Tennessee § 40-30-404 Court order if probable that exculpatory results would not have resulted in prosecution or conviction

Tennessee Statutes

§ 40-30-404 — Court order if probable that exculpatory results would not have resulted in prosecution or conviction

Tennessee § 40-30-404

Title40

This text of Tennessee § 40-30-404 (Court order if probable that exculpatory results would not have resulted in prosecution or conviction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-404 (2026).

Text

After notice to the prosecution and an opportunity to respond, the court shall order fingerprint analysis if the court finds that:

(1)A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis;

(2)The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis may be conducted;

(3)The evidence was never previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not subjected to the analysis that is being requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis, or was previously subjected to analysis and the person making the motion under this part requests analysis that uses a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

After notice to the prosecution and an opportunity to respond, the court shall order fingerprint analysis if the court finds that: (1) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through fingerprint analysis; (2) The evidence is still in existence and in such a condition that fingerprint analysis may be conducted; (3) The evidence was never previously subjected to fingerprint analysis, was not subjected to the analysis that is being requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis, or was previously subjected to analysis and the person making the motion under this part requests analysis that uses a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior analysis; and (4) The application for analysis is made for the purpose of demonstrating innocence and not to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.