Forensic science is used as evidence in criminal cases regularly. Recently, however, scientists have criticized several commonly used forensic methods that are unreliable, scientifically invalid, and have contributed to wrongful convictions. In contrast, DNA testing, which is reliable and valid, is a powerful resource for exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals. Congress and all fifty states have enacted statutes providing access to post-conviction DNA testing. Only nine states, however, have enacted statutes granting post-conviction litigants access to another important resource—law enforcement DNA database searches. Even though Congress amended the federal post-conviction DNA testing statute to provide access to DNA database searches in 2016, only applicants incarcerated for federal offenses are eligible for relief under this statute. This Note argues that, to remedy wrongful convictions, all state legislatures should amend post-conviction DNA testing statutes to provide access to DNA database searches. Alternatively, Congress should amend the federal post-conviction DNA testing statute to provide post-conviction litigants wrongly convicted of state offenses with access to DNA database searches.

Boston College Law Review

Remedying Wrongful Convictions Through DNA Testing: Expanding Post-Conviction Litigants’ Access to DNA Database Searches to Prove Innocence

On March 30, 2017, in United States v. King, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a sentencing court may not rely on information in bills of particulars for the Armed Career Criminal Act’s different-occasions inquiry. In so doing, the Sixth Circuit joined the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits in holding that sentencing courts deciding the different-occasions question may rely only on the evidentiary sources that the United States Supreme Court approved in Taylor v. United States in 1990 and Shepard v. United States in 2005. In contrast, on January 2, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Evans suggested that the Taylor- and Shepard-evidentiary restrictions might not apply to the different-occasions inquiry. This Comment argues that the Sixth Circuit decided correctly in King, but also that the court’s decision conflicts with congressional intent, and thus Congress should amend the act to resolve this conflict.

Search LIRA@BC Law

Search

Resource type (2)

Creator (1)

Keyword (0)

Collection (2)

Availability (1)

Subject (7)

Results