STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, FEB. 8, 2012……Convicted criminals who maintain their innocence and meet certain criteria would be allowed to access DNA evidence to help overturn their convictions, under legislation unanimously approved by the House Wednesday.
On a party line vote, the Democrat-controlled House also rejected a plan to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony crime. Proponents of that idea argued it could help with unsolved crimes, saying 26 other states that allow such samples have successfully solved hundreds of “cold case” crimes. Opponents argued the idea was likely unconstitutional and required further review at the committee level.
Under the main bill, in order to become eligible for post-conviction access to DNA evidence, an individual serving a sentence must win a motion before a judge that shows the evidence could possibly result in an acquittal. Massachusetts is one of only two states that does not allow for post-conviction DNA evidence to be tested, according to supporters of the legislation.
The Senate passed the bill (S 1987) last July. The idea was first introduced in 2003 by Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) and Wednesday’s House vote means the legislation’s odds of reaching Gov. Deval Patrick’s desk have significantly improved.
The bill creates a process where testing would be allowed, but does not guarantee someone a new trial, said Rep. John Fernandes (D-Milford), one of the bill’s sponsors. Those seeking DNA evidence must first meet a set of criteria, illustrating that the evidence is still available and reliable and that it will have a “material effect on the outcome of the case,” Fernandes said.
Allowing post-conviction DNA testing is crucial to ensuring innocent people do not remain behind bars, Fernandes said.
“It is just wrong that people remain in prison who have not committed a crime. We hold freedom highest among the rights that we cherish,” Fernandes said during debate on the House floor. “One day, one week, one year, is too long for anybody to be held in prison.”
He told the story of Kenneth Waters, a Massachusetts man wrongfully convicted of murder who spent 18 years in prison. His sister, Betty Anne Waters, never wavered in her belief that her brother was innocent; her struggles to overturn his conviction were turned into the Hollywood movie “Conviction.” He was eventually released due to DNA evidence, but died in an accident six months after his release.
Similar wrongful convictions have played out across the United States in 280 cases, Fernandes said.
Creem said she first became aware of people serving prison sentences for crimes they did not commit when she was a member of the Governor’s Council. There, she voted on several commutations.
“At this time, there is no law that says you have to give them this opportunity. Judges or DA’s can make it difficult,” she said.
The bill also sets down requirements for the preservation of DNA evidence, Creem said.
The Boston Bar Association backed the bill, but it took “several iterations before people were comfortable with it,” Creem said.
Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) attempted to amend the bill by adding the proposal to collect DNA evidence during felony arrests, an idea encompassed in legislation (S 875) heard Tuesday by the Judiciary Committee. The proposal would require anyone "charged with the commission of a felony" to submit a DNA sample to State Police following arraignment. The bill would require the police to expunge any DNA record "if the original offense upon which the collection of DNA is based does not result in a conviction."
The bill, which has sat without a hearing in the committee since January 2011, encountered resistance from civil liberties advocates and at least one Boston defense lawyer.
House Judiciary Chairman Eugene O’Flaherty urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment, because his committee did not have enough time to review the bill. But Jones argued that the idea has been kicking around for years, and it should have had a hearing at the same time as the DNA evidence bill that was poised to pass. Jones’ amendment failed 34 to 120.
