SCOTUS: Convicts are not automatically entitled to DNA evidence post-conviction

[CockySOB]

As we all know, science continues to march forward, and DNA testing has seen regular advances in both capability and accuracy. In District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (08-6), SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that convicted criminals have "no constitutional right to obtain postconviction access to the State's evidence for DNA testing." This decision is (apparently) to be left to the States to set their own retention and access policies for evidence after conviction. Most States (46 or 47 depending on the source) already have such regulations and procedures codified in law, but the laws do vary from state to state.

Analysis: Handing off the DNA issue | SCOTUSblog
Understanding Osborne and Access to DNA Evidence » The Foundry
Left in the West:: SCOTUS denies right to DNA tests

I tend to agree with the ruling, although I can see the issue possibly going before Congress sometime.

Jay Stevens @ Left in the West makes some good points regarding the reliability of DNA evidence compared to other evidence in ascertaining guilt or innocence, but I am not convinced that this case is the appropriate venue for advancing the post-conviction rights. Perhaps had Osborne exhausted all remedies at the State level and then pursued a habeas case at the Federal level....

[gurutoo]

Originally Posted by CockySOB

As we all know, science continues to march forward, and DNA testing has seen regular advances in both capability and accuracy. In District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (08-6), SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that convicted criminals have "no constitutional right to obtain postconviction access to the State's evidence for DNA testing." This decision is (apparently) to be left to the States to set their own retention and access policies for evidence after conviction. Most States (46 or 47 depending on the source) already have such regulations and procedures codified in law, but the laws do vary from state to state.

Analysis: Handing off the DNA issue | SCOTUSblog
Understanding Osborne and Access to DNA Evidence » The Foundry
Left in the West:: SCOTUS denies right to DNA tests

I tend to agree with the ruling, although I can see the issue possibly going before Congress sometime.

Jay Stevens @ Left in the West makes some good points regarding the reliability of DNA evidence compared to other evidence in ascertaining guilt or innocence, but I am not convinced that this case is the appropriate venue for advancing the post-conviction rights. Perhaps had Osborne exhausted all remedies at the State level and then pursued a habeas case at the Federal level....

It's fairly obvious why Osborne's defense counsel passed on the more accurate DNA testing that was available at the time. No second bite at the apple for this bad apple...

[CockySOB]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

It's fairly obvious why Osborne's defense counsel passed on the more accurate DNA testing that was available at the time. No second bite at the apple for this bad apple...

Yeah, it was a strategy to use the less accurate DQ Alpha test rather than the RFLP, and it was a strategy that backfired as the jury was not swayed. I'm wondering if defense counsel actually had an RFLP run and the results came back which would hurt the defense (indicate Osborne's guilt). Obviously the defense doesn't have to turn anything over to the prosecution, although the prosecution does have to provide any exculpatory evidence to the defense.

[Tom Joad]

I know it's off topic, but I've always wondered if I have ESP.

So I'm going to try a little experiment.

Let's see Osborne.

Doesn't sound Hispanic, or Muslim, or Asian for that matter.

American Indian?

White?

Like that feller who took the rap for the Kennedy assassination?

Could be.

Let's see, It's coming through kinda hazy, but I think............yeah...........I think I see a black man.

Ok, how'd I do?

[Tom Joad]

Well, I did a little research and it turns out I was wrong, the guys not black at all.

Just a medium shade of brown.



No ESP for me.

[suedanim]

This ruling is absolutely outrageous. It doesn't even make sense. There are men sitting in jail who know that DNA testing will exonerate them. Testing technology that did not exist when they were convicted. In some cases, despite pleas to hold on to evidence, the state of Texas destroyed the evidence retrieved from the victim.

We are supposed to live in a nation of due process. New evidence sufficient to overturn an original verdict must not be excluded from the accused or convicted's ability to defend or exonerate themselves.

[suedanim]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Well, I did a little research and it turns out I was wrong, the guys not black at all.

Just a medium shade of brown.



No ESP for me.

Of course... Why am I not surprised?

[Dufrel]

Originally Posted by suedanim

Of course... Why am I not surprised?

Because for some people everything is based on race?

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by CockySOB

As we all know, science continues to march forward, and DNA testing has seen regular advances in both capability and accuracy.

It seems that the law isn't keeping pace.

We're convicting people of crimes committed 20 years ago based on DNA evidence.

Then again, this is just putting the matter in the States' hands, right?

[CockySOB]

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.

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.

[gurutoo]

The hand wringers are deliberately ignoring the fact that a far more accurate DNA test was available to Osborne at the time of his trial. This option was refused. The reasons are clear enough.

And then there's that rather inconvenient confession...

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by gurutoo

The hand wringers are deliberately ignoring the fact that a far more accurate DNA test was available to

DNA technology was better 15 years ago than it is today?

Wow!

I didn't know that, thanks!

You sure can learn a lot on an internet forum.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by suedanim

Of course... Why am I not surprised?

C'mon Sue.

When you put as many black men in prison as we do here in the US, some of them are bound to be guilty.

[CockySOB]

Originally Posted by suedanim

This ruling is absolutely outrageous. It doesn't even make sense. There are men sitting in jail who know that DNA testing will exonerate them. Testing technology that did not exist when they were convicted. In some cases, despite pleas to hold on to evidence, the state of Texas destroyed the evidence retrieved from the victim.

We are supposed to live in a nation of due process. New evidence sufficient to overturn an original verdict must not be excluded from the accused or convicted's ability to defend or exonerate themselves.

For a self-proclaimed woman's rights advocate, you sure seem Hell-bent on taking the side of a convicted, self-acknowledged kidnapper and rapist. I mean, if we look back at the Duke case, you claimed to be all about woman's rights, even those of a stripper and/or prostitute. You were ready to lynch the Duke boys, remember? Yet here we have a legal finding of guilt based on eyewitness testimony, victim testimony, partner-in-crime testimony, and forensic evidence which supported Osborne's conviction, and you take the side of the convicted kidnapper/rapist against that of the female victim. I'm confused. Do you think Osborne was wrongly convicted? Why? Do you have any evidence that either his due process rights were violated, or that there was an factual error which lead to Osborne being wrongly convicted of the crimes he WAS convicted of? How does your theory explain his confession after the fact - a confession which included additional details of the kidnapping and rape of the prostitute?

And while we're at it, can you explain why Osborne's defense chose NOT to use the RFLP tsting which WAS available at the time of trial, preferring to rely on the DQ Alpha testing which was much less accurate? Well, defense counsel indicated that the reason they did not pursue the more advanced DNA testing was because they thought it would backfire on them, creating a stronger case for the prosecution. Remember, defense may have actually done that test and chose not to disclose the results at trial because the results were contrary to the defendant's best interests. The prosecution obviously did not feel the more stringent test was required based on the preponderance of evidence, otherwise they would have pursued the RFLP testing themselves to create a "slam-dunk" case.

[CockySOB]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

It seems that the law isn't keeping pace.

We're convicting people of crimes committed 20 years ago based on DNA evidence.

Then again, this is just putting the matter in the States' hands, right?

The law will never be able to keep pace with technology. In fact, I would go so far as to say that criminal law will always be behind the technology curve as criminals find new ways to circumvent or neutralize forensic methods used against them in court.

And yes, it is a matter for law enforcement within the individual States, IMO. If the Federal authorities decide to move to a new set of standards for evidence collection, testing and preservation, then that should be fine for the Federal level. But unless there is some convincing argument made to the effect that such policies and procedures should be enacted uniformly across all jurisdictional boundaries, I think such policies and procedures should remain the bailiwick of the individual States.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Dufrel

Because for some people everything is based on race?

Yes, the American justice system has such a long history of fairness towards black men.

Shame on me for playing the race card.

[suedanim]

Originally Posted by Dufrel

Because for some people everything is based on race?

No...because for some people, some things are based on race and when that happens any and all avenues to prove their innocence should be pursued, just as is expected when you have deep pockets. Equal justice under color of law is all I expect. And while we're at it, stop racial profiling of black and brown Americans..

On the subject of the Duke Lacrosse players... Guru, get the fuck outta town. DNA set them free, even if the prosecutor was a straight up fool, he did them a big favor (unintentionally) by ordering those DNA evaluations. Without DNA and big bucks, those Duke boys might still be behind bars.

And look.. I'm on the side of the innocent, regardless of ethnicity (why aren't you?) whether it's the female victim or the wrongly accused and convicted. Do not throw the Duke boys in my face everytime you are trying to make one of your sillyass points. The fact is, I was just as convinced Koby Bryant raped that girl and I still believe he did. Big bucks buys both good and bad justice. But, if you are poor ..forget about it, your chances of fair, aggressive representation, making bail so you can defend yourself and accessing any and all tools for your defense are very limited.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by CockySOB

For a self-proclaimed woman's rights advocate, you sure seem Hell-bent on taking the side of a convicted, self-acknowledged kidnapper and rapist.

I think the truth is quite the opposite Cocky.

Insisting on testing DNA evidence will help rape victims get Justice.

Justice Delayed . NOW on PBS

[suedanim]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I think the truth is quite the opposite Cocky.

Insisting on testing DNA evidence will help rape victims get Justice.

Justice Delayed . NOW on PBS

It should just be a blanket expectation 24/7. It protects everybody. Disallowing it makes a mockery of justice.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by suedanim

It should just be a blanket expectation 24/7. It protects everybody. Disallowing it makes a mockery of justice.

From watching the special on NOW it appears that it is a big problem.

The labs just can't keep up.

They don't have the manpower.

You can't just drop by "Sprint" or "Manpower" and say "I need 20 people to run DNA tests today."