In a split 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. ruled that an individual cannot demanded access or testing to DNA material after his conviction becomes final in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (08-6).
In 1994, William Osborne was convicted of kidnapping, first-degree sexual assault and first-degree assault in Alaska. He was refused an opportunity to retest his DNA despite the fact that a less accurate and reliable test was used before this trial. He filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the decision deprived him of his rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws — relying specifically on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The majority opinion below states:
DNA evidence will undoubtedly lead to changes in the criminal justice system. It has done so already. The question is whether further change will primarily be made by legislative revision and judicial interpretation of the existing system, or whether the Federal Judiciary must leap ahead—revising (or even discarding) the system by creating a new constitutional right and taking over responsibility for refining it.
Federal courts should not presume that state criminal procedures will be inadequate to deal with technological
change. The criminal justice system has historically accommodated new types of evidence, and is a time-tested
means of carrying out society’s interest in convicting the guilty while respecting individual rights. That system,
like any human endeavor, cannot be perfect. DNA evidence shows that it has not been. But there is no basis for Osborne’s approach of assuming that because DNA has shown that these procedures are not flawless, DNA evidence must be treated as categorically outside the process, rather than within it. That is precisely what his §1983 suit seeks to do, and that is the contention we reject.
Roberts uses a classic “slippery slope” argument:
Establishing a freestanding right to access DNA evidence for testing would force us to act as policymakers, and our substantive-due-process rulemaking authority would not only have to cover the right of access but a myriad of other issues. We would soon have to decide if there is a constitutional obligation to preserve forensic evidence that might later be tested. Cf. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U. S. 51, 56–58 (1988). If so, for how long? Would it be different for different types of evidence? Would the State also have some obligation to gather such evidence in the first place? How much, and when? No doubt there would be a miscellany of other minor directives. See, e.g., Harvey v. Horan, 285 F. 3d 298, 300–301 (CA4 2002) (Wilkinson, C. rehearing).
Roberts expressly left the access to DNA as a legislative, not a constitutional, matter. Associate Samuel Alito wrote a concurrence with Anthony Kennedy that would have gone further to bar any claim for DNA being made as part of a civil rights lawsuit as opposed to a habeas case.
What is most striking is that this vote could have been 6-3 with the addition of Sonia Sotomayor, who has a very mixed record for civil libertarians, particularly in criminal and free speech cases. For a review of Sotomayor’s decisions click here.
Most states guarantee access but not Alaska. The current laws, however, are a patchwork of different standards. Alaska is one of only six states without any law guaranteeing such access and testing.
The opinion is below:
Opinion 08-6
For the oral argument in the case, click here.
At least Oliver got half of his inheritance. Cheer up
Drred,
I am so sorry that these type of asswipes run the rules and don’t want change unless the change is good for them. What they leave us with is nothing but the change.
I feel like Oliver.
This is bad law.
Form over substance.
Justice is just too much trouble for some judges to hassle with.
Indentured Servant 1, June 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
is this as straight forward as it seems?
Why is this a federal issue? If the other states allow DNA testing why dosent Alaska?
Why wouldnt Alaska allow the man a DNA test? Could he have appealed under a different arguement and what would that have been?
Is this a states rights issue but I would think an individual right would trump a states right?
*************************************
As Palin has proved all too often, you don’t need DNA Testing. It is a waste of money as there is only one. They have to utilize bite marks. Thats the best they can do. I understand that can be difficult. But not as difficult in Arkansas, as you need 32 people to have a full set of teeth. Oh well.
is this as straight forward as it seems?
Why is this a federal issue? If the other states allow DNA testing why dosent Alaska?
Why wouldnt Alaska allow the man a DNA test? Could he have appealed under a different arguement and what would that have been?
Is this a states rights issue but I would think an individual right would trump a states right?
The sheeple are their most effective weapon against us. Apathy is their strongest supporter. -and we all know there is plenty of that.
mespo,
You must be channeling the English.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8106590.stm
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
Those Nasty candy assed circle jerking asswipes. What they said is you have to have finality in a courts order and that the court speaks through its orders. And to make the order subject to changes additions and deletions no one will have respect for the court.
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmm. Let me think?
Did my respect for the court change. If the legislature wants to change it they can. But we are not. This is absolute BS.
With that reasoning. No Radar should be used as it is technology that was invented after the public safety became a question. Make the cops pace em. Heck can’t use a Datamaster anymore thats new technology.
Let me see, person on death row, new science comes about, shows that it it not this person. The DNA fingerprint is now decided between 2 people and it not you. But you had a substantial probability it was you at the conclusion of the trial. You are convicted.
I say let them all eat cake.
Get rid of your computers.
LottaKatz said; “Are they so willfully blind?”
The answer is YES.
Just like a parent defending their child…or a sister defending her brother. Many times they only see what they want to see.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” -Albert Einstein
The dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens is deserving of a standing ovation. -He called out the majority.
“Given these facts, the majority’s assertion that Osborne “attempt[ed] to sidestep state process” by failing “to use the process provided to him by the State” is unwarranted.”
“Roberts uses a classic “slippery slope” argument:
Establishing a freestanding right to access DNA evidence for testing would force us to act as policymakers, and our substantive-due-process rulemaking authority would not only have to cover the right of access but a myriad of other issues. We would soon have to decide if there is a constitutional obligation to preserve forensic evidence that might later be tested. Cf. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U. S. 51, 56–58 (1988). If so, for how long? Would it be different for different types of evidence? Would the State also have some obligation to gather such evidence in the first place? How much, and when? No doubt there would be a miscellany of other minor directives. See, e.g., Harvey v. Horan, 285 F. 3d 298, 300–301 (CA4 2002) (Wilkinson, C. rehearing). ”
***************
And another thing, we can’t have all these jury trials in criminal cases. Think of all the money we’d save by simple bench trials with people who’ve heard it all before. It will start a slippery slope towards real justice I tell you!! And the flood gates…why they will open wide and allow anyone–even those with weird surnames and funny accents–to actually be heard by their peers who sometimes might even be shamed into granting actual justice. It’s the end of the world as we know it, and we have no time for such foolishness as we are about the business of making money!!!
Michael C. Murawski,
As I’ve previously mentioned one might be able to discuss your points, if one could understand them. Are you being purposely obscure, or just generally have trouble making sense?
Who cares about actual innocence, we have form, don’t we? To Hell with substance!
MM, Dude, just say “No”
Our Courts, due to the actions of corrupt judges and prosecutorial misconduct, are playing defense. We must have a Judiciary that we can trust, and, by all appearances, they’re going to give us those courts…even if they need to prevent access to exculpatory evidence to do so.
I came across this tidbit from 2000:
Va Judge: Inmates Can Get DNA Test
““DNA testing is becoming so accurate that any intelligent judge is going to say, `If there’s any doubt, you should have a right to test.’ If they can prove your guilt, why can’t you prove your nonguilt?” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil liberties group that is not involved in the Harvey case.”
Jim Byrne:
“The Court appears to be more interested in preserving the “faith” in our legal system than ensuring anyone’s right to liberty. ”
Excellent posting. I’m struck by your statement above. You’re right but I wonder if it occurs to any of them that by doing so in this manner the achieve the opposite effect. Are they so willfully blind?
Mike S,
Well said.
“The court relied heavily on the fact that Osborne had confessed to some of his crimes in a 2004 application for parole—in which it is a crime to lie.”
The Court relies on Osborne’s parole hearing testimony as an admission of guilt. –Everyone knows that you must admit to the crime and express remorse (even if you are innocent) before parole will be considered.
“While acknowledging that Osborne’s prior confessions were “certainly relevant,” the court concluded that they did not “necessarily trum[p] . . . the right to obtain post-conviction access to evidence” in light of the “emerging reality of wrongful convictions based on false confessions.” Id., at 1140.”
The police found an axe handle in Osborne’s room. However, the police already had an axe handle found at the scene of the crime. Therefore, the axe handle in Osborne’s room is meaningless.
”The dilemma is how to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice. That task belongs primarily to the legislature.”
The Court appears to be more interested in preserving the “faith” in our legal system than ensuring anyone’s right to liberty. Forty-six states have found DNA access to be of such importance, that they enacted statutes to ensure access. It is reasonable to believe that 46 states would consider such access to be a constitutional right.
”The federal statute, for example, requires a sworn statement that the applicant is innocent.”
Again…this provision is two-pronged. If you want parole..you must admit to the crime..if you want DNA testing…you must proclaim your innocence. –Both must be considered to be coerced.
Osborne’s right to due process is not parallel to a trial right, but rather must be analyzed in light of the fact that he has already been found guilty at a fair trial, and has only a limited interest in post-conviction relief.”
Incomplete science..presented as evidence…cannot be considered to provide the result of a “fair trial”. In fact, it is just the opposite….It is tainted. While it may be accepted as fact during trial, further testing may demonstrate the weakness of such evidence.
”It is difficult to criticize the State’s procedures when Osborne has not invoked them. This is not to say that Osborne must exhaust state-law remedies.”
The Court is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The Court is definitely inferring that Osborne should have made such a request in the state courts.
Alito concurring: “I see no reason why a Brady claimant could not bypass the state courts and file a §1983 claim in federal court, contending that he has a due process right to search the State’s files for exculpatory evidence.”
Why not? It would seem reasonable that access to such should be made available via sunshine laws. Burdensome yes…
Certainly suited them in Bush v Gore.
The courts decision was a cop out that gave them cover for not wanting to deal with the equity of this issue. We have repeatedly seen the attempts of prosecution to ignore vital evidence that might lead to an undoing of a conviction and the embarrassment of having made a wrong choice. The sad fact is many officials are comfortable with allowing someone to die, or rot in prison, rather than admit their pre-suppositions may have been wrong. A majority of SCOTUS conveniently invokes the States and/or legislative rights formulations when it suits them and then forgets about it when they want to get a different result. i.e. Scalia and the 2000 election.
The guiding issue in all of these cases should be to fully ensure that the wrong person is not punished, just because LEO’s and Prosecutors can’t admit, even to themselves, that they might have been mistaken. The formulaic usage of such things as lawyer’s missing due dates, or the last appeal having been made, should never take precedence over ensuring that the correct conviction was made.
I really just hate this Court. Sotomayor, just what this country needs, another right of center judge. A pox on them all.