DNA evidence bill is nearing final passage

A bill that would make it easier for someone convicted of a crime to get a new trial based on DNA evidence appears to be headed for passage by the Legislature, as the session comes to a close.

The bill received all but final approval in both the House and the Senate last week, with final votes expected to take place after the Legislature returns from its spring break. Gov. John Baldacci has pledged to sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.

The new law is expected to be most helpful to Dennis Dechaine, the Bowdoinham man who is serving a life sentence in the Maine State Prison after being convicted in 1989 for the murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry.

Dechaine says he is innocent and argues that male DNA from an unknown source that was found on Sarah's thumbnail proves it.

But Dechaine withdrew his motion for a new trial last year, after his lawyer said Maine's DNA standard was among the strictest in the country and all but impossible to meet. Rep. Ross Paradis, D- Frenchville, a Dechaine supporter, proposed drastically rewriting the 6-year-old law, which would give Maine one of the lowest barriers to getting a new trial. The bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee last month, however, made much more modest changes than Paradis suggested. Still, he considers it to be an improvement over existing law.

"It's not as strong as I would like, but it gives a decent shot to someone in that position to get justice," he said. "It might need some tweaking later."

Under current law, a person who is convicted of a crime and sentenced to 20 or more years in prison can request DNA testing of evidence. He or she can ask for a new trial based on the results of the test if the evidence proves that he is not the source of the DNA and only the person who committed the crime could be.

Critics of the law say that would require someone to prove his or her innocence, which is nearly impossible. Instead they prefer a standard used in many states in which a convicted person would only have to show that he would not have been found guilty if the DNA evidence had been introduced at trial.

The bill now before the Legislature uses that standard, calling for a new trial when, after reviewing all the evidence in a case, a judge concludes that the DNA evidence "would make it probable that a different verdict would result upon a new trial." The judge would make this determination using the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," which is a higher burden of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in civil cases. The new law could be used by anyone convicted of a felony that carries a potential punishment of a year or more in prison. This would make DNA appeals available to many more convicts than under the current law.

As proposed, the new law will place a two-year limit on applications for a new trial. People currently serving sentences would have until September 2008 to file a motion. Others would have two years from the date of their conviction.

Before the bill can receive final passage in the Senate, it will have to get the approval of the Appropriations Committee, because new trial motions will result in costs for the judicial system.

"There's just no telling" what the cost will be, said Ted Glessner, state court administrator. "You could have an avalanche of cases or none at all."

Glessner said the judicial branch notified the Legislature about the potential costs, but it does not oppose the legislation. He said after it becomes clear how many prisoners would take advantage of such a law, the judicial branch could come back to the Legislature for a funding increase. Not everyone supports the bill, however. Sen. Mary Black Andrews of York was one of nine Republican senators to vote against the measure when it came before the Senate on April 13.

"I felt the bill was geared for one person only, and I didn't like it," Andrews said, referring to Dechaine. She said she also was concerned that the bill worked its way through the system so quickly after Dechaine withdrew his petition in September.

"It was a rush job," she said. "I don't think enough time was put into it."