rssSupreme Court Denies Prisoner Right to DNA Evidence
Friday, June 19, 2009 at 8:45 am
- 17 Comments
In yet another 5-4 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court denied a man imprisoned for a rape and attempted murder he says he didn’t commit the right to the DNA evidence that would prove his guilt or innocence.
Concluding that this is a matter for state legislatures, not the federal courts, to decide, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne that the Supreme Court is “reluctant to enlist the Federal Judiciary in creating a new constitutional code of rules for handling DNA.”
Even as the majority acknowledged the critical new role that DNA evidence can play in the criminal justice system — the test “has exonerated wrongly convicted people, and has confirmed the convictions of many others” — the court ruled that it’s still not, as the imprisoned defendant had claimed, a matter of due process rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, but rather a procedural matter for states to decide how they want to handle the evidence and interpret their statutes regarding post-conviction relief.
In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens — joined (again) by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter (in part) — wrote that the majority had misinterpreted both the facts and the law.
The “most elemental” of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause is “the interest in being free from physical detention by one’s own government,” Stevens wrote. Noting that “nearly all the States have now recognized some postconviction right to DNA evidence,” and that prosecutors are required to turn over exculpatory evidence, it is “appropriate to recognize a limited federal right to such evidence in cases where litigants are unfairly barred from obtaining relief in state court.” Given that the evidence would absolutely prove Osborne’s guilt or innocence, Stevens wrote, Alaska’s refusal to provide it was “arbitrary” and a denial of the federal constitutional right of due process.
Because the Supreme Court had long similarly refused to acknowledge a right to counsel for the indigent in criminal cases by saying it was a matter of state procedure rather than due process, the dissenting justices argued that it was time to recognize a limited right to DNA evidence.
“Osborne has demonstrated a constitutionally protected right to due process which the State of Alaska thus far has not vindicated and which this Court is both empowered and obliged to safeguard. On the record before us, there is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done inthis case.”
17 Comments
Pingback posted June 19, 2009 @ 11:06 am
[...] [...]
Pingback posted June 19, 2009 @ 11:20 am
[...] post by Google Inc. and software by Elliott Back Posted by America Subscribe to RSS [...]
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
It is hard to understand why the high court would fail to allow all forms of evidence. This seems wrong on a common sense basis
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
This ruling supports the concept that only you, and your state, has the right to decide the question of how to handle such evidence questions. This principle only causes concern to those who want a big federal government to determine their rights for them. If you want Government to decide these questions for you, you need a different form of government. There are plenty of other forms out there and many who are now trying to change ours. Do you want to decide, or do you want a Government that tells you what to decide?
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
He should have every right to DNA evidence that could possibly clear him or confirm that he is where he belongs…. I totally dis agree with the Supreme Court's finding in this case this should be a constitutional right.
Bob
Pingback posted June 19, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
[...] in Government, Law at 11:33 am by LeisureGuy This decision is hard (in my mind) to justify. Daphne Eviatar: In yet another 5-4 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court denied a man imprisoned for a rape and [...]
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court's final decision – this is a matter of legislation (“eluctant to enlist the Federal Judiciary in creating a new constitutional code of rules for handling DNA.”). States, for example, have different statute of limitations for crimes. Probably, each state's constitution should address prisoners' rights. Just imagine if the Supreme Court ruled otherwise? It would have set a precedent – all the prisoners would then have the right to “contest” why they were imprisoned and possibly put the burden on the states to produce proof of guilt that based on DNA evidence. Wh will shoulder the cost? How many times must can a prisoner claim innocence?
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
JAGUAR6CY, you just son't get it. Our Liberal Democracy was instituted by people to enshrine our rights. It is the reactionary conservative who cannot understand this.
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
It seems the Supreme Court has forgotten the ultimate resolution is JUSTICE. I do understand the Constitution mandates that anything not relegated to the Federal Government is automatically under the aegis of the STATES. However, absent an existent law in any State (In this case Alaska), then the cry for justice must be supported by the Federal procedure in handling DNA evidence in a Federal trial. The Supremes have ignored their responsibility to such a mandate. So, while the Supremes are ferried about D.C. in their limos and enjoying an evening at the Symphony, a possibly innocent man is locked away in a small cell trying to survive. Finally, let's ask the obvious question that brought this case to the attention of the Court. If the prosecution was so sure he was guilty, why did they refuse to allow the DNA evidence they had in their custody to be used to verify the man's guilt or innocence?
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
The people of Alaska should decide this question. That is all the Court is saying.
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
It is untinkable that any man or woman should be denied the right to ANY evidence that could clearly and definitavely prove them innocent. How can the proceedural integrety that the Justice sights be of more value than this citizen's life? What honorable reason could the prosecution have for spending so much time and money to whithold this option from Mr Osborne? What is in it for them?
One can't help but wonder, if this were the son of Govenor Palin (or any other powerful figure in Alaska) would the outcome have been the same? The five members of the Supreme Court that upheld the decision so tragic for Mr Osborne need to get out of their ivory towers and get with the times.
Comment posted June 19, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
I do think the Federal courts should allow at least a limited right to DNA evidence. Why imprison an innocent man if you don't have to? You would think they would want to say positively that their court made the right decision. I understand this may open up a line of prisoners asking for post-conviction DNA testing, but what's the harm in defending your innocence? My only question is why the test was not done initially?
http://www.newsy.com/videos/supreme_court_shoots_down_dna_appeal
Comment posted June 23, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
A democracy is a Liberal institution by definition as long as the people get to vote freely and fairly with all the votes counted.
Comment posted March 15, 2010 @ 3:47 am
This court is stacked with ultra reactionary members, so I guess that explains their unwillingness to give someone a chance to prove their innocence. It is frightening that they care so little for truth and fairness. What has happened to justice in the United States !
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
