1). Arizona DNA Testing Statute(A.R.S. 13-4240)

Issue: Under Arizona's post-conviction DNA testing statute, which allows testing of previously untested evidence that could establish innocence, can the Scottsboro Boys challenge their convictions by seeking DNA analysis of physical evidence from their trials?

Rule: Under A.R.S. 13-4240, Section B, an individual convicted of a felony in Arizona may request post-conviction DNA testing of evidence related to their conviction if the following conditions are met:

• Reasonable Probability of Innocence: There must be a reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained from DNA testing.
• Preservation and Condition of Evidence: The evidence must still exist and be in a condition that allows DNA testing to be performed.
• Previous Testing: The evidence must not have been previously subjected to DNA testing or not subjected to the requested testing, and the new testing could resolve an issue that was not previously addressed.

Application: The Scottsboro Boys could potentially utilize Arizona's post-conviction DNA testing statute if preserved physical evidence from their original trial, such as rape kits, clothing, or hair samples, still exists and could be subjected to modern DNA testing. At the time of their convictions, DNA testing was not routinely used or available, so the evidence in their case may not have been tested for DNA, or it may have been tested with outdated methods that cannot compare to current advancements in forensic science.

If physical evidence related to the case is still available, the Scottsboro Boys could request that modern DNA testing be conducted to compare the samples to their DNA. For example, DNA from the victims' clothing, the crime scene, or other physical evidence may not match any of the Scottsboro Boys. If the DNA from the crime scene or the victims' clothing does not match any of the defendants, it could raise serious doubts about the validity of the convictions, potentially supporting claims of innocence and proving that the wrongful convictions were based on unreliable or inaccurate evidence.

Moreover, under this statute, the Scottsboro Boys would need to show that the DNA testing could address issues in the case that were not previously resolved. If any exculpatory DNA evidence existed but was not tested during the original trial, this could be pivotal in disproving the allegations and revealing the true perpetrator. This is particularly significant in light of the racial prejudice and flawed identification methods used during the original trial, which further strengthens the argument for the need to apply contemporary forensic techniques to reassess the case.

Conclusion: Under A.R.S. 13-4240, Section B, the Scottsboro Boys could request post-conviction DNA testing on evidence that was not tested at the time of their trial. If DNA testing reveals that they were not involved in the crime, this would provide crucial exonerating evidence, challenging the original convictions and potentially leading to their exoneration. The statute offers an important tool for the Scottsboro Boys to demonstrate their innocence, especially considering the historical context of their case, which involved racial bias and unreliable evidence. By utilizing modern forensic science, the Scottsboro Boys would have an opportunity for a fresh assessment of their case, highlighting the importance of justice reform and the ongoing pursuit of fairness in the criminal justice system.

2). Alabama Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statute(Ala. Code 15-18-200)

Issue: Under Alabama's post-conviction DNA testing statute for capital offenders, can the Scottsboro Boys challenge their convictions if preserved evidence from their trials may help establish their innocence?

Rule: Under Alabama Code 15-18-200, a convicted individual serving a sentence for a capital offense may apply for DNA testing if the following conditions are met:

• Availability and Preservation of Evidence: The specific evidence to be tested must still be available for testing.
• Testing Not Previously Performed: The evidence must not have been subjected to DNA testing during the original trial.
• Potential for Exculpatory Results: The DNA test could potentially provide exculpatory evidence, results that would demonstrate the factual innocence of the petitioner.
• Forensic DNA Testing Standards: The testing must use methods that are widely accepted in the forensic community and whose results are eligible for inclusion in the National DNA Index System (CODIS).

Application: The Scottsboro Boys could potentially use this statute if physical evidence such as hair, clothing, or other items from the original trial still exist and have not been tested for DNA. Since DNA testing was not available during their trial, they could argue that modern DNA testing could provide exculpatory evidence. If DNA evidence from the crime scene did not match any of the Scottsboro Boys, it could significantly weaken the prosecution's case and demonstrate their innocence.

For example, if DNA from the victim's clothing or physical evidence found at the scene is tested and the results exclude the Scottsboro Boys, it would strongly suggest that they were wrongfully convicted. The evidence must also meet the standards for forensic DNA testing, including being in a condition that allows for accurate and reliable results. The use of modern DNA testing may not only resolve issues that were previously unresolved due to the limitations of earlier testing methods but could provide crucial evidence supporting their claims of innocence.

Moreover, under the statute, the testing must not be sought for delaying justice. This is important because the statute also ensures that the testing is only ordered if it is believed to likely result in exculpatory evidence. If the results of the DNA testing are favorable, it could lead to post-conviction relief under Alabama's criminal procedure rules, potentially resulting in their exoneration.

Conclusion: Under Alabama Code 15-18-200, the Scottsboro Boys could request post-conviction DNA testing if preserved evidence from their trial is available and could be tested using modern DNA methods. If DNA testing exonerates them by proving they were not involved in the crime, it could provide a strong legal basis for overturning their convictions. This law provides an important opportunity for the Scottsboro Boys to challenge their convictions in light of new forensic techniques and could serve as a means for rectifying past wrongs, especially given the racial bias and injustice in their original trial. The use of post-conviction DNA testing is a vital tool in ensuring that individuals convicted of serious crimes are not unjustly imprisoned, and it helps maintain the integrity of the justice system.

Final Thoughts: Both the Arizona and Alabama post-conviction DNA testing statutes provide modern mechanisms through which the Scottsboro Boys could challenge their wrongful convictions. Arizona's statute (A.R.S. 13-4240) and Alabama's (Ala. Code 15-18-200) offer pathways for requesting DNA testing on evidence that was not examined at the time of their original trial, potentially uncovering new, exonerating evidence. If such evidence excludes them as perpetrators, it could lead to a reconsideration of their convictions and further solidify the role of forensic science in post-conviction relief.

These modern legal processes reflect how advancements in DNA testing have become vital tools for rectifying past injustices, particularly in cases where racial prejudice and unreliable evidence played a central role in convictions. By utilizing these statutes, the Scottsboro Boys may have had the opportunity to overturn their convictions, reinforcing the continued need for justice reform and the pursuit of fairness in the criminal justice system.