And that is if you can do a DNA test on an old case that raises a reasonable probability that someone that somebody was wrongfully convicted or sentenced, then we take those cases. Limits of the Innocence Project Elisabeth Semel, director of the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Representation Project, said the Innocence Project is limited in what it can do. The problems with the criminal justice system are wide and deep, she said, including factors such as disparate treatment of minorities and inadequate legal representation. Further, in many instances DNA evidence has either been destroyed or is simply not available at the crime scene, she said. So people should not consider DNA a panacea, and inmates who are guilty should not mistakenly believe that somehow a DNA test could lead to their release, she said.
Innocence is kind of the hook into the heart of the American public.
The public has a gross misconception for whom DNA can provide the key to the cell door. It is important to make sure that DNA evidence is relevant to the case, explained Wendy Murphy, a Boston lawyer who heads the Victim Advocacy and Research Group and edits the journal Sexual Assault Report. Scheck frequently has said DNA results are important in identifying rapists or proving the innocence of those wrongly convicted of sex crimes, Murphy said. However, the presence of someone else's DNA in a woman does not mean that the man convicted of the crime is innocent, Murphy cautioned. We need not be blinded by the idea that DNA is conclusive on the question of guilt or innocence.