While Janet Reno was in Attorney General, she wrote the forward to an NIJ Study: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.

Its a remarkable study that highlights the use of DNA evidence to as Janet points out in her forward, not only identify the guilty, but to exonerate the innocent. One of the key findings of this study was that, of the DNA samples that were sent to the FBI crime lab for analysis, where a result could be obtained, that result cleared the suspect 25% of the time.

It is often noted that the false accusation rate it hard to quantify. This is one of the more direct pieces of evidence of what that rate is, and it argues for 1 in 4 accusations being false.

After she left office, she went onto serve on the board of the Innocence Project.

I quote her forward to the study below.

Rest in peace, Janet. You will be missed.

QUOTE OF JANET'S FORWARD FOLLOWS

Message from the Attorney General

Our system of criminal justice is best described as a search for the truth. Increasingly, the forensic use of DNA technology is an important ally in that search.

The development of DNA technology furthers the search for truth by helping police and prosecutors in the fight against violent crime. Through the use of DNA evidence, prosecutors are often able to conclusively establish the guilt of a defendant. Moreover, as some of the commentaries suggest, DNA evidence -- like fingerprint evidence -- offers prosecutors important new tools for the identification and apprehension of some of the most violent perpetrators, particularly in cases of sexual assault.

At the same time, DNA aids the search for truth by exonerating the innocent. The criminal justice system is not infallible, and this report documents cases in which the search for truth took a tortuous path. With the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity, who pleaded guilty, the individuals whose stories are told in the report were convicted after jury trials and were sentenced to long prison terms. They successfully challenged their convictions, using DNA tests on existing evidence. They had served, on average, 7 years in prison.

By highlighting the importance and utility of DNA evidence, this report presents challenges to the scientific and justice communities. Among the tasks ahead are the following: maintaining the highest standards for the collection and preservation of DNA evidence; ensuring that the DNA testing methodology meets rigorous scientific criteria for reliability and accuracy; and ensuring proficiency and credibility of forensic scientists so that their results and testimony are of the highest caliber and are capable of withstanding exacting scrutiny.

Meeting these scientific challenges requires continued support for research that contributes to the advancement of the forensic sciences. The research agenda must also enable criminal justice practitioners to understand and to make appropriate use of the rapidly advancing and increasingly available technology.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) commissioned this study to encourage discussion of the challenges to the scientific and justice communities presented by DNA evidence. The commentaries presented here -- authored by prominent experts from a variety of disciplines -- and the cases documented in the pages that follow, are testimony to the power and potential of DNA evidence. We hope that these commentaries and the NIJ report spur a broader debate about the value of DNA technology and the role of science in the criminal justice system's search for truth.

Janet Reno