Prosecutors Continue to Deny Post-Conviction DNA Tests

Kenneth Reed was convicted of rape in 1991.  He insists that he's innocent of the crime, and has asked to have his DNA tested.  He's even willing to pay for the test himself.  But that's not happening because prosecutors don't want to bother with it.  So he sits in prison while his case slowly moves through the appeals process. 

Forty-six states have passed laws to enable inmates like him to have their DNA tested.  From the NY Times:  But in many jurisdictions, prosecutors are using new arguments to get around the intent of those laws...  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.

So how extensive is the problem?  Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, conducted an analysis of more than 200 recent DNA exonerations.  He discovered that prosecutors opposed testing in one out of five of those cases.  In others, they initially opposed testing - but finally, after much hand-wringing, agreed to it.  98 of of those 225 convictions were shown to be in error, since DNA tests don't lie.

Prosecutors say they object to post-trial DNA motions because they're concerned that it will be used as "delaying tactics" and that it "undermines hard-won jury verdicts."  Peter Carr, an assistant district attorney, argues that the criminal justice system should let sleeping dogs lie "for the victim's sake."  Otherwise, he says, prosecutors would be forced to have "uncomfortable conversations" with the injured parties.

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars muzzles that dog:  So in these 225 cases, the prosecutors objected to tests that proved the innocence of the man they'd convicted for the crime. That's more than 40 men who would still be in prison even though they were innocent if those prosecutors had succeeded in their arguments... Awww, my heart bleeds. Those poor prosecutors might have to have an uncomfortable conversation if an innocent man is set free. Yeah, you're right, we should just let innocent men languish for the rest of their lives in prison so you can avoid any anxiety that might result from such a tragic situation.     

Denied DNA justice, Reed sits behind bars and prosecutors congratulate themselves on a job well done.