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.
Yep.
Jim, you are letting feelings get in your way. Mike is a lot of things but insulting for insulting’s sake is not one of them. If you are offended, that reaction is the only thing you actually have control of. You’re not unskilled. Don’t get mad. Prove him wrong. But when you let feelings get in the way, it will only lead you to mistakes in tactics or strategy. Mike hasn’t given you the equivalent of the finger. He’s pointed out potential weaknesses that may have unsavory consequences for your ego – no one wants to be thought of as a loon loopy enough to compare Obama to Hitler (there’s plenty to criticize without putting on a tinfoil hat and making false comparison/association), but Mike’s characterization of your presentation is not without merit. Exposing bias of the opposition is perfectly fair tactically. So cowboy up, Jim. This is an entertaining exchange. Don’t walk away mad.
However, Jim Byrne, there is no need to disengage your arguments regarding the current exchange, of which I have no specific quarrel.
Mike Spindell is an able debater and he will not concede easily nor back off from a worthwhile debate.
Mike S.
You fail to recognize perspective:
From the middle, I can see both left and right. From the far left, you can only see to the right.
The two sites that you linked do nothing but bash conservative viewpoints. -Hardly a ringing endorsement of their so-called impartial analysis.
Tell us; on what issues do you consider your views to be more conservative than those held by the mainstream..and why? Just so you don’t think I’m asking you to do something that I would not: I’m absolutely 100% against the death penalty…and (if you read my comments on this Court decision..I disagreed with the majority.
“This is why you’re a tricky guy Jim. You brought Hitler, of all people, into the discussion from out of the blue twice. No context existed to bring Hitler into the discussion.”
As I told you before, I brought up Hitler to demonstrate how leaders have no power without loyal followers and a lack of corrective action from an apathetic citizenry. Just because two names appear in the same comment doesn’t mean the actions of one are automatically attributed to the other.
“At the same time one of the prevalent memes of many far right wingers is that President Obama is the new Hitler.”
Prejudice: (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
“I am not someone who immediately demonizes people who disagree with me because they have a different political agenda and there is much true conservatives have to offer in political commentary. However, in your case I believe that you do not engage in an honest exchange of ideas, as illustrated by your posts and I prefer not to waste my time playing with the terminally disingenuous.”
Mike, I had it with your insulting commentary. You’re an arogant …
“but CBS and NBC lean too far to the left to be considered conservative. –If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.”
Jim,
This gives lie to your stating you don’t have an agenda. There is no evidence that you have to offer that CBS and NBC lean too far left, if so prove it, while there is an abundance of evidence proving its bias towards the right.
See:
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.fair.org/
You make a false statement and rather than providing backup, you try to preclude argument by triangulating the views of those who would disagree with you. Sophisticated to be sure, but deceitful and disingenuous to be accurate.
“I never compared President Obama to Hitler. Nope; Nada; not even once.”
This is why you’re a tricky guy Jim. You brought Hitler, of all people, into the discussion from out of the blue twice. No context existed to bring Hitler into the discussion. At the same time one of the prevalent memes of many far right wingers is that President Obama is the new Hitler.
I am not someone who immediately demonizes people who disagree with me because they have a different political agenda and there is much true conservatives have to offer in political commentary. However, in your case I believe that you do not engage in an honest exchange of ideas, as illustrated by your posts and I prefer not to waste my time playing with the terminally disingenuous. There is a Rovian aroma emanating from your words.
Eniobob,
“And if that were true what is the motive for such a thing to happen?”
Perhaps the country was ready to be led by an obviously intelligent black man. I don’t find anything wrong with that.
The fact that he is black motivated a lot of African American and racially sensitive voters. Hence, the reason I think he was elected, in part, because of his race…rather than in spite of his race. –I think that’s a good thing.
Mike S.
You read WAY TOO MUCH into my comment. Your rant is all over the place. Please don’t assume I have an agenda; I do not.
1. My analysis of the media is not based on who owns the station, but their current programming and delivery. Face it, the mainstream media are whores. They go where they can make money. Currently, the money is made by promoting a liberal agenda.
2. Are you really trying to convince me that EVERYONE who supported Reagan is currently conservative? Do you really want us to believe that Walt Disney still controls ABC from the grave?
3. I never compared President Obama to Hitler. Nope; Nada; not even once. If anything, my comment would be closer to comparing G.W. Bush to Hitler…but I didn’t make that connection either. -You did that all by yourself.
4.“Hitler burned down the Reichstag” No he didn’t! He had
peoplesheeple do it for him. What I was pointing out is that no madman has any power without followers and general apathy of the citizenry.“Again the disguised allusion to our President and an ignorant one at that.” The only allusion is an illusion in your head.
I really think it’s time there was a power of recall on SCOTUS justices. And if such a power already exists and I’m unaware of it, it’s time the power was used.
Mr.Byrne:
“I’m still not sure if President Obama was elected because he is black…or in spite of being black. I think the former is more likely. -Not that there is anything wrong with that….That was just the sentiment that prevailed.”
I have heard a lot of spin since Mr.Obama has been President,But I have”Never” heard it in those terms.You must have really dug down deep for that one.And if that were true what is the motive for such a thing to happen? Media frenzy,you say. I don’t think so.
“I don’t think the 3 major networks are conservative. I think FOX is, but CBS and NBC lean too far to the left to be considered conservative. –If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.”
Jim Byrne,
Your statement regarding the 4 major networks is incorrect.
CBS is owned by Viacom a firm that regularly donates to conservative candidates and causes. Viacom is run by the conservative Redstone family. Previously owned by Westinghouse, with the same conservative bent. Prior to that was owned by Laurence Tisch who was a Republican bigwig and wanted CBS news to report to its Entertainment division.
NBC is owned by GE, the company that financially supported
Ronald Reagan, is one of the largest defense contractors and has been historically a place where conservative pols came for campaign donations.
ABC is owned by Disney. Its’ founder Walt was a far right winger and hater of Jews. It has since embraced Jews and gays, but in all other respects has remained a fount for money for conservative causes.
FOX we already agree on.
For a good, short article on this check the link below:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/why-media-ownership-matters
However, given your comment I must warn you it is a “left wing” source. Incidentally, my opinions don’t come from this but from the fact that the 3 major networks at the time, FOX
didn’t exist, of Reagan’s inaugural all changed ownership into conservative hands withing 6 to 12 months of his taking office.
“Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.”
I’ll give you this Jim, you are adept at sneaking in your agenda. What has Hitler to do with this save for the current faux-conservative/Republican tactic of comparing President Obama with Hitler? As a Jew I personally resent this. you may not like the President, but Hitler (along with Stalin) was an evil, madman bent on death and destruction. You may not like our current President, but the implication that he in any way compares to Hitler is exceedingly ignorant and vile.
“I don’t think the voters made an informed decision as much as they followed the media frenzy.”
GW Bush had a popularity rating of 29% going into this election. Why was that? I anticipate that you might answer that the media was against him, you know the “left wing” media as faux conservatives like to put it, but the truth is the media is not now, nor ever has been left wing. I’m in my 7th decade and have been watching TV and reading the papers since I was six. This “left wing” media meme is Republican propaganda and always has been. The evidence is there to see en masse, but why don’t you see for yourself, your ideas are too old and tiresome for me to try to show you.
The voters informed decision was to throw the Republicans out of office in droves, but the Republicans gutless deceivers that they are, need to pretend it was the public being fooled. You really seem to have contempt for the common people, would that you were as informed as many of them.
“I don’t think becoming sheeple was a conscious choice. I think the mainstream media lulled them into it.”
In this you are restating the point I made in my post, however, why do I suspect that your perspective is quite different than mine? Oh yeah:
“If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.”
Finally though you tip your well concealed hand with this, although you don’t write it too clearly:
“Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.”
Again the disguised allusion to our President and an ignorant one at that. Hitler was elected chancellor with 34% of the vote, the financial backing by Germany’s major industrialists (and some Americans like GW Bush’s grandfather) and the SA a group of armed street thugs numbering perhaps 100,000. He wasn’t by himself and most Germans didn’t at first want him.
And:
“Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.”
Hitler is being falsely blamed, his regime and WWII was the result of the German “sheeple?” I think not Jim. Hitler burned down the Reichstag (the German Congress building, so they couldn’t meet) and immediately grabbed dictatorial power. That at least sounds like a good comparison to GW Bush. The second part of blaming congress is just another Republican falsehood put in play because the People were smart enough to understand that the Republican game was to do nothing for them and everything for the “Haves” of this country.
You are crafty Jim, but unfortunately you are either ignorant of history, or don’t really care about lying to forward your agenda. Ignorance and/or deceitfulness are not appealing qualities.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/why-media-ownership-matters
AY:
Your opinion:
“As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, “There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it.”
We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to side with Alaska in this case — continuing the Bush administration’s opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing.
Thursday’s ruling will inevitably allow some innocent people to languish in prison without having the chance to definitively prove their innocence and with the state never being completely certain of their guilt.”
eniobob,
Any person should look at this way. The end result is you have no constitutional right to try to prove your innocence.
So if you are picked up,charged,tryed and sentenced?
You better have the best attorney money can buy or influence. After the conviction unless the STATE give you additional right the court is only obligated to give you minimal due process in exsistance at that time.
But the corally is no law(s) may be made to convict for a crime that was not in existence at the time that a person committed an unchargeable crime. Yeah right.
To All Who Are Interested In SCOTUS:
http://scotusscores.com/
Pretty package and informative data.
So as a layman looking at this.It says,you have no constitutional
right to try to prove your innocence?
So you are picked up,charged,tryed and sentenced?
Mike S.
I don’t think the voters made an informed decision as much as they followed the media frenzy.
The country was frustrated. They wanted change..and the person with the least baggage got elected.
Was Obama really the most qualified candidate we could find? I hope not.
I’m still not sure if President Obama was elected because he is black…or in spite of being black. I think the former is more likely. -Not that there is anything wrong with that….That was just the sentiment that prevailed.
I don’t think the 3 major networks are conservative. I think FOX is, but CBS and NBC lean too far to the left to be considered conservative. –If your political views are extremely liberal; I can see how the big three would all seem conservative.
I don’t think becoming sheeple was a conscious choice. I think the mainstream media lulled them into it. More importantly, both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the current state of affairs. Not enough people are willing to stand up and say NO MORE.
Hitler was just a man. By himself, he was nothing. He had no power until he had followers, and as long as he had sheeple..he had no one to say NO MORE.
Too many want to blame BUSH (like Hitler), but none of them are willing to recognize that they have no power unless great numbers go along with their decisions. –I put the blame on Congress.
We reap what we sow.
This Bush court decision is nothing more than a continuation of Bush policies and I am not so sure that Sotomayor will change that much. I agree with some here that the Supremes are not too interested into justice and finding out if this person is actually innocent. They are only concerned with making sure that the court is unencumbered with messy things like overturning improper convictions. What are we going to do about these unjust convictions? Don’t worry there is no constitutional guarantee of fairness, just a guarantee of a result that suits us. Sad. Will Congress take action to correct this unjust result? I am not holding my breath.
“The sheeple are their most effective weapon against us. Apathy is their strongest supporter. -and we all know there is plenty of that.”
Jim Byrne,
While I understand your sentiment and share a similar one, I must say that for me I hate the use of the term “sheeple” and all it connotes. The last 50 years in the US have seen an attack on education by some conservatives in alliance with Christian Fundamentalists. Solid teaching of history/civics has declined markedly. Television news has been purposely focused on celebrities, sports and stock market reports. Local TV news is awash in “if it bleeds, it leads” and at the same time both parents in the family are working harder and longer at jobs, which pay them less when compared to the living standard. The union movement has been decimated and the 3 main networks taken over by right wing corporations. Cop shows prevail along with staged reality shows and meaningful drama has fallen by the wayside. Reading is discouraged and pursuit of the trivial is encouraged.
The people are hardly sheep, but keeping them in ignorance has been part of the plan all along by an elite fighting to
maintain and expand its prerogatives. I don’t believe that most people are stupid, but their lives have been diminished
by overwork and lack of mental stimulation. Yet with all that going on this last year the majority got it right. (think what you will of President Obama but it is remarkable that “the sheeple” elected a black man, with a Muslim name and a father who remained in Africa despite his Harvard degree.
I don’t mean to attack you with this, but merely to point out to you that when we think ourselves above the mass of people because of our insights, we might well be failing to give them the credit they deserve. In the process we push them towards those who have theirs and our worst interests at heart.
Swarthmore mom 1, June 18, 2009 at 7:06 pm
E called and said she is doing well. She is doing out patient. I have called her everyday to make sure she knows I care.
It has been much better here – not so hostile. What do you think the common denominator is or isn’t?
I still can’t believe one of the posters accused me of being you.
Well Swartmore Mom, Some people have been trained to be gender and race neutral. They cannot see how Good looking I am with my mustache. They can’t see you and your inner and outer beauty. It is their loss. Not ours as we know the truth as we know it.
E called and said she is doing well. She is doing out patient.It has been much better here – not so hostile. I still can’t believe one of the posters accused me of being you.
Swartzmore Mom,
I know that the change I am speaking of. How are you this fine day. Have you noticed I have not felt the need to remove heads here lately? I wonder what is missing? I know I am taking on a better attitude.
How is E?
The GOP, shielding criminals one precedent at a time. Anytime you make a decision like this you make it easy to keep the innocent locked up while the guilty go free.