Notes from Policy Considerations for Prosecutors
1 Hogan, S. and Swinton, S.“Meeting Defense Challenges to DNA Evidence,”APRI Silent Witness 15(1)(2003).2 Another avenue to explore is using the lab supervisors to testify in court, who may have more time for case review and testifying because they do not carry a case load like bench analysts. This practice frees up the bench analysts to continue working cases.The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has found this approach successful.
3 CODIS, Combined DNA Index System, was authorized by The DNA Identification Act of 1994. CODIS refers to the hardware and software that links a network of local (LDIS), state (SDIS) and national (NDIS) databases housing DNA samples of convicted offenders and crime scene samples. CODIS also refers to the FBI’s own DNA database.
4 See, Arizona v.Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988).
5 See also, Dixon v. State, 275 Ga. 232 (Georgia Sup. Ct. 2002).
6 See, Catterson v. Jones, 233 A.D. 2d 502 (2d Dept., 1996, New York State).
7 Notice requirements regarding consumptive testing may vary from state to state. Prosecutors and laboratory personnel in all states have similar ethical responsibilities, if not statutory ones.
8 For an in-depth analysis of this topic, see, Kreeger, L. and Weiss, D.“Keeping a Conviction Secure,”
APRI Silent Witness 8(2)(2003).
9 See, People v. Monagas, 161 Misc. 2d 898 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994) (defense representatives could not
supervise DNA testing at the FBI laboratory).
10 See, State v.Whitehead, 2001 Tenn. Crim.App. LEXIS 732 (Tenn.Crim.App. Ct., 2001).
Also see, Kreeger, L.“Discovery Issues,”APRI Silent Witness, 7(3)(2003).
11 See, California v.Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 81 L.Ed.2d 413, 104 S.Ct. 2528 (1984) citing Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1962). See also, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S.
68, 84 L.Ed.2d 53, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (1985).
12 National Research Council (NRC II), The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, National
Academy Press,Washington DC, 1996.
13 Id.“Discovery Issues,”APRI Silent Witness, 7(3). See also, Roth, D.R., “High Ethical Standards:
The Foundation for Every Prosecutor,” The Prosecutor’s Deskbook,APRI:Alexandria,Virginia, pp. 29 - 30 (2003).
14 National Institute of Justice, Special Report,“Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases.” U.S. Department of Justice; July 2002.
15 Because backlog elimination is so important, some government entities have set aside funds to enable crime labs to “outsource” cases to private labs. Outsourcing can also work well when the crime lab lacks certain technological capacity, for example, to test Y-Chromosome Short Tandem Repeats.
16 When considering establishing a multidisciplinary team to evaluate cold cases, it may be wise to include representatives of any agency whose members form part of a chain of evidence, so that the prosecutor’s office might be alerted to any chain-of-custody gaps.
17 A helpful resource for victims is the pamphlet, Understanding DNA Evidence: A Guide for Victim Service Providers.
18 Procedures exist in some jurisdictions regarding the sealing of warrants.
19 The identification and resolution of more than one crime committed by an offender has several obvious benefits, including filing the appropriate charges for prosecution, leverage for plea agreements, use of other crimes/bad act evidence, or enhancement of punishment at sentencing hearings.
20 The “actual innocence” standard does not depend solely upon a defendant’s trial strategy, but rather upon a review of the evidence in its entirety.The “actual innocence” standard is endorsed by the National District Attorneys Association’s Policy Positions on DNA Technology.The policy was adopted by the NDAA Board of Directors on July 22, 2001. See, http://www.ndaa-apri.org/ pdf/dna_policy_position_july_20_2003.pdf
21 As of this writing, 31 states have passed legislation authorizing the taking of DNA samples from all persons convicted of any felony.Those states are: Alabama, Alaska,Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota,Tennessee,Texas, Utah,Virginia,Washington,Wisconsin and Wyoming.
22 Having deadlines or “sunsets” in post-conviction cases, and even in some kinds of cold cases, provides the opportunity to resolve some types of backlog and to achieve finality.
