(1) Over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing has emerged as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene;

(2) Because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can, in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant. In other cases, DNA testing may not conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant probative value to a finder of fact;

(3) While DNA testing is increasingly commonplace in pretrial investigations today, it was not widely available in cases tried prior to 1994. Moreover, new forensic DNA testing procedures have made it possible to get results from minute samples that could not previously be tested, and to obtain more informative and accurate results than earlier forms of forensic DNA testing could produce. Consequently, in some cases convicted inmates have been exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests had failed to produce definitive results;

(4) Since DNA testing is often feasible on relevant biological material that is decades old, it can, in some circumstances, prove that a conviction that predated the development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual findings. Uniquely, DNA evidence showing innocence, produced decades after a conviction, provides a more reliable basis for establishing a correct verdict than any evidence proffered at the original trial. DNA testing, therefore, can and has resulted in the post-conviction exoneration of innocent men and women;

(5) In the past decade, there have been more than sixty-five post-conviction exonerations in the United States and Canada based upon DNA testing. At least eight individuals sentenced to death have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing, some of whom came within days of being executed;

(6) The advent of DNA testing raises serious concerns regarding the prevalence of wrongful convictions, especially wrongful convictions arising out of mistaken eyewitness identification testimony. According to a 1996 Department of Justice study entitled "Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies of Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations", in approximately twenty to thirty per cent of the cases referred for DNA testing, the results excluded the primary suspect. Without DNA testing, many of these individuals might have been wrongfully convicted;

(7) If biological material is not subjected to DNA testing in appropriate cases, there is a significant risk that persuasive evidence of innocence will not be detected and, accordingly, that innocent persons will be unconstitutionally incarcerated or executed;

(8) There is also a compelling need to ensure the preservation of biological material for post-conviction DNA testing. Since 1992, the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has received thousands of letters from inmates who claim that DNA testing could prove them innocent. In over seventy per cent of those cases in which DNA testing could have been dispositive of guilt or innocence if the biological material were available, the material had been destroyed or lost. In two-thirds of the cases in which the evidence was found, and DNA testing conducted, the results have exonerated the inmate; and

(9) In at least fourteen cases, post-conviction DNA testing that has exonerated a wrongly convicted person has also provided evidence leading to the apprehension of the actual perpetrator, thereby enhancing public safety. This would not have been possible if the biological evidence had been destroyed.

(a) Is related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment;

(b) Is in the actual or constructive possession of the State; and

(c) Was not previously subjected to deoxyribonucleic acid testing, or can be subjected to retesting with new deoxyribonucleic acid techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of more accurate and probative results.

(a) Shall dismiss the application; and

(b) In the case of an applicant who is not indigent, may assess the applicant for the cost of the testing, which shall be deposited to the credit of the deoxyribonucleic acid registry special fund.

(a) Order a hearing, notwithstanding any provision of law that would bar such a hearing; and

(b) Enter any order that serves the interests of justice, including an order:

(a) The State or county notifies any person who remains incarcerated in connection with the case, and any counsel of record or the public defender for the judicial district in which the judgment of conviction for the person was entered, of:

(b) No person makes an application under section 706-A(1) within ninety days of receiving notice under paragraph (a); and

(c) No other provision of law requires that the biological material be preserved."