Post Conviction DNA Testing in the American Criminal Justice System

Jay Aronson
Carnegie Mellon University, Department of History

     Full text: Not available
     Last modified: June 15, 2005
     Presentation date: 07/14/2005 2:00 PM in ROZH 102
     (View Schedule)

Abstract
In this presentation, I will explore the rise of the post-conviction DNA testing movement (i.e., “Innocence Projects”) in the mid-1990s, and the concurrent closure of debates over the validity and reliability of DNA evidence within the American criminal justice system. Two main issues will be addressed: first, the emergence of an apparently new right to post-conviction re-examination of settled cases in instances where DNA typing, a new technology, could provide new evidence; and second, the dependence of this right on the construction of DNA typing as a “gold standard” of forensic evidence. I will demonstrate that the ultimate stabilization of DNA evidence in the American legal system around 1995 emerged concurrently, and was at least partially dependent upon, its increasing use by the defense community to show that evidence (especially eyewitness accounts) in previous cases was seriously flawed. I will begin by examining the work of defense lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, who achieved fame for their strong challenges to the admissibility of DNA evidence in several highly publicized murder trials (including Simpson) between 1989-1995. Interestingly, at the same time that they were critiquing DNA evidence, they were also relying on it to secure the exoneration of defendants “wrongly” convicted of crimes they claimed they did not commit. I will explain how Scheck and Neufeld were able to carry out both sets of activities simultaneously, and then ultimately drop their critique of DNA evidence entirely. I will also briefly describe the prosecution community’s reaction to the emergence of the post-conviction DNA testing movement. Although initially reluctant to reopen old cases, many prosecutors have become strong advocates of the use of DNA evidence for exculpatory purposes because they believe it not only lends credibility to DNA evidence itself, but also diminishes defense lawyers’ ability and willingness to challenge it. I will conclude by discussing the ways that the post-conviction DNA testing movement has become a janus-faced symbol that the criminal justice system is either so broken that it no longer functions properly; or that it is actually working quite well because it is self-critical, open to reanalysis, and fair both to victim and defendant.

Multiple Paper Session:
Other papers in this session:
The Politics of Genomic Identity
‘Folk Biology and the Genetics of Race’
Sex Genetics and Personal Identity
‘Provenance and the pedigree: The Pennsylvania Amish’
‘Jewish Identities: The Gogodala in Papua New Guinea’