Wednesday, January 22, 2003
An attorney for Darryl Hunt wants a judge to order that DNA samples collected in the investigation of the murder 18 years ago of a Winston-Salem newspaper copy editor be compared with the state and federal DNA databases. It should be so ordered.
At the same time, however, it should be clear to everyone just what such a search might and might not reveal about the guilt or innocence of Hunt, convicted of the crime.
According to the attorney, Mark Rabil, semen was collected from the body of the victim. It did not belong to Darryl Hunt or either of two other men investigated at the time, Johnny Gray or Sammy Mitchell. Rabil says that he has been assured by the involved authorities that the sample has been properly preserved and the appropriate testing can be done.
But even Rabil does not go so far as to suggest that testing will prove Hunt's innocence and admits that finding a match in a database is no sure thing.
This case has dragged on, with Hunt's supporters insisting that Hunt is innocent, the victim of a botched investigation and a strong desire to close the case quickly. It is testimony to the fragility of the case against Hunt that he has already been through two trials. His conviction in the first trial was overturned. Hunt's conviction rests on a sandy foundation, with little evidence and witnesses who did not inspire confidence.
The most that the defense can hope to achieve by the request for DNA tests is to identify the person whose semen was found, to find that person alive and willing to talk. Perhaps that person will provide testimony that can be corroborated. That's a long shot, but not an impossibility.
There are 1.1 million DNA samples in the federal database, Rabil says. A 1994 law requires DNA samples to be taken from people convicted of any of 20 felonies, including felonies committed before 1994 for which those people were or are still incarcerated.
If a match is found belonging to someone willing to come forward, that will still not clear Hunt of the murder charge. The best that Hunt could hope for would be for yet another trial and the chance that a new jury would find enough reasonable doubt to reverse his conviction. All of which would be an expensive process with only a chance of freeing Hunt. Unfortunately, witnesses have died. The passage of 18 years has undoubtedly dimmed some memories and provided some excuses for memory lapses. This was never a cut-and-dried case.
But a human being's life hangs in the balance, figuratively if not literally. Innocence hasn't been proved, anymore than guilt has. But the criminal justice system relies on public trust to function. This case has not inspired such trust. In that light, the cost of DNA testing seems a small price to pay.