THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 28, 1994 TAG: 9408260244
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 61 lines
Friends and relatives of Joseph R. Holland Jr., a Suffolk man imprisoned 12 years ago for sodomy and attempted rape in Chesapeake, want us to help pay about $2,100 for testing that they believe could validate his claim of innocence.
The DNA testing, a relative newcomer of scientific-evidence examination in the criminal justice world, would be conducted at a private lab because Mr. Holland's supporters don't trust the legal system to see that the testing is conducted objectively - even if it granted permission for him to get the tests.
That's understandable. If Mr. Holland were innocent, it would be unreasonable for him to trust the system that put him behind bars. And it would be unconscionable for the system to keep him there.
Commonwealth's attorneys, the people who prosecute state charges such as those against Mr. Holland, often proclaim that it is no less their job to keep innocent suspects from jail than to put the guilty behind bars. Still, in a nation where the conviction rates of African Americans far exceed those of whites and where prison populations are overwhelmingly African-American, it's easy to see how the system could be viewed as the enemy.
DNA testing is expensive, but no commonwealth's attorney worthy of the title would reject it solely on that basis. DNA testing, which traces the genetic ``fingerprints'' of individuals, is becoming increasingly routine in certain cases. The cost is borne by state labs, not individual commonwealth's attorney's offices.
In the case of prison inmates, it usually is ordered after commonwealth's attorneys review records to determine whether DNA testing could change the verdict. As one commonwealth's attorney put it, he would seek testing even if his review gave 50/50 ratings to acquittal and conviction.
Despite the fears of Mr. Holland's boosters, state crime labs have no stake in results; science is science, and a positive or negative result doesn't mean a thing personally to test administrators.
As of last week, the Chesapeake commonwealth's attorney had seen no papers requesting DNA testing for Mr. Holland and raising other questions about the fairness of his trial.
The case was prosecuted by a former Chesapeake commonwealth's attorney, who convinced a judge of Mr. Holland's guilt despite a not-guilty plea.
Mr. Holland's supporters have enlisted the Suffolk NAACP and the New York-based ``Innocence Project,'' who have scheduled a fund-raising ``Justice for Joe Holland'' gospel concert Sept. 25 and have opened a bank account for donations to the DNA testing fund.
It's commendable that these allies support with work their belief in Mr. Holland's innocence, but their first steps should be within the legal system that some of them obviously distrust.
If Mr. Holland is innocent, as he and they say, he should be freed purely because he's innocent, not because his family and friends could raise enough money to pay for a test. Courts still operate on the principle of assumed innocence, proved guilt. MEMO: Comment? You may call Comment Line at any time: 446-2494. by CNB