Prosecutors Block Access to DNA Testing for Inmates

[FourScore]

Prosecutors Block Access to DNA Testing for Inmates
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.

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.”

In the case of Robert Conway, a mentally incapacitated man convicted of stabbing a shopkeeper to death in 1986 in Pennsylvania, prosecutors have objected that DNA tests on evidence from the scene would not be enough to prove his innocence.

And in Tennessee, prosecutors withdrew their consent to DNA testing for Rudolph Powers, convicted of a 1980 rape, because the victim had an unidentified consensual sex partner shortly before the attack...

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

[Hepburn]

1. Waaaaaaaay too many prosecutors and sick assholes...

...who use the power of the state to deny justice.

JMHO

[FourScore]

2. All I can assume is that they are only interested in advancing their own careers.

They certainly do not seem to be interested in fair legal process.

[Hepburn]

5. Exactly....

...and the prosecutors have a lot of pressure to "close" cases. Seems like they do not care how they close them ~~ as long as they stay closed.

There was a murder case that went up on appeal and the DA who had tried the case had become a judge. The forensic pathologist for the prosecution had passed away prior to the appeal coming down. I was in chambers one day on another case and the case on appeal was being discussed with the judge. His concern? Not that justice be done, but that the pathologist had died and he was key to winning the case. This was said matter of factly like someone giving the time of day. Not that any errors had been made or a discussion of the merits at all...but he did not want the case re-opened simply because the lead pathologist had died and therefore the case needed to stay closed.

:eyes: Sheesh...!

[Brewman_Jax]

3. The "justice" system, like most institutions

is far from perfect and severely biased. The fact that prosecutors can sleep at night and live with the fact that an innocent individual could be falsely convicted shows how fucked up the system is. They don't care about justice, just their records for future career advancement--and that's disgusting! :puke:

[EOTE]

4. K&R. This is a hugely important issue.

DNA testing shouldn't only be available, it should be mandatory in cases where DNA based evidence is available. The fact that we're denying inmates even the ability to get it done on their own dime is sickening.