Prosecutors blocking access to DNA Testing for inmates in the US

Recently the New York Times reported that prosecutors are too often blocking access to DNA tests that could exonerate the innocent, even in states where legislatures have specifically passed laws allowing access to testing. It stated:

"Continued resistance by prosecutors is causing years of delay and, in some cases, eliminating the chance to try other suspects because the statute of limitations has passed by the time the test is granted.

A recent analysis of 225 DNA exonerations by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in almost one out of five cases. In many of the others, they initially opposed testing but ultimately agreed to it. In 98 of those 225 cases, the DNA test identified the real culprit."

Examples of DNA testing being refused to inmates:

- In Illinois, prosecutors have opposed a DNA test for Johnnie Lee Savory, convicted of committing a double murder when he was 14, on the grounds that a jury was convinced of his guilt without DNA .

- In the case of Robert Conway, a mentally incapacitated man convicted of stabbing a shopkeeper to death in 1986 in Pennsylvania, prosecutors have objected that DNA tests on evidence from the scene would not be enough to prove his innocence.

Yesterday, December 10th, 2009, it was announced that Henry Watkins Skinner, Texas death row inmate facing execution next year is now suing a Panhandle prosecutor, alleging she is denying him access to DNA evidence that has never been tested and could prove he is innocent of murdering 3 people in 1993.

In the complaint, Skinner asks the court to declare that continued withholding of the DNA evidence violates his constitutional rights. He seeks an injunction requiring the prosecutor to release certain biological evidence to him -- including vaginal swabs and fingernail clippings from the female victim, any biological material on 2 knives found at the murder scene, and blood and hairs on a jacket found next to the female victim's body -- so Skinner can test it at his own expense. A request that has been denied to him repeatedly.

Why do prosecutors object?

Prosecutors say they are concerned that convicts will seek DNA testing as a delay tactic or a fishing expedition, and that allowing DNA tests undermines hard-won jury verdicts and opens the floodgates to overwhelming requests.

In the case of Skinner, it is argued that he "failed to meet Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.01(b)(1)(B)'s requirement that a convicted person who requests testing that was available at the time of trial show it was not his fault the testing was not done."

In another case (Savory), it was also argued that and that the fact that 175 convicts already exonerated by DNA were “statistically insignificant.”

How could that be?

How many convicts need to be exonerated by DNA before it becomes "statistically significant"? Strangely, one would think that one life saved is enough to argue that DNA testing should be allowed, whenever there is a chance it may exonerate an inmate. It shouldn't be only a legal issue, but mainly a moral one: to do one's best to ensure that no innocent get wrongfully convicted. And DNA has that proven power to refute almost every other type of evidence.