Criminal-Defense Articles > DNA Testing

DNA Testing in the 21st Century

DNA testing started to be utilized in some limited criminal cases beginning in the 1980s. As the last two decades have progressed, DNA testing has become more refined and effective. And, as a result, DNA testing has become more prevalent in criminal cases in the United States and around the world.

The news media has been flush with reports about how DNA testing has become crucial in reversing convictions of inmates who have maintained their innocence since the time of their arrests. Certainly, rarely does a week wander by where there is not a media report about DNA testing and related issues and matters.

DNA testing has been most useful in cases involving accusations of sex crimes and homicide. DNA tests have also been helpful and useful in other cases as well, of course. But sex crimes and homicide are the two areas of criminal law where DNA test results have proved most fruitful.

There are definite protocols that must be followed when a prosecutor or defendant seeks to utilize DNA test results in a criminal prosecution. In many ways, DNA testing is still an experimental procedure. The reliability of DNA testing, while proven competent to a rather significant degree, remains unperfected. However, as time has past, DNA testing has become more readily acceptable in courts nearly everywhere.

A typical citizen who witnesses the media parade regarding DNA testing might wonder why it is not more widely utilized. With the recent rash of inmates set free from prison because of new DNA test results leads to the logical question of why aren't DNA tests more widely used. In other words, why are so many inmates who proclaim their innocence facing a truly uphill battle to gain permission to obtain a DNA test to support their contentions. Rationally speaking, a typical citizen may wonder why any inmate maintaining his innocence can't easily obtain a DNA test.

In criminal prosecutions and the justice system generally there is a definite need for finality. Rules regarding finality effectively cut off a convicted person's opportunity to continue to challenge his conviction. Absent a doctrine of finality, a convicted person could carry on forever fighting their case. Any attempt at maintaining a sense of judicial economy would be defeated in the process and the judicial system would become horribly clogged and ultimately would collapse on itself.

Because of the doctrine of finality, even when there is some suggestion that an inmate is innocent, he will not automatically be given the chance to raise the claim after a significant amount of time has passed. Because of the doctrine of finality, it is hard to disturb a conviction after the time for appeal and other post-conviction avenue of relief have expired. Normally, this all occurs within a year unless an appeal or other effort at post judgment relief properly is lodged during the first year or less following the conviction. Once this time runs or expires, only in very rare circumstances will a defendant be permitted to further pursue his claim for relief.

Further reading resources

Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class soapclient in /home/criminal/public_html/nusoap.php on line 4102