We spoke with Olga Akselrod, who, with Barry Scheck, wrote the Innocence Project’s amicus brief in support of Marty’s appeal for a new trial. In response to the DA's brief opposing DNA testing, she said:
"Tellingly, the District Attorney never denies the substance of the Innocence Project's argument that false confessions can and do happen (indeed, false confessions were used to obtain over 25% of the convictions in cases where post-conviction DNA testing later proved the defendant's innocence) and that expert analysis of the 'confession' given by Martin Tankleff shows that it bears all of the hallmarks of a false confession. In addition, the District Attorney's argument that further DNA testing is not warranted because Mr. Tankleff should have asked for it earlier is both contrary to existing legal precedent and indefensible."
DNA has certainly proven to be a lifesaver in cases where there’s no other evidence of innocence, and you can judge for yourself who's acting afraid of what the results might be in this case, Marty or the DA. But it should be noted, in these "CSI"-obsessed times, that part of what distinguishes Marty's case is that he shouldn't need DNA to get a new trial. He just needs to present evidence deemed sufficient, by a panel of impartial judges, to have likely altered the jury's verdict had they heard it. We believe that threshold was reached long ago.