Post Conviction DNA Testing

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Post conviction DNA Testing: Criteria for granting the motion
Case Categories
Short Comings of Existing DNA Access Laws
The Future of Post Conviction DNA Testing
Conclusion
Works cited

Introduction

DNA Testing

In the last few years, proofs obtained from DNA examinations, has become one of the most important forensic methods used in the identification of offenders, and the separation alleged suspects, when a crime is committed and evidence are left in the form, of blood, saliva, skin, or any other tissue that is biological (Amah 45). The DNA was first presented as evidence in court in the year 1986 in the USA, and in the subsequent years it presented serious challenges in the court rooms, presently it is been accepted in court rooms around the world as evidence. Tremendous changes and improvements have occurred in the technology and the tangibility of the evidence gotten from these sources has also improved. When this technology was first used, the lab technicians depended majorly on the testing of RELP (restriction fragment length polymer-phism). This technique required obtaining large and quality samples of DNA. But presently a new technique is in use and most laboratories seem to be adopting it, the test is anchored on PCR method (polymerase chain reaction). Using this method high quality data is generated from relatively very small amount of DNA at crime scenes, through what can be described as molecular copying.

Energies are currently been directed towards obtaining quality data from dry bones or strands of hairs, this scientist believe can be achieved through the use of mitochondrial deoxiyribonucleic acid in a PCR test. One of the most important aspects of carry out investigation with the use of DNA is that it is not only meant for conviction but it also helps in the proving of innocence. In a search conducted in laboratories, it was observed that through the conduction of DNA test in the year 1995, alleged suspects were set free from one fifth of the total cases (Amah 67). If not for DNA testing or if it were before it was discovered, most of the suspects in this cases would have been innocently indicted, and possibly convicted, as a result of proof which ordinarily would have been against them. Many cases of flawed incarcerations have been brought to light, through the conductions of post conviction DNA testing. As recorded by steve Vendon in his article that “ Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., writing for the majority in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (08-6), noted that DNA testing provides “an unparalleled ability” to prove innocence or guilt, but its availability “cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt.”(Steve 1)

Post conviction DNA Testing: Criteria for granting the motion

The court is permitted by law to allow the motion for the testing of DNA if the following are satisfied,

If the proof that is to be put to test is provided, and in a good state that would allow the DNA to be tested as stated in the motion.
The proof is tested and proven that it has not being tampered with in any way.
The defendant that is been investigated is in every sense relevant in the case.
The testing that is asked for is carried out in a method that is generally acceptable.
The proof to be tested has not been put to previous test

Case Categories

During the process of collecting information regarding a particular case, it will be very useful to assess it in terms of the following

Category 1. These refer to situations in which biological proofs were collected and are still available. If the proof is used in DNA testing, positive outcome of the result will vindicate the supplicant.
Category 2. These refer to situations in which biological proofs were collected and are still available. If the proof is used in DNA testing, positive outcome of the result will add to the supplicant’s claim of not being involved in the case. But these might not be agreed as been enough proof to exclude him or her from the case. In another sense he might be excluded but not exonerated.
Category 3. These refer to cases in which biological proofs were collected and are still available. If the proof is used in DNA testing, positive results will not be enough. Events that might occur later will result to reassigning the case under consideration to another category.
Category 4. These are situations in which there are no biological proofs. These might be as a result of the difficulty in getting such proofs, the destruction of collected proofs, or the preservation of such proof in such a way that it can not be subjected to testing. In such a situation, post conviction release as a result of evidence obtained from the testing of DNA can not be achieved.
Category 5. These are situations in which asking for DNA test might be not be important. In situations as this, the prosecutors along side the defense counsel are collectively expected to come to terms and agree that DNA testing should not be carried out.

Short Comings of Existing DNA Access Laws

Most of the DNA access laws that exist do not involve enough safeguards as regards the protection of evidence gotten through DNA.
Most of the access laws that are available make it very difficult for the person requesting for the test, and at the same time heap work on the defense to efficiently resolve the crime case and establish that the proof that will be gotten from the DNA will involve another person, previously not involved.
Some of the laws don’t permit the defendant to appeal after his petition for a DNA test has been denied.
After the filing of DNA testing, most states do not ensure quick proceedings, making innocent people suffer in prison (Samuel 87). Below is an example of a case as recorded by Samuel Atim in his book DNA Evidence in Law that,

“In May of 1987, Bruce Godschalk was convicted of rape and burglary in Pennsylvania. The conviction was based primarily on eyewitness identification and a confession later proven to be false. Forensics techniques available at the time of the trial and used to test the semen from the crimes could not exclude Mr. Godschalk as the perpetrator. Following his conviction, Mr. Godschalk petitioned for access to DNA testing and was denied. After contacting the Innocence Project in 1995, which sought testing on his behalf, the District Attorney refused to allow access to the DNA evidence. It was not until November of 2000 that a Federal District Court granted access to the DNA testing. Delays in setting a testing protocol and delivering the evidence, in addition to some legal hurdles, deferred testing of the evidence until January of 2002. Mr. Godschalk was eventually excluded as the donor of the semen in the crimes and released from prison. Mr. Godschalk had spent seven of his fifteen years of incarceration fighting for access to DNA evidence. As a result of Mr. Godschalk’s case, Pennsylvania introduced and later passed a law creating access to DNA evidence.”( Samuel 85)

The Future of Post Conviction DNA Testing

Rapid developments are on a daily basis been carried out on the technology for DNA testing (Hana 87). Currently under massive development are databases of those convicted of crimes and those for evidence from crime scenes that are unaccepted, and in which the investigations are still in progress. The importance of this data bases that are been created is that, it will help for the connection of cases that formerly had no connection. It will also be used in the screening of people who have beforehand committed one crime or the other. As time goes the demand for the post DNA testing will decrease, these will be as a result of the advancement in different technologies that will be available in virtually every laboratory (Samuel 42).

Conclusion

Deoxyribonucleic acid testing has greatly helped in the identification of offenders and in the exoneration of innocent people. The testing of DNA after conviction is of great importance in the dissemination of justice, especially in cases where the criteria for testing is met. It is been widely understood that the testing of DNA can make obvious innocence, but prosecutors are not only interested in the exoneration but also in making sure that perpetrators are brought to book. Thus the testing of DNA helps law enforcement in the sense that true suspects are identified (dna.gov).

Works cited

Amah, Daniel. An Introduction to Forensic DNA Studies, Dublin: Natan, 1997.

Hana, Crouch. A Guide on DNA Evidence, Cairo: Shamana, 1995.

Samuel, Atim. DNA Evidence in law, Jos: ACD, 2002.

Steve, Verdon. SCOTUS: No to Post Conviction DNA Testing. 2009. Web.

DNA Initiative. 2009. Advancing criminal Justice through DNA Technology. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!