Post by guest on Jun 29, 2009 20:35:37 GMT -5
Ohio bill expands DNA use
By Jon Craig • jcraig@enquirer. com • June 28, 2009
COLUMBUS - Legislation to reduce convictions of innocent people based
on faulty police lineups, lack of DNA and flimsy evidence passed the
Ohio Senate last week .Senate Bill 77, which needs approval by the
Ohio House before becoming law, started with research by students of
the University of Cincinnati College of Law.
"Obviously compromises were made," said Mark A. Godsey, a UC law
professor and faculty director of the Ohio Innocence Project. "It
started out asking for a lot and was whittled down. I'm still very
happy about the bill, though. It's a good step in the right direction."
The bill:
Expands the availability of DNA testing to prisoners, parolees and
registered sex offenders.
Requires DNA be taken through cheek swabs from anyone arrested on a
felony charge.
Requires storage and preservation of all evidence that can be tested
for DNA in cases of serious crime including murder and sexual assault.
Requires recordings of all interrogations from start to finish in
cases of violent crime.
Requires police lineups and eyewitness photo ID procedures in so-
called "double-blind" fashion, meaning the police officer who
oversees the ID process with the witness does not know who in the
lineup or photo samples might be the suspect.
"This bill will enact simple yet meaningful changes to our system of
justice that will modernize Ohio's best practices so that the best
interests of justice can be served," state Sen. David Goodman, R-New
Albany, the bill's sponsor, said after a 31-1 vote.
According to Godsey, Gary Reece of Amelia is a perfect example of
someone who was wrongly convicted of rape and attempted murder based
on eyewitness testimony.
Reece was paroled in 2005 after serving 25 years of a 75-year sentence.
Reece, employment development director at Jobs Plus in Over-the-
Rhine, did not return calls for comment.
There was no evidence of a rape, and no evidence that Reece had been
in the victim's apartment. Initial descriptions given by the victim
did not fit Reece.
But the jury believed her, not Reece.
news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090628/NEWS01/906290320/
By Jon Craig • jcraig@enquirer. com • June 28, 2009
COLUMBUS - Legislation to reduce convictions of innocent people based
on faulty police lineups, lack of DNA and flimsy evidence passed the
Ohio Senate last week .Senate Bill 77, which needs approval by the
Ohio House before becoming law, started with research by students of
the University of Cincinnati College of Law.
"Obviously compromises were made," said Mark A. Godsey, a UC law
professor and faculty director of the Ohio Innocence Project. "It
started out asking for a lot and was whittled down. I'm still very
happy about the bill, though. It's a good step in the right direction."
The bill:
Expands the availability of DNA testing to prisoners, parolees and
registered sex offenders.
Requires DNA be taken through cheek swabs from anyone arrested on a
felony charge.
Requires storage and preservation of all evidence that can be tested
for DNA in cases of serious crime including murder and sexual assault.
Requires recordings of all interrogations from start to finish in
cases of violent crime.
Requires police lineups and eyewitness photo ID procedures in so-
called "double-blind" fashion, meaning the police officer who
oversees the ID process with the witness does not know who in the
lineup or photo samples might be the suspect.
"This bill will enact simple yet meaningful changes to our system of
justice that will modernize Ohio's best practices so that the best
interests of justice can be served," state Sen. David Goodman, R-New
Albany, the bill's sponsor, said after a 31-1 vote.
According to Godsey, Gary Reece of Amelia is a perfect example of
someone who was wrongly convicted of rape and attempted murder based
on eyewitness testimony.
Reece was paroled in 2005 after serving 25 years of a 75-year sentence.
Reece, employment development director at Jobs Plus in Over-the-
Rhine, did not return calls for comment.
There was no evidence of a rape, and no evidence that Reece had been
in the victim's apartment. Initial descriptions given by the victim
did not fit Reece.
But the jury believed her, not Reece.
news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090628/NEWS01/906290320/