Role of the Judiciary
Judges may feel compelled to take a proactive stance to protect the inmate seeking relief if the prosecution and defense are refusing to cooperate. A court may be especially likely to exercise its discretion in the interests of justice in a potential category 1 case, particularly if the court fears that the passage of time may make it impossible to ascertain the validity of a claim of actual innocence.The judge's assistance may be sought in connection with such matters as locating and preserving evidence, obtaining discovery from laboratories, and compelling third parties to provide samples for elimination testing.
The court might also consider whether to exercise its discretion to appoint an expert to assist the court in a case that presents disputed, complex, technical issues relating to DNA testing or interpretation.
Trial courts will likely be involved in category 1 and category 21 cases. By issuing orders, the court can play an important role in helping obtain access to evidence prior to testing, which is part of the screening process and helps determine if DNA evidence will be irrelevant to the case.
In the pretesting stage, it is recommended that the court set an informal conference with counsel to discuss issues such as the type of DNA analysis to be used, whether it will be necessary to test the victim's relatives or third parties, and whether additional samples need to be obtained from the victim.
Once postconviction DNA test results have been obtained, if the results are favorable to the inmate and no alternative explanations exist, the court should be prepared to grant a joint request to vacate the conviction. In the absence of a joint motion, an evidentiary hearing should be set to determine if there is a reasonable probability of a change in the verdict or judgment of conviction.
See more information for the judiciary.
Note 1. Category 1. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. If the evidence is subjected to DNA testing or retesting, exclusionary results will exonerate the petitioner. In these cases, prosecutors and defense counsel should concur on the need for DNA testing. (See the Framework for Analysis for further discussion of the four categories of cases designated by the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence.)
Category 2. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. If the evidence is subjected to DNA testing or retesting, exclusionary results would support the petitioner's claim of innocence, but reasonable persons might disagree as to whether the results are exonerative. The prosecutor and defense counsel may not agree on whether an exclusion would amount to an exoneration or would merely constitute helpful evidence.
In the pretesting stage, it is recommended that the court set an informal conference with counsel to discuss issues such as the type of DNA analysis to be used, whether it will be necessary to test the victim's relatives or third parties, and whether additional samples need to be obtained from the victim.
Once postconviction DNA test results have been obtained, if the results are favorable to the inmate and no alternative explanations exist, the court should be prepared to grant a joint request to vacate the conviction. In the absence of a joint motion, an evidentiary hearing should be set to determine if there is a reasonable probability of a change in the verdict or judgment of conviction.
See more information for the judiciary.
Note 1. Category 1. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. If the evidence is subjected to DNA testing or retesting, exclusionary results will exonerate the petitioner. In these cases, prosecutors and defense counsel should concur on the need for DNA testing. (See the Framework for Analysis for further discussion of the four categories of cases designated by the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence.)
Category 2. These are cases in which biological evidence was collected and still exists. If the evidence is subjected to DNA testing or retesting, exclusionary results would support the petitioner's claim of innocence, but reasonable persons might disagree as to whether the results are exonerative. The prosecutor and defense counsel may not agree on whether an exclusion would amount to an exoneration or would merely constitute helpful evidence.
Some or all of the content on this page was excerpted from the Special Report Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests, developed under an award from the Office of Justice Programs' National Institute of Justice. See award product disclaimer.
