JS 115
Use of DNA to establish innocence
I.
Announcements
a. Final 12/13/06- 1715-1930 here in MH 324
b. Summary of Validation
II. Use of DNA to establish innocence
a.
Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf
b. Innocence project
Summary 1
• Validation is a process by which a procedure is evaluated
to determine its efficacy and reliability for forensic
casework analysis and includes
– Developmental Validation
– Internal Validation
• Developmental Validation
– Developmental Validation is the acquisition of test data and
determination of conditions and limitations of a new or novel
DNA methodology for use on forensic samples
• Internal Validation
– Internal Validation is the accumulation of test data within the
laboratory to demonstrate that established methods and
procedures perform as expected in the laboratory
Summary 2
• Validation includes the following types of tests:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Sensitivity
Reproducibility
Inter-laboratory tests
Non-human tests
Mixtures
Stutter studies
Non-probative cases
“ validation of forensic DNA testing to a certain extent
can be standardized but inflexible absolute numbers
will probably not be accepted”
Use of DNA to establish
innocence
Study findings
• 28 cases tried in 14 states and DC. Illinois, NY,
VA, Wva, PA, CA, MD, NC, Conn, KS, OH, Ind,
NJ and Texas
• All 28 involved sexual assault
• Mid to late 80s
• Prison time served 197 years, average of 7 years
among 28 defendants- Range 9months to 11 years
Evidence presented
• Eyewitness ID- All except homicides involved
victim ID both prior and at trial
• Defendants presented alibi defense corroborated
by friends and family
• Use of forensic evidence- majority involved nonDNA tested forensic evidence- comparison of nonvictim blood, semen or hair
• Prosecution experts testified on non-DNA
evidence strength
Alleged government malfeasance
or misconduct
• 8 cases alleged government misconduct
– perjury testimony
– Withholding exculpatory evidence
– Intentionally erroneous lab tests
Evidence discovered after trial
• Most cases DNA test results represented newly
discovered evidence after completion of the trial
• DNA testing- Nearly all defendants had tests done
by private laboratories. Blood from defendant and
samples from victim and evidence- corroborated
by prosecution retesting
• 8 labs RFLP, 17 PCR 2 used both
Preservation of evidence
• Evidence in some cases had deteriorated to
a point where DNA testing could not be
performed
• Chain of custody in some also demonstrate
a lack of adherence to proper procedures
DNA laboratory survey
• 23 % of the 21,621 cases DNA tests
excluded suspects
• FBI report 20% inconclusive and 20%
exclusions
Policy Implications
• Reliability of eyewitness testimony- Need for improved
criteria for evaluating the reliability of eyewitness ID
• Reliability of Non-DNA analyses of Forensic Evidence
vs DNA testing- Many cases relied on non-DNA analysis
of blood or hair
• Competence and Reliability of DNA lab proceduresAccreditation (ASCLD-LAB)
• Preservation of Evidence- Need to preserve and
maintaing CoC.
• Training of DNA forensic Uses-Juries will expect it and
prosecutors and defense attorneys must be trained
Innocence Project
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers- NACDL
members, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, co-chairs of the NACDL
DNA Task Force and founders of the Innocence Project at the Cardozo
Law School in New York have spearhead the plight of the innocent
imprisoned.
• Scheck and Neufeld utilize volunteer law students and attorneys to
review hundreds of cases of people who say they have been falsely
convicted, usually of rape or murder, and, when appropriate, arrange
for DNA tests that may support their claim of innocence.
• 187 innocent prisoners have been exonerated with new DNA tests and
evidence which excluded them as participants in the crimes for which
they had been convicted.
Innocence Project
The Innocence Project
(www.innocenceproject.Org)
Major accomplishments:
• Exonerations – 187, since 1992
• Access to DNA testing – 37 states allow
access for post conviction DNA testing.
• Federal legislations –
– Convicts may apply for post conviction
DNA testing + Preserve evidence.
– Quality lawyers for the indigent in death
penalty cases.
– Increased compensation for exonerated.
– Independent auditing of crime labs
The Innocence Project
(www.innocenceproject.Org)
Major accomplishments – cont.
•
•
•
•
•
Eyewitness identification reform.
Independent crime lab audits
State crime lab oversight
Death penalty suspension (New York).
Jury instructions; Eyewitness identifications
The Innocence Project
(www.innocenceproject.Org)
• Post conviction DNA exoneree facts:
– Total of 187 post conviction DNA exonerations.
– 14 were on death row.
• Since 1989, many people were indicted or
arrested, until pretrial DNA test proved their
innocence.
• 21 states have passed compensation laws
(although they vary from state to state).
The Innocence Project
(www.innocenceproject.Org)
• Major causes for wrongful convictions
(according to IP experience)
– Mistaken eyewitness identification.
– Misapplication of forensic technology.
– False confessions
– Jailhouse informants
– Bad legal representation.
The Innocence Project
(www.innocenceproject.Org)
“…The Innocence Project took something very
old, a prisoner's claim of innocence, and
paired that with something very new, forensic
DNA testing.
Due to our groundbreaking use of DNA
technology, the Innocence Project has helped
inspire the establishment of many of the over
30 other organizations dedicated to
innocence work throughout the nation”.
Innocence Project Implications
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/burden/v
iew/
• Federal suggestions (Huff, 2004)
– “Innocence Protection Act”
• Enable convicted offenders to prove
their innocence through DNA tests.
• Providing proper legal services for
death penalty convictions.
• Compensation.
• Raising public awareness.
Innocence Project Implications
• Psychological (Grounds, 2004)
– Some of the exonerates experience
“significant psychiatric and adjustment
difficulties” (p.178)
– Lacking communication skills - stay alone
and single.
– Lose direction in life.
– Lose ability to work.
– Lost time.
Innocence Project Implications
• Social (Huff, 2004)
– Loss of public trust in the justice
system.
– The true perpetrators are still free…
– Recidivism.
Summary
• DNA testing can be used to exonerate those wrongly
accused.
• In the NIJ study 28 defendants served a total of 197
years before DNA testing proved them innocent
• Policy implications include evaluation of eyewitness
testimony, non-DNA evidence analysis, DNA Lab and
expert competency, DNA training for prosecution and
defense attorneys and preservation of evidence
• 187 cases have been processed by the Innocence Project
group
• Societal implications are significant
clip
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh
ows/burden/view/