Originally posted by Mini D
Mistrials always give a slight upperhand to the defendant. There's a chance that without cooberating DNA evidence, the prosecuter may not even chose to re-try the case.
There are a couple of layers in place to determine if there was actually a mistrial, so it is a bit difficult to get there. But I'm pretty sure that any case where the DNA testing was actually presented as evidence or where the DNA testing was used to obtain a confession, there's a strong chance of a mistrial.
MiniD
the mere passage of time aids the defendant because witnesses disappear, etc and the prosecutor has the burden of proof.
I dont think that use of the DNA to get a confession will be enough for new trial, as the confession can be obtained by trickery and subterfuge, and actually that happens all the time (ok fess up, your co-defendant just spilled his guts and said you did it all, and I am wondering which one of you Im going to charge so tell me what happenned and I will go easy on you - or some similar scenario)
as long as there is some corroboration, the confession will probably stand. However, the appeals courts are going to have to say that the defendant was not prejudiced by admission of DNA if they are going to deny a new trial, and given the absolute certianty that DNA evidence is supposed to impart, that would be almost impossible imo. Not to say that it wont happen, especialy in the 4th circuit.
