Share

Supreme Court Rules DNA Tests for Prisoners Not a Constitutional Right

by: David G. Savage  |  The Los Angeles Times

photo
DNA data for a 1987 murder investigation. (Photo: Magnum Photos)

    Washington - The Supreme Court said today that DNA possesses a unique ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty, but the justices nonetheless ruled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files.

    In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative bloc agreed to stand back and allow states to work out the rules for new testing of old crime samples.

    Already, 47 states and the federal government have enacted laws or rules that allow prisoners under some circumstances to obtain DNA tests, the high court said.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the majority saw no need for "a freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access to this type of evidence." Upholding such a new right "would take the development of rules and procedures in this area of out of the hands of legislatures and state courts shaping policy in a focused manner and turn it over to federal courts," he said.

    While Roberts stressed the virtues of judicial restraint, the dissenters said the court was abdicating its duty to seek justice.

    Alaska does not give prisoners a right to obtain DNA testing, and William Osborne, a convicted rapist, belatedly sought testing of a semen sample. He and another man were accused of abducting a prostitute near Anchorage, beating her and leaving her nearly dead in the snow. She survived and identified Osborne as her attacker.

    His lawyer did not seek DNA testing during his trial, but he sued to obtain the tests after his conviction. He even offered to pay for the test.

    Osborne won in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost in the Supreme Court today.

    Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said Alaska has the evidence that "will conclusively establish" whether Osborne committed the rape.

    "If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence," Stevens wrote. "If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice."

    Stevens said the prisoner in this situation has a right to "test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all."

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined in dissent.

    Besides Alaska, only Massachusetts and Oklahoma have not decreed by law that at least some convicted inmates can obtain DNA testing.

    The Innocence Project in New York says 232 people have been freed from prison through DNA testing.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

What could it hurt to do the

What could it hurt to do the DNA testing? Is the Supreme Court against justice? It seems to me that everyone has a constitutional right to have all evidence analyzed.

And you get the normal

And you get the normal answers from the normal culprits... what's new? We need more humans on the Supreme Court. I think all major issues should be mandated at the Federal level. Some issues are too big to be decreed state by state. This is one of them.

How can we be so

How can we be so hateful? Guilty until proven innocent nowadays, I guess.

Roberts can't have the

Roberts can't have the courts being responsible, that just wouldn't do.

So now you have the truth

So now you have the truth that the Supreme Court is really not for true justice, but for seeing things their way, which is through a perverted lens of how some people are more equal than others. There is no fairness here, only the illusion of fairness.

If this doesn't demonstrate

If this doesn't demonstrate the importance of having Obama nominating judges such as Sotomayor instead of Bush/McCain/etc. nominating right-wing authoritarian thugs such as Scalia, Roberts, et al., I don't know what does.

This is an especially

This is an especially interesting ruling. It seems that we are seeing the Supreme Court heed to the recent state sovereignty movement and not allowing the federal government to get involved in powers that are clearly reserved by the States. Another thing worth noting is that Osborne won his case in the appeals circuit, so in order to contest that ruling further a State Official from Alaska had to appeal to the Supreme Court. This is more of a travesty on the part of the Alaskian police department and they not seeking justice then the Supreme Court. This case should have never had to go before them.

Ok- people of Alaska,

Ok- people of Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma do the right thing and lean on your governments until they they get their acts together. Consider this: ANYONE can get their buns tossed in the big house for life when innocent. You or anyone you love.

I think it is about time for

I think it is about time for a Constitutional amendment to set term limits for Supreme Court justices and the Chief Justice. 10 year terms would be sufficient to prevent continued political bias from controlling the courts.

In a 5-4 ruling, the

In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative bloc agreed to stand back and allow states to work out the rules for new testing of old crime samples. erreauk