Determine Relevancy
Initial Relevancy Determination
Ultimately, the prosecutor will have to determine whether a case is suited to DNA testing. Categories explained in chapter 1 are summarized below. Some prosecutors may agree to testing only in category 1 cases, while opposing testing in all other categories.
Category 1. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. There is agreement on the need for DNA testing and that, if the results are exclusionary, the petitioner will be exonerated. (See examples.) These are cases in which the prosecution should be willing to stipulate to the testing and to agree that testing will be paid for by the State if the inmate is exonerated.
Category 2. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. (See examples.) If the evidence is subjected to DNA testing or retesting, favorable results would be helpful to the petitioner's claim of innocence, but reasonable people might disagree as to whether the results would amount to a demonstration of innocence, would establish reasonable doubt of guilt, or would merely constitute helpful evidence to exonerate him. This category also includes cases where, for policy and/or economic reasons, there might be disagreement as to whether DNA testing should be permitted at all or, for indigent inmates, at State expense. The decision on whether testing or retesting should be done may have to be made by a judicial officer.
Category 3. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. (See examples.) If the evidence is subjected to DNA testing, favorable results would not be meaningful.
Category 4. These are cases in which biological evidence was never collected or cannot be found despite all efforts. In such cases, postconviction relief on the basis of DNA testing is not possible.
Category 5. These are cases in which a request for DNA testing is frivolous. (See examples.) Considerations include: 1) whether the petitioner confessed or pleaded guilty at trial; 2) whether the petitioner testified to performing the charged act, but raised a defense such as consent, self-defense, duress, or entrapment; 3) whether the petitioner was caught in the act or other strong evidence of identity or involvement exists such as unambiguous fingerprint evidence; and 4) whether an earlier version of DNA testing had been performed but not introduced at trial.
Go to the Next Section: Provide Information
Download the complete document: Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests (Adobe PDF)
