DNA Tests Could Clear an Executed Man. Why a Judge Said No.

Ellie Dessart

Mr. Ippolito

Forensics C Odd

10 February 2020

Current Event 15

Citation:

Dwyer, Jim. “DNA Tests Could Clear an Executed Man. Why a Judge Said No.”

The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2019,

www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/dna-testing-sedley-alley.html?

searchResultPosition=20 .

In 2006, Sedley Alley was executed for the 1985 murder of nineteen-year-old Lance Corporal Suzanne Collins. However, none of the evidence in the case was subject to DNA testing at the time, and now, Alley’s daughter April is hoping to find some answers. Her father, who had been an alcoholic and drug addict, couldn’t remember whether or not he had committed the crime. His conviction was largely based on a statement implicating himself in the murder, although it was discovered that “many of the details he provided were inaccurate.” Further, there was “no physical evidence that directly linked him to the crime.” The request to mount an insanity defense was rejected at the time, and when modern DNA techniques became available in 2006, April Alley’s request for evidence to be tested was also declined. This past year, April, as the newly-named executor of her father’s estate, attempted to seek the DNA tests again. Unfortunately, Shelby County judge Paula Skahan ruled that “Ms. Alley did not have a right under current Tennessee law and court rules to seek the DNA tests” simply because “state laws governing DNA tests after conviction did not explicitly permit an estate to ask for them.” Now, the Alley family’s last hope rests on an impending decision from the State Supreme Court or the State Legislature.

This article delves into the complex relationship between written law, ethics, and science. This case reminds me of the story of Doctor Sam Sheppard, which we recently learned about in class. Despite the scant physical evidence that linked Sedley Alley to the crime, along with indications that he may have had a personality disorder, investigators pushed to have him convicted. It’s upsetting to see how these hasty decisions can take away another person’s life, someone who may have been innocent. If there’s reason to believe an individual may not be guilty, wouldn’t taking the time to re-examine the evidence be the ethical thing to do-- for the sake of both the suspect and the victim? In order to bring justice, we need to seek truth, not convenience. Further, Judge Skahan’s decision to deny April’s requests for the DNA tests highlights a flaw in our justice system. If something isn’t explicitly addressed in written law, should it be downright rejected? Finally, the article speaks to our growing technological sophistication. It’s fascinating to see how DNA technology has evolved over time, and it’s difficult for us now to imagine a time where such tests didn’t exist. We’re lucky to have the modern DNA techniques we have today, but back in 1985, it must have been challenging to place suspects at a crime scene without those advancements. 

Overall, I enjoyed the article. Firstly, unlike many past New York Times posts I’ve read, this piece was concise and kept me engaged. Beginning with the first line, the author grabbed my attention by noting how “the evidence in his [Sedley’s] case remains sitting on shelves in a clerk’s office” despite his execution over thirteen years ago. Right from the start, we wonder why this is the case and feel compelled to keep reading. Additionally, the article effectively reached us on an emotional level, as we could feel April’s frustration in her denied requests to have the DNA tests performed in 2005 and again almost two decades later. Moreover, the piece ends with a quote from Josie Scarlett Holland, a lawyer representing April, that leaves a lasting impact on readers, “The science is there— why not get the truth?” This question forces us to think critically about our justice system and consider the extent to which we value written law, especially when it conflicts with our pursuit of the truth. However, this article did fall short on some aspects. Firstly, I wish the author had explained the background of the case more. Why were investigators so confident that Sedley murdered Suzanne? What evidence did they have that somewhat tied him to the crime? Secondly, the author could have described what the “estate [of a person]” is and the rights one has. This would help us better understand the complexity of the case on a legal level. Finally, the piece’s structure felt disorganized. It was hard to follow the sequence of events because the author went back and forth between the first trial in 2005 and the most recent court ruling in a choppy manner. I’d recommend telling the story from the start and slowly building up to the latest news so we can journey with April on her quest for answers.