State v. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-conviction Dna Testing

• Publication year: 2021

STATE V. CRUMPTON: HOW THEWASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT IMPROVED ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING

Jordan McCrite(fn*)

Abstract: Post-conviction DNA testing is a valuable tool for ensuring innocent people are not wrongfully incarcerated. Society has strong interests in confirming that available, yet previously untested, DNA evidence matches the person convicted. Access to post-conviction DNA testing, however, has been limited to maintain finality and avoid an over-burdened court system. This Note examines post-conviction DNA testing in Washington State, particularly after the 2014 Washington State Supreme Court decision, State v. Crumpton. In Crumpton, a majority of the Court-over a strongly worded dissent-read a favorable presumption into Washington's post-conviction DNA testing statute. The favorable presumption requires courts to presume the DNA test would be favorable to the petitioner, thus making it easier for convicted persons to access testing. Given the trend in other states, the astonishing number of exonerations, and the apparent falsity of the myth that DNA requests are over-burdening courts, Washington's interest in justice supports expanding access to post-conviction DNA testing.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine you are incarcerated, spending day after day in prison for a crime you did not commit. With each appeal, hope and fear fill your mind. Ronald Cotton felt this way when he learned, after spending eleven years in prison for a rape he did not commit, that a court granted his motion for post-conviction DNA testing.(fn1) Ronald describes the period between the motion and the DNA results as a waiting game, a time filled with nightmares: I don't know what I was more afraid of: the fact that this was my last shot at freedom and it could all backfire like it had before, or that it might work, and I would finally walk into the world again. . . . I didn't know how much more my nerves could take. I resolved to put the case out of my mind. There was nothing more I could do now.(fn2)

On the other hand, imagine you were the victim of a horrendous crime; you are trying to heal, and build a life outside of the pain inflicted upon you. As each court date approaches, you anticipate closure, only to find out there will be more court dates in your future. Jennifer Thompson-Cannino, the victim in Ronald Cotton's case, felt this way upon learning a court granted the man convicted of raping her post-conviction DNA testing.(fn3) Police asked Jennifer to give a sample of her blood for the laboratory to determine what DNA belonged to her and what belonged to her attacker.(fn4) Jennifer described how this felt: I couldn't believe how unfair it all was, that a twice-convicted rapist who was supposed to be sent away to die in prison could keep messing with my life. Weren't the two trials enough? There was a part of me that wanted to say, "Screw it, his lawyers are going to have to come with a search warrant before they get a drop of my blood." And this, I thought, looking out at our neatly mowed lawn and the tricycle parked by the garden, this is mine, and Ronald Cotton has no right to encroach on any of it. Still, the thought that this would go on any longer-that it would keep coming back into my life-was enough to make me agree. If this would finally make it go away, then I'd comply.(fn5)

These two perspectives illustrate the high stakes of post-conviction review and the very real impact it can have on people's lives. Although there are many different post-conviction review procedures and remedies, this Note focuses on post-conviction DNA testing. In particular, this Note analyzes the right to post-conviction DNA testing in Washington State under RCW 10.73.170, as the Washington State Supreme Court recently interpreted it in State v. Crumpton.(fn6)

In State v. Crumpton, a jury convicted Lindsey Crumpton of five counts of first degree rape and one count of residential burglary.(fn7) Eighteen years after his conviction, Crumpton sought post-conviction relief under RCW 10.73.170, which permits those in prison for a felony to seek DNA testing of evidence.(fn8) The trial court denied Crumpton's motion, and the court of appeals affirmed this denial.(fn9) After granting review, the Washington State Supreme Court held that in deciding whether to grant a motion for post-conviction DNA testing, a court should presume the DNA test results would be favorable to the petitioner.(fn10) Then, the court must determine if such favorable, exculpatory DNA results would demonstrate the petitioner's innocence on a more probable than not basis.(fn11)

This Note will examine the Crumpton decision and analyze why the Washington State Supreme Court was sharply divided. Part I will first explore the background of DNA testing and post-conviction DNA remedies under both Washington State and federal law. Part I will also discuss the Washington State Supreme Court cases on post-conviction DNA testing pre-Crumpton. Part II will detail the facts of Crumpton as well as the procedural background leading up to the Court's decision. Part III will describe the legal analysis of both the majority and dissenting opinions, and explore how the justices' analyses align with policy goals. Part IV will examine how intermediate appellate courts have applied Crumpton. Finally, Part V will evaluate the prudence of the favorable presumption established in Crumpton by comparing Washington State's approach to DNA testing to the interpretations of DNA statutes in other states.

I. UNDERSTANDING POST-CONVICTION DNA SCIENTIFICALLY AND LEGALLY

To understand the Washington State Supreme Court's holding in State v. Crumpton, this Note will first examine the scientific and legal background of post-conviction DNA testing. First, this Part will provide an overview of the science behind DNA testing, and how that science can be useful-and not useful-in the courtroom. Then, the statutory authority for post-conviction DNA testing in Washington State, as well as its federal counterpart, will be explored. Finally, this Part details the two primary Washington State Supreme Court decisions regarding post-conviction DNA before Crumpton-State v. Riofta(fn12) and State v. Thompson.(fn13)

A. Scientific and Legal Foundations of DNA Evidence Used in Post-Conviction Review

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a blueprint of an individual's genetic characteristics.(fn14) DNA can be anywhere.(fn15) The most commonly known sources of DNA evidence are blood, semen, hair, skin, and saliva; however, DNA can also be found on cigarette butts, bottles, clothing, or even a phone.(fn16) A "DNA match" occurs when a reference sample is compared with evidence and the DNA profiles are the same.(fn17) To make this comparison, first, a technician produces a DNA profile from a sample taken from the suspect-perhaps voluntarily or by court order.(fn18) Second, a technician produces a DNA profile from the biological evidence connected to the crime.(fn19) Finally, the technician compares the two samples' genotypes, and if there is a match, the technician determines the probability that a random person could have created the match.(fn20) This process produces an objective probability that the suspect was the source of the biological evidence from the crime "to an extremely high degree of confidence."(fn21)

It is tempting to assume that a DNA match between a piece of evidence and a suspect is determinative of that suspect's guilt.(fn22) Both prosecutors and defense attorneys assign DNA evidence such "mythic infallibility" as a forensic technique.(fn23) This myth has led to the idea that "DNA testing serves as a 'truth machine' that can definitively determine guilt or innocence beyond doubt."(fn24) But as the United States Supreme Court has recognized, "DNA testing alone does not always resolve a case;" where there is an explanation for the DNA result and enough incriminating evidence, DNA science alone will not prove innocence.(fn25) The utility of DNA evidence is far more complicated. As articulated by the National Institute of Justice: When an individual is excluded as the potential source of DNA, it does not necessarily mean the individual was not involved. For example, a true perpetrator who left no detectable biological material will be excluded as a source of DNA. Conversely, if an individual is a potential source of DNA at a crime scene, it does not necessarily mean that person was involved in the crime.(fn26)

Further, DNA tests do not always conclusively identify a particular person.(fn27) There may be inconclusive or uninterpretable results due to complications such as multiple contributors, contamination, or degradation of samples.(fn28) Complexities in DNA matching may increase more as scientific knowledge advances-for example, the increasing awareness of people with chimeric DNA.(fn29) Given the complexities of DNA evidence, the dilemma has become "how to harness DNA's power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."(fn30)

DNA testing in criminal trials in the United States began in the mid-1980s.(fn31) Usually, a petitioner obtains post-conviction testing through application under the law of the state of the conviction.(fn32) By the end of 2013, all fifty states had laws providing an avenue for post-conviction DNA testing,(fn33) but these statutes vary widely from state to state.(fn34) According to the National...