Wrongful Convictions and DNA: Overview

Introduction

As many as 6 percent of all persons convicted of felony crimes in the United States may in fact be innocent of the charges brought against them, according to a 2018 University of Pennsylvania study. Although this constitutes only a relatively small percentage of total incarcerated felons, because the number of cases that go through the US criminal justice system is so large (millions of people are arrested every year), that slim margin of error is thought to result annually in thousands of cases of wrongful conviction. In such cases, innocent people serve jail sentences, or are even put to death, for crimes they did not commit.

One of the most accurate methods of connecting a suspect with a crime is through the use of DNA analysis. Even if no fingerprints are left behind at a robbery, for instance, a single strand of hair or skin cell from the thief can be used to positively identify a suspect. Conversely, if a suspect’s DNA does not match samples procured from a crime scene, the use of so-called “genetic fingerprinting” can exonerate, or clear, them.

Concern over the issue of wrongful convictions, coupled with a sense of greater trust in DNA analysis over other, more conventional methods of prosecution, such as eyewitness testimony, has led some to call for mandatory DNA testing before any person begins serving a sentence for a serious crime, as well as mandatory testing of all inmates already serving sentences. Others, however, argue that such widespread testing would be much too expensive for the justice system to support, and would constitute a potential threat to privacy rights.

Understanding the Discussion

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid): A substance found in the nucleus of a cell that contains genetic information. One particular region of DNA varies extremely from person to person, making it useful as a marker to identify individuals with a high degree of accuracy.

Eyewitness testimony: A statement of evidence made by a person who was at or near the scene of a crime and who witnessed the event first-hand. Eyewitness error, known as mistaken identification, is thought to be responsible for the majority of wrongful convictions.

Felony: Under United States federal law, serious crimes punishable by one or more years of imprisonment. Felony crimes include, among others, burglary, murder, rape, and arson. In certain states, and under federal law, the highest of such offenses are punishable by death.

Genetic fingerprinting: Testing evidence samples (i.e., skin, blood, sperm, hair) and comparing them against the DNA of suspects. Also known as “forensic DNA analysis,” “DNA fingerprinting” or “DNA typing.”

Writ of habeas corpus: A legal document traditionally used in the US to produce a prisoner or detainee before the court and to determine the validity of the detention of that individual; also used to petition for DNA testing.

History

Scientists Francis C. Crick and James D. Watson first described DNA in 1953. The two correctly recognized DNA’s “double helix” structure (it is formed of two twisted, ladder-like strands) and demonstrated that DNA is, in fact, the material that contains all of an organism’s genetic information. Because the technology that made DNA testing feasible was not fully developed until the 1980s, however, the use of genetic analysis to identify samples of human tissue retrieved from crime scenes is a relatively recent phenomenon.

In the early days of DNA analysis, scientists needed a clean sample of blood that was drawn in a laboratory setting in order to produce useful, accurate results. This requirement made genetic testing an impractical tool for forensic, or legal use. In the mid-to late-1980s, however, the technology improved to the point where a small sample of any human cell, including hair and skin cells, could accurately be analyzed, even if it had been collected from the contaminated environment of a crime scene.

In 1987, DNA testing was used for the first time to clear one suspect and to prove another’s guilt, in a well-known British double rape and murder case that came to be known as the Colin Pitchfork case, after the guilty man. In the United States, the first use of DNA analysis in a courtroom took place the same year in Florida, when prosecutors used genetic samples to link a serial rapist with one particular victim. The evidence increased his punishment from a few years in jail to a life sentence.

One famous use of DNA analysis to prove the innocence of a wrongfully convicted person in the United States involved the 1981 conviction of Robert Clark for several serious crimes, including kidnapping and armed robbery. Despite receiving two life sentences, Clark insisted he had not committed the crimes. In 2003, after more than two decades in prison, Clark began trying to obtain a court order to allow him to undergo DNA testing that would either connect him with the crime or prove his innocence. Two years later he was exonerated and set free.

Clark’s case, and others like his, have received significant attention in recent years. Organizations such as the Innocence Project have campaigned vigorously for states and the federal government to expand the rights of convicted prisoners to include the right to undergo DNA testing upon request. Some even call for the creation of laws that would make it mandatory to utilize forensic DNA analysis in the case of anyone about to serve a prison sentence for felony crimes. Groups that are in favor of increased, or even mandatory, genetic testing argue that such practices would prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or executed, as well as greatly reduce the number of future wrongful convictions.

Critics of mandatory DNA testing claim that existing laws (such as those providing for the use of forensic DNA testing in cases where a judge or lawyer considers it necessary and relevant) are sufficient safeguards against wrongful convictions. They argue that making genetic testing mandatory would result in huge expenses for the justice system and would greatly increase the already long delays in case processing. In the vast majority of cases, they declare, mandatory genetic fingerprinting is both unnecessary and wasteful.

Wrongful Convictions and DNA Today

By 2015, all states in the US had adopted some kind of legislation permitting convicted prisoners to request DNA testing. In some states, only certain convicts may request testing, and in others, requests are limited to a certain time period after sentencing. Many of these laws, however, do not mandate that DNA analysis is a right—only that prisoners may request it. A Virginia court ruled in 2001 that prisoners convicted of felonies have a constitutional right to DNA testing, and in 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to test DNA evidence. Yet in 2011, the court ruled in Skinner v. Switzer that convicted inmates may file federal civil rights suits in order to petition the state for DNA testing; previously, prisoners could only petition for writs of habeas corpus, a more arduous process.

Notably, by 2012, all states also required DNA samples to be collected from specific types of convicted felons, but this sample is not necessarily to be used for analysis in that particular case. Rather, it is put into a database for future reference. For example, investigators looking into a robbery may check DNA samples from the current crime scene against the DNA of persons previously convicted, to look for matches. For some, the maintenance of this large national database presents a wrongful invasion of privacy.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King that authorities may collect DNA samples after arrest as a search with probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, with or without a warrant. States that allow law enforcement to collect DNA samples from arrestees have criteria for the expungement of records and samples should the arrestee be charged with a lesser crime, be acquitted, or be released.

Between 1989, when the first DNA exoneration occurred, and 2024, 592 people were exonerated in the United States through the use of DNA evidence, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. That number represented a little less than 20 percent of all those exonerated during that period. Dozens of exonerator organizations existed across the US by the early 2020s. The registry has noted that exonerations involving old DNA samples have increased over time, as pretrial DNA testing has become commonplace and the backlog of DNA samples to be tested has diminished.

Another, related, area of debate involves compensation for the wrongfully convicted. By 2024, about three-quarters of the states had laws to provide compensation to those who were wrongfully convicted, with varying eligibility criteria and payout amounts. Some states also provided services such as tuition assistance, employment assistance, and counseling services to the wrongfully convicted. In addition, a federal law, originally passed in 1948, provided $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration to exonerated individuals. Exonerees anywhere could file civil rights lawsuits to pursue damages. Debate remains over eligibility criteria (whether, for instance, DNA exonerations alone should qualify) and appropriate payout amounts and timing. Advocates praised Congress for exempting such funds from taxation in 2015 and even making the change retroactive—but criticized their failure to notify exonerees of the right to an exemption or a refund and of the December 2018 deadline to file amended returns.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

Bernstein, Paula. “Wrongfully Convicted.” Biography, Dec. 2003, p. 74.

"Changes in DNA Exonerations over Time." The National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan, Nov. 2022, www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.Changes%20in%20DNA%20Exonerations.FINAL.11.7.22.SRG.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar. 2024.

Clow, Kimberley A., et al. “Public Perception of Wrongful Conviction: Support for Compensation and Apologies.” Albany Law Rev., vol. 75, no. 3, 2012, pp. 1415–38.

"District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-6. Accessed 23 Apr. 2018.

"DNA Exonerations in the United States (1989-2020)." Innocence Project, innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2024.

"Exonerations by State (Interactive Dashboard)." The National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan, www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx. Accessed 1 Mar. 2024.

Garrett, Brandon L. “The Banality of Wrongful Executions.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 112, no. 6, 2014, pp. 979–92.

George, Justin. "Exonerees Are Eligible for Tax Refunds. They Just Don't Know It." The Marshall Project, 19 Nov. 2018, www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/19/exonerees-racing-against-a-tax-clock#. Accessed 22 May 2019.

Gill, Peter, Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice. Elsevier, 2014.

"Key Provisions in Wrongful Conviction Compensation Laws." The National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan, 27 May 2022, www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Key-Provisions-in-Wrongful-Conviction-Compensation-Laws.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar. 2024.

"MARYLAND V. KING: The Court Rules That DNA Testing after Arrest for Serious Offenses Is Constitutional." Supreme Court Debates, vol. 16, no. 6, Sept. 2013, pp. 11–13. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=91837935&site=pov-live. Accessed 23 Apr. 2018.

McMunigal, Kevin C. “Guilty Pleas, Brady Disclosure, and Wrongful Convictions.” Case Western Reserve Law Review, vol. 57, no. 3, Spring 2007, pp. 651–70. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32135590&site=ehost-live. Accessed 10 Aug. 2009.

Olney, Maeve, and Scott Bonn. “An Exploratory Study of the Legal and Non-Legal Factors Associated with Exoneration for Wrongful Conviction: The Power of DNA Evidence.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 26, no. 4, 2015, pp. 400–20. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=102290898&site=ehost-live. Accessed 31 Dec. 2015.

Rodd, Scott. "What Do States Owe People Who Are Wrongfully Convicted?" Stateline, Pew Charitable Trusts, 14 Mar. 2017, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/03/14/what-do-states-owe-people-who-are-wrongfully-convicted. Accessed 22 May 2019.

Webster, Liz. “A Wikipedia of Innocence.” Nation, 18 June 2012, pp. 6–8.

Wells, Doris. “Wrongful Convictions: Causes, Prevention, Impact and Outlook for Corrections.” Corrections Today, Nov.–Dec. 2013, pp. 126–29.