denying post- trial DNA testing because such testing would neither exonerate nor mitigate defendant’s sentence in light of the trial testimony, defendant’s own statements and admissions, and the physical evidence seized from him during his arrest at the crime scene
How later courts described this case
- denying post- trial DNA testing because such testing would neither exonerate nor mitigate defendant’s sentence in light of the trial testimony, defendant’s own statements and admissions, and the physical evidence seized from him during his arrest at the crime scene
- recognizing that the results of a DNA test for semen in a victim’s vagina could be critical evidence in a rape prosecution
- concluding that DNA was not a significant part of Bates’ conviction considering the weight of evidence against him
- “In order to be entitled to postconviction DNA testing, a defendant's motion must include ‘a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested and, if known, the present location or last known location of the evidence and how it originally was obtained.’ The motion must also allege that the evidence was not previously tested or that the results of such testing were inconclusive. Additionally, a defendant's motion must explain how the DNA testing requested will exonerate the defendant or mitigate the defendant's sentence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1108 ANSTEAD, Senior Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I cannot agree with the majority that Bates is not entitled to have DNA testing of certain evidence in order to bring more certainty to the sentencing process.