Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

DNA tests outpace justice

As scientific evidence gains accuracy, the system finds ways to catch up by looking back.

By CANDACE RONDEAUX
Published January 23, 2006

When convicted killer Roger Keith Coleman proclaimed his innocence for the last time from Virginia's electric chair in 1992, DNA tests showed there was roughly a 1 in 500 chance that someone else had raped and murdered his sister-in-law. But last week, new tests ordered by Virginia's outgoing governor, Mark Warner, found there was only a 1 in 19-million chance that someone other than Coleman was guilty.

A lot has changed since Coleman, an Appalachian coal miner, was executed for the 1981 murder of Wanda McCoy. Since its introduction into the legal system in 1989, DNA testing has grown far more accurate, helping convict thousands, while exonerating more than 170 wrongfully convicted people.

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, taken from human blood, semen, hair or saliva, can be used to identify an individual with near perfect accuracy. Once considered a fringe science, DNA testing is rapidly redefining guilt and innocence.

"In the last 15 years, DNA has caused, literally, a revolution in the criminal justice system," said Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a group that uses DNA to ferret out wrongful convictions. "There's an awareness that DNA evidence is a much more reliable type of evidence than other evidence."

And, if recent events are any measure, it is the new gold standard in the nation's criminal justice system, gradually replacing reasonable doubt with scientific exactitude.

"It's made people more aware of the vulnerability of the criminal justice system," Neufeld said.

In Florida, Hillsborough prosecutors said a week ago that St. Petersburg native Alan Crotzer should go free after DNA tests showed he didn't commit two Tampa rapes in 1981.

In Virginia last month, the governor ordered DNA testing on evidence from about 660 old cases, after a review of a former lab analyst's files led to the exoneration of five men.

In Washington, an attorney argued last week before the U.S. Supreme Court that new DNA evidence should earn his client a retrial in a Tennessee rape and murder.

Legal experts say the recent Supreme Court hearing on Tennessee inmate Paul G. House's case could have far-reaching ramifications.

Convicted in 1986 of raping and murdering rural Tennessee resident Carolyn Muncey, House maintained his innocence. Police initially suspected Muncey's husband, Hubert Muncey, who had a history of drinking and domestic violence.

But prosecutors built a case around House, a convicted sex offender who was seen in the woods where Muncey's body was found.

Postconviction DNA tests revealed that semen found on Muncey's nightgown belonged to her husband. House's defense attorneys told the Supreme Court the tests pointed out a significant flaw in the prosecution's case. But a Tennessee deputy state attorney argued that House could still be guilty of the murder.

At least one justice acknowledged that the DNA tests might have affected a jury's decision. The question now before the panel is whether a federal court can order a retrial when new scientific evidence - like DNA - points to the possibility of innocence and appeals have been exhausted.

Rob Warden, executive director of Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions, agrees. A ruling in House's favor could put prosecutors nationwide on notice that they should think hard before resisting attempts to prove innocence claims through DNA testing, he said.

"The prosecution hasn't been able to prevail in the courts in most of these cases, but they have been able to create a smoke screen or create enough public doubt that the guilty verdict lingers even after exoneration," Warden said. "The technology is a double-edged sword: You can use it to convict and you can use it to exonerate."

Joshua Marquis, vice president of the National District Attorneys Association, says his group sees the need for postconviction DNA testing. But there are limits. Crime victims and the public shouldn't have to wait years for sentences to be carried out, he said.

"There's a reason we have deadlines on appeals in postconvictions. If you rely on defendants to tell you about new evidence, it will never, never end," Marquis said. "People are being led to believe by the popular culture that wrongful convictions are epidemic in this country. And that's just wrong."

Regardless of the outcome, House's case is a significant milestone for DNA testing in the courts. It could reinforce the reliability of the science in courts, conferring the ultimate legal seal of approval to DNA. Such a move, legal experts say, might also strengthen the argument for expanding access to postconviction DNA testing for inmates with a claim of innocence.

Currently, 38 states allow postconviction DNA tests, and a 2004 federal law also guarantees federal prisoners access. Many states have called for evidence to be preserved for possible DNA testing.

Laws vary, however, from state to state. Several impose deadlines on accessing evidence while others restrict eligibility for postconviction access. In Kentucky and Nevada, for instance, only death row inmates can apply for testing.

Florida imposes an arbitrary deadline on such appeals. That deadline has been pushed back three times since the Legislature enacted a law allowing inmates to seek court review of old DNA evidence. Last fall, the Florida Supreme Court ruled inmates will have until July 1 of this year to file.

State Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami, the sponsor of the original bill, plans to push for the elimination of a deadline this legislative session.

"When you're after truth, just because a period of time has gone by, (that) doesn't change the facts. What justification is there not to use it? The cost? Okay, well, how much does it take to incarcerate someone vs. doing a DNA test?"

Since the DNA testing law was passed in 2001, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has received from 125 to 150 requests for postconviction DNA testing, according to agency officials. It costs about $600 to $800 to process each request.

Critics argue that opening the door wider to testing could lead to a flood of appeals. But many experts agree that the era of postconviction DNA exonerations will be short-lived because DNA has become a routine part of courtroom proceedings.

FDLE forensic services director Sue Livingston said Florida's crime labs continually receive requests for DNA testing. She estimates it could take five to 10 years for DNA-based appeals to drop off.

"Will it eventually come to an end?" she said. "Yes. It'll be some years before it dies out and even then it may not die out completely. But eventually the numbers will dwindle."

--Times researcher Angie Drobnic Holan contributed to this report. Candace Rondeaux can be reached at rondeaux@sptimes.com or 813 226-3337.

[Last modified January 23, 2006, 01:00:11]