Editorial: DNA Testing
Beyond a shadow of a doubt
But it happens, more often than anyone likes to admit.
More than 200 people have been exonerated in recent years thanks to advances
in DNA testing. In about 25 percent of those cases, the wrongfully convicted
person either pleaded guilty, confessed to the crime, or made self-incriminating statements.
A variety of factors can contribute to an innocent person's confessing to a crime
he didn't commit, including coercion, duress, fear of violence, limited mental capacity,
ignorance of the law, actual harm, and the threat of a long sentence
or the death penalty if you don't cooperate.
Such a case is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, involving a
Philadelphia man convicted of a brutal rape and murder in 1993.
He alleges he was pressured by police to confess to the crimes.
Anthony Wright contends he didn't rape and murder a 77-year-old woman
in her Nicetown home, and he has requested DNA testing of the evidence.
But Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham has opposed the DNA test,
arguing that there is no need because Wright confessed.
Wright's attorneys filed an appeal last month to the state Supreme Court,
which has yet to rule.
The best and only way to resolve the dispute is to proceed with the DNA test.
Isn't the goal justice?
Wright may very well be guilty. But Abraham's refusal to conduct the DNA test
only raises suspicion and undercuts the D.A.'s argument that the right person is behind bars.
Wright was convicted in 1993 of rape, murder and burglary of Louise Talley,
a widow who lived near him. Wright was sentenced to life in prison for the crimes,
which occurred in September 1991, when he was 20 years old.
Wright's conviction was based largely on his signed confession
and the testimony of two witnesses - one of whom police
initially considered a suspect.
When detectives approached Wright at his home, he voluntarily went
to police headquarters and waived his Miranda rights.
Detectives say Wright eventually gave a detailed confession,
though it wasn't recorded or videotaped.
A good way to reduce false confessions is for police to record interrogations,
criminal-justice experts say.
Wright's confession was written by one of the detectives and
signed by Wright. Wright contends he wasn't allowed
to read the answers attributed to him before he signed the document.
Detectives say Wright confessed to wearing specific clothing on the day of the crime.
When police searched Wright's home they say they found bloodstained
clothing that matched the description that he had provided.
At trial, Wright and his mother denied that the clothing was his
or that it was recovered from their home. Wright also moved
unsuccessfully to have his confession suppressed, arguing it was coerced.
He alleged detectives handcuffed him to a chair and that one
threatened to "rip his eyes out" and "skull-f- him."
In addition, the accounts of the witnesses who put Wright at the scene
of the crime are inconsistent when compared with each other,
raising questions about their credibility.
In Pennsylvania, nine people have been exonerated in recent years
as a result of DNA testing, including Bruce Godschalk of Montgomery County,
who confessed to two 1986 rapes he didn't commit.
Godschalk spent 15 years in prison before his release in 2002.
For seven years he fought to have DNA testing done,
alleging his confession was coerced and effectively written by the detective.
But the District Attorney's Office resisted because he, like Wright, had confessed.
After Godschalk's release from prison, the state enacted a law
that allows convicts to request DNA testing to prove their innocence.
The law applies to convictions before 1995 or to cases where
DNA testing wasn't conducted.
About half of the states have laws that allow for post-conviction DNA testing.
The law exists for cases like Wright's.
If Abraham won't allow the DNA test, the state Supreme Court
should order that it be done to resolve the dispute and
ensure that justice has been served. After all, that is the goal.
 |
| |
| Find this article at: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20081116_Editorial__DNA_Testing.html?adString=inq.currents/currents;!category=currents;&randomOrd=111808082304 |
Posts
1 comment:
How much does the DNA testing cost? It’s hard to tell if the D.A. lacks the desire to conduct the DNA test due to fear of allowing DNA testing for all prisoners or from the embarrassment which might occur if the DNA test reveals the prisoner did not commit the crime. What if the DNA results came back inconclusive? I think it’s a good thing this man was freed. However, what if a judge were to mandate DNA testing, where the evidence is available, under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause? This might be very expensive but could release innocent people. I’ve heard about various D.A.’s conducting these tests. I believe the D.A. in Dallas launched a DNA testing program. I wonder if the prisoner in the article obtained his freedom from a Habeas Corpus petition or forced the D.A. to conduct a DNA test using a writ of Mandamus.
Devin Johnson
Post a Comment