THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, October 25, 1994 TAG: 9410250011
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A16 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
Thanks in great part to scientific testing of evidence with little worth at the time of his conviction, Edward Honaker is a free man after 10 years of imprisonment for a rape he did not commit. Gov. George Allen did the right thing in pardoning him.
DNA testing - by now familiar to anyone who has followed the sensational murder case against O.J. Simpson - showed that semen on a cotton-swab specimen taken from the rape victim had genetic characteristics different from Honaker's. The state confirmed the result, found by a private laboratory first hired by Honaker's advocates.
Even with the governor's decision, based on the entire case file and a recent State Police investigation, there remains plenty of debate about the certainty of DNA results. Ironically, one of Honaker's lawyers is on the Simpson defense team to dispute DNA evidence in that case.
Blood believed to have been that of the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was found by DNA profiling to match that of O.J. Simpson. Court argument centers on whether that evidence is admissible. Like Honaker, Simpson has steadfastly maintained his innocence.
Despite tremendous odds against an innocent person being wrongly implicated by DNA testing - FBI estimates put that chance at one in 10 million - several states have declared DNA testing unreliable.
That is difficult to understand, unless labs have shortcomings. DNA testing has ``implicated the guilty and exonerated the innocent in a way that was previously unthinkable,'' William Tucker writes in the November issue of The American Spectator.
Still, some defense attorneys argue that since scientists can't determine if DNA profiling is 99.99999 percent certain or 99.99999999 certain, it shouldn't be used at all. This in spite of the fact that other forms of forensic evidence long accepted in American courtrooms offer levels of certainty nowhere near as high, Tucker says. Blood-type identification, for example, offers a 90 percent verification - a one in 10 chance of error.
Certainly the criminal element is plenty afraid of DNA. Law-enforcement officials report that about 20 percent of rapists are using condoms in their attacks. This was thought to be because of concern about AIDS, but many now believe it is because of the threat of DNA ``fingerprinting.'' Prisoners maintaining their innocence, such as Honaker, are begging for the tests. Clearly, the folks with their freedom on the line have little doubt about the reliability of the tests.
The best thing about Mr. Honaker's release is that it upholds what he's said all along. According to the best scientific evidence available, he's innocent.
KEYWORDS: DNA
by CNB