Supreme Court Says Convicts Have No Right To Test DNA

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence.

In a 5-4 vote, with the conservative justices in the majority, the court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions.

William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. A federal appeals court said he had a right to conduct the test.

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project, which works to free people who were wrongly convicted.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, said the states have moved quickly to grapple with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing.

"To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Roberts said.

The chief justice said that new technology that was not available at trial should not throw fairly won convictions into doubt. "The dilemma is how to harness DNA's power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice," he said.

Story continues below

advertisement

Dissenting liberal justices and advocates for prisoners who seek genetic testing complained that the court is penalizing a small group of inmates who lack access to a simple test that would conclusively show their innocence, or reaffirm their guilt.

"The fact that nearly all the states have now recognized some postconviction right to DNA evidence makes it more, not less, appropriate to recognize a limited federal right to such evidence in cases where litigants are unfairly barred from obtaining relief in state court," Justice John Paul Stevens said.

Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project who argued Osborne's case at the Supreme Court, said the ruling probably would not affect the vast majority of inmates seeking DNA testing.

But, Neufeld said, "There is no question that a small group of innocent people _ and it is a small group _ will languish in prison because they can't get access to the evidence."

The Obama administration, picking up the argument first made by the Bush administration, urged the court to reject the appeals court ruling and insist that inmates at least swear under oath to their innocence before being given access to the evidence. The federal DNA testing law has such a requirement.

In some states, laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess.

The woman in Alaska was raped, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near Anchorage International Airport. The condom that was found nearby was used in the assault, she said.

The woman, who is white, identified Osborne, who is black, as one of her attackers. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly incriminated him. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004.

In many exoneration cases, eyewitnesses picked out the wrong man, often with the victim of one race incorrectly identifying someone of a different color.

Osborne's lawyer passed up advanced DNA testing at the time of his trial, fearing it could conclusively link him to the crime. A less-refined test by the state showed that the semen did not belong to other suspects but could be from Osborne, as well as about 15 percent of all African-American men.

Osborne is awaiting sentencing on another conviction, a robbery he committed after his parole.

The case is District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 08-6.

Comments

[StJames]

After reading the headline I was prepared to criticize the supremes for this but after reading the article, I think perhaps they got it right. This is a State matter, not a Federal matter. This guy confessed to the crime...when he went before the parole board...either he's innocent or he's not . Also, he declined to have his DNA tested initially. So although I was initially sympathetic to his plight...I don't think it's deserved. If you're innocent you agree to a DNA test at the outset. You don't ask for it as a last ditch effort to get out of jail after admitting to the crime.

[TheBrimeCow]

From what I'm looking at, the ruling states that one does not have an absolute right to DNA testing after the trail has been concluded. While I disagree for policy reasons, I have trouble saying it was wrong on legal grounds. Even if you should get access to DNA doesn't mean you are entitled to that access under the constitution. Fourty-seven states have addressed this issue and allowed for access to these tests. I think the majority on the Court may have been right in not trying to create a federal right on a police powers issue that most states have developed (mostly) functional policies on.

While I wish the court had ruled differently, I unfortunately think they may have gotten it right and not interfered with a state procedural issue.

The thing that strikes me most about this case however is how incredibly stupid Innocence Project was for helping push this case to the Supreme Court. This guy was a terrible test case subject. He had already confessed at a previous juncture and was facing another conviction. This ruling creates a precedent in the Federal Courts that hurts the Innocence Project's cause and with a client like this and they had to know they were probably going to get that kind of a ruling. They should have found a case without all the messy "already confessed" issues. This was probably a strategic mistake for the Innocence Project, which is too bad, because they are a really good cause.

[PoliticalRockChick]

A while back I watched Oprah had a segment on confessions that were false. The police used false tactics to force someone to confess a crime they didn't commit. Like the tortute debates, many question if suspect are telling the truth or not. Now this man has DNA that might prove he's innocent and if DNA is there, Supreme Court should allow for testing. This is so morally wrong. For me I think the government, the state, court do not want to show that the justice system doesn't work for all. This is a black man and many black people have faced this kind of justice system where it's corrupt. I think this is flat out racist on the part of the Supreme Court, I doubt they would deny if this was a white man.

[kinnycut]

Another in a long line of bad decisions made by this Supreme Court.

[CaptainFrogbert]

Isn't the entire point of having a legal system that people who commit crimes are caught and punished and innocent people are not?

It appears the conservative majority of the Supreme Court feels that as long as anyone at all, who is not someone they know or like, or politically affiliated with them, goes to jail for every crime, that justice is served. Who cares if that person is actually guilty of the crime? Once they get convicted, they did it, facts and truth be damned!

[TJCole]

Scalia wrote once before, that absolute proof of innocence does not necessarily undo a guilty verdict by a jury...!

Our Supreme Court being infested with Federalist Society swine Tory usurpers, is capable of all and any number of immoral Medieval tyrannies..!

They seek Their style of "Justice" not Truth, they are not unlike Ciaphas in that way, especially Altio and Scalia..!

[edwcorey]

Federalist Society running dogs worship Alexander Hamilton. Here's hypocrisy for you: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard1.html

[Faux]

It's probably worth recognizing that the question here isn't whether at trial the defendant has access to a DNA check. The question is whether, after trial, state appeals, state habeus appeals, federal question appeals, and federal habeus appeals the convict can -then- get access to a DNA test.

DNA checks are expensive, and the number prisoners high. Many prisoners will request a DNA kit post-conviction and appeal even if they are guilty in the hopes that the police will screw something up or the results will come back inconclusive (these tests aren't perfect). Moreover, DNA evidence is only one factor in a trial. If DNA evidence is inconclusive or negative, does that necessarily outweigh the witness testimony? Does it outweigh the convenience store video? Or any other forensic evidence?

Those questions can only be answered by a jury, which means that we'll have to re-try a convict after a questionable DNA test. An awful lot of the time the result won't change, but sometimes it will.

So where does the cost/benefit break even? Trials are expensive (a friend of mine once suggested that run a federal court in LA it cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a day). Yet we don't want innocent people in jail. We cannot afford nor achieve perfect justice. But before you go ripping into the Court for deciding that due process doesn't require endless retrials, consider the implications of the position you're actually advocating.

[Roland Adams]

Where in the constitution does the cost/benefit break overrun the "right to a jury trial" and ones Miranda rights? You make sound like innocence is a priviledge and not a right!

[TheBrimeCow]

Given that this fellow was already arrested, mirandized, tried and convicted, the issues becomes whether or not the right to DNA test exists after the trial.

I'm not saying that it doesn't, but that it has nothing to do with a right to trial by jury and miranda rights.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Problem with having NAZIs sit on The Supreme Court. No concern for justice or the correct thing to do.

[rblackbird]

Another example where "bad cases make bad law." The lawyers who brought this case should have foreseen that the present S. Court would not be inclined to recognize a new constitutional right for their client now. He had admitted the crime, and his lawyers turned down advanced DNA testing before his trial, The defendant seemed to be gaming the system. This is not to say the Court's decision is correct; it isn't. But, this case has ruined the chances for those innocent defendants who are convicted in states where they have no statutory right to DNA testing after conviction. A defendant who had denied guilt and who had sought DNA testing consistently would have presented a more persuasive case and may have picked up the critical fifth vote.

[TheBrimeCow]

Exactly, these lawyers should have known better than to try and use this defendant to push their issue. Now people who might have been better test cases are going to get hosed.

Fanned.

[mayfly0]

I wonder if they were actually lawyers retained by him, or ones being paid by the state too represent people in criminal court, who could not afford one? If it was the latter, maybe they gave poor advice.

[Helloise]

Add this to the list of enraging decisions by the conservative majority on the Court. There is no logical reason not to use available technology that can definitively prove whether or not someone is guilty, as well as a host of other issues. For instance, what if there was a previously settled custody case involving a child where the mother had since come forward to claim that someone else was actually the father? , Would the Supreme Court deny either of those parents DNA tests, claiming that the previous ruling had been "sound".? I don't think so. This decision was the result of the punitive mindset of the conservative judges, who for all of their posturing about the Constitution, when it comes to criminal law, lean towards the assumption of guilt, not innocence. The bottom line is that if the case was sound and the accused is guilty, a DNA test would confirm the judgement. If not, an innocent man would walk free. How could that possibly be "wrong"?

[ezbreezer]

Repubs care little about using DNA to prove innocence since it won't work for their white collar crimes.

[Ravenback47]

This was a bad case from the beginning. The lower courts should have put a bullet in this case and not allowed it to reach the Supreme Court. Now other more worthy cases may suffer as a result of this ruling.

[SangZe]

Lock 'em up and throw the key away. That'll learn 'em.

[SammyD]

There must be more to this story as this appears to be so WRONG. Isn't this the same as withholding evidence?

[stop the politics]

The defendant (Osborne) did not want to use all the evidence. According to the article, at the trial, he refused to use DNA testing. There is no withholding or anything wrong on the part of the state. Osborne and his attorney may have seriously messed up though.

[NOOTPOSTSFORISREAL]

The decision sets precedent. It's not just about Osbourne.

[docallen001]

The Repubs on the court were concerned that the courts would be filled with innocent people brings their cases back into court. Can’t have the efficiencies of the legal system messed up. What a bunch of losers. What a miscarriage of justice.

[stop the politics]

Osborne refused to have DNA testing done at the time of trial. Another person involved in the rape and assault says that Osborne was involved in the rape and assault. Also, Osborne accurately described the assault during a parole hearing.

It looks to me that Osborne already had his chance to use DNA testing, refused to do it, and now is grasping at straws hoping somehow to confuse things so he can get out (or at least get out of prison and go to the court house).

[plaidsportcoat]

heystoopid - it's not about Osborne. The judges understand that it's about a P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E.
Do you understand that? No, you can only think as far as your own self.

[stop the politics]

Sorry, the case is actually about the person. Legal issues do get decided, but the facts (whether they are good facts or bad facts make the case). Ever hear the saying that bad cases make bad law? That is because the facts are bad so the decision is bad. Maybe you should go to law school (or re-go if you have been there before) and learn about facts and the legal process.