tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post117276730410237919..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Should DAs seek DNA destruction in plea agreements?Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172790618283205112007-03-01T17:10:00.000-06:002007-03-01T17:10:00.000-06:00The evidence having been tested and the defense at...The evidence having been tested and the defense attorney having been informed does not make destruction okay for one simple reason: the science behind these tests has and continues to evolve. Samples that produced inconclusive results in the past now or at some point in the future could produce conclusive, and possibly exculpatory, results. Ten years ago DNA was a very inexact science. In the next ten years all involved expect the science to become even better. So saying the evidence was tested in the past is a red herring - were the results conclusive? What lab performed that test? Is the lab reliable? Was that test independently confirmed by an outside lab? <BR/><BR/>Bottom line: there's just too many variables to destroy this evidence without a uniform procedure that has been put into place after an open and honest debate. That's exactly why the bill you mentioned in the update to the post is so important to this issue.Mike Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18111524970633256292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172786193055875072007-03-01T15:56:00.000-06:002007-03-01T15:56:00.000-06:00Just because DNA has been tested means nothing.Not...Just because DNA has been tested means nothing.<BR/><BR/>Not so long ago if you had blood evidence and tested for blood type then you were done with that blood. Until a couple of years later when technology changed and we could supplement that blood type testing with DNA testing.<BR/><BR/>We don't know what the science will be in 5 years. <BR/><BR/>So evidence destruction is just an insistence on maintianing whatever level of ignorance we have today into the future.Gary Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353561351308596608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172772037551147112007-03-01T12:00:00.000-06:002007-03-01T12:00:00.000-06:00I have a friend who is currently in TDCJ on a DWI....I have a friend who is currently in TDCJ on a DWI. I recently read his papers (disposition?) where he had to agree to have all DNA evidence destroyed in order to accept the plea bargin. I was shocked! I wondered if they did this on all cases? What if it were different situation where DNA could have proven him to be not guilty? What reason does the county have for wanting to destroy something that could be used to prove innocense or guilt? Personally, I don't understand the mentality behind it. The actual samples can't be that large. What do they use? Hair samples and mouth swabs? Don't want to keep those things, then run the test and keep the records. I would think in this day and age, when records can be kept on tiny computer chips, maintaining records like DNA results shouldn't be an issue. (Which bring up the question of why the parole board is still using a paper filing system, but that is another comment for another blog.) Back to DNA... I think it should be kept and not destroyed and I think it should be law that DNA testing be done on anyone accused of a sexual crime. Especially with stiffer SO penalities being enacted. DNA testing is a valuable tool when it comes to proving whether a person is guilty or not and should be utilized in that capacity. Justice lies in the truth!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1172771734177793432007-03-01T11:55:00.000-06:002007-03-01T11:55:00.000-06:00What is the possible upshot of this proposal? Onl...What is the possible upshot of this proposal? Only innocent people in prison. Possibly some cost-saving later in post-conviction, but by that rationale why not just have the guy sign away his right to any collateral review. It's obvious what their goal is.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't even sound like a voluntary waiver.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com