The impact of DNA exonerations on the criminal justice system

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 320-327

  Berger, Margaret A ^a,b,c,d  

^a Radcliffe College   (United States)

^b School of Law ^*  (United States)

^c BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^d Academies' Committee on Science Technology and Law

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CRIMINAL LAW; DNA FINGERPRINTING; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LABORATORY; LEGAL ASPECT; PRISONER; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CRIMINAL LAW; DNA FINGERPRINTING; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; PRISONERS; QUALITY CONTROL; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745292749     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00037.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (71)

1. National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, Post-conviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests ( NIJ 177626, September 1999 10, note 2.
2. Id., at 15-16.
3. E. Connors, et al., Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science : Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial ( National Institute of Justice, 1996).
4. See National Institute of Justice, supra note 1, at v.
5. Id., at iii.
6. Ariz. Rev. Stat § 13-4240 ( 2002 Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202 (Michie 2002); Cal. Penal Code § 1405 (West 2002); Col. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-413 (West 2003); Ct. Stat. § 54-102J (7)(2003); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4504 (2002); D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4133 (2002); Fla. Stat. Ann. 925.11 (West 2002); Ga. Code Ann. § 5-5-41 (West 2003); Idaho Code §§ 19-2719, 19-4902 (Michie 2002); 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/116-3 (West 2002); Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-387-1 to 19 (West 2002); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-2512 (2001); Ky Rev. Stat. Ch. 422.285 (2002); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 926.1 (West 2002); Me. Rev. Stat Ann. tit. 15, § 2137 (West 2001); Md. Code Ann., Crim Proc. § 8-201 (2002); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 770.16 (West 2002); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 590.01 (West 2002); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 547.035 (West 2002); Montana Code § 46-21-110 (2003); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 29-4117 to 4125 (Michie 2002); N.D. St. 29-32.1-15; N.H. Stat § 651-D:2 (2004) 2005 Hawaii Law Act 112; N.J. Stat Ann. § 2A:84-32a (West 2002); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-1a-1 (Michie 2002); N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.30 (McKinney 2002); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15a-269 (2002); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2953.71-2953.83 (Baldwin 2003); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1371, 1371.1, 1372 (2002); Ore. Rev. Stat. T. 14, Ch. 138 Prec. 138.005 (West 2003); 42 PA. C.S.A. § 9543.1 (2002); R.I. Gen. Laws 1956, § 10-9.1-11 (2002); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-401 to 413 (2002); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03 (Vernon 2001); Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-35a-301 to 304 (2002); Va. Code Ann. § 19. 2-327.1 (Michie 2002); Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.170 (2002); Wisc. Stat. § 974.07 (2001). For a comprehensive discussion of the state statutes, see K. Swedlow, "Don't Believe Everything You Read: A Review of Modern 'Post-Conviction' DNA Testing Statutes California Western Law Review 38 ( 2002 355 387.
7. Justice For All Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405 ( 2004 which encompasses the Innocence Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. s 3600 et seq.
8. Innocence Project, at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ ( last visited February 24 2006).
9. In the 1990s, death sentences numbered over 300 per year. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 1996 ( 1997 320 sentences of death in 1996). In 2003, 144 inmates received death sentences, the lowest in 25 years. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2003 8, 14 ( 2004).
10. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 ( 2002).
11. Rogers v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1193 ( 2005).
12. A. D. Santi N. J. Lawmakers Suspend Death Penalty January 10, 2006), (Illinois and Maryland had also suspended executions), available at http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wierStory?id=1489715&page=1 ( last visited March 21 2006).
13. M. Glod and M. D. Shear Warner Orders DNA Testing in Case of Man Executed in '92 January 6, 2006, Washington Post website, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010502463. html?sub=AR ( last visited February 24, 2006).
14. M. Glod and M. D. Shear DNA Tests Confirm Guilt of Executed Man Washington Post, January 13 2006, at A01.
15. R. A. Rosen Innocence and Death North Carolina Law Review 82 ( 2003 61 113, at 113 (DNA testing exonerated Frank Smith who died of cancer after 14 years on death row).
16. P. C. Giannelli The Abuse of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: The Need for Independent Crime Laboratories Virginia Journal of Law and Social Policy 4 ( 1997 439 78 P. C. Giannelli, "The Admissibility of Laboratory Reports in Criminal Trials: The Reliability of Scientific Proof,"Ohio State Law Journal 49 (1988): 671-701.
17. See People v. Castro, 144 Misc.2d 956, 957 ( N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989 participation by leading scientist from Whitehead Institute).
18. Committee on DNA Forensic Science : An Update, National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic Science ( National Academy Press 1996): at 76-8; Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, National Research Council, DNA Technologies in Forensic Science (National Academy Press, 1992): at 98.
19. M. A. Berger Raising the Bar: The Impact of DNA Testing on the Field of Forensics in Perspectives on Crime and Justice 200-2001 Lecture Series ( National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2002).
20. P. C. Giannelli Forensic Science Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33, no. 3 ( 2005 535 542, at 537.
21. N. Y. Exec. Law § 995(b) ( McKinney 2005).
22. IN St. 10-13-6-14 (West 2003) ( laboratory must implement and follow nationally recognized standards for DNA quality assurance and proficiency testing, such as those approved by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Accreditation Board); OH St. §2953.80 ( 2003 laboratory must be in compliance with nationally accepted quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing, as published in the quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories issued by the director of the federal bureau of investigation crime laboratories and medical examiner offices should be accredited, examiners should be certified, and procedures should be standardized and published to ensure the validity, reliability, and timely analysis of forensic evidence Ward, The Future of DNA Testing and Law Enforcement, Brooklyn Law Review 67 ( 2001 249 255, at 253.
23. Justice for All Act, supra note 7, at §303.
24. J. Yardley, Oklahoma Retraces Big Step in Capital Case, New York Times, September 2, 2001, at 12 (1200 cases handled by police chemist Joyce Gilchrist are being reexamined after FBI criticized her work) G. Puit, Police Forensics: DNA Mix-Up Prompts Audits at Lab, Las Vegas Review Journal ( April 18 2002).
25. Welch man amends lawsuit over false arrest, Charleston Daily Mail September 14 2005 ( although all of Fred Zain's work as a state police chemist was discredited in 1993, leading to payments of $6.5 million by state to persons wrongfully convicted, a perhaps final case is still pending).
26. H. Aynesworth, Houston DNA Lab Near Breakdown, Investigators Fine, Washington Times, 2006, at AO5 (outside report reviewed 67 cases and found major issues with 40% of the original Houston crime-lab analyses) C. L. Jenkins, Critical Audit Prompts Va. to Review DNA Evidence, Washington Post, June 21, 2005, at BO5 ( at least 160 cases to be reviewed).
27. P. C. Giannelli, supra note 19, at 538.
28. B. Scheck, et al., Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and their Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted ( New York: Doubleday, 2000 at 246.
29. M. A. Berger, Expert Testimony in Criminal Proceedings, Questions Daubert Does Not Answer, Seton Hall Law Review 33 ( 2003 1125 1140, at 1130-1134.
30. M. M. Houck and B. Budowle Correlation of Microscopic and Mitochondrial DNA Hair Comparisons Journal of Forensic Science 47 ( 2002 964 967.
31. M. A. Berger, supra note 31, at 1130.
32. United States v. Mikos, 2003 WL 22922197, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2003 rejecting expert testimony).
33. Committee on Scientific Assessment of Bullet Lead Metal Comparison, Forensic Analysis Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (National Academy Press, 2004). See M. O. Finkelstein and B. Levin, Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead as Forensic Evidence, Journal of Law & Policy 13 ( 2004 119 42.
34. Associated Press, FBI Stops Testing Bullets for Metal Match, MSNBC website, September 1 2005, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9163996 ( last visited February 24, 2006).
35. S. A. Cole, Development, "Does 'Yes' Really Mean Yes¿ The Attempt to Close Debate on the Admissibility of Fingerprint Testimony Jurimetrics 45 ( 2005 449 64.
36. United States v. Green, F. Supp.2d, 2005 WL 3475695, *2 (D. Mass. 2005) ( judge conceded that every single court post-Daubert has admitted this testimony General Electric v. Joiner, 520 U.S. 1114 (1997) Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 ( 1999).
37. D. L. Faigman The Tipping Point in the Law's Use of Science: The Epidemic of Scientific Sophistication that Began with DNA Profiling and Toxic Torts Brooklyn Law Review 67 ( 2001 111 125, at 116-18.
38. P. C. Giannelli, The Supreme Court's 'Criminal'Daubert Cases, Seton Hall Law Review 33 ( 2003 1071 1112, at 1072 ("remarkable...that stricter admissibility standard would apply in civil cases than criminal cases.").
39. M. Saks and J. Koehler The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science Science 309 ( 2005 892 895.
40. Brief of the Innocence Project, Inc. As Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioner in House v. Bell, 2005 WL 779581., 44. See http://www.nasonline.org/ site/PagerServer?pagename=sackler_forensic ( an overview of A.M. Sackler, Symposium on Forensic Science: The Nexis of Science and the Law ( last visited March 21 2006).
41. PPL 109-108, Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 ( recognizes a problem in the forensic science and legal community: The absence of data; would direct Attorney General to provide $1,500,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to create an independent Forensic Science Committee).
42. See supra note 6.
43. 506 U.S. 390, 410 ( 1993).
44. Innocence Project, supra note 8. The average length of time served is 11.5 years.
45. It has been estimated that no sample from the crime scene can be found to test in approximately 75% of the cases in which inmates seek post-conviction testing because the samples were never collected, were destroyed or cannot be found. P. Neufeld Preventing the Execution of the Innocent: Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Hofstra Law Review 29 ( 2001 1155 1156.
46. National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, The Future of Forensic DNA Testing: Predictions of the Research and Development Working Group ( National Institute of Justice, 2000).
47. Supra notes 26-28.
48. M. A. Berger Lessons from DNA: Restriking the Balance between Finality and Justice in D. Lazer, ed., DNA and the Criminal Justice System: the Technology of Justice ( Cambridge : MIT Press, 2004 at 116 119 K. Swedlow, A State by State Review of Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes, Online Journal of Justice Studies, at http://ojjs.icaap.org/issues/1.1/swedlow.html ( last visited February 24, 2006).
49. Florida: F.S.A. (925.11(b)(1) ( 4 years after sentence becomes final, or conviction affirmed or collateral counsel appointed or retained in capital case, or by 10/1/05 whichever is later) Iowa, I.C.A. (822.3) (3 years from date of conviction or appeal); OH ST (2953.72 (C)(2) ( not later than 10/29/05).
50. Trimble v. State, 157 Md. App. 73 ( 2004).
51. People v. Sheldon, 351 Ill. App. 3d 292 (3d Dist. 2004) (original test inconclusive because control test was not clean enough; no statutory provision for retesting).
52. D. Borteck, Note Pleas for DNA Testing: Why Lawmakers should Amend State Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes to Apply to Prisoners who Pled Guilty Cardozo Law Review 25 ( 2004 1429 1468.
53. Ky Rev. Stat., ch. 4222.285 ( 2002).
54. B. Scheck, et al., supra, note 30, at 92 ( convictions in 23% of DNA exonerations studied by the Innocence Project were based on false confessions or admissions).
55. 542 U.S. 600, 608-11 ( 2004). See R. A. Leo and R. J. Ofshe The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88 ( 1988 429 496.
56. Of course, those pleading guilty would have been represented by counsel, but we also know from the DNA exonerations that there were numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel.
57. D. S. Medwed The Zeal Deal: Prosecutorial Resistance to Post-Conviction Claims of Innocence Boston University Law Review 84 ( 2004 129 : 125 183.
58. M. A. Berger, supra note 52, at 116-18.
59. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. § 78-35a-301 ( 2001 evidence...has the potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that will establish the person's actual innocence.); Wa. St. 10.73.170 (3) (convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis). Cf. 725 Ill.Comp.Stat.Ann. § 5/116-3(c)(1) (noncumulative evidence materially relevant to the defendant's assertion of actual innocence even though the results may not completely exonerate the defendant.).
60. Tex. Code Crim Proc., art. 64.03(a)((2)(A) ( the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained); N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.30(1-a) (reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant). See also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A: 84A-32(d)(5) ( result would raise a reasonable probability that if the results were favorable to the defendant, a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence would be granted 2001).
61. The Court heard oral argument in House on January 11, 2006. The transcript is available at 2006 WL 147630. The opinion below is at 386 F.3d 668 ( 6th Cir. 2004).
62. 513 U.S. 298 ( 1995).
63. Id., at 37.
64. Supra note 47.
65. Supra note 67, at 316.
66. The amicus briefs submitted in House v. Bell stress how our view of forensic evidence has been altered by the DNA exonerations. See Brief of the Innocence Project, supra note 43; Brief of the American Bar Association, 2005 WL 2367032 (2005) Brief of Former Prosecutors and Professors of Criminal Justice, 2005 WL 2367033 ( 2005).
67. Supra note 66.
68. Supra note 43, at 17-20. No mention of this assertion was raised at the House oral argument although there was a great deal of discussion about other disputed issues, such as the blood on the pants, Possible evidence of intended rape other than the semen stain, eyewitness testimony, alleged confessions by the husband.
69. 386 F.3d 668, 683 (6th Cir. 2004).
70. Id., at 686-709.
71. Id., at 709.