Legal Issues

The purpose of this section is to identify the kinds of legal issues that have already arisen, and others that will probably develop, as applications for postconviction DNA testing continue to be made and the DNA technology available to conduct those tests advances. No attempt has been made to set forth in full the law of any particular jurisdiction.

Background

An understanding of the novel legal issues posed by postconviction requests for DNA testing requires an appreciation of the traditional legal approach to postconviction relief that predated the forensic use of DNA typing. The judicial system provided two principal avenues of relief for a convicted defendant who had exhausted the process of appeal. The inmate could seek: 1) a new trial if the conviction rested on an error of fact contradicted by newly discovered evidence, or 2) a writ of habeas corpus in State or Federal court (after efforts to obtain relief in State court had been exhausted). In addition, it was conceded that the limited circumstances in which postconviction relief was available might cause some cases in which guilt was erroneously determined to fall between the cracks. In such a case, an inmate could still seek executive clemency as a means of correcting a miscarriage of justice.

Under common law, the window during which relief could be sought on the grounds of newly discovered evidence was extremely narrow, limited to the term of the court in which the judgment of conviction was entered. However, in recognition of scientific advances like DNA, most states have legislatively expanded the applicable time bars.  While some states have expanded time bars but still define a time specific deadline for filing appeals, some states have eliminated the statute of limitations altogether in certain factual scenarios.  (For example the state of Florida eliminated the statue of limitations on sexual assault crimes in those instances in which the assault was reported within 72 hours.)

Federal habeas jurisprudence traditionally assumed that relief could not be grounded on an erroneous finding of guilt unless a constitutional error had occurred at the defendant's trial. This conclusion—that proof of actual innocence does not alone suffice to set aside a prior conviction—views the States as responsible for correcting faulty adjudications unaccompanied by a constitutional violation. It was justified by the assumption, mentioned above, that questions of guilt or innocence become more uncertain with the passage of time, so that accurate determinations are considerably less likely at a new trial.

Go to the Next Section: The Impact of DNA Testing

Download the complete document: Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests (Adobe PDF)