The advent of DNA comparison is the greatest thing to happen to the American criminal justice system since the right to be tried by a jury and the right to be defended by an attorney were established. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers was guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in 1791. Although the right to counsel in federal court was established at the same time by the same amendment, the right to counsel in state court was not recognized until nearly 172 years later in the case of Gideon vs. Wainright.

Clarence Earl Gideon was a man who went to prison for a crime he had not committed simply because he could not afford to hire a lawyer and he did not have the legal and oratory skills to compete with a trained prosecutor. The jury that had been guaranteed to Mr. Gideon by the Constitution found him guilty even though time would later show that he wasn't. Gideon appealed his conviction from prison based upon the ground that he had not been provided with an attorney.

That argument had been before the Supreme Court before on behalf of other defendants, but to no avail. Then, for the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court agreed and in a unanimous decision in 1963 reversed Mr. Gideon's conviction thus establishing from then on the right of an indigent defendant to be represented by an attorney. Mr. Gideon was granted a new trial and, with the help of a competent attorney, he was found not guilty.

I remember my first reading of Gideon vs. Wainright back when I was in law school. As an idealistic young law student, I had difficulty understanding how we had gone for so many years without grasping the importance and necessity of such a basic principle as a defendant's right to be represented by a lawyer. On the other hand, I felt proud to be an American and proud to be part of a legal system that is not stagnant, but is still evolving toward perfecting its role as seeker of truth and protector of individual rights as well as the rights of the community and society as a whole.

I am sure that Mr. Gideon was not the only innocent person convicted and sent to prison because he did not have an attorney. If the numbers could be known, they would probably be astounding. I am also sure that even with the guarantee of an attorney, innocent people are still found guilty somewhere in this country every day. Our system was not perfect when it was established and it is not perfect now, but it has always been the best and it continues to get better. One thing making it better today is DNA.

I first became familiar with the particulars of DNA comparison when I was a legal commentator for an Austin T.V. station during the O.J. Simpson trial. I learned from my research that DNA comparison was better than fingerprints and almost foolproof. I say almost foolproof because anytime people are involved in a process, you have the potential for mistake or tampering. That was made clear by the chain of custody problems that surfaced during the Simpson trial. If DNA comparison were foolproof, O.J. would have been convicted. He wasn't. However, if the chain of custody of the blood/body fluid evidence is meticulously protected and if the laboratory properly does its job, DNA comparison works.

When I was the District Attorney for McLennan County, DNA comparison was only a rumor of something that might be coming in the future, like cell phones, fax machines and personal computers. None of those things existed then. I even knew a few attorneys who still used carbon paper. Sometimes I forget how far we have come technologically in just the past twenty years.

During my tenure as DA, my office prosecuted numerous murder cases and sexual assault cases; so many that I would not be able to even venture a guess. Many of them were jury trials in which guilt or innocence was hotly contested. None of them were airtight. Nearly all of them would have benefited from DNA analysis, either to prove guilt or establish innocence.

Such was the situation with Calvin Washington and Joe Sidney Williams who were convicted of the murder of Juanita White in 1987. Although I did not personally prosecute the cases, they happened on my watch. Both of those cases have recently been overturned because of DNA analysis. At the time of their indictments, there was circumstantial evidence that Williams and Washington had been involved and a suspicion that a third person had also been involved. The cases were lacking in direct evidence except for human bite marks left on Juanita White's body. A forensic odentologist identified the bite marks as belonging to Joe Sidney Williams. Forensic odentology was widely accepted in criminal courts nationwide during the 1980's, but it has come under scrutiny since then because of a lack of standardization and consistency in the science.

If it had been possible to do DNA comparisons back then, we certainly would have done so. Faced with a negative DNA comparison as to Williams and Washington, I would never have authorized their indictments without first finding out who the mystery DNA belonged to and determining whether there was a connection between that individual and Williams and Washington. Unfortunately, science did not give us that option.

A decade and a half later, we now know that DNA recovered from the crime scene belonged to a man named Benny Carroll. Carroll committed suicide in 1990 and what he knew about the commission of the crime died with him. From what I recall about the case, I still believe that Williams and Washington may have been involved, but I agree with the decision of the trial judge and the present D.A. not to retry them. However, if Williams and Washington were not involved in the murder, then I am thankful they are out of prison and they have my heartfelt apologies for what they went through.

I wish I could have had a crystal ball, but I didn't. I wish that we could have done DNA comparison back then, but we couldn't. Mistakes are made. Sometimes the mistakes convict the wrong person and some times they let the guilty go free. Our system does not guarantee justice; it only guarantees a chance at it. But that chance is getting better because our system is not a stagnant one. It keeps evolving and getting better.

Civilization has come a long way since the instrumentalities of inquisition and torture. Modern times have brought us our system of trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to be represented by an attorney, the science of fingerprints and other significant forensic breakthroughs, and now DNA comparison.

Thanks to DNA comparison, it will be less likely in the future that an innocent person will be convicted of murder or sexual assault. I am thankful for that. It will also be less likely that the guilty will go free. I am thankful for that too.