Science & Law Blog: Osborne and the Right to Post-conviction DNA Testing
This has a good explanation of the various DNA tests which were used in the Osborne case, as well as a description of the more advanced techniques which have evolved since Osborne's conviction.
Osborne has one other big issue facing him - his confession in 2004 to having committed the crime. This makes any "new DNA evidence" pretty much irrelevant, no? Osborne's conviction created a legal fact, which was corroborated with his confession even though the confession came post-conviction.
Quote:
At a joint trial with Jackson, Osborne was convicted of kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault, and was sentenced to 26 years imprisonment. The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed, and Osborne did not appeal further.
Years later, he brought an action for post-conviction relief in Alaska Superior Court. He contended that his lawyer’s decision not to pursue VNTR testing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had “a due process right, under either the state or federal constitution” to have to the DNA tested with more modern procedures. Id. After this court rejected his claims in 2002, Osborne appealed to the Alaska Court of Appeals. In 2004, he also applied to the parole board. He confessed to the attack and provided details. The board denied his application. The court of appeals held open the possibility that of relief. It remanded the case to the superior court to decide if the original conviction rested primarily on eyewitness identifications, if “demonstrable doubt” as to that identification existed, and if DNA testing could “be conclusively exculpatory.” Id. at 1125. The superior court determined that these stringent conditions had not been met, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Alaska Supreme Court denied review. |
It seems to me that the ruling was based on the facts of the case, and found those facts to be insufficient to warrant creating a "new Constitutional right" for convicts.