In Comparison
By Louis Murray

Two weeks ago the print media in Trinidad and Tobago reporting on a legal matter highlighted a scientific first. It was the first time in the history of the twin island republic that an accused was set free using DNA evidence. The accused had spent over four years languishing in detention, until during his court matter he was set free by a High Court Judge following the submission of exonerating DNA evidence from the office of the DPP. Testing was conducted at the Trinidad and Tobago Forensic Science Centre.
That development brought instant comments from the judge, a fellow jurist and the DPP. They all acknowledged and called for the greater reliance on scientific evidence to assist the triers of fact in the justice system. Internationally, this has for a while been well recognized especially as a number of conventional evidence information types have been increasingly scrutinized or have been failing within recent times.
The lawyer representing the accused indicated that the DNA evidence brought into question the identification parade process as both the victim and her relative positively identified the accused as the perpetrator of the alleged rape. The accused had always maintained his innocence. The High Court Judge described the case as precedent setting, while a fellow jurist was particularly pleased with the scientific evidence, noting the collapse of a murder trial in his court, some time previously. Justice is often perverted through the frailties of some other well known forms of evidence information types. Increasingly the justice system in Trinidad and Tobago is unfortunately failing due to such frailties.
Coincidentally last week, a St. Lucian newspaper also reported on the release of an accused at a murder hearing due to his exoneration through DNA evidence information supplied to the court. Testing was conducted at an overseas facility. Unfortunately though, our history making seems to have passed largely unnoticed. No mention of a legal first or comments by local court and legal personnel, at least none that I have heard or read about. I used the word “unfortunately” with good reason as there is little doubt that the court evidence situation in St. Lucia largely parallels that in Trinidad and Tobago.

Same types, same problems. Is it then that in our case that development was insignificant or unworthy of greater comment? Or is it that in our despair of our crime situation, people have become so intolerant that the release of an accused is deemed as some form of a disappointment? Remember, an accused is very innocent and all the way, up until proven guilty. Again the word “unfortunately” is very relevant especially since we are now looking and preparing ourselves for the establishment of an expanded and new forensic facility and it would be hoped that the awareness, recognition and demand for more scientific evidence would be well promoted by the players in the legal system.
Indeed when justice can be served in such dramatic fashion by the binding or exonerating of an accused to a crime by DNA or other scientific evidence, science demonstrates its practical effect. It is the responsibility of the courts to promote the search for truth. If that search can be assisted by science the whole justice system as well as society will benefit. If we hail the use of DNA to convict then we must similarly hail its use to acquit. Really, science doesn’t care one hoot about the conviction or release of an accused John Doe per se, but only which person(s) the physical evidence as played out, points to. Consider the tremendous importance of DNA evidence that noted American attorney and authority on DNA evidence, Barry Scheck has already indicated that in his view where an accused stands to lose his life on a criminal conviction DNA, if relevant, should constitute part of the evidence brought before the court.
However, in those two case situations a major challenge still remains for investigative law enforcement personnel both in Trinidad and Tobago and in St. Lucia for where DNA material has apparently served both of the accused well, it is still available for the identification of the real perpetrators of both of those criminal acts.
The seriousness of a criminal trial and especially where the death sentence is an option of punishment requires a maturity that the public do not regard the trial as a means to convict the person accused but instead to ascertain his/her innocence or guilt. Readers should bear in mind that at any time anyone of us can for one reason or another be accused and maybe charged for a criminal act we were innocent of. We too would then welcome the opportunity for science to speak not necessarily on our behalf but on behalf of the truth.