test. STRs do not suffer from such subjectivity and provide similar power of discrimination (1 in 1013 for unrelated individuals if using a full SGM+ profile). Figures of this magnitude are not considered to be statistically supportable by scientists in the UK; for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion is considered statistically supportable. However, with any DNA technique, the cautious juror should not convict on genetic fingerprint evidence alone if other factors raise doubt. Contamination with other evidence (secondary transfer) is a key source of incorrect DNA profiles and raising doubts as to whether a sample has been adulterated is a favorite defense technique. More rarely, chimerism is one such instance where the lack of a genetic match may unfairly exclude a suspect.

text: Evidence of genetic relationship[edit]

text: It is possible to use DNA profiling as evidence of genetic relationship, although such evidence varies in strength from weak to positive. Testing that shows no relationship is absolutely certain. Further, while almost all individuals have a single and distinct set of genes, ultra-rare individuals, known as "chimeras", have at least two different sets of genes. There have been two cases of DNA profiling that falsely suggested that a mother was unrelated to her children.[27] This happens when two eggs are fertilized at the same time and fuse together to create one individual instead of twins.

text: Fake DNA evidence[edit]

text: In one case, a criminal planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. Police drew what they believed to be Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants.

text: The functional analysis of genes and their coding sequences (open reading frames [ORFs]) typically requires that each ORF be expressed, the encoded protein purified, antibodies produced, phenotypes examined, intracellular localization determined, and interactions with other proteins sought.[28] In a study conducted by the life science company Nucleix and published in the journal Forensic Science International, scientists found that an in vitro synthesized sample of DNA matching any desired genetic profile can be constructed using standard molecular biology techniques without obtaining any actual tissue from that person. Nucleix claims they can also prove the difference between non-altered DNA and any that was synthesized.[29]

text: In the case of the Phantom of Heilbronn, police detectives found DNA traces from the same woman on various crime scenes in Austria, Germany, and France—among them murders, burglaries and robberies. Only after the DNA of the "woman" matched the DNA sampled from the burned body of a male asylum seeker in France did detectives begin to have serious doubts about the DNA evidence. It was eventually discovered that DNA traces were already present on the cotton swabs used to collect the samples at the crime scene, and the swabs had all been produced at the same factory in Austria. The company's product specification said that the swabs were guaranteed to be sterile, but not DNA-free.

text: DNA evidence as evidence in criminal trials[edit]

text:
Evidence

Part of the common law series

Types of evidence

Testimony
Documentary
Real (physical)
Digital
Exculpatory
Inculpatory
Demonstrative
Eyewitness identification
Genetic (DNA)
Lies

Relevance

Burden of proof
Laying a foundation
Materiality
Public policy exclusions
Spoliation
Character
Habit
Similar fact

Authentication

Chain of custody
Judicial notice
Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Hague Evidence Convention

Witnesses

Competence
Privilege
Direct examination
Cross-examination
Redirect
Impeachment
Recorded recollection
Expert witness
Dead Man's Statute

Hearsay and exceptions

in English law
in United States law
Confessions
Business records
Excited utterance
Dying declaration
Party admission
Ancient document
Declaration against interest
Present sense impression
Res gestae
Learned treatise
Implied assertion

Other common law areas

Contract
Tort
Property
Wills, trusts and estates
Criminal law

v
t
e

text: Familial DNA searching[edit]

text: Familial DNA searching (sometimes referred to as "familial DNA" or "familial DNA database searching") is the practice of creating new investigative leads in cases where DNA evidence found at the scene of a crime (forensic profile) strongly resembles that of an existing DNA profile (offender profile) in a state DNA database but there is not an exact match.[30][31] After all other leads have been exhausted, investigators may use specially developed software to compare the forensic profile to all profiles taken from a state's DNA database to generate a list of those offenders already in the database who are most likely to be a very close relative of the individual whose DNA is in the forensic profile.[32] To eliminate the majority of this list when the forensic DNA is a man's, crime lab technicians conduct Y-STR analysis. Using standard investigative techniques, authorities are then able to build a family tree. The family tree is populated from information gathered from public records and criminal justice records. Investigators rule out family members' involvement in the crime by finding excluding factors such as sex, living out of state or being incarcerated when the crime was committed. They may also use other leads from the case, such as witness or victim statements, to identify a suspect. Once a suspect has been identified, investigators seek to legally obtain a DNA sample from the suspect. This suspect DNA profile is then compared to the sample found at the crime scene to definitively identify the suspect as the source of the crime scene DNA.

text: Familial DNA database searching was first used in an investigation leading to the conviction of Jeffrey Gafoor of the murder of Lynette White in the United Kingdom on 4 July 2003. DNA evidence was matched to Gafoor's nephew, who at 14 years old had not been born at the time of the murder in 1988. It was used again in 2004[33] to find a man who threw a brick from a motorway bridge and hit a lorry driver, killing him. DNA found on the brick matched that found at the scene of a car theft earlier in the day, but there were no good matches on the national DNA database. A wider search found a partial match to an individual; on being questioned, this man revealed he had a brother, Craig Harman, who lived very close to the original crime scene. Harman voluntarily submitted a DNA sample, and confessed when it matched the sample from the brick.[34] Currently, familial DNA database searching is not conducted on a national level in the United States, where states determine how and when to conduct familial searches. The first familial DNA search with a subsequent conviction in the United States was conducted in Denver, Colorado, in 2008, using software developed under the leadership of Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and Denver Police Department Crime Lab Director Gregg LaBerge.[35] California was the first state to implement a policy for familial searching under then Attorney General, now Governor, Jerry Brown.[36] In his role as consultant to the Familial Search Working Group of the California Department of Justice, former Alameda County Prosecutor Rock Harmon is widely considered to have been the catalyst in the adoption of familial search technology in California. The technique was used to catch the Los Angeles serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper" in 2010.[37] It wasn't a witness or informant that tipped off law enforcement to the identity of the "Grim Sleeper" serial killer, who had eluded police for more than two decades, but DNA from the suspect's own son. The suspect's son was arrested and convicted in a felony weapons charge and swabbed for DNA last year. When his DNA was entered into the database of convicted felons, detectives were alerted to a partial match to evidence found at the "Grim Sleeper" crime scenes. David Franklin Jr., also known as the Grim Sleeper, was charged with ten counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.[38] More recently, familial DNA, led to the arrest of 21-year-old Elvis Garcia on charges of sexual assault and false imprisonment of a woman in Santa Cruz in 2008.[39] In March 2011 Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell announced that Virginia would begin using familial DNA searches.[40] Other states are expected to follow.

text: At a press conference in Virginia on March 7, 2011, regarding the East Coast Rapist, Prince William County prosecutor Paul Ebert and Fairfax County Police Detective John Kelly said the case would have been solved years ago if Virginia had used familial DNA searching. Aaron Thomas, the suspected East Coast Rapist, was arrested in connection with the rape of 17 women from Virginia to Rhode Island, but familial DNA was not used in the case.[41]

text: Critics of familial DNA database searches argue that the technique is an invasion of an individual's 4th Amendment rights.[42] Privacy advocates are petitioning for DNA database restrictions, arguing that the only fair way to search for possible DNA matches to relatives of offenders or arrestees would be to have a population-wide DNA database.[23] Some scholars have pointed out that the privacy concerns surrounding familial searching are similar in some respects to other police search techniques,[43] and most have concluded that the practice is constitutional.[44] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Pool (vacated as moot) suggested that this practice is somewhat analogous to a witness looking at a photograph of one person and stating that it looked like the perpetrator, which leads law enforcement to show the witness photos of similar looking individuals, one of whom is identified as the perpetrator.[45] Regardless of whether familial DNA searching was the method used to identify the suspect, authorities always conduct a normal DNA test to match the suspect's DNA with that of the DNA left at the crime scene.

text: Critics also claim that racial profiling could occur on account of familial DNA testing. In the United States, the conviction rates of racial minorities are much higher than that of the overall population. It is unclear whether this is due to discrimination from police officers and the courts, as opposed to a simple higher rate of offence among minorities. Arrest-based databases, which are found in the majority of the United States, lead to an even greater level of racial discrimination. An arrest, as opposed to conviction, relies much more heavily on police discretion.[23]

text: For instance, investigators with Denver District Attorney's Office successfully identified a suspect in a property theft case using a familial DNA search. In this example, the suspect's blood left at the scene of the crime strongly resembled that of a current Colorado Department of Corrections prisoner.[46] Using publicly available records, the investigators created a family tree. They then eliminated all the family members who were incarcerated at the time of the offense, as well as all of the females (the crime scene DNA profile was that of a male). Investigators obtained a court order to collect the suspect's DNA, but the suspect actually volunteered to come to a police station and give a DNA sample. After providing the sample, the suspect walked free without further interrogation or detainment. Later confronted with an exact match to the forensic profile, the suspect pleaded guilty to criminal trespass at the first court date and was sentenced to two years probation.

text: In Italy a familiar DNA search has been done to solve the case of the murder of Yara Gambirasio whose body was found in the bush[clarification needed] three months after her disappearance. A DNA trace was found on the underwear of the murdered teenage near and a DNA sample was requested from a person who lived near the municipality of Brembate di Sopra and a common male ancestor was found in the DNA sample of a young man not involved in the murder. After a long investigation the father of the supposed killer was identified as Giuseppe Guerinoni, a deceased man, but his two sons born from his wife were not related to the DNA samples found on the body of Yara. After three and a half years the DNA found on the underwear of the deceased girl was matched with Massimo Giuseppe Bosetti who was arrested and accused of the murder of the 13-year-old girl.In the summer of 2016 Bosetti was found guilty and sentenced to life by the Corte d'assise of Bergamo.

text: Partial matches[edit]

text: Partial DNA matches are not searches themselves, but are the result of moderate stringency CODIS searches that produce a potential match that shares at least one allele at every locus.[47] Partial matching does not involve the use of familial search software, such as those used in the UK and United States, or additional Y-STR analysis, and therefore often misses sibling relationships. Partial matching has been used to identify suspects in several cases in the UK and United States,[48] and has also been used as a tool to exonerate the falsely accused. Darryl Hunt was wrongly convicted in connection with the rape and murder of a young woman in 1984 in North Carolina.[49] Hunt was exonerated in 2004 when a DNA database search produced a remarkably close match between a convicted felon and the forensic profile from the case. The partial match led investigators to the felon’s brother, Willard E. Brown, who confessed to the crime when confronted by police. A judge then signed an order to dismiss the case against Hunt. In Italy, partial matching has been used in the controversial murder of Yara Gambirasio Murder_of_Yara_Gambirasio, a child found dead about a month after her presumed kidnapping. In this case, the partial match has been used as the only incriminating element against the defendant, Massimo Bossetti, who has been subsequently condemned for the murder (waiting appeal by the Italian Supreme Court).

text: Surreptitious DNA collecting[edit]

text: Police forces may collect DNA samples without a suspect's knowledge, and use it as evidence. The legality of the practice has been questioned in Australia.[citation needed]

text: In the United States, it has been accepted, courts often ruling that there is no expectation of privacy, citing California v. Greenwood (1985), in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Critics of this practice underline that this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by, for instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if they do realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one's DNA in public."[50]

text: The United States Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King (2013) that DNA sampling of prisoners arrested for serious crimes is constitutional.[51][52][53]

text: In the UK, the Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibits private individuals from covertly collecting biological samples (hair, fingernails, etc.) for DNA analysis, but exempts medical and criminal investigations from the prohibition.[54]

text: England and Wales[edit]

text: Evidence from an expert who has compared DNA samples must be accompanied by evidence as to the sources of the samples and the procedures for obtaining the DNA profiles.[55] The judge must ensure that the jury must understand the significance of DNA matches and mismatches in the profiles. The judge must also ensure that the jury does not confuse the match probability (the probability that a person that is chosen at random has a matching DNA profile to the sample from the scene) with the probability that a person with matching DNA committed the crime. In 1996 R v. Doheny[56] Phillips LJ gave this example of a summing up, which should be carefully tailored to the particular facts in each case:

text: Members of the Jury, if you accept the scientific evidence called by the Crown, this indicates that there are probably only four or five white males in the United Kingdom from whom that semen stain could have come. The Defendant is one of them. If that is the position, the decision you have to reach, on all the evidence, is whether you are sure that it was the Defendant who left that stain or whether it is possible that it was one of that other small group of men who share the same DNA characteristics.

text: Juries should weigh up conflicting and corroborative evidence, using their own common sense and not by using mathematical formulae, such as Bayes' theorem, so as to avoid "confusion, misunderstanding and misjudgment".[57]

text: Presentation and evaluation of evidence of partial or incomplete DNA profiles[edit]

text: In R v Bates,[58] Moore-Bick LJ said:

text: We can see no reason why partial profile DNA evidence should not be admissible provided that the jury are made aware of its inherent limitations and are given a sufficient explanation to enable them to evaluate it. There may be cases where the match probability in relation to all the samples tested is so great that the judge would consider its probative value to be minimal and decide to exclude the evidence in the exercise of his discretion, but this gives rise to no new question of principle and can be left for decision on a case by case basis. However, the fact that there exists in the case of all partial profile evidence the possibility that a "missing" allele might exculpate the accused altogether does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting such evidence. In many there is a possibility (at least in theory) that evidence that would assist the accused and perhaps even exculpate him altogether exists, but that does not provide grounds for excluding relevant evidence that is available and otherwise admissible, though it does make it important to ensure that the jury are given sufficient information to enable them to evaluate that evidence properly.[59]

text: DNA testing in the United States[edit]

text: There are state laws on DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United States.[60] Detailed information on database laws in each state can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures website.[61]

text: Development of artificial DNA[edit]

text: In August 2009, scientists in Israel raised serious doubts concerning the use of DNA by law enforcement as the ultimate method of identification. In a paper published in the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics, the Israeli researchers demonstrated that it is possible to manufacture DNA in a laboratory, thus falsifying DNA evidence. The scientists fabricated saliva and blood samples, which originally contained DNA from a person other than the supposed donor of the blood and saliva.[62]

text: The researchers also showed that, using a DNA database, it is possible to take information from a profile and manufacture DNA to match it, and that this can be done without access to any actual DNA from the person whose DNA they are duplicating. The synthetic DNA oligos required for the procedure are common in molecular laboratories.[62]

text: The New York Times quoted the lead author, Daniel Frumkin, saying, "You can just engineer a crime scene ... any biology undergraduate could perform this".[62] Frumkin perfected a test that can differentiate real DNA samples from fake ones. His test detects epigenetic modifications, in particular, DNA methylation. Seventy percent of the DNA in any human genome is methylated, meaning it contains methyl group modifications within a CpG dinucleotide context. Methylation at the promoter region is associated with gene silencing. The synthetic DNA lacks this epigenetic modification, which allows the test to distinguish manufactured DNA from genuine DNA.[62]

text: It is unknown how many police departments, if any, currently use the test. No police lab has publicly announced that it is using the new test to verify DNA results.[63]

text: Cases[edit]

text:
In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[64] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[65]
In 1987, genetic fingerprinting was used in criminal court for the first time in the trial of a man accused of unlawful intercourse with a mentally handicapped 14-year-old female who gave birth to a baby.[66]
In 1987, Florida rapist Tommie Lee Andrews was the first person in the United States to be convicted as a result of DNA evidence, for raping a woman during a burglary; he was convicted on November 6, 1987, and sentenced to 22 years in prison.[67][68]
In 1988, Timothy Wilson Spencer was the first man in Virginia to be sentenced to death through DNA testing, for several rape and murder charges. He was dubbed "The South Side Strangler" because he killed victims on the south side of Richmond, Virginia. He was later charged with rape and first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. He was executed on April 27, 1994. David Vasquez, initially convicted of one of Spencer's crimes, became the first man in America exonerated based on DNA evidence.
In 1989, Chicago man Gary Dotson was the first person whose conviction was overturned using DNA evidence.
In 1991, Allan Legere was the first Canadian to be convicted as a result of DNA evidence, for four murders he had committed while an escaped prisoner in 1989. During his trial, his defense argued that the relatively shallow gene pool of the region could lead to false positives.
In 1992, DNA evidence was used to prove that Nazi doctor Josef Mengele was buried in Brazil under the name Wolfgang Gerhard.
In 1992, DNA from a palo verde tree was used to convict Mark Alan Bogan of murder. DNA from seed pods of a tree at the crime scene was found to match that of seed pods found in Bogan's truck. This is the first instance of plant DNA admitted in a criminal case.[69][70][71]
In 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth was the first person to have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, whose conviction was overturned using DNA evidence.
The 1993 rape and murder of Mia Zapata, lead singer for the Seattle punk band The Gits, was unsolved nine years after the murder. A database search in 2001 failed, but the killer's DNA was collected when he was arrested in Florida for burglary and domestic abuse in 2002.
The science was made famous in the United States in 1994 when prosecutors heavily relied on DNA evidence allegedly linking O. J. Simpson to a double murder. The case also brought to light the laboratory difficulties and handling procedure mishaps that can cause such evidence to be significantly doubted.
In 1994, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detectives successfully tested hairs from a cat known as Snowball, and used the test to link a man to the murder of his wife, thus marking for the first time in forensic history the use of non-human animal DNA to identify a criminal (plant DNA was used in 1992, see above).
In 1994, the claim that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia was tested after her death using samples of her tissue that had been stored at a Charlottesville, Virginia hospital following a medical procedure. The tissue was tested using DNA fingerprinting, and showed that she bore no relation to the Romanovs.[72]
In 1994, Earl Washington, Jr., of Virginia had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment a week before his scheduled execution date based on DNA evidence. He received a full pardon in 2000 based on more advanced testing.[73] His case is often cited by opponents of the death penalty.
In 1995, the British Forensic Science Service carried out its first mass intelligence DNA screening in the investigation of the Naomi Smith murder case.
In 1998, Richard J. Schmidt was convicted of attempted second-degree murder when it was shown that there was a link between the viral DNA of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) he had been accused of injecting in his girlfriend and viral DNA from one of his patients with AIDS. This was the first time viral DNA fingerprinting had been used as evidence in a criminal trial.
In 1999, Raymond Easton, a disabled man from Swindon, England, was arrested and detained for seven hours in connection with a burglary. He was released due to an inaccurate DNA match. His DNA had been retained on file after an unrelated domestic incident some time previously.[74]
In 2000 Frank Lee Smith was proved innocent by DNA profiling of the murder of an eight-year-old girl after spending 14 years on death row in Florida, USA. However he had died of cancer just before his innocence was proven.[75] In view of this the Florida state governor ordered that in future any death row inmate claiming innocence should have DNA testing.[73]
In May 2000 Gordon Graham murdered Paul Gault at his home in Lisburn, Northern Ireland. Graham was convicted of the murder when his DNA was found on a sports bag left in the house as part of an elaborate ploy to suggest the murder occurred after a burglary had gone wrong. Graham was having an affair with the victim's wife at the time of the murder. It was the first time Low Copy Number DNA was used in Northern Ireland.[76]
In 2001, Wayne Butler was convicted for the murder of Celia Douty. It was the first murder in Australia to be solved using DNA profiling.[77][78]
In 2002, the body of James Hanratty, hanged in 1962 for the "A6 murder", was exhumed and DNA samples from the body and members of his family were analysed. The results convinced Court of Appeal judges that Hanratty's guilt, which had been strenuously disputed by campaigners, was proved "beyond doubt".[79] Paul Foot and some other campaigners continued to believe in Hanratty's innocence and argued that the DNA evidence could have been contaminated, noting that the small DNA samples from items of clothing, kept in a police laboratory for over 40 years "in conditions that do not satisfy modern evidential standards", had had to be subjected to very new amplification techniques in order to yield any genetic profile.[80] However, no DNA other than Hanratty's was found on the evidence tested, contrary to what would have been expected had the evidence indeed been contaminated.[81]
In 2002, DNA testing was used to exonerate Douglas Echols, a man who was wrongfully convicted in a 1986 rape case. Echols was the 114th person to be exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing.
In August 2002, Annalisa Vincenzi was shot dead in Tuscany. Bartender Peter Hamkin, 23, was arrested, in Merseyside in March 2003 on an extradition warrant heard at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London to establish whether he should be taken to Italy to face a murder charge. DNA "proved" he shot her, but he was cleared on other evidence.[82]
In 2003, Welshman Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of the 1988 murder of Lynette White, when crime scene evidence collected 12 years earlier was re-examined using STR techniques, resulting in a match with his nephew.[83] This may be the first known example of the DNA of an innocent yet related individual being used to identify the actual criminal, via "familial searching".
In March 2003, Josiah Sutton was released from prison after serving four years of a twelve-year sentence for a sexual assault charge. Questionable DNA samples taken from Sutton were retested in the wake of the Houston Police Department's crime lab scandal of mishandling DNA evidence.
In June 2003, because of new DNA evidence, Dennis Halstead, John Kogut and John Restivo won a re-trial on their murder conviction, their convictions were struck down and they were released.[84] The three men had already served eighteen years of their thirty-plus-year sentences.
The trial of Robert Pickton (convicted in December 2003) is notable in that DNA evidence is being used primarily to identify the victims, and in many cases to prove their existence.
In 2004, DNA testing shed new light into the mysterious 1912 disappearance of Bobby Dunbar, a four-year-old boy who vanished during a fishing trip. He was allegedly found alive eight months later in the custody of William Cantwell Walters, but another woman claimed that the boy was her son, Bruce Anderson, whom she had entrusted in Walters' custody. The courts disbelieved her claim and convicted Walters for the kidnapping. The boy was raised and known as Bobby Dunbar throughout the rest of his life. However, DNA tests on Dunbar's son and nephew revealed the two were not related, thus establishing that the boy found in 1912 was not Bobby Dunbar, whose real fate remains unknown.[85]
In 2005, Gary Leiterman was convicted of the 1969 murder of Jane Mixer, a law student at the University of Michigan, after DNA found on Mixer's pantyhose was matched to Leiterman. DNA in a drop of blood on Mixer's hand was matched to John Ruelas, who was only four years old in 1969 and was never successfully connected to the case in any other way. Leiterman's defense unsuccessfully argued that the unexplained match of the blood spot to Ruelas pointed to cross-contamination and raised doubts about the reliability of the lab's identification of Leiterman.[86][87][88]
In December 2005, Evan Simmons was proven innocent of a 1981 attack on an Atlanta woman after serving twenty-four years in prison. Mr. Clark is the 164th person in the United States and the fifth in Georgia to be freed using post-conviction DNA testing.
In November 2008, Anthony Curcio was arrested for masterminding one of the most elaborately planned armored car heists in history. DNA evidence linked Curcio to the crime.[89]
In March 2009, Sean Hodgson—convicted of 1979 killing of Teresa De Simone, 22, in her car in Southampton—was released after tests proved DNA from the scene was not his. It was later matched to DNA retrieved from the exhumed body of David Lace. Lace had previously confessed to the crime but was not believed by the detectives. He served time in prison for other crimes committed at the same time as the murder and then committed suicide in 1988.[90]

tag: ul

text: DNA evidence as evidence to prove rights of succession to British titles[edit]

text: DNA testing is used to establish the right of succession to British titles.[91]

text: Cases:

text:
Baron Moynihan
Pringle baronets


document_title: Mulan II

question_text: why does mushu try to break up mulan and shang

text: Mulan II

text: Plot[edit]

text: A month after the events of the first film, General Shang asks Mulan for her hand in marriage, and she happily accepts. Hearing about their engagement, Mushu is thrilled for them, until the leader of the ancestors informs him that if Mulan gets married, he will lose his job as a guardian dragon and have to leave Mulan and his pedestal, which is his place of honor as a guardian. The ancestors are happy with this because Mulan would be getting married to Shang, she would become a part of his family, which would mean that Shang's family ancestors and guardians would become hers. Wanting to keep his job and his friend, Mushu attempts to tear the couple apart, having noticed that they are not very compatible, while Cri-Kee tries to foil his attempts, and keep the couple together. Meanwhile, the Emperor calls upon Mulan and General Shang to escort his three daughters, Princesses Mei, Ting-Ting, and Su, across China to be betrothed to three princes so that an alliance can be formed with the kingdom of Qui Gong. If the task is not completed within three days, the alliance will crumble, and the Mongols will destroy China.

text: Mulan and Shang set out, along with Yao, Ling and Chien-Po, to safely escort the princesses to their new kingdom. Along the way, Princesses Mei, Ting-Ting and Su fall in love with Yao, Ling, and Chien-Po, respectively. Mulan, who has long believed arranged marriages are wrong, decides to go against her orders and, despite Shang's wishes, stop the joining of the kingdoms.

text: Mushu attempts to cause problems for Mulan and Shang, but fails only to get stomped on by Mulan's horse. In despair, he causes the carriage to roll away with the princesses and Yao, Ling, and Chien-Po. Seeing that they're heading towards a cliff, Mulan and Shang rush to the rescue, and try to get the princesses to safety. This fails, and the carriage is destroyed while everyone falls into the river, unharmed.

text: On the night of the carriage's destruction, Chien-Po, Ling, and Yao take the princesses out to a village, and declare their love for them. Meanwhile, Mushu tricks Shang into thinking Mulan is taking advantage of him. Shang orders everyone to return and forbids Chien-Po, Ling and Yao from speaking to the Princesses. After a very heated argument, Mulan and Shang realize they are far too different and end their relationship. While traveling through bandit country, Mushu, overwhelmed with guilt, confesses to Mulan what he had done. Although Mulan is angered by what Mushu tried to do, at the same time, she is enlightened about the news, and she attempts to reconcile with Shang, only to be attacked by bandits moments later. While saving the princesses, the bridge Mulan and Shang are standing on breaks, leaving the two dangling off by a loose rope. Realizing that the rope can only support the weight of one person, Shang sacrifices his life to save Mulan, and allows himself to fall into the river below.

text: Saddened by Shang's death, Mulan continues on the trip alone to Qui Gong. Not wanting the princesses to be forced into a loveless marriage, she offers herself to marry one of the ruler's sons. Shang, who actually survived the fall, soon hears about the news, and rushes to stop the marriage, but the ruler denies it. Mushu decides to help by pretending to be the Great Golden Dragon of Unity, and forces the ruler to stop the marriage. Still under the guise of the Great Golden Dragon, Mushu marries Mulan and Shang, and releases the princesses from their vows. Some time later, Mulan and Shang officially get married back home, and after the wedding, Shang combines the family temples, meaning that Mushu gets to keep his job, much to the ancestors' dismay. In his happiness, Mushu accidentally reveals himself to Shang, even though Mulan had already told Shang about him, as she "has no secrets from her husband."

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Mark Moseley as Mushu
Ming-Na Wen as Fa Mulan
BD Wong as General Li Shang
Lucy Liu as Princess Mei
Harvey Fierstein as Yao
Sandra Oh as Princess Ting-Ting
Gedde Watanabe as Ling
Lauren Tom as Princess Su
Jerry Tondo as Chien-Po
Pat Morita as The Emperor of China
George Takei as First Ancestor Fa
June Foray as Grandmother Fa
Freda Foh Shen as Fa Li
Frank Welker as Cri-Kee/Little Brother
Soon-Tek Oh as Fa Zhou
April Winchell as The Matchmaker
Jillian Henry as Sha-Ron
Lea Salonga as Mulan (singing voice)
Judy Kuhn as Princess Ting-Ting (singing voice)
Beth Blankenship as Princess Mei (singing voice)
Mandy Gonzalez as Princess Su (singing voice)
Keone Young as Lord Qin

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text:
Mulan II

Soundtrack album by various artists

Released
January 25, 2005

Length
31:41

Label
Walt Disney

Producer
Brian Rawling
Graham Stack
Brett Swain

text:
Professional ratings

Review scores

Source
Rating

Allmusic
[1]

text: The soundtrack contains songs from the film performed by various artists, as well as portions of the film's score composed by Joel McNeely. It was released on January 25, 2005 by Walt Disney Records.

text:
"Lesson Number One" – Lea Salonga and Chorus
"Main Title" (Score)
"Like Other Girls" – Judy Kuhn, Beth Blankenship, and Mandy Gonzalez
"A Girl Worth Fighting For (Redux)" – Gedde Watanabe, Jerry Tondo, and Harvey Fierstein
"Here Beside Me" – Hayley Westenra
"(I Wanna Be) Like Other Girls" – Atomic Kitten
"The Journey Begins" (Score)
"In Love and in Trouble" (Score)
"The Attack" (Score)
"Shang Lives!" (Score)
"Here Beside Me (Instrumental)"

tag: ol

text: Reception[edit]

text: According to Scott Gwin of CinemaBlend, "Mulan II is a direct-to-DVD disgrace that takes everything excellent about its predecessor film, rips it to shreds, and uses it for rat cage lining."[2] Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, gave the film a rating of 0% based on reviews from 5 critics, with an average score of 3.9/10.[3]

text: Canceled sequel[edit]

text: In early 2002, it was reported that Disney was working on Mulan III.[4] Raymond Singer and Eugenia Bostwick-Singer, writers of the first film, submitted two stories to Disney, in which they suggested a new character named Ana Ming.[5] Like this film, the second sequel would have been released direct-to-video, but it was canceled before the release of Mulan II.[6]


question_text: who is running for us senate in fl

question_tokens: who is running for us senate in fl

text: Background[edit]

text: Incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson currently holds a 47%-29% approval rating[3] among his constituents, though President Donald Trump also holds a positive approval rating of 50%-45% in Florida as of January 2018.[4] Trump won the state in 2016 by 1.2% over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Nelson is being challenged by term-limited Governor Rick Scott, who has contributed more than $86 million of his own fortune into two successful gubernatorial bids in 2010 and 2014.[5] Nelson is seen as vulnerable heading into the race, as he is the only statewide elected Democrat, despite winning re-election in 2012 by 13%. The 75-year-old (76 on election day) is described as a "low-key centrist" that may not be able to energize progressive voters.[6]

text: Scott announced his candidacy on April 9, 2018, weeks after his last regular 60-day legislative session as governor.[7] In September 2017, during a Hurricane Irma recovery trip to Fort Myers, President Trump encouraged Scott to run:

text:
“

I don’t know what [Scott is] gonna do, but I know that at a certain point it ends for you, and we can’t let it end. So I hope he runs for Senate.[8]

”

text: Scott currently holds a 58%-31% approval rating[9] among his constituents, with a majority of Florida voters believing the state is moving in the right direction. Combined with a good economy, it has been said that Governor Scott may be the only Republican that could defeat Senator Nelson.[10]

text: Gun control is an expected key issue for this race. The election comes less than nine months after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, the deadliest school shooting in American history that killed 17 people. Senator Nelson has also mentioned the Orlando nightclub shooting that occurred in June 2016 and killed 49 people, stating that "nothing was done" by Governor Scott's administration. In the wake of Stoneman Douglas, Scott has raised the age to purchase a gun from 18 to 21, set a three-day waiting period to purchase assault-style weapons, and banned bump stocks, moves that Nelson describes as "doing the bare minimum." The National Rifle Association has come out against Scott's legislation.[11]

text: Additionally, an undetermined number of Puerto Ricans, a largely Democratic voter demographic, have moved to Florida after the island was ravaged by Hurricane Maria in September 2017. Whether they will affect the race is unclear.[12]

text: Democratic primary[edit]

text: Candidates[edit]

text: Declared[edit]

text: Bill Nelson, incumbent U.S. Senator since 2001; U.S. Representative from FL-11 1979–1991[13]

text: Declined[edit]

text:
Randolph Bracy, State Senator (District 11) since 2016[14]
Tim Canova, law professor specializing in banking and finance; candidate for FL-23 in 2016[6][15] (running for FL-23)
Pam Keith, Navy veteran, labor attorney; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[6][16] (running for FL-18)

text: Withdrew[edit]

text:
Tamika Lyles, Air Force veteran, mediator, and philanthropist[17]
Randy White, pastor, bishop, philanthropist, and activist[18]

text: Endorsements[edit]

text:
showBill Nelson

U.S. Senators
Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator from California 2017–present[19]
Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 2013–present[20]
Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey 2013–present; Mayor of Newark 2006–2013[20]
Governors
Pedro Rosselló, 7th Governor of Puerto Rico[21]
Individuals
Barbra Streisand, singer, songwriter, actress, and filmmaker[22]
Organizations
American Federation of Teachers[23]
American Gastroenterological Association[24]
American Health Care Association[25]
American Hotel and Lodging Association[26]
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants[27]
American Seniors Housing Association[28]
American Trucking Associations[29]
End Citizens United[30]
Forward Together PAC[31]
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers[32]
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades[33]
League of Conservation Voters[34]
Midwest Values PAC[35]
National Apartment Association[36]
National Association of Broadcasters[37]
National Association of Enrolled Agents[38]
National Association of Letter Carriers[39]
National Organization for Women[40]
Natural Resources Defense Council[41]
Planned Parenthood Action Fund[42]
Pride Fund to End Gun Violence [43]
Sierra Club[44]
Transport Workers Union of America[45]
VoteVets.org[46]

text: Republican primary[edit]

text: Candidates[edit]

text: Nominee

text: Rick Scott, incumbent Governor of Florida[47]

text: Declared[edit]

text: Rocky De La Fuente, American businessman & ex-Reform Party candidate for President in 2016. On February 26, 2018 De La Fuente filed to run for the 2018 Senate election in California under the Republican Party to unseat incumbent Dianne Feinstein.[48][49]

text: Withdrew[edit]

text: Virginia Fuller, registered nurse; Republican nominee for U.S. Representative from CA-11 in 2012[50][51]

text:
Alexander George, businessman, political activist, and minister; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012[52]
Augustus Sol Invictus, far-right activist and attorney; Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[53][54]
Martin Mikhail[55]
Mike Pompura[56]
Joseph Smith, chiropractor; candidate for U.S. Senate in 1988 and FL-19 in 1996; Republican nominee for FL-16 in 1988[57][58]
Marcia R. Thorne, pastor[59][60] (ran as an Independent)

text: Declined[edit]

text:
Jeff Atwater, CFO of Florida 2011–2017[61]
Carlos Beruff, real estate developer and Republican donor; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[62]
Pam Bondi, Attorney General since 2011[63]
Richard Corcoran, State Representative (district 37) since 2010; Speaker of the Florida House since 2016[64]
John Delaney, Mayor of Jacksonville 1995–2003[65]
Ron DeSantis, U.S. Representative from FL-6 since 2013; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[62][66] (running for Governor)
Hulk Hogan, retired  professional wrestler, actor, television personality, entrepreneur, and musician[67]
David Jolly, U.S. Representative from FL-13 2014–2017; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[62][68]
Carlos López-Cantera, Lieutenant Governor since 2014; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[62][69]
Tom Rooney, U.S. Representative from FL-17 since 2009[70]

text: Endorsements[edit]

text:
showRick Scott

U.S. Executive Branch officials
George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States 2001–2009[71]
Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States 2017–present[8][72]
U.S. Senators
Cory Gardner, U.S. Senator from Colorado 2015–present; U.S. Representative from CO-4 2011–2015[73]
Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida 2011–present; candidate for President in 2016[74]
Todd Young, U.S. Senator from Indiana 2017–present; U.S. Representative from IN-9 2011–2017[73]
Joni Ernst, U.S. Senator from Iowa 2015–present[73]
Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator from Kentucky 1985–present[73]
John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas 2002–present[73]
U.S. Representatives
Kevin McCarthy, U.S. Representative from CA-23 2007–present[73]
Matt Gaetz, U.S. Representative from FL-1 2017–present[75]
Ron DeSantis, U.S. Representative from FL-6 2013–present; candidate for Governor in 2018[76]
Governors
Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida 1999–2007; candidate for President in 2016[77]
Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi 2004–2012[73]
Statewide officials
Jimmy Patronis, Chief Financial Officer of Florida 2017–present[78]
Adam Putnam, Commissioner of Agriculture of Florida 2011–present; U.S. Representative from FL-12 2001–2011; candidate for Governor in 2018[79]
State legislators
Richard Corcoran, State Representative from Florida (District 37) 2010–present; Speaker of the Florida House 2016–present[80]
Matt Caldwell, State Representative from Florida (District 79) 2010–present[81]
Sheriffs
Sadie Darnell, Alachua County[82]
James Potter, DeSoto County[82]
David Hardin, Glades County[82]
Harrell Reid, Hamilton County[82]
Steve Whidden, Hendry County[82]
Lou Roberts, Jackson County[82]
Eddie Joe White, Liberty County[82]
Gator DeLoach III, Putnam County[82]
Sam St. John, Suwanee County[82]
Mark Hunter, Columbia County[82]
Michael Chitwood, Volusia County[82]
Grady Judd, Polk County[82]
Ben Stewart, Madison County[82]
Territorial officials
Luis G. Rivera Marín, Secretary of State of Puerto Rico 2017–present[83] (New Progressive)
Jenniffer González, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico[84]
Individuals
Charles R. Black Jr., Chairman of Prime Policy Group[73]
Erick Erickson, conservative columnist[85]
Ryan Petty, activist[86]
Andrew Pollack, school safety activist[87]
Hunter Pollack, school safety activist[88]
Organizations
Florida Chamber of Commerce[89]
JAX Chamber[90]
United States Chamber of Commerce[89]
National Federation of Independent Businesses[91]
Associated Industries of Florida[92]
Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida[93]
Manufacturers Association of Florida[94]
Club for Growth[95]
Latin Builders Association[96]
Newspapers
Miami Herald[97]

text: Polling[edit]

text:
Poll source

Date(s)administered

Samplesize

Marginof error

RickScott

RockyDe La Fuente

Undecided

Gravis Marketing

August 21–25, 2018

579

± 4.1%

73%

12%

15%

Gravis Marketing

August 21–22, 2018

321

± 5.5%

73%

12%

15%

Gravis Marketing

July 13–14, 2018

905

± 3.3%

74%

16%

8%

text:
showHypothetical polling

Poll source

Date(s)administered

Samplesize

Marginof error

RonDeSantis

Augustus SolInvictus

DavidJolly

CarlosLópez-Cantera

TomRooney

RickScott

Marcia R.Thorne

Other

Undecided

Saint Leo University

November 19–24, 2017

166

–

–

1%

–

–

8%

54%

1%

4%

33%

Saint Leo University

November 27–30, 2016

501

± 4.5%

<3%

–

6%

<3%

<3%

41%

–

11%

33%

text: Results[edit]

text:
Republican primary results

Party

Candidate

Votes

%

Republican

Rick Scott

1,452,554

88.6

Republican

Rocky De La Fuente

186,566

11.4

Total votes

1,639,120

100.0

text: Libertarian Party[edit]

text: Candidates[edit]

text: Potential[edit]

text: Roger Stone, political consultant, lobbyist, and strategist[98]

text: Withdrew[edit]

text: Joe Wendt, janitor[98][99]

text: Declined[edit]

text: Augustus Sol Invictus, far-right activist and attorney; candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016[98][53] (ran as a Republican)

text: American Independent Party[edit]

text: Candidates[edit]

text: Withdrew[edit]

text: Franklin "Ed" Shoemaker[100][101]

text: Write-ins and independents[edit]

text: Declared (write-in)[edit]

text:
Lateresa Jones, life coach; Independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2014 and U.S. Senate in 2016[102][103] (Republican)
Howard Knepper, businessman and real estate developer; Independent candidate for President in 2012[57][104](Republican)
Charles Frederick Tolbert, pastor[105] (Independent)

text: Withdrew (independent)[edit]

text: Marcia R. Thorne, pastor[60]

text: General election[edit]

text: Predictions[edit]

text:
Source

Ranking

As of

The Cook Political Report[106]

Toss-Up

April 9, 2018

Inside Elections[107]

Toss-Up

April 9, 2018

Sabato's Crystal Ball[108]

Toss-Up

April 5, 2018

Daily Kos[109]

Toss-Up

April 9, 2018

Fox News[110]

Toss-Up

July 9, 2018

CNN[111]

Toss-Up

July 12, 2018

RealClearPolitics[112]

Toss-Up

June 22, 2018

text: Polling[edit]

text:
Poll source

Date(s)administered

Samplesize

Marginof error

BillNelson (D)

RickScott (R)

Other

Undecided

Florida Atlantic University

August 16–20, 2018

800

± 3.4%

39%

45%

–

17%

Saint Leo University

August 10–16, 2018

500

± 4.5%

36%

40%

8%

15%

Mason-Dixon

July 24–25, 2018

625

± 4.0%

44%

47%

–

9%

Florida Atlantic University

July 20–21, 2018

800

± 3.4%

40%

44%

–

17%

Gravis Marketing

July 13–14, 2018

1,840

± 2.3%

47%

43%

–

10%

SurveyMonkey/Axios

June 11 – July 2, 2018

1,080

± 5.0%

46%

49%

–

5%

YouGov

June 19–22, 2018

839 LV

± 3.5%

41%

46%

6%

6%

996 RV

40%

42%

6%

9%

Marist College

June 17–21, 2018

947

± 3.9%

49%

45%

1%

5%

Public Policy Polling (D-EDGE Comms.)

June 18–19, 2018

1,308

± 3.2%

48%

46%

–

7%

Gravis Marketing

May 31 – June 15, 2018

1,251

± 2.8%

50%

40%

–

10%

Cherry Communications

May 25 – June 4, 2018

605

± 4.0%

45%

48%

–

5%

Saint Leo University

May 25–31, 2018

506

± 4.5%

34%

40%

8%

18%

Morning Consult

May 29–30, 2018

1,199

± 3.0%

39%

40%

–

–

Florida Atlantic University

May 4–7, 2018

1,000

± 3.0%

40%

44%

–

16%

Public Policy Polling (D-Levine)

April 10–11, 2018

661

± 3.9%

50%

44%

–

6%

Gravis Marketing

February 26 – March 19, 2018

2,212

± 2.1%

44%

40%

–

16%

McLaughlin & Associates (R-NR PAC)

March 10–13, 2018

800

± 3.4%

46%

47%

–

6%

Clearview Research

March 1–7, 2018

750

± 3.6%

41%

43%

–

16%

SurveyMonkey/Axios

February 12 – March 5, 2018

1,806

± 5.0%

53%

43%

–

4%

Quinnipiac University

February 23–26, 2018

1,156

± 3.6%

46%

42%

2%

9%

Florida Atlantic University

February 23–25, 2018

800

± 3.6%

40%

38%

–

22%

Saint Leo University

February 18–24, 2018

500

± 4.5%

35%

42%

9%

15%

Gravis Marketing

February 1–18, 2018

1,978

± 2.2%

44%

40%

–

16%

Florida Atlantic University

February 1–4, 2018

750

± 3.7%

34%

44%

–

22%

University of North Florida

January 29 – February 4, 2018

429

± 4.7%

48%

42%

2%

7%

Mason-Dixon

January 30 – February 1, 2018

625

± 4.0%

45%

44%

–

11%

Gravis Marketing

December 19–24, 2017

5,778

± 1.3%

44%

39%

–

17%

Saint Leo University

November 19–24, 2017

500

± 4.5%

32%

42%

8%

18%

Mason-Dixon

October 17–19, 2017

625

± 4.0%

44%

44%

–

12%

University of North Florida

October 11–17, 2017

706

± 3.4%

37%

36%

7%

20%

Cherry Communications

September 17–24, 2017

615

± 4.0%

45%

47%

–

8%

Saint Leo University

September 10–16, 2017

500

± 4.5%

33%

35%

11%

21%

Florida Atlantic University

August 24–26, 2017

800

± 4.0%

42%

40%

–

18%

Gravis Marketing

April 4–10, 2017

1,243

± 2.8%

56%

28%

–

16%

Gravis Marketing

March 28–29, 2017

1,453

± 2.6%

52%

37%

–

12%

Cherry Communications

March 6–14, 2017

600

± 4.0%

48%

42%

–

10%

Saint Leo University

March 3–11, 2017

507

± 4.5%

39%

34%

10%

17%

Public Opinion Strategies (R-FHA)

March 1–5, 2017

600

± 4.0%

46%

44%

–

10%

Mason-Dixon

February 24–28, 2017

625

± 4.0%

46%

41%

–

13%

University of North Florida

February 13–26, 2017

957

± 3.1%

44%

38%

3%

12%

Gravis Marketing

November 22–25, 2016

3,250

± 2.4%

51%

38%

–

11%

Public Policy Polling

September 4–6, 2016

744

± 3.6%

45%

41%

–

14%

Public Policy Polling

September 11–13, 2015

814

± 3.4%

46%

42%

–

12%

Public Policy Polling

March 19–22, 2015

923

± 3.2%

47%

43%

–

10%

text:
showHypothetical polling

with Pam Bondi

Poll source

Date(s)administered

Samplesize

Marginof error

BillNelson (D)

PamBondi (R)

Undecided

Gravis Marketing

November 22–25, 2016

3,250

± 2.4%

50%

35%

15%

text: Results[edit]

text:
United States Senate election in Florida, 2018

Party

Candidate

Votes

%

±

Democratic

Bill Nelson (incumbent)

Republican

Rick Scott

Majority

Total votes

100.0