DNA takes years and the Supreme Court imposed deadlines make prosecution pay the price

Modern juries expect scientific evidence, especially when there is potential DNA evidence such as sexual assault evidence kits or “touch” DNA that a suspect might leave behind at a crime scene or on a weapon. Sometimes this evidence exists. Sometimes this evidence is collected. Sometimes law enforcement sends potential evidence to be tested. In cases where it exists, is collected and is tested, juries put great weight on the inculpatory or potentially exculpatory weight of that evidence. In a state that faces backlogs, underfunded initiatives and programs and a crushing violent crime problem, it can be difficult to get this evidence tested and in front of juries. That difficulty is being compounded dramatically by testing delays at the statewide crime lab and new Supreme Court mandates that shorten the prosecution’s timelines to produce this evidence.

I recently received an email from a fellow District Attorney in southern New Mexico. The DA was wondering if any other districts faced long delays in getting DNA results from the lab. He also wondered if court orders sped up the process at all. Nearly all DAs responded that yes, we too faced delays but no, court orders did nothing to meaningfully expedite testing. The lab responded that every district is facing delays and if every case is declared an emergency or priority by the courts then none are.

Here in the first, we routinely see delays of 1-2 years to get DNA results. That, in and of itself, is a concern but with edicts unilaterally imposed by the Supreme Court that go into effect Jan 1, the DAs office will effectively no longer be able to use DNA in most cases unless they are deemed “complex” enough to warrant a extended timeline. The new court rules require that most cases go to trial in 12 months or less. For violent crimes, prosecutors will have to try these cases without the most persuasive pieces of evidence because of court rules that ignored the reality facing the forensic laboratory. Both prosecutors and law enforcement warned the Supreme Court about these delays and other concerns before the rules were imposed. Despite stakeholders telling the courts that these rules adversely impact public safety and result in the tossing of cases, the courts never spoke with the lab, and the rules were imposed anyway. Notably, the Supreme Court can tie the hands of the prosecution and impact cases by imposing such rules, but the Supreme Court rule cannot tie the hands of the statewide forensic laboratory, an executive agency.

Juries expect to see DNA results. DNA gives prosecutors that irrefutability to juries to show that the accused was there. Often juries will not convict without DNA that they believe should have existed and who can blame them? DNA doesn’t tell the whole story but it also does not rely on eye witnesses or other forms of evidence that could be arguably compromised but now prosecutors will be forced to trial with one hand tied behind their backs because of court rules imposed by justices who didn’t listen to anyone in trial courts telling them their rules wouldn’t enhance justice, it would deny it.