Massachusetts needs a post-conviction DNA access law. That’s a mouthful, I know. Here’s what it means and why it matters:
In 2003, Dennis Maher was freed after spending 19 years in prison for three rapes he didn’t commit. As Maher wrote in The Patriot Ledger on Jan. 25, “I requested DNA testing for years. The judge in my case blocked DNA testing, and I spent an extra six years in prison waiting for him to retire. Finally, the testing was conducted because the judge had retired and the prosecutor agreed to it. He didn’t have to, since there was no law on the books to make it clear that I had a right to DNA testing.”
Forty-seven states have post-conviction DNA access laws, but Massachusetts isn’t one of them. (The other outliers are Oklahoma and Alaska.) While these laws vary state to state, the idea is similar everywhere – to use DNA evidence to eliminate as much of the guesswork as possible in criminal proceedings.
And the gaps are many. Believe it or not, DNA evidence isn’t always tested at the time of trial, and courts don’t always consider DNA evidence discovered after trial. In fact, as the Innocence Project has pointed out, it’s “not uncommon for an innocent person to exhaust all possible appeals without being allowed access to the DNA evidence in his case.” Finally, DNA tests are becoming ever more accurate, and newly developed testing techniques can often offer far more conclusive evidence than tests from years past.
* * *
When I first learned about Dennis’ case, I was horrified. How could a decent society allow this kind of thing to happen? I wondered. I quickly helped form a group of concerned citizens interested in understanding the issue more deeply and pressing for change. We’ve since learned that several bills to create a post-conviction DNA access law have come before the Legislature in recent years. All have failed.
As best we can tell, the obstacle isn’t philosophical: nobody wants to see innocent people in prison. Instead, the roadblock is financial. In order to ensure that post-conviction DNA testing can take place, relevant evidence has to be preserved. (The cost of a DNA test itself is insignificant.) This raises some questions: exactly which evidence should be stored? For how long? And should local municipalities pay to preserve evidence, or should it be the state’s responsibility?
There are some legitimately tricky questions here. This month, a group of legislators, law enforcement officials, and other stakeholders are trying to work out a compromise on these issues. If they’re successful, post-conviction DNA access legislation has a shot at passing this year.
There are lots of reasons for the Legislature to move forward. After all, for every innocent person in prison, a guilty person remains at large. Post-conviction DNA laws make it easier for law enforcement to correct mistakes and track down actual offenders.
These laws also free up state resources. Keeping someone in a Massachusetts prison for one year costs taxpayers almost $46,000. (Dennis’ erroneous imprisonment alone cost the commonwealth about $874,000 in today’s dollars.)
Some observers have worried that granting prisoners access to DNA testing would create a tidal wave of requests. But this hasn’t happened in other states, and there’s no reason to think it would happen here, either. As Mr. Maher has written, granting prisoners DNA access “makes the system more accurate, fair, reliable and efficient.”
Over the last several years, a broad chorus has begun to call for a post-conviction DNA access law in Massachusetts. Recently, a Boston Bar Association task force – comprised of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, former judges, and other stakeholder – issued a public call for lawmakers to move on the issue. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis has chimed in with his support. Law enforcement officials from around the commonwealth have recognized that post-conviction DNA access legislation is just sensible public policy.
The technical details may be complicated, but the basic principle isn’t. DNA evidence can help our law enforcement officials free innocents, find the guilty, and keep the public safe. Forty-seven other states have managed to pass post-conviction DNA legislation. Massachusetts should do the same.
Massachusetts Needs to Pass a Post-Conviction DNA Access Law
by Matt B. on May 10, 2010
Massachusetts needs a post-conviction DNA access law. That’s a mouthful, I know. Here’s what it means and why it matters:
In 2003, Dennis Maher was freed after spending 19 years in prison for three rapes he didn’t commit. As Maher wrote in The Patriot Ledger on Jan. 25, “I requested DNA testing for years. The judge in my case blocked DNA testing, and I spent an extra six years in prison waiting for him to retire. Finally, the testing was conducted because the judge had retired and the prosecutor agreed to it. He didn’t have to, since there was no law on the books to make it clear that I had a right to DNA testing.”
Forty-seven states have post-conviction DNA access laws, but Massachusetts isn’t one of them. (The other outliers are Oklahoma and Alaska.) While these laws vary state to state, the idea is similar everywhere – to use DNA evidence to eliminate as much of the guesswork as possible in criminal proceedings.
And the gaps are many. Believe it or not, DNA evidence isn’t always tested at the time of trial, and courts don’t always consider DNA evidence discovered after trial. In fact, as the Innocence Project has pointed out, it’s “not uncommon for an innocent person to exhaust all possible appeals without being allowed access to the DNA evidence in his case.” Finally, DNA tests are becoming ever more accurate, and newly developed testing techniques can often offer far more conclusive evidence than tests from years past.
* * *
When I first learned about Dennis’ case, I was horrified. How could a decent society allow this kind of thing to happen? I wondered. I quickly helped form a group of concerned citizens interested in understanding the issue more deeply and pressing for change. We’ve since learned that several bills to create a post-conviction DNA access law have come before the Legislature in recent years. All have failed.
As best we can tell, the obstacle isn’t philosophical: nobody wants to see innocent people in prison. Instead, the roadblock is financial. In order to ensure that post-conviction DNA testing can take place, relevant evidence has to be preserved. (The cost of a DNA test itself is insignificant.) This raises some questions: exactly which evidence should be stored? For how long? And should local municipalities pay to preserve evidence, or should it be the state’s responsibility?
There are some legitimately tricky questions here. This month, a group of legislators, law enforcement officials, and other stakeholders are trying to work out a compromise on these issues. If they’re successful, post-conviction DNA access legislation has a shot at passing this year.
There are lots of reasons for the Legislature to move forward. After all, for every innocent person in prison, a guilty person remains at large. Post-conviction DNA laws make it easier for law enforcement to correct mistakes and track down actual offenders.
These laws also free up state resources. Keeping someone in a Massachusetts prison for one year costs taxpayers almost $46,000. (Dennis’ erroneous imprisonment alone cost the commonwealth about $874,000 in today’s dollars.)
Some observers have worried that granting prisoners access to DNA testing would create a tidal wave of requests. But this hasn’t happened in other states, and there’s no reason to think it would happen here, either. As Mr. Maher has written, granting prisoners DNA access “makes the system more accurate, fair, reliable and efficient.”
Over the last several years, a broad chorus has begun to call for a post-conviction DNA access law in Massachusetts. Recently, a Boston Bar Association task force – comprised of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, former judges, and other stakeholder – issued a public call for lawmakers to move on the issue. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis has chimed in with his support. Law enforcement officials from around the commonwealth have recognized that post-conviction DNA access legislation is just sensible public policy.
The technical details may be complicated, but the basic principle isn’t. DNA evidence can help our law enforcement officials free innocents, find the guilty, and keep the public safe. Forty-seven other states have managed to pass post-conviction DNA legislation. Massachusetts should do the same.