Using DNA Evidence as a Modern Tool for Exonerating

How is DNA being used as a tool for exoneration?

---

Published March 16th, 2026

Written by Morgan Van Eperen

The use of forensic evidence in criminal cases has become a tactic that is now widely scrutinized. Legal teams have been using forensic evidence to prosecute individuals suspected of participating in a criminal act. Such tactics include fingerprints, bite marks and eyewitness identifications that are used as a persuasive basis ultimately structuring the prosecution's case. The United States Court system has an extensive history acknowledging the presence and accepting the use of forensic evidence in court cases. Frye v. The United States established the factors dictating courts allowance for the admissibility of scientific evidence, ruling the type of evidence being presented must have gained acceptance from scientists in the relevant field, according to EBSCO. With advancing research in the field and the need for stricter guidelines, the United States Courts created The Federal Rules of Evidence that dictates how courts understand and implement presented forensic evidence. 

In recent light, the emergence of DNA evidence as a tool to overturn wrongful convictions is becoming widely utilized. Beginning in 1982, DNA evidence became a resource used by organizations across the country to free those who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime based on forensic evidence, as found by the Innocence Project. Since the utilization of DNA evidence, 614 people have been exonerated, with 38 of those individuals being on death row. Even so, states are still reluctant to allow for DNA evidence based exoneration to occur. According to the Innocence Project, Alabama only allows for DNA evidence to be considered if the individual has not been convicted of a capital offense. Similarly, Kentucky has completely barred the ability to access DNA testing if the individual has pleaded guilty regardless of possible coercive tactics. One barrier to this legal path is limited access to DNA samples, becoming a constraining factor. As reported by the Innocence Project, less than 10% of cases have salvageable DNA evidence left behind. In cases where DNA is left behind in low amounts, DNA profiles are often a struggle to produce, according to the National Institute of Justice.

Taking into consideration the struggles of implementing access to DNA testing for all individuals convicted of a crime backed by forensic evidence, there is still a considerable push toward allowing such resources. The University of Arizona recently gained a $1.5 million dollar grant from the Department of Justice to continue its work on DNA evidence analysis. According to Congress, with the help of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and The National DNA Index System (NDIS), DNA profiles are available for law enforcement agencies across the country. 

James Pugh, a now 63 year old man who served 26 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, has experienced first hand what improving access to DNA evidence can mean. According to the Associated Press, Pugh was charged for the murder of 33 year old Deborah Meindl after being implicated in a false confession by his alleged accomplice Brian Lorenz. During the most recent ruling in the case, prosecutors moved to have all charges dropped as they admitted to having no found DNA evidence of Pugh and Lorenz at the scene of the crime. Using CODIS, the identity of the real killer, Richard Matt, was revealed as his DNA had been entered in the system during the booking process of another crime. Pugh’s case proves to be one of many examples of DNA evidence being used to exonerate a wrongfully convicted person. 

Organizations, such as the Innocence Project, strive to further the improvement of the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases. Introductions of new grants, newly formed federal and state statues and up-and-coming organizations are paving the way for new accessible DNA research. Proponents attest DNA evidence can be highly accredited as it is reliable and scientifically grounded. It has shown measurable impacts on proving innocence and has the ability to improve public confidence in the justice system ultimately exposing systematic weaknesses.

---