Thursday
Jun182009
No Constitutional Right to DNA Evidence, Supreme Court Rules
A convicted defendant has no constitutional right to access the state's DNA evidence, a divided Supreme Court ruled today.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that legislatures have the right to establish rules regarding access to DNA evidence, and indeed 46 states and the federal government have already done so. A balance must be sought between the value of DNA testing and the need for conditions on access, and such questions are best handled by the legislature, the Court held.
"There is no reason to suppose that federal courts' answers to those questions will be any better than those of state courts and legislatures, and good reason to suspect the opposite," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
The case arose from a 1993 conviction of William Osborne for kidnapping, assaulting and raping a prostitute in Anchorage, Alaska. Prosecutors had produced results from a DNA test that showed Osborne may have committed the crimes. However, under the DNA test in question, approximately 16% of black individuals would also be implicated. Osborne is black.
During the trial, Osborne's attorney declined the opportunity to perform DNA testing for tactical reasons. After being sentenced to a prison term of 26 years, Osborne sought access to the state's biological evidence in order to conduct more advanced DNA testing, at his own expense. Osborne argued that the Constitution's Due Process clause allowed him postconviction access to the evidence.
Acknowledging that DNA testing has "an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty," the Court nonetheless held that there was no such right of access in the Due Process clause. "There is no reason to constitutionalize the issue in this way," Roberts wrote.
Although Alaska is not one of the 46 states that has implemented specific procedures for access to the state's DNA evidence, Alaskan state courts are adapting existing discovery rules for that purpose, the Court said.
"We see nothing inadequate about the procedures Alaska has provided to vindicate its state right to postconviction relief in general," the Court wrote, "and nothing inadequate about how those procedures apply to those who seek access to DNA evidence."
Four justices dissented, criticizing as "arbitrary" the state's refusal to turn over its DNA evidence.
"The State of Alaska possesses physical evidence that, if tested, will conclusively establish whether [Osborne] committed rape and attempted murder. If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence. If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the dissent.
"I am convinced that Osborne has a constitutional right of access to the evidence he wishes to test."
The case was District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that legislatures have the right to establish rules regarding access to DNA evidence, and indeed 46 states and the federal government have already done so. A balance must be sought between the value of DNA testing and the need for conditions on access, and such questions are best handled by the legislature, the Court held.
"There is no reason to suppose that federal courts' answers to those questions will be any better than those of state courts and legislatures, and good reason to suspect the opposite," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
The case arose from a 1993 conviction of William Osborne for kidnapping, assaulting and raping a prostitute in Anchorage, Alaska. Prosecutors had produced results from a DNA test that showed Osborne may have committed the crimes. However, under the DNA test in question, approximately 16% of black individuals would also be implicated. Osborne is black.
During the trial, Osborne's attorney declined the opportunity to perform DNA testing for tactical reasons. After being sentenced to a prison term of 26 years, Osborne sought access to the state's biological evidence in order to conduct more advanced DNA testing, at his own expense. Osborne argued that the Constitution's Due Process clause allowed him postconviction access to the evidence.
Acknowledging that DNA testing has "an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty," the Court nonetheless held that there was no such right of access in the Due Process clause. "There is no reason to constitutionalize the issue in this way," Roberts wrote.
Although Alaska is not one of the 46 states that has implemented specific procedures for access to the state's DNA evidence, Alaskan state courts are adapting existing discovery rules for that purpose, the Court said.
"We see nothing inadequate about the procedures Alaska has provided to vindicate its state right to postconviction relief in general," the Court wrote, "and nothing inadequate about how those procedures apply to those who seek access to DNA evidence."
Four justices dissented, criticizing as "arbitrary" the state's refusal to turn over its DNA evidence.
"The State of Alaska possesses physical evidence that, if tested, will conclusively establish whether [Osborne] committed rape and attempted murder. If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence. If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the dissent.
"I am convinced that Osborne has a constitutional right of access to the evidence he wishes to test."
The case was District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne.
tagged 
DNA evidence, Roberts, Supreme Court, alaska, legal in News/Commentary, Supreme Court
DNA evidence, Roberts, Supreme Court, alaska, legal in News/Commentary, Supreme Court
Reader Comments (2)
If the state(Legislatures and courts ) are doing a fine job why do we need the federals ones? And it had to be the conservatives on to vote for denying of justice to the defendants.
This is a outrage but expected basic rights are gone and there is no one who is there to protect it no one even after being elected to do so. This is sad.