Chapter 70: DNA Evidence Under Fire – Summary and Analysis
⚠️ Spoiler Warning: This guide contains detailed spoilers for the entire novel. Proceed only if you've finished reading or are comfortable knowing the plot.
Summary
In Chapter 70, the murder trial continues with defense attorney Smith cross-examining DNA expert Steve Salzman. She begins with humor to win over the jury, then questions the reliability of DNA evidence. Smith suggests that DNA can be harvested from personal items like toothbrushes and hairbrushes and planted at a crime scene. Salzman admits it is possible but insists planting that much evidence would be extremely difficult. She also establishes that DNA cannot reveal how long it has been present and that DNA can alter over time. Prosecutor Welsh conducts redirect, highlighting that a fresh drop of Jacobson’s blood was found on a nightstand in the main bedroom—a location the housekeeper had cleaned earlier that day. This specific, fresh blood cannot be easily explained away. Smith ends the chapter feeling like a boxer who has been cut, sensing she lost ground in the courtroom battle.
Key Events
- Smith opens cross-examination with a joke about the prosecutor’s age, getting a laugh from the jury.
- She asks Salzman if he is aware that DNA is often used to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, referencing the Innocence Project.
- Smith questions Salzman on the possibility of harvesting DNA from a toothbrush and preserving it for future planting. He admits it is possible.
- She presses about hair follicles and the inability to determine how long DNA has been at a scene. Salzman agrees.
- Salzman concedes that DNA can alter slightly over time, though the change is minor.
- Prosecutor Welsh redirects: she points out that Jacobson’s blood was found near the three bodies and that one drop of fresh blood was on a nightstand after the house had been cleaned that day.
- Welsh makes a sarcastic remark about coincidence, and Salzman agrees it would be some coincidence.
- The narrative ends with Smith feeling like a boxer who just got cut, indicating her line of attack has been wounded.
Character Development
- Smith (the protagonist/lawyer): Shows courtroom savvy and confidence with humor, but her cross-examination fails to produce a decisive blow. The closing line reveals her vulnerability and awareness that she has been effectively countered.
- Prosecutor Katherine Welsh: Demonstrates sharp redirect skills, turning the defense’s own logic against them. Her pointed reminder about the freshly cleaned house and the fresh blood drop re‑solidifies the prosecution’s case.
- Steve Salzman: A credible expert who maintains his composure. He admits possibilities raised by Smith but does not concede the core forensic conclusion.
Themes, Symbols, or Motifs
- DNA as a double‑edged sword: The chapter illustrates both the power and limits of DNA evidence. While Smith attempts to show it can be planted, Welsh reminds the jury of its reliability in specific, fresh instances.
- Theatrical courtroom performance: Smith’s opening joke and the meta-commentary about her “boxer” persona highlight the performative nature of a trial.
- Reasonable doubt vs. overwhelming coincidence: Smith tries to create doubt by showing possibilities; Welsh counters by framing the evidence as too coincidental to be innocent.
Why This Chapter Matters
This chapter marks a significant shift in the trial’s momentum. Smith’s strategy of undermining the DNA evidence appears promising at first, but Welsh’s redirect refocuses the jury on the single, indelible drop of blood. The “boxer who got cut” metaphor signals that the defense has suffered a setback, raising the stakes for the remainder of the trial and for the reader’s anticipation of how Smith will recover.
Study Questions and Answers
Q: What is Smith’s main goal in cross‑examining Steve Salzman? A: Smith aims to cast doubt on the prosecution’s DNA evidence by suggesting that DNA can be planted or harvested from everyday items and that no scientific method can determine how long it has been at a scene. She wants the jury to consider the possibility that someone else framed her client.
Q: How does prosecutor Katherine Welsh counter Smith’s arguments during redirect? A: Welsh focuses on the one drop of fresh blood found on a nightstand after the housekeeper had cleaned the house that day. She asks Salzman to confirm the blood is fresh and that it is Jacobson’s own blood, not something that could have been planted from a toothbrush. This makes the defense’s theory of planting seem unlikely in that specific instance.
Q: Why does Smith feel like “a boxer who just got cut” at the end of the chapter? A: The metaphor indicates that Smith’s attack on the DNA evidence has been effectively deflected. Welsh’s redirect exposed a weakness in the defense’s case—the fresh blood that cannot be easily explained—and Smith realizes she has lost the round, leaving her vulnerable in the ongoing trial.