DNA evidence topic of Texas House committee hearing

AUSTIN — Michael Morton was freed after nearly 25 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering his wife Christine. His saving grace was DNA evidence that took six years to finally be processed, eventually proving his innocence.

The quiet meeting room lawmakers settled into Tuesday morning was in stark contrast to the scene in that Williamson County courtroom in October.

On Tuesday, members of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee met to discuss how Texas can better take advantage of DNA evidence.

“Clearly the Morton case hangs over us and provides some significant fuel,” said committee chairman Pete Gallego.

Rebecca Bernhardt, policy director for the Texas Defender Service, was the first to offer testimony. Bernhardt congratulated Texas for making strides in utilizing DNA evidence, but cautioned that analysts working with law enforcement agencies may be unintentionally biased.

“We think of DNA evidence as absolutely right or wrong, that we’re going to get black or white answers, and in some cases the evidence actually is gray,” said Bernhardt, who recommended Texas look into using independent testing centers.

Russell Wilson with the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office testified that criminals should be limited to how many times they can ask for DNA evidence to be examined after their conviction, saying the current law leaves room for abuse.

“Let’s evaluate it, and once that evaluation is done, that’s it,” said Wilson.

One of the major themes regarded expanding storage of DNA evidence. Though many witnesses agreed that storing evidence was a priority, opinions were split on what kind of evidence to store and how long it should be kept.

“Without the storage, without the ability to find that sample, recover it and retest it, then potentially there will be innocent people sitting in jail,” said University of North Texas professor of forensic genetics Arthur Eisenberg.

State Representative Jose Aliseda blamed the media for “pushing an anti-death penalty agenda” in covering the Morton exoneration and others.

Gallego gave each witness a charge to report back to the committee and promised to continue hearings until a plan is developed.

“We shouldn’t be governed by a desire to win, either side, to either win an acquittal or win a conviction,” said Gallego. “The truth is that it’s a search for justice.”