Prosecutors Block Access to DNA Testing for Inmates

[IDemo]

By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: May 17, 2009

In an age of advanced forensic science, the first step toward ending Kenneth Reed’s prolonged series of legal appeals should be simple and quick: a DNA test, for which he has offered to pay, on evidence from the 1991 rape of which he was convicted.

Louisiana, where Mr. Reed is in prison, is one of 46 states that have passed laws to enable inmates like him to get such a test. But in many jurisdictions, prosecutors are using new arguments to get around the intent of those laws, particularly in cases with multiple defendants, when it is not clear how many DNA profiles will be found in a sample.

The laws were enacted after DNA evidence exonerated a first wave of prisoners in the early 1990s, when law enforcement authorities strongly resisted reopening old cases. 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18dna.html?_r=1&hp

[ThomCat]

1. Eye witnesses can be wrong.

And in many cases, prosecutors can coerce witnesses to identify the suspect of their choice. DNA is not perfect, but it is much more reliable than eye witnesses.

Any prosecutor who denies DNA testing is probably covering up for shoddy prosecutions, knowing that they may have prosecuted an innocent person. There is no other justification for denying a prisoner to pay for an independent DNA analysis. x(

So long as it is always done through a reputable independent lab, I think it should be mandated that DNA be analyzed EVERY time it is requested. The prosecution should not have the power to deny this.

[beyurslf]

2. Absolutely disgusting. They are more worried about a guilty verdict than

the truth. They should be fired, disbarred, and imprisoned.

[babylonsister]

3. This is gross. Why shouldn't their intent be to find the truth?

And the man will pay for the testing? Where's the downside? Plus, he's been jailed since 1991? How angry would any of us be?

Empathy needs to start right here, right now. :grr:

[IDemo]

5. Because it's an admission of failure

They would rather keep their win/loss record intact than worry about trivialities like human lives.

[JonLP24]

6. I got flamed then later turned into a deleted message

for posting that a trial is more about winning then finding out the truth. I now add in most cases if not all. That goes both ways, defense and prosecutor. Anytime I watch a trial on TruthTV you see the defense arguing he/she is innocent and the prosecutor arguing guilty. They both make good points which makes it very confusing.

[pleah]

4. K&R These prosecutors do not care about the innocent.

They only care about keeping themselves in power. Justice has nothing to do with it.:-(

[able1]

7. Exactly.

The late Percy Forman once said "my clients don't want justice, they want freedom." DA's don't want justice, they want convictions.

[LisaL]

8. Eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.

Many falsely convicted people are convicted because of wrong/mistaken eyewitness testimony. I think it is ridiculous for a prosecutor to claim that because of eyewitness testimony DNA test is not needed.