DNA evidence has rapidly become a significant and routine feature of modern criminal prosecutions. The first introduction of DNA evidence in a U.S. Court occurred in 1987. By 1994, 42 percent of local prosecutors reported that they had used DNA evidence in a felony case at least once. By 2001 that number had increased to 68 percent. Moreover, from a technical point of view, the potential benefits of DNA testing are substantial. Early hurdles to admissibility during trial have been overcome (...) by the adoption of rigorous standards for DNA analysis. Rapid development of identification technology, fueled in significant part by the Human Genome Project, and the resultant development and expansion of national forensic DNA databases, has increased the potential of DNA to play a major role in crime solving. Indeed, over three million offender profiles, collected by state and federal authorities, now reside in the National DNA Index System. This number is likely to increase as more states and the federal government are expanding compelled DNA collections to individuals arrested for certain crimes. (shrink)

One obvious result of DNA exonerations has been the enactment of legislation regulating postconviction DNA testing. But the impact on our criminal justice system goes beyond formal statutory change. The DNA exonerations are changing attitudes towards the death penalty, are focusing attention on how forensic laboratories operate, and are leading to the stricter scrutiny of forensic science.

The emergence of post-conviction DNA testing has had profound effects on the American criminal justice system. Although changes in the formal legal landscape are readily noticeable, the DNA exonerations have also produced other consequences that may have potentially more significance. To comprehend and assess the influence of post-conviction DNA testing one must examine more than just the law on the books. After some introductory material, Part I of this essay looks at repercussions DNA exonerations are having on the basic operation (...) of the criminal justice system, Part II examines new statutes that govern procedures for post-conviction DNA testing requests, and Part III briefly considers how these current developments may affect Supreme Court jurisprudence.Post-conviction DNA testing has evolved in little more than a decade. Before 2000, only two states, New York and Illinois, had statutes that authorized post-conviction DNA testing. In other jurisdictions, no formally authorized procedures existed that allowed inmates to make requests for DNA testing of crime scene evidence. (shrink)