The state?s new DNA law ? hailed as a victory for public safety ? creates numerous problems that could hinder prosecutions, Baltimore prosecutors said.
“It certainly adds a lot of wrinkles and complications,” said Sharon Holback, the Director of Forensic Science Investigations at the Baltimore City State?s Attorney?s Office.
Many in law enforcement initially backed the legislation, which authorized police to take DNA evidence from all suspects charged with violent crimes. Gov. Martin O?Malley called the measure “our top public safety priority.” But after significant amendments designed to quell the objections of the Legislative Black Caucus, Holback said the bill creates many “open questions” for prosecutors.
Chief among the problems for prosecutors is an apparent delay in when law enforcement can test DNA evidence. Under current Maryland law, police can obtain a search warrant for a suspect?s DNA within hours of crime — testing it immediately.
Under the language of the new DNA law, police can takeDNA at the time a suspect is charged with a crime, but could have to wait until after arraignment — sometimes months later — to test it, Holback said.
“It is not clear how we are to identify or exonerate a suspect prior to arraignment if we don’t have his DNA without violating the statute,” she said.
City prosecutors have produced a list of 10 problems the bill creates with its amendments, including:
? A possible delay in testing DNA evidence until after arraignment.
? An order to expunge DNA records from an federal database, which state prosecutors do not have the authority to do.
? An nebulous line granting a judge power to order a new trial “in the interest of justice,” which prosecutors say opens a broad new area of post-conviction challenges.
“It opens up Pandora’s Box,” Holback said.
Delegate Jill Carter, a District 41 Democrat, who was one of a handful of legislators to oppose the measure, called the bill “poorly drafted.”
“We weren?t ready to rush it through,” she said. “There should have been more study to it. Everybody knew we passed a bad bill, and we did so for political reasons.”
O?Malley?s spokeswoman Christine Hansen said most of the concerns stem from amendments — not the original version submitted by O?Malley.
“The governor worked together with the members of the General Assembly to reach some sort of consensus for a bill,” she said. “It?s a step in the right direction.”
