Title: Preservation Of Evidence - Innocence Project
Headings: Preservation Of Evidence
Preservation Of Evidence
Preserving DNA evidence preserves the ability to prove innocence.
Do all states require the preservation of crime scene evidence?
Has any federal guidance been provided to states and localities to properly preserve biological evidence?
Key Facts:
Not all states that require the preservation of evidence succeed in fulfilling their mission.
What are some common shortcomings in existing statutes?
What should be contained in a statute requiring the preservation of evidence?
Ideally, legislation requiring the preservation of evidence will include the following provisions:
Case in Point: Robin Lovitt – Virginia Death Row Inmate

Content: • Nearly every state with legislation calling for the preservation of evidence allows for its premature disposal. • By failing to provide a legal remedy when evidence is lost or destroyed, most states deny the innocent any legal recourse. What should be contained in a statute requiring the preservation of evidence? Elements of a meaningful preservation law, either as an amendment to a post-conviction DNA testing access statute, or as a separate bill, must include: • The preservation of all items of physical evidence relating to felony crimes, regardless of whether an individual files a petition for post-conviction DNA testing. • The retention of crime scene evidence that is associated with unsolved cases. • The retention of all items of physical evidence secured in connection with a felony for the period of time that any person remains incarcerated, on probation or parole, involved in civil litigation in connection with the case, or subject to registration as a sex offender. • Provisions enabling courts to determine the appropriate remedy when evidence is improperly destroyed. Ideally, legislation requiring the preservation of evidence will include the following provisions: • If biological evidence is destroyed, the court may vacate the conviction, grant a new trial, and instruct the new jury that the physical evidence in the case, which could have been subjected to DNA testing, was destroyed in violation of the law.