No, it's not enough evidence to convict someone. You know that they were there, and you can definitely consider them a suspect, but you can't make a definite conviction.
to convict criminals or overturn convictions
If we convict someone of a crime, it is a verb. A convict, meaning a person serving a prison term, is a noun.
The convict hoped a DNA test would exonerate him.
DNA fingerprinting is reliable because with that they can convict or acquit individuals of criminal offenses because every person is genetically unique.
DNA evidence can help convict criminals or show that an accused person is innocent.
Forensic evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, impressions, is used to determine the identity of the person who committed the crime. Fingerprints and DNA are specific to a single person and can therefore be used to convict someone. Impressions, such as shoe impressions, help to narrow down the list of possible suspects.
25 years convict to death
The sentence needs an agent (someone to perform the action of the verb)."We expected the convict to shoot at us" is active voice. We is the agent.People expected that the convict would shoot at us.
Not necessarily. It would depend on how much other evidence there is. By itself, DNA on a cigarette only proves that the suspect was physically present at the scene of the crime. It proves he was there at some unknown time, but it does not prove that he was there during the commission of the crime or that he committed the crime. It is a compelling piece of evidence, but it would need to be accompanied by other evidence, in order to ensure a conviction. For example, if eyewitnesses saw the suspect's car fleeing the scene, and if bullets matching those used in the crime were found at the suspect's home, THAT, combined with the DNA on the cigarette, would probably be enough to convict.
2
A Picture Of Him...