Sun editorial:

Preserving DNA evidence

Nevada lawmakers should ensure state takes full advantage of proven crime-fighting tool

Friday, Aug. 8, 2008 | 2:05 a.m.

A sound criminal justice system is one in which the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free. That is a simple concept, but as we all know, it sometimes works in reverse — innocent individuals wind up in prison while offenders slip through the cracks, go back to the streets and commit more crimes.

To make cases as airtight as possible, law enforcement agencies should use every tool available to solve crimes and ensure justice is served. One of those tools is DNA testing, which gives examiners a genetic footprint to study various pieces of evidence, including blood, semen, saliva, hair and skin.

There are now 25 states that enforce requirements to preserve DNA evidence, providing better opportunities to solve cold cases. Regrettably, Nevada is not one of those states, according to a survey compiled by the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic affiliated with Yeshiva University in New York City.

Death row inmates in Nevada may request post-conviction DNA testing in the district courts where they were convicted, but state law is otherwise silent on preservation of DNA evidence, the clinic reported. As a matter of human rights, this issue deserves the attention of the 2009 Nevada Legislature.

The Innocence Project, whose board members include former Attorney General Janet Reno and author John Grisham, stated on its Web site that 218 individuals in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 16 who served time on death row. But DNA testing cuts both ways because it can also help identify the perpetrators of crimes such as murder and rape.

It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to house the wrong inmates, just as it is inexcusable to allow offenders to get off the hook and prey on additional victims. These are reasons enough for Nevada lawmakers to devise a way to preserve DNA evidence in this state. We must take full advantage of all crime-fighting tools at our disposal.

Discussion: 7 comments so far…

By Tonja

8/8/08 at 5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

HISTORICAL INFORMATION
1. From: The Legislative Counsel Bureau
Sent: Thu 8/31/2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Research Request: Post-Conviction DNA Testing
<<NCSL post-conviction DNA testing.pdf>> <<Washington Code 10.73.170.pdf>> <<Tennessee Code 40-30-301 et al..pdf>>
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 31, 2006
SUBJECT: Post-Conviction DNA Testing
This memorandum is in response to your request for information on whether or not any states allow persons not on death row to request a DNA sample.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 35 states currently have a set of procedural rules for post-conviction relief. Since 2000, due to the advancement of DNA technology, many states have updated their post-conviction DNA testing procedures.
Of the 35 states that have rules regarding post-conviction relief, 32 allow persons not on death row to request a DNA sample. Three states currently limit the ability to petition a court for post-conviction DNA testing to individuals who are convicted and sentenced to death. Those states include: Kentucky, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
In 2001, two states amended their post-conviction DNA testing statutes to include persons other than those sentenced to death. Tennessee’s definition now includes any offender convicted of and sentenced for any criminal offense. Similarly, Washington’s definition now allows any incarcerated felon to petition the court for post-conviction DNA testing.
Attached is a summary of post-conviction DNA testing procedural rules compiled by NCSL, the Washington statute related to DNA testing requests (Revised Code of Washington 10.73.170), and the Tennessee “Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001” (Tennessee Code Annotated 40-30-301 through 40-30-313).
By Tonja

8/8/08 at 5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is one of my projects that I continue to work on until it passes and becomes law. I have found a supporter who believes strongly in this issue as I do, her name is Flo Jones and she is running for Assembly.
BILL SUMMARY: Revises the provisions of N.R.S. 176.0917 and N.R.S. 176.0918 pertaining to DNA Testing.
N.R.S. 176.0917 (ADD, or genetic marker analysis testing can be conducted by an independent forensic laboratory inside or outside the State of Nevada at the petitioner's request. If the petitioner received the death penalty the Department of Corrections incurs all costs.)
Sec. 1. The board of county commissioners of each county shall designate a forensic laboratory ADD: (or petitioner may request and pay for an independent forensic laboratory outside the State of Nevada.)
Sec. 2. (a) Must be operated by this State or one of its political subdivisions ADD: (or an independent forensic laboratory outside the State of Nevada at the petitioner's request and cost.)
N.R.S. 176.0918
Sec. 2. #1 A person convicted of a crime DELETE: (and under sentence of death) who meets the requirements of this section may file a post conviction petition requesting a genetic marker analysis of evidence within the possession or custody which may contain genetic marker information relating to the investigation or prosecution ADD: (or the exoneration) that resulted in the judgement of conviction, DELETE: (and) ADD: (or)sentence of death. The petition, ADD: (if sentence is death) must include, without limitation, the date scheduled for the execution if it has been scheduled.
Sec. 6. The court shall order a genetic marker analysis if the ADD: (petitioner requests and incurs all costs or the) court finds that:
Sec. 7. #1 Be operated by this State or one of its political subdivisions, ADD: (or an independent forensic laboratory outside the State of Nevada at the petitioner's request and petitioner incurs all costs.)
Sec. 7. (c) [2] Include such analysis, testing and comparison of genetic marker information contained in the evidence and the genetic marker information of the petitioner as the Court ADD: (or the petitioner requests and the petitioner incurs all costs.)
Sec. 9. ADD: (If) [t]he Court shall dismiss a petition filed pursuant to this section DELETE (if:) ADD: (the petitioner may request for genetic marker testing and the petitioner incurs all costs:)
Sec. 10. For the purpose of a genetic marker analysis pursuant to this section, a person under sentence of death ADD: (or any crime)
Sec. 11. The expense of analysis pursuant to this section is a charge against ADD: ( the county where the petitioner was convicted of. Unless the Court denies petitioner's request for genetic marker testing then the petitioner incurs all costs.)
Sec. 12 DELETE (and under sentence of death.)
Contact:
By Tonja

8/8/08 at 6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Tonja Brown commented on Agenda Item VI B and VI D. She submitted testimony for the Commission. (Exhibit P) She submitted a proposed bill dealing with DNA evidence and wrongful convictions. She requested the Commission recommend the bill to the 2009 Legislature. She said the bill entitled an inmate to have DNA testing at his own expense. She said her other item of discussion, Agenda Item VI-D, was eyewitness identification. She provided a large packet of exhibit material for the Commission. She asked the Commissioners to look at the photo lineup included in her materials. Ms. Brown read further statements from her exhibits.
Chair Hardesty said the Commission had Ms. Brown’s material and he asked her to make a policy issue. Ms. Brown recommended the Commission needed to study misidentification and recommend to the Legislature they do a case study. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Interim_...
By Tonja

8/8/08 at 7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

TONJA BROWN:
I support A.B. 416. It has been surprising to Legislators to learn Nevada is one of three states where deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing only applies to inmates who have received the death penalty. I am asking that a genetic marker analysis testing be conducted by an independent forensic laboratory outside the state at the petitioner’s request. If the court finds in favor of the petitioner, the Department of Corrections (DOC) incurs all costs.
I want to add that a petitioner may request and pay for an independent forensic laboratory outside the state at the petitioner’s request and cost. If an inmate is willing to incur all costs, they should grant DNA testing. There would be no fiscal impact to the state unless a judge grants their request and the county would incur the costs. The Nevada DOC would incur the costs of DNA testing in death penalty convictions. Also, I would like to add …
CHAIR AMODEI:
Ms. Brown, is this your testimony? You are giving us specific information.
MS. BROWN:
I provided this testimony last week and you were sent a copy.
CHAIR AMODEI:
We already have that information?
MS. BROWN:
Yes, you have it.
By Tonja

8/8/08 at 7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am also asking the Parole Board not consider whether the prisoner has appealed the judgment of imprisonment for which the prisoner is being considered for parole. This goes hand in hand with the DNA request. I will tell you this, it is an unwritten policy of the Parole Board that if you have an appeal pending in either state or federal court, you will not be released to the street. So, if a person is maintaining their innocence and appealing their conviction, they will never see the street. If the DNA is available, it would definitely help those people who are fighting for justice to prove their innocence.
CHAIR AMODEI:
We are considering A.B. 510.

This passed in the 2007 Legislature, however, the proposed DNA bill did not.
By Tonja

8/8/08 at 8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Attached is an affidavit from an attorney who saw just how DNA EVIDENCE WAS DISAPPEARING FROM THE EVIDENCE ROOM OF THE WASHOE COUNTY COURTHOUSE. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Exhibits...
During the 2007 Legislative Session I testified during the SJR2 bill wherein, I testified that Judges Mills Lane, and Charles McGee conspired to conceal the missing DNA evidence,with Reno Detectives by placing the brand new 1996, the discovery of the missing cigarette butts, onto a closed 1995 case,the opening of the DNA kits thereby making it impossible to find the complaint I filed. I was contacted by the Senate Judiciary and was told that I had to produce those documents or I would be prosecuted for perjury. I produced 117 pages of exhibits that are now one record with LCB. I was never prosecuted and know legislative member stepped forward to correct the injustice of these public officials illegal acts.
Comments regarding the persons in this book: "To Prove His Innocence"
1. Judge Charles McGee. He was given the opportunity to read this manuscript, but declined. In 2003 Charles McGee voluntarily placed himself in rehabilitation for alcoholism. He returned to the bench only to be arrested within four months after his return for driving under the influence right around the Christmas holiday. In 2004 he served a jail sentence for his offense to which he plead guilty of having twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system. He was defended by the other justices of the Second Judicial District Court who championed his judicial position and have allowed him to remain on the bench as the Drug Court Judge. In November 2004, he announced his retirement effective January 2005.
2. Mills Lane. He indicated that he would like to read the manuscript when it was in progress in 2002, but he suffered a stroke in 2003 and did not get an opportunity to read it.
6. An attorney who represents the police officer’s union was given the manuscript, but gave us no comments. Detective Sherman Boxx did meet with us once with his attorney present. He stated that he believed that he had given all the evidence that he had to the District Attorney.
By geezelouise

8/8/08 at 8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

"It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to house the wrong inmates, just as it is inexcusable to allow offenders to get off the hook and prey on additional victims. These are reasons enough for Nevada lawmakers to devise a way to preserve DNA evidence in this state. We must take full advantage of all crime-fighting tools at our disposal"

HELLO - it is a waste of taxpayers money to prosecute these innocent indivuals, and the appeal process ins't cheap either.

How long do we have to wait before the criminal justice system gets it right?

The TAXPAYERS want to know.

David Roger is a sorry excuse for a DA and needs to be voted out.

Is anyone listening?