Criminal Justice

NY Times: Prosecutors Blocking DNA Tests

|

The New York Times reports that prosecutors are too often blocking access to DNA tests that could exonerate the innocent, even in states where legislatures have specifically passed laws allowing access to testing.

In some cases, they're saying the tests are unnecessary because jurors reached their verdict based on other evidence, even though that other evidence—eyewitness testimony, for example—is much less reliable than DNA. In others, they're arguing that the possibility of multiple DNA samples or the fact that there are multiple defendants means a DNA test would prove inconclusive, even though technological advances in testing would in many cases be able to sort all of that out.

Continued resistance by prosecutors is causing years of delay and, in some cases, eliminating the chance to try other suspects because the statute of limitations has passed by the time the test is granted.

Mr. Reed has been seeking a DNA test for three years, saying it will prove his innocence. But prosecutors have refused, saying he was identified by witnesses, making his identification by DNA unnecessary.

A recent analysis of 225 DNA exonerations by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in almost one out of five cases. In many of the others, they initially opposed testing but ultimately agreed to it. In 98 of those 225 cases, the DNA test identified the real culprit.

In Illinois, prosecutors have opposed a DNA test for Johnnie Lee Savory, convicted of committing a double murder when he was 14, on the grounds that a jury was convinced of his guilt without DNA and that the 175 convicts already exonerated by DNA were "statistically insignificant."

The other argument prosecutors often give is "finality," meaning that for the sake of the victim and the system, sometimes it's best to just declare a case closed, even if there remains doubt about the verdict.

"It's definitely a matter of drawing the line somewhere," said Peter Carr, the assistant district attorney who handled the case of Mr. Wright, who was accused of raping and killing a 77-year-old woman. The defendant did not request testing until 2005, three years after the statute was passed, Mr. Carr said, and in his view there was no possibility that the test would show innocence.

"There's also the idea that you want finality for the victim's sake," Mr. Carr said. "If someone else's semen was found at the crime scene, we'd have to talk to the victim's family about whether the victim was sexually active."

This argument rings hollow. If they didn't look into whether or not the victim was sexually active before the initial trial, that's some pretty poor police work. An innocent person shouldn't have to rot behind bars to spare a victim's family uncomfortable questions that should have been asked a long time ago.

Meanwhile, there have been two more exonerations in the last couple of weeks, one in Virginia, and one in Tennessee. The man in Tennessee spent 22 years on death row. The man in Virginia was exonerated for one of three rapes for which he was convicted. His attorneys believe the same man, a serial rapist, committed all three crimes. They're now trying to reopen the other two cases as well.

I wrote about new research casting doubt on eyewitness testimony here. I wrote about a case currently under Supreme Court review that could establish a right to post-conviction DNA testing here.

NEXT: Obushma Watch: Torture Photo Flip Flop and Reactions Division

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve never understood the “finality” argument. It supposes that somehow psychological state of family is more important than justice. It makes a mockery of even a pretense of a “justice” system rather than a “legal” system divorced from any pretense at justice. I really don’t understand why more DAs aren’t pushing aggressively for use of DNA testing in general since it would make their jobs easier and keep them from chasing down blind alleys in many cases.

  2. DAs and police don’t want their jobs complicated by a test that might exonerate suspects that they can build effective cases against, Untermensch — Worse yet if they’ve already built the case and/or won a conviction.

    I will allow, though, that some of these cases might be more complicated than we’re prone to assume. While lack of a match in a DNA sample from a rape victim might be pretty clearly exculpatory, what of samples less intimately connected with a crime — say, from a hair sample found at the scene of a murder? I can imagine cases where the protest that “the jury relied on other evidence” could be a legitimate one, and DNA non-matches might even be considered prejudicial.

    That said, more of these tests need to be done, and I think it’s safe to say that 90%+ of the objection to them is pure CYA.

  3. Wow, and they’re not even in Mississippi!

  4. I’ve never understood the “finality” argument.

    I think there is very definitely a need to cut off appeals at some point. However, blocking DNA tests is not that point.

  5. “It’s definitely a matter of drawing the line somewhere,” said Peter Carr, the assistant district attorney who handled the case of Mr. Wright, who was accused of raping and killing a 77-year-old woman. The defendant did not request testing until 2005, three years after the statute was passed, Mr. Carr said, and in his view there was no possibility that the test would show innocence. [italics added]

    Then what the hell are you fretting about? I’ll bet the innocence project or some similar organization will be willing pick up the costs and only charge the state if the man is innocent.

    Oh, I see. That’s what you’re fretting about.

  6. For the state, it’s not important that the guilty are punished for crimes. All that matters is that someone is punished. This increases the power and authority of the state.

  7. I’ve never understood the “finality” argument. It supposes that somehow psychological state of family is more important than justice.

    It’s the Andy Breckman method. Monk tries to solve crimes, but his creator’s method is instead to find a patsy, which is easier and just as satisfying, as long as nobody knows.

  8. Even better would bet that the crime is never discovered to begin with.

  9. Seriously, if the family could be convinced the 77 YO had consensual sex and died of natural causes, wouldn’t everyone be happier?

  10. “””and that the 175 convicts already exonerated by DNA were “statistically insignificant.”

    It’s about statistics, and DNA exonerating prisoners screws with their statistics in the win column.

    Naturally, people that only care about the win, and not the truth will fight tooth and nail to prevent unraveling a win, despite innocents or guilt.

  11. “There’s also the idea that you want finality for the victim’s sake,” Mr. Carr said. “If someone else’s semen was found at the crime scene, we’d have to talk to the victim’s family about whether the victim was sexually active.”

    Of forbid we ever “bother” anyone’s emotional well being for the sake of possibly saving a person from a life of unwarranted pain and suffering in jail for a crime they may have not had any part in.

    Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck!
    Are you serious!!! Oh by Odin’s beard. Has all sense filtered off this planet?

    medic

  12. This makes me so angry! All these guys have to do is put themselves in the place of an accused man. Their job is not to get a conviction no matter what, it is to convict the person responsible for the crime. Are these people crazy or just that ruthless?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.