A convicted individual's continued assertion of innocence is not new to the criminal justice system and in fact is familiar to appeals courts. The use of DNA technology may bring to courtroom proceedings a degree of certitude to which neither the defense nor the prosecution is accustomed. Typically in an appeal, the possibility that the original verdict will be overturned is merely suggested.
By contrast, the introduction of DNA evidence after conviction may definitively prove innocence. Because of the high level of certainty made possible by DNA technology, the decision to oppose or not oppose a motion requesting postconviction relief may now be based on a different foundation of knowledge.
The implications of DNA technology for criminal justice are most evident in postconviction appeals, both in the use of DNA evidence in specific cases and in its broader impact on the criminal justice system. The Commission has examined the use of DNA evidence in previously adjudicated cases in order to develop recommendations about the postconviction process and is exploring the effect that DNA technology may have on the statutes of limitation for filing appeals and charges. The latter issue arises because DNA samples last indefinitely, beyond the periods of time permitted for such filings.
Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests will serve criminal justice system practitioners as guidelines for analyzing cases in which DNA evidence is presented. These recommendations have been unanimously approved by the Commission. The guidelines constitute the scientific ground on which to make fully informed decisions and on which to develop the legal approaches needed when DNA may determine the outcome of an appeal. Separate chapters of the guidelines are tailored to the needs of prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judiciary, forensics laboratories, and victim advocates.
Working Group Members
Chair
Ronald Reinstein
Associate Presiding Judge
Superior Court of Arizona
Maricopa County
Members
Christopher H. Asplen, AUSA
Executive Director
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence
U.S. Department of Justice
Dennis D. Bauer
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Orange County, California
Margaret Berger
Professor
Brooklyn Law School
New York, New York
Kevin C. Curran
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Eastern District of Missouri
Lisa Forman, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence
U.S. Department of Justice
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.
Director
American Law Institute
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Barbara R. Morgan
Solicitor, 2nd Judicial Circuit
South Carolina
Barry C. Scheck
Professor
Cardozo Law School
New York, New York
Jane Siegel
Winston & Strawn
Chicago, Illinois
Kathryn M. Turman
Acting Director
Office for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of Justice
Charlotte J. Word
Deputy Laboratory Director
Cellmark Diagnostics
Germantown, Maryland
