No Constitutional Right to DNA Evidence for Criminals
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that convicted criminals do not have a constitutional right to possibly exculpatory DNA evidence. The Court decided District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne by a 5 - 4 margin. SCOTUSblog reports Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion:
The task of writing rules to control access to DNA evidence “belongs primarily” to the legislature, the Chief Justice wrote. Pursuing a “freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access” to DNA evidence through a civil rights lawsuit, Roberts wrote, would “short-circuit” efforts now being made by the federal government and many states to develop tools on access to such evidence. “There is no reason to constitutionalize” access through the courts when elected officials are making “a prompt and considered” response to the DNA phenomenon, the opinion concluded.
Anthony Zuiker is going to be pissed off. CSI: Rikers Island is going to have to go back to the drawing board.
The dissent after the jump.
Justice Stevens — a man’s whose un-dead DNA should be studied by scientists — wrote the dissent. The Wall Street Journal reports:
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. “The court today blesses the state’s arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks,” Mr. Stevens said.
But it really seems like this whole case could have been avoided by some better lawyering on the part of Osborne’s attorney:
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, the woman said.The woman identified Mr. Osborne as one of her attackers. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly incriminated him. Mr. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004.
Mr. 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 didn’t belong to other suspects, but could be from Mr. Osborne, as well as about 15% of all African-American men.
Here’s tip to defense lawyers: get the DNA test. Don’t take my word for it, take a look at what Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy wrote:
In an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also said that, if a defense lawyer fails to seek DNA testing during trial, and does so for tactical reasons, there is no constitutional right to seek access following conviction.
Use your DNA or lose it.
Court rejects DNA access claim [SCOTUSblog]
Court Rules Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA [WSJ]
(46) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
FIRSTY FIRST
She blinded me with SCIENCE!
"use it or lose it" makes sense
You need DNA evidence because you can't really dust for vomit.
Ricky Schroeder did have a beard.
I regret to inform this forum that one of my prized Afghan hounds, Algernon, passed away this morning. He was 10 years old. I am in mourning and will not be posting any comments for the next few days. This is a terrible personal setback.
If the Court wants to leave it up to the legislature, and the Court is the decider of whether such legislation is in fact constitutional, won't we just end up back here again?
Be sure to leave him flowers.
Well 7 wouldn't the Consitutional question then be whether the legislature had the power to make the law, as opposed to "legislating from the bench?"
PE is clearly at a non-peer firm. Everyone knows that Russian Borzois p0wn Afghan Hounds 10 times out of 10.
PE, you should make your erstwhile pet's coat into a Pashmina. Make sure it's nautical-themed.
Liberals ask the courts to make law because they know the People wouldn't allow such policy to be created in Congress.
Liberals are sneaky little fascists.
Grrr!!! Libberrraallllsss!!!!!
SCOTUS also ruled against an ADEA paintiff today
12--do you actually know the definition of the word fascist, or do you just freely throw it around all the time like a douche?
yeah I'm gonna have to agree with 15. "fascism" is basically tyranny, the limiting or elimination of ideas and people with whom you disagree, usually in the form of a totalitarian government that runs every aspect of society.
If you're going to use that broad of a definition, YOU would count as a fascist as long as you are trying to limit the voice of your opposition. So, ironically, most people who liberally throw around the term "fascist" to insult, belittle, or shut down the conversation with their opponents (usually because they are not intelligent / well-informed enough to actually make a good point), are actually being fascist in their own right. Prime example would be basically anyone who makes a living being a pundit on a cable tv network, i.e. Bill O'Reilly / Keith Olbermann.
dna tests and anal bleaching for all!
@16 - I agree, but you're wasting your time with posters like 12.
The denial of potentially exculpatory evidence is shameful. Under any circumstances. The resources of the criminal defendant are scarce enough as it is, as compared to that of the State. Roberts is a disgrace.
A Wise Latina certainly would have come up with a better decision here.
I totally disagree with the criticism of this lawyer's strategy. When you client confesses, under oath, to the crime and is identified by several eyewitnesses, the competent and zealous thing to do is avoid DNA testing at all costs.
I think ever person in prison has a Constitutional right to be released immediately. Why? Because we all know that courts and juries are not 100% correct 100% of the time, which means there's at least a one-tenth of one percent chance that any given person is prison might possibly be not guilty under the appropriate rules of evidence and substantive law.
"But it really seems like this whole case could have been avoided by some better lawyering on the part of Osborne's attorney."
I assume you're being sarcastic? If they had run the more sophisticated DNA test before trial, counsel would have been risking results indicating a match even with the more sophisticated test. That would have killed his defense; it would have made it impossible to argue that the state's evidence wasn't conclusive enough because they didn't do the more sophisticated test even though it could have done so. Counsel would have been betting the entire case on the result of the DNA test. (Remember, Osborne subsequently confessed under oath -- more than once -- to being guilty in an attempt to get parole.) You think it was crazy for defense counsel to have tried to sow doubt in the jurors' mind on the basis of absence of more sophisticated DNA testing rather than demand the testing and have your client be dead to rights if the test results are positive?
7 - I think you got it right. On the Brady issue, it looks like the court said it's not Brady, but we won't tell you what it is. Go get the State to deny your claim, and then we'll have a look at whether it violates post-conviction due process.
11-
That is potentially dangerous advice. I do not want to read about PE's sexual encounter with a mermaid, or his ride on a dolphin, doin' flips n' sh*t.
"The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence."
(Quoting the WSJ article cited at the bottom of this AboveTheLaw article.)
12 = 21. Look up "beyond a reasonable doubt" while you're looking up "fascist," moron. Nobody is arguing what you wrote.
26 -
Look up sarcasm, idiot.
24- lol
Im flippin' burgers, you at Kinko's straight flippin' copies.
Dear editor,
15 and 16 are facists. Please moderate.
Sincerely,
Guest
I don't have a constitutional right to something b/c elected officials are thinking about that something and they might give it to me anyway. So I should first wait to see if someone might give me something I'm already entitled to. I mean, it's not like I should be in a rush or something, i.e., I'm rotting away in jail.
facist, n. - one who discriminates on the basis of facial appearance.
I was appalled at the ruling (and I usually think criminal appeals to create new constitutional rights are a waste of judicial resources fyi) until I found out that the moron didn't do the test then I was ok with it. . . . what about an ineffective counsel motion? And disbarring the idiot lawyer for being "dummer dan a bag o'hammers!"
32,
He already lost his ineffective assistance petition because it was determined to be a reasonable strategic decision (his defense atty felt the test would do more harm than good and preferred to argue a mistaken identity case based on the more generic test).
Or, as 28 might have put it, the Supreme Court simply informed Osborne that this ain't SeaWorld, this as real as it gets.
33-
Didn't know that, didn't have time to do all the reading. . . .Still think the lawyer should be disbarred for being stupid. If the guy said he didn't do it and the DNA evidence really would set him free than why not get the test before the trial? If he did it, then the lawyer did his best effort and this suit is a waste of judicial resources and he should be disbarred for wasting my tax dollars.
-32
ATL bores me today, no hookers or crazy support staff. . . .hmmm maybe time to start Miller Time
Alito got it right as usual. Criminal defense lawyers shouldn't be encouraged to reject DNA testing of their clients until after they know how the jury will decide without that information.
Liberals are indeed fascists.
32/34,
Well, from reading the opinion it seems the defense attorney was pretty well convinced of her client's guilt and preferred to roll the dice with a tenuous photo ID and the testimony of the co-defendant (who the prosecutors had dead to rights b/c they found the gun in his car) as the only real case against Osborne. Hard to say she should be disbarred for that.
As to this suit, it is mostly a crock of crap - there's a real danger of 'gaming the system' that the majority points out and that seems to be what's going on here. Still, Stevens makes a good point that Alaska hasn't lived up to its own statutory guarantees regarding post-conviction relief. The test doesn't cost much, the state still has the DNA evidence, just do the test and be done with it.
-33
The accused might want to look at RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS (1981) § 90.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Modern but not classical liberals are utopians. Utopians want to change nature's iron laws - especially those relating to human nature. They usually start out as socialists but may also be social conservatives.
Eventually their airy fairy ideas run smack into reality. When that happens they begin to seize, enhance and then deploy the powers of the state to coerce people into behaving in such a fashion as to bring about utopia. As people continue to behave as people rather than automatons the do-gooders become more and more convinced that the only way to bring about utopia/the second coming, is to override the will of the dimwitted ordinary citizen. That's when they become fascists.
Not all fascists progress to the Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc phase. But they remain fascists nonetheless as they constantly seek to impose their will on an unwilling populace. Justice Stevens is thus a fascist.
33-
Ok riddle me this then. . . .If he's guilty and this will prove it why sue in the first place for the test that will make sure he serves full time? If he didn't do it why not have the test done in the first place? My brain is fried today (beer last night started too early ended too late) to get around the illogic of this.
32/34
The accused might want to look at RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS (1981) § 90.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
32/34,
The reasoning is this - prior to his trial and conviction, if he is guilty and both he and his lawyer know it, there is nothing to be gained by taking the most accurate DNA test. It will only dig him into a deeper hole. Rationally, the attorney might decide to roll the dice on the mistaken identity spiel while foregoing the DNA test hoping to sow enough reasonable doubt to earn an acquittal.
Now, having been convicted, Osborne has nothing to lose. Having the DNA test confirm his guilt won't change anything, and it's not like his name will be any further sullied than it already has been. Now, however, 16 years after the crime, there is a better chance that the test might exonerate him, even if he is in fact guilty. DNA samples degrade and are easily contaminated, especially in terms of the sensitivity of the particular test he requested the state to perform.
All of this, of course, only makes sense on the assumption that he is guilty. Had he been innocent, he should have insisted on the test at the time of trial.
32/34,
Perhaps a simpler answer to your question is that, at the time he filed this suit that made it up to SCOTUS, he had already been denied discretionary parole and would have served the whole time (minus statute-mandated 'good time' parole) regardless. At this point, in fact, I think he's out on parole already.
Moreover, under the federal statute -- and any state statute with materially similar terms -- the defendant would have to assert under penalty of perjury that he/she is actually innocent and is not just rolling the dice or trying to yank the system's chain, unlike in this case in which Osborne simply said that he "always maintained his innocence" (except when he didn't) and suggested that DNA testing would confirm his "innocence or guilt." Under the federal statute, if the DNA test came back a match for his DNA, he would be subject to a perjury prosecution for lying under oath; in case of conviction, the court would be required to tack on at least three more years to his sentence (and the Bureau of Prisons would also be entitled to revoke some or all of his good-conduct credits).
Whereas in a regime with no defined rules except those that a particular federal judge decides to impose (including no requirement that the defendant assert under penalty of perjury that he is actually innocent and understands that he will be subject to perjury prosecution if the test results come back a match) . . . why not just roll the dice and seek testing even if you know perfectly well that you're guilty?
Moreover, under the federal statute -- and any state statute with materially similar terms -- the defendant would have to assert under penalty of perjury that he/she is actually innocent and is not just rolling the dice or trying to yank the system's chain, unlike in this case in which Osborne simply said that he "always maintained his innocence" (except when he didn't) and suggested that DNA testing would confirm his "innocence or guilt." Under the federal statute, if the DNA test came back a match for his DNA, he would be subject to a perjury prosecution for lying under oath; in case of conviction, the court would be required to tack on at least three more years to his sentence (and the Bureau of Prisons would also be entitled to revoke some or all of his good-conduct credits).
Whereas in a regime with no defined rules except those that a particular federal judge decides to impose (including no requirement that the defendant assert under penalty of perjury that he is actually innocent and understands that he will be subject to perjury prosecution if the test results come back a match) . . . why not just roll the dice and seek testing even if you know perfectly well that you're guilty?
My first question is why was there not a DNA test done initially? This whole situation could've been averted, at least for Osborne. It seems that he didn't really have a fair chance from the start if there was no legitimate reason to not administer a test. I'm concerned that the Court was more interested in not looking bad than upholding the judicial system and proving a man's innocence (or at least reinforcing the initial decision). How did that fly?
Here's video that does a good job summing up the controversy:
http://tinyurl.com/mxwjwy