The Legislature finds and declares:
(1) Over the past decade, DNA testing has emerged as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying persons when biological material is found at a crime scene or transferred from the victim to the person responsible and transported from the crime scene;
(2) Because of its scientific precision and reliability, DNA testing can, in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant. In other cases, DNA may not conclusively establish guilt or innocence but may have significant probative value to a finder of fact;
(3) While DNA testing is increasingly commonplace in pretrial investigations currently, it was not widely available in cases prior to 1994. Moreover, new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from minute samples that previously could not be tested and to obtain more informative and accurate results than earlier forms of forensic DNA testing could produce. As a result, in some cases, convicted inmates have been exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests had failed to produce definitive results;
(4) Because DNA testing is often feasible on relevant biological material that is decades old, it can in some circumstances prove that a conviction which predated the development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual findings. DNA evidence produced even decades after a conviction can provide a more reliable basis for establishing a correct verdict than any evidence proffered at the original trial. DNA testing, therefor, can and has resulted in postconviction exoneration of innocent men and women;
(5) In the past decade, there have been multiple postconviction exonerations in the United States and Canada based upon DNA testing. In addition, a disturbing number of persons sentenced to death have been exonerated through postconviction DNA testing, some of these exonerations coming within days of their execution date;
(6) DNA testing responds to serious concerns regarding wrongful convictions, especially those arising out of mistaken eyewitness identification testimony; and
(7) There is a compelling need to ensure the preservation of biological material for postconviction DNA testing, for a limited period.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 2003–2017 · leading case:
State v. Buckman, 675 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2004).
State v. Buckman, 675 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 4× “) § 29-4118(2). The Legislature further explained that DNA testing “can in some circumstances prove that a conviction which predated the development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual findings,” but in other circumstances, “can provide a more reliable basis for…”
State v. Lotter, 669 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Moreover, new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from minute samples that previously could not be tested and to obtain more…”
State v. Pratt, 733 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 4× “[5] § 29-4118(1) (emphasis supplied). [6] § 29-4118(7) (emphasis supplied).”
State v. Fernando-Granados, 682 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” § 29-4118(2). The Legislature further found that new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from minute samples that previously could…”
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 6× “”13 “DNA testing,” the Legislature explained, “responds to serious concerns regarding wrongful convictions, espe- cially those arising out of mistaken eyewitness identifica- tion testimony.”
State v. Tolliver, 689 N.W.2d 567 (Neb. 2004).
“When § 29-4118(3) was enacted, effective September 1, 2001, the Legislature stated that new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from…”
State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503 (Neb. 2017).
“23 § 29-4118(1) (emphasis supplied). 24 Judiciary Committee Hearing, supra note 16 at 57 (emphasis supplied).”
State v. Haas, 782 N.W.2d 584 (Neb. 2010).
“See § 29-4118. Evidence which was available but not pursued is not considered to have been unavailable.”
State v. Young, 287 Neb. 749 (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 2× “[5] After a proper motion seeking forensic DNA testing has been filed, the State is required by § 29-4120(4) to file an inventory of all evidence that was secured by the State or a political subdivision in connection with the case.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4118(1) — 2 cases
State v. Pratt, 733 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2007).
“[5] § 29-4118(1) (emphasis supplied). [6] § 29-4118(7) (emphasis supplied).”
State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503 (Neb. 2017).
“23 § 29-4118(1) (emphasis supplied). 24 Judiciary Committee Hearing, supra note 16 at 57 (emphasis supplied).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4118(2) — 2 cases
State v. Buckman, 675 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2004).
“) § 29-4118(2). The Legislature further explained that DNA testing “can in some circumstances prove that a conviction which predated the development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual findings,” but in other circumstances, “can provide a more reliable basis for…”
State v. Fernando-Granados, 682 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2004).
“” § 29-4118(2). The Legislature further found that new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from minute samples that previously could…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4118(3) — 4 cases
State v. Lotter, 669 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 2003).
“Moreover, new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from minute samples that previously could not be tested and to obtain more…”
State v. Fernando-Granados, 682 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2004).
“” § 29-4118(2). The Legislature further found that new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from minute samples that previously could…”
State v. Tolliver, 689 N.W.2d 567 (Neb. 2004).
“When § 29-4118(3) was enacted, effective September 1, 2001, the Legislature stated that new forensic DNA testing procedures, such as polymerase chain reaction amplification, DNA short tandem repeat analysis, and mitochondrial DNA analysis, make it possible to obtain results from…”
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014).
“”13 “DNA testing,” the Legislature explained, “responds to serious concerns regarding wrongful convictions, espe- cially those arising out of mistaken eyewitness identifica- tion testimony.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4118(4) — 2 cases
State v. Buckman, 675 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2004).
“) § 29-4118(2). The Legislature further explained that DNA testing “can in some circumstances prove that a conviction which predated the development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual findings,” but in other circumstances, “can provide a more reliable basis for…”
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014).
“”13 “DNA testing,” the Legislature explained, “responds to serious concerns regarding wrongful convictions, espe- cially those arising out of mistaken eyewitness identifica- tion testimony.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4118(6) — 1 case
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (Neb. 2014).
“”13 “DNA testing,” the Legislature explained, “responds to serious concerns regarding wrongful convictions, espe- cially those arising out of mistaken eyewitness identifica- tion testimony.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4118(7) — 1 case
State v. Pratt, 733 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2007).
“[5] § 29-4118(1) (emphasis supplied). [6] § 29-4118(7) (emphasis supplied).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.