Posted on 08/06/2005 4:37:22 PM PDT by summer
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush signed an executive order Friday requiring authorities to preserve DNA evidence in certain older cases so it can be used to determine if defendants may have been wrongly convicted.
"The destruction of this evidence could potentially enable the innocent to be wrongly convicted and the guilty to go free," the order read.
It comes just two days after 67-year-old Luis Diaz, who was imprisoned for 26 years as the "Bird Road rapist," was released in Miami after DNA evidence from two of the rapes excluded him as the attacker, casting doubt on five cases for which he was serving time.
DNA testing also set Wilton Dedge free last August after 22 years in prison on a false charge of rape. He went before the Legislature this spring to ask the state to pay him for his lost wages, the money his family spent on his case and for the attorneys who fought on his behalf. Those issues remain unresolved....
That's when a law went into effect to open a window of opportunity for such convicts to request DNA testing. It initially was two years, then extended by the Florida Supreme Court to Oct. 1, 2005 and now beyond that by the governor.
The order applies to any investigating law enforcement agency, the clerk of court, and the prosecuting authority.
Florida is among three dozen states with laws to allow post-conviction DNA testing.
Agencies could dispose of DNA evidence under the governor's order only if defendants fail to request testing within 90 days after written notices of pending destruction are sent to defendants, their lawyers, prosecutors and the attorney general.
Also - I don't understand why any state would NOT have a law preserving DNA evidence.
ping
Also - I don't understand why any state would NOT want to preserve DNA evidence.
Sorry about that double post!
Boy this guy served 26 years and in my state they have to catch them half a dozen times before they even get a slap on the wrist. There ought to be at least be uniform sentencing.
Admitting you are wrong is a no no to all politicians.
Does that apply to Schiavo's ashes? That would definitely work.
Thanks for your response to my question.
ayutomatically = automatically
In my experience, the driving force behind destroying evidence from old cases are police departments, court clerk's offices, and court reporters who are running out of storage space for such evidence.
Whatever the reason, they shouldn't detroy evidence. People are wrongly convicted sometimes, and that's terrible.
I have no respect for Jeb Bush and I will never believe anything he says - after what happened to Terri on his watch. Now all of a sudden he cares about INNOCENT people. Give me a break!!!
In Texas, we have a statute that prohibits the destruction of possible DNA evidence without notification and non-objection by the defendant. We also have a statute which permits defendants to have post-conviction DNA testing and an attorney to represent them in that process.
I understand. Thanks for your post and info. :)
Oh, Saundra, I think you are wrong. He was involved with that case for many years, and did everything he could as governor to help her and her family, at the request of her family. He could not violate the court's rulings but he tried and tried to do everything else. Unless there is ever a law to eliminate a marriage contract for a seriously disabled person, so that others in the family, like parents, can step in, there is nothing that any politician can do to prevent a spouse from doing what Terri's spouse did. Terri could not get a divorce from him and her parents could not step in and ask for one, though I think that should have been an option. Many others on FR disagreed with me on that. Gov Bush could not cancel that marriage contract either!
And, Gov Bush has always cared about innocent people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.