DOJ Hasn't Used Money Allotted to Test DNA Innocence Claims

By Jeralyn, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 11:10:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump: Because this needs more attention and we've blogged so much the past day it already fell off the front page.

******

Via USA Today:

Since 2006, the Justice Department has yet to spend any of the $8 million set aside by Congress for DNA tests for convicts to prove their innocence while it has used $214 million to collect DNA from convicted criminals and improve crime labs, records show.

"DNA evidence is such a powerful tool in proving guilt or innocence that it's inexcusable not to use it," says Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chief sponsor of a bill to provide more funding for what is known as innocence testing. If spent, the $8 million could affect dozens of cases, says Barry Scheck, a defense lawyer who specializes in using DNA to overturn convictions.

I'm not surprised, given DOJ's opposition to the Innocence Protection Act all along. By the time the bill was passed, it was stripped of the most meaningful protections and turned into a victims' rights bill, even being renamed The Justice For All Act.

So today we learn, according to the National Institute of Justice (the DOJ's non-partisan research arm that administers the funds) the reason even the paltry (by comparison) $8 million isn't being spent is a deficiency in the law.

More...

Rules imposed by Congress have made it difficult for states to qualify for post-conviction DNA grants, says the department's National Institute of Justice, which administers the funds. Only Virginia, Connecticut and Arizona have applied.

The law requires a state's attorney general to certify that the state requires police departments to take "reasonable measures" to preserve biological evidence for possible future testing....But attorneys general can't vouch for every police authority in their state, says John Morgan, the institute's assistant director. The rule has made it "next to impossible" for states to qualify, he says.

Sen. Leahy doesn't think the rules are a problem. The article doesn't say why, only that "His staff has been meeting with Morgan to try to find a way to allow the $8 million to be spent."

No one worked harder than Sen. Leahy to get a law passed providing for DNA testing for the innocent. I hope he works just as tirelessly to fix the problem holding up the delivery of the funds.

< Bernie Kerik Makes Last Plea to Avoid Federal Indictment | Florida Boot Camp Guards Acquitted in Teen's Death >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

DOJ Hasn't Used Money Allotted to Test DNA Innocence Claims | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

from just a quick read, (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:06:00 PM EST

the law doesn't appear to require the state AG to ".......vouch for every police authority in their state........", just certify the state needs the funds to take ""reasonable measures" to preserve biological evidence for possible future testing....".

it would seem DOJ has created a hurdle out of whole cloth, that doesn't actually exist in the law.

No Real Justice (none / 0) (#2)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:45:52 PM EST

in the legal system.

The current predisposition is that once arrested, guilty. Once convicted, irredeemable.

It is no surprise that crimes already cleared off the books have little chance of being put back on. We have already executed at least one provably innocent man. We will keep on killing others, simply to keep from admitting that we were wrong. People are dying, over an over again, simply because this administration (like so many other) has the hubris, the chutzpah, to think that they are above making a mistake.

Do not look to your peers to try to acquire justice. They aren't interested.

: On the Daily Show, Ted Kopple told how (none / 0) (#3)
by jerry on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:05:22 PM EST

he had interviewed a third strikes felon that admitted that he voted for three strikes!
There are many many people that just want to lock up other people and have them thrown away.

[ Parent ]

This *is* silly ... (none / 0) (#4)
by narius on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:53:07 PM EST

DNA tests should be mandatory.

That would allow us to be sure about guilt of the convicted and then we would have little hesitation to exact the maximum penalties on them since we will know for sure that we are not penalizing the innocents.

: I am not sure of the current state of DNA testing (none / 0) (#5)
by jerry on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:12:12 PM EST

It used to be understood that DNA testing produced probabilities related to guilt, but 100% results related to innocence.
I am saying that badly, but I thought DNA testing could show a person was guilty only within some probabilistic level basically relating to that person's ethnicity and the level of that ethnicity in the community and related to the amount of that ethnicity in the pool of DNA samples.
But DNA testing could positively demonstrate that someone was in fact completely innocent.

[ Parent ]

There are different kinds of DNA testing (none / 0) (#6)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:31:41 PM EST

according to the Wikipedia:

Genetic fingerprinting, DNA testing, DNA typing, and DNA profiling are techniques used to distinguish between individuals of the same species using only samples of their DNA. Its invention by Sir Alec Jeffreys at the University of Leicester was announced in 1985. Two humans will have the vast majority of their DNA sequence in common. Genetic fingerprinting exploits highly variable repeating sequences called minisatellites. Two unrelated humans will be unlikely to have the same numbers of minisatellites at a given locus. In STR profiling, which is distinct from DNA fingerprinting, PCR is used to obtain enough DNA to then detect the number of repeats at several loci. It is possible to establish a match that is extremely unlikely to have arisen by coincidence, except in the case of identical twins, who will have identical genetic profiles. The chance of two people having the same DNA is one in a billion.