The Supreme Court is making a ruling on whether it is okay for the state to deny access to DNA evidence that may prove someone's innocence. I believe this ruling is focused on individuals who have already been convicted of crimes, and are now serving out their sentences. An article by journalist, Ed Brayton, reported that the Obama Administration is in favor of blocking the evidence.
46 States have enacted laws which allow for post-conviction DNA testing. However, the prosecution is coming up with arguments to circumvent the law. They have two major arguments:
1. The DNA testing could cause years of delay.
Well guys, you're right about that one. DNA testing could take some time, and it could delay putting someone to death for a crime they didn't commit. It sounds to me like you would rather end it quick and close the book before anybody finds out the real truth.
1A. The delay could cause the statute of limitations to elapse, preventing the trial of additional suspects.
So someone in jail is better than nobody, right? If we can't get the guilty person, then we should at least get the person the blind eyewitness identified as the perp.
2. If the perp has been identified by witnesses then there is no need for DNA testing.
Is the witness credible? Was it dark out? Does the perpetrator have common features? There are plenty of studies out there showing false eyewitness testimony. I'll find some and link to them here.
Brayton makes it very clear that prosecutors don't want the uncomfortable feeling of telling a wrongly convicted individual that they were wrong. They just assume trusting the system and closing the book.
Is the justice system supposed to be about saving face or providing justice to all?
For more information about this post, Here are three other quality blog posts. 1)I found a great article written by criminal lawyer, Ronald Chapman. 2) Tim Welch also has a unique take on the issue of prosecutors blocking DNA testing evidence. 3) Progressive Puppy is a news and commentary blog with some good feedback.
