The United States Supreme Court refused to find a constitutional right of access to DNA evidence by convicted prisoners closing the door on a convicted rapist trying to prove his innocence with new DNA testing.
CNN reports that in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners cannot use a federal civil rights law to create a constitutional right to post-conviction access to DNA evidence for the purpose of proving their innocence.
Thursday's ruling came in the case of William Osborne who was convicted of rape in 1993 for the brutal attack on a prostitute in Alaska in which he and a co-defendant beat the woman with an ax handle, shot her in the head and dumped her body in a snowbank near the airport. Unbelievably, the victim survived and identified Osborne from a photo lineup. He was sentenced to 26 years behind bars, with five years suspended.
At his trial 16 years ago, initial state forensic testing on a condom and hairs found at the crime scene found the DNA consistent with Osborne's genetic profile, but that one in six African-Americans like Osborne might share a similar genetic profile.
Osborne's criminal defense attorney made a strategic decision not to pursue more sophisticated independent testing believing it might work against her client and that the 1 in 6 ratio were "very good numbers" to make an argument for mistaken identity.
Several years later, Osborne sought access to the state's DNA evidence to have a state-of-the-art test done arguing that under a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, he has a right to such evidence in the government's possession when making a "free-standing" claim of innocence. A federal appeals court agreed stating that Alaska was trying to "foreclose" on Osborne's possible innocence "by its simple refusal to open the evidence locker."
In ruling against Osborne, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing on behalf of the majority (comprised of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), said that inmates cannot use a federal civil rights law to press for advanced DNA testing that was unavailable at the time of the crime.
Justice Roberts went on to add that that states are "actively confronting" how to handle evolving DNA technology and increasing challenges by inmates. "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," he wrote. He said having courts take over this issue now would be wrong. "We are reluctant to enlist the federal judiciary in creating a new constitutional code of rules for handling DNA."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not the least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done in this case." Justice Stevens was backed by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
FYI: Osborne is represented by the Innocence Project which claims that DNA testing has exonerated 232 wrongly convicted people in the past two decades. That includes 17 men on death row.
Author's name: Gabriel Dorman
Author's e-mail: gabedorman@gmail.com
Author's blog URL: www.criminaldefenseduilawyer.com/blog/
Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.
