Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Attorney General Richard Cordray recent­ly urged pros­e­cu­tors in sev­en crim­i­nal cas­es to allow DNA test­ing that could either prove inno­cence or con­firm the defen­dan­t’s guilt. The sev­en cas­es include one man cur­rent­ly on death row, Tyrone Noling, two inmates serv­ing long sen­tences, three men who are no longer in prison but want to clear their names, and a man who died in prison in 2006. Gov. Strickland said, ​“I real­ly think it’s irra­tional not to take advan­tage of meth­ods that could estab­lish either guilt or inno­cence when those tech­nolo­gies are avail­able to us. I can think of no good argu­ment why any­one would be denied DNA test­ing if, in fact, there is a rea­son­able or rel­e­vant oppor­tu­ni­ty to bring clar­i­ty to whether or not some­one is guilty of a crime.” In all sev­en cas­es, pros­e­cu­tors have resist­ed the DNA test­ing and judges have declined to grant it.

In 2008, the Columbus Dispatch pub­lished a series of arti­cles that exposed flaws in Ohio’s post-con­vic­tion DNA sys­tem. The series, ​“Test of Conviction,” has led to the exon­er­a­tions of three men in the past two years after DNA test­ing was per­formed. Attorney General Cordray said, ​“We think cer­tain­ty and accu­ra­cy are some­thing we want in our jus­tice sys­tem. We are urg­ing them to allow test­ing, but we have told (pros­e­cu­tors) that we will work to make sure the results are not tak­en the wrong way. Testing could be con­clu­sive with guilt or inno­cence, but many results can be incon­clu­sive as well.”

(M. Wagner and A. Johnson, ​“Strickland, Cordray: Test DNA in 7 cas­es; Prosecutors urged to OK inmates’ requests,” The Columbus Dispatch, August 4, 2010). See Innocence and Arbitrariness.

Tags
Citation Guide