Once prosecutors, police and labs have developed non-crisis working relationships and established appropriate policies, they can make mutually satisfactory decisions to prioritize the allocation of resources. Should remaining evidence in old unsolved cases be reviewed before all other cases, or should post-conviction cases, perhaps smaller in number, be reviewed first? If old, unsolved cases are to be reviewed first, then should only cases with suspects merit evidence review before testing? These difficult decisions can be made with deliberation and forethought through a comprehensive review of available resources; coordination among law enforcement, laboratory analysts, and prosecutors; and implementation of policies for guidance.
Backlog elimination is imperative, as an increasing number of states are taking DNA samples from all convicted felons.21 The policies described above, when combined, can make significant progress towards reducing the backlog. For example, because “pre-DNA” post-conviction and cold cases generally occur in manageable numbers, it may be prudent to review, test and resolve them promptly.22 Prosecutors have been reactive for too long in their use of forensic DNA evidence.When prosecutors are proactive, they can help the labs eliminate backlog and remain current in casework. In doing so, they will enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system.
Content on this page has been excerpted from DNA Evidence Policy Considerations for the Prosecutor, published by the American Prosecutors Research Institute—the nonprofit research, training and technical assistance affiliate of the National District Attorneys' Association. This information is offered for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. This project was supported by Award No. 2002-DD-BX-0005, from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
