I. The Problem: Use of Unreliable Science at Trial
The use of DNA evidence in trials has effectively outlined one of the prime causes of wrongful convictions in American courtrooms, unreliable science. "Junk Science" or unreliable science was one of the two reasons why 9% of the cases where innocent people were wrongfully convicted. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/75)
Though DNA is capable of showing law enforcement whether someone actually committed a crime, archaic forms of science that show merely a possibility of criminal wrongdoing are still used to this day. Some of these archaic forms include blood typing, hair comparison, and bite mark comparisons. Though these forms of science may help law enforcement locate certain suspects, and conduct further investigation, they are not reliable enough to present to a jury. Simply because these forms of science are coined "expert testimony" or "lab data," the jury gives the data more credit then they really should. Thus, because DNA testing can provide the justice system with a definitive answer as to a person's culpability, the use of aforementioned archaic forms of testing should be drastically limited.
II. Facing Reality
For example, in 2005 George Rodriguez was wrongfully convicted for sexual assault, and was exonerated after 17 years of imprisonment. In this case, a lab director testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. In addition, his testimony provided that Rodriguez's blood type showed Rodriguez could have deposited biological fluids. This testimony was enough to persuade the jury that Rodriguez was guilty of sexual assault. However, later DNA testing proved that the hair could not have been Rodriguez's, and that the blood testing was completely erroneous. Rodriguez's case is just one of many cases that show the blatant error that comes from unreliable science, which ultimately results in harsh injustice against the innocent. Sadly, several audits of the lab from which Rodriguez's test results were obtained, still reveal a wide range of misconduct that is being investigated and corrected to this day. (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/246.php)
DNA testing proves that serology, or the testing of blood type that is gathered from bodily fluids collected at crime scenes, fails to exclude suspects who are innocent. Serology, though reliable, is limited in its reliability because it can only determine whether a suspect is a member of the population of potential donors who could have deposited biological evidence at a crime scene. Several wrongful conviction cases that were later exonerated by DNA evidence, had serologists at the original trial that failed to disclose the limited nature of serology testing, or completely gave false statistical principals. Nonetheless, to the unsuspecting jury, such testimony led to their judgment of the defendant's guilt. For example, in 1990 Alejandro Dominguez, who was only sixteen years old, was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison for rape. During trial, a forensic serologist had testified that the serology testing on the semen that was recovered from the victim "could not exclude Dominguez." However, what the jury was not told was that in addition to Dominguez, 67% of the total population of American men could not be excluded from the possibility of being the culprit either. After serving nearly half of his sentence, Dominguez sought DNA testing on his own expense, resulting in his exoneration.
III. The Solution: Exclude Unreliable Science From being Heard at Trial & Mandate DNA Testing for Felony Charged Individuals
First, the introduction of "junk science" as evidence during a jury trail must be eliminated. Banning the evidence of "junk science" does not mean banning its beneficial use in criminal investigation. Law enforcement officers should still use "junk science" in their criminal investigations. However, the mere introduction of such evidence to twelve unsuspecting jurors creates damaging holes in the justice system that may only be efficiently fulfilled with accurate DNA evidence.
Additionally, DNA testing of a person charged with a felony should be mandated. These results should be maintained in a DNA "bank," and used in future criminal investigations. The definitive answers provided by DNA testing will lighten the large load of meaningless litigation that burdens the courts and eventually results in wrongful convictions. Currently, 44 states, in addition to California have post-conviction DNA testing access statutes. However, in the interest of serving both the efficiency and the economy of the courts, such DNA testing should occur prior to conviction.
Moreover, the post-conviction DNA statutes are limited in scope and substance. For example, despite the fact that 11 of the first 223 individuals proven innocent through DNA testing initially peld guilty, certain laws still do not permit access to DNA when the defendant originally pled guilty. For example, in Colorado, the Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrhamson concluded that 3,242 cases in which defendants were currently held in prison and convicted by a jury had only 36 cases in which a DNA testing may be permissible. However, eventually DA determined that none of the cases warranted testing. At a later Press release the DA had stated that people who had pled guilty were excluded from the testing. Additionally two other potential cases were excluded from DNA testing because they were based on fibers and blood testing.
Additionally, many laws fail to include adequate safeguards for the preservation of DNA evidence. Even if DNA testing is permitted, a number of states fail to require full, fair, and prompt proceedings once a DNA testing petition has been filed. Unfortunately, this leaves the accused pinging away in prison for an unnecessary period of time.
Below is a list of additional recommendations made on behalf of the California Innocence Project:
• Include a reasonable standard to establish proof of innocence at the stage where an individual is petitioning for post-conviction DNA testing;
• Allow access to post-conviction DNA testing wherever it can establish innocence, even if the petitioner is no longer incarcerated, and including cases where the petitioner pled guilty or provided a confession or admission to the crime;
• Exclude “sunset provisions,” or absolute deadlines, for when access to post-conviction DNA evidence will expire;
• Require state officials to account for evidence in their custody;
• Require state officials to properly preserve and catalogue biological evidence for as long as an individual is incarcerated or otherwise experiences any consequences of a potential wrongful conviction (e.g. probation, parole, civil commitment or mandatory registration as a sex offender);
• Disallow procedural hurdles that stymie DNA testing petitions and proceedings that govern other forms of post-conviction relief;
• Allow convicted persons to appeal from orders denying DNA testing;
• Require a full, fair and prompt response to DNA testing petitions, including the avoidance of debate around whether currently available DNA technology was available at the time of the trial;
• Avoid unfunded mandates by providing funding to DNA testing statutes; and
• Provide flexibility in where, and how, DNA testing is conducted.
Source: http://www.ArticlePros.com/author.php?Armine G
|
