Supreme Court: DNA tests up to states

Hey, so what that you're convicted of a crime you didn't commit and the State has evidence that could prove your innocence. What makes you think you have a right to have that evidence tested?
I'm glad the State of Alaska is willing to fight so hard to preserve injustice and to obscure the truth. That's something they really should be proud of.

Why on earth would any state stand in the way of testing the DNA in a case like this, let alone take this case all the way to the Supreme Court? This is disgusting.

Per Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “The availability of new DNA testing, however, cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt.”

Yeah...for a strict constructionists -- I think "pain in the neck" is the 28th Amendment -- the "Roberts Clause"

This reminds of a definition from the satirical "White's Law Dictionary" (the real law dictionary is called Black's):

Objection: The cry of a lawyer about to hear the truth enter the courtroom.

Although once again couched in terms of reasoned restraint, the Court's decision yet again comes down to arcane procedural niceties trumping the core substance of factual guilt or innocence. Is it more important to have streamlined administrative procedures than it is to ensure we don't lock innocent people in cages? Suppose the answer depends on whom you ask.

Actually, they held up the constitution giving to the states their proper role. No business of the feds. Hooray!

If one includes Mr. Silva’s misapprehension of the case, the five of you together fit the pattern of the five blind men with the elephant. Instead of bellyaching about what the case doesn’t say (because it doesn’t stand for anything you folks have said it does), why don’t you go read the case for yourself. You can find it on the Supreme Court’s web page at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html The case is called District Attorney's Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne. Of, if you like, you can download it from this link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-6.pdf.
.
To be sure, the case did not say that a convicted defendant doesn’t have a constitutional right to discovery, including access to DNA testing, under the right circumstances. Nor did the Court say that “arcane procedural niceties” trump “the core substance of factual guilt or innocence.” The problem for Mr. Osborne was that he wasn’t trying to vindicate his liberty interests in the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (i.e. a civil rights action) that he brought in federal court - as would have been the case had he sought habeas corpus relief in state or federal court. The Supreme Court had never previously held that a person has a right to access evidence in the hands of the State that is not “tethered” to a proceeding to vindicate one’s liberty interests. The case of Brady v. Maryland, upon which the Ninth Circuit relied in reaching its conclusion, involved the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence relevant (and thus “tethered”) to a “trial” - which is a proceeding to vindicate one’s liberty interest. The same was true of the Ninth Circuit precedent which allows for discovery in a habeas proceeding. Habeas proceedings are designed to vindicate liberty interests.
.
The Court’s decision also rests in large part on the fact that Osborne had never attempted to avail himself of Alaska’s post-conviction procedures in making this claim. Those procedures would have allowed him to make a claim of factual innocence, during which he would have had access to discovery, including DNA testing.
.
Essentially, Osborne’s § 1983 claim was that he had a “freestanding right” (as opposed to one “tethered” to a particular proceeding) to access such evidence regardless of whether he would or could put it to some use to vindicate his liberty interests. The Court wasn’t about to impose that duty on the States because it would then make the Court, rather than states, the policy makers with regard to how that right could be implemented. Thus, the Court concluded that Osborne hadn’t demonstrated that Alaska had deprived him of his civil rights under color of state law.
.
There are other background facts which likely influenced the outcome to a high degree. In the first place, there was substantial evidence, including the eyewitness evidence of the victim, which tied Osborne to the commission of the offenses even apart from the DNA evidence. Second, Osborne twice confessed to committing the offenses in his petition for early, discretionary release on parole. Third, there had been DNA testing on the evidence. However, it simply hadn’t been the most exacting kind available. His defense attorney believed the inaccuracy of the DNA testing would work in his favor at trial along with a claim of mistaken cross-racial identification. That attorney, based on his investigation, believed Osborne was guilty and thus believed that a more exacting DNA test would only tend to inculpate Osborne at trial. In an action for post-conviction relief, the Alaska Court of Appeal found that, given the choices and reasoning, Osborne’s attorney had made a competent and rational choice to forego further DNA testing as part of the defense plan. Although the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t exactly say so, these facts may well have satisfied the Court that Osborne was simply attempting an end-around in in his § 1983 federal action rather than risk likely failure in pursuing Alaska’s available post-conviction procedures and remedies.
.
But, again, don’t rely on me. Go ahead and read the case for yourself instead of wallowing in your ignorance.

* * * * *
ERRATUM
.
Excuse me. The first line should read in relevant part, “If one includes Mr. Savage’s misapprehension of the case …” Sheesh, I’m making mistakes already.
.
See what you did, Lou!?!?!

Ahh yes, now we have the great Libertarian John W arguing for the State's right to deny evidence to an individual that might show that he has been unjustly imprisoned. John W comes from the Authoritarian branch of the liberatrian movement.

There is absolutely NO reason to deny Mr. Osbourne in his request to have the evidence further tested., It harms the state in no way. John W, and anyone else, can push all the legal sophistry they like, but that simply isn't relevent. The state should allow every reasonable attempt to review evidence that may further illuminate guilt or innocence, at any time in the proceedings or thereafter. To do otherwise is not it the interests of justice.

(PS John, I don't need long post full of legal citations on this one. If the case law supports this, it is wrong. If the laws on the books support this, they should be changed. The right to defend oneself against legal charges should not be constained at any time.)

I think I probably need to clarify one thing here, John. My primary problem is NOT with the Supreme Court decision (although I do disagree). My primary issue is with the decison of the Prosecutors and the State of Alaska to deny the testing. I see no compelling reason for them to not allow the testing, adnd a huge reason for them to allow it. I will accept that Osborne is probably guilty. But there is a chance, however small, that he is not. In the absence of a truly compelling state interest in not testing the evidence further, I simply cannot justify the decision to block the testing. If the tests provide further proof of his guilt, then no harm is done. However if the test would show his innocence, and the test is denied, then a very great harm has been done. I would seriously hope, all kidding and battling aside, that we can both agree that the interests of Justice, with a capital J, falls on the side of insuring that the innocent are not punished for crimes they did not commit, no matter what actions either the defense or the prosecution took or did not take in the past.

This is just something I feel strongly about John. It's decsions like these that make me the strong opponent of the death penalty that I am. (No, this case isn't a capital case, bu the issues relate.) I really don't want another pissing match with you, so please don't take it that way.

A conservative decision. Police state over what could amount to true justice for individuals--victims as well as alleged perps. Is the conservative court saying that science lies?

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | June 18, 2009 7:25 PM
.
Here is the word for today: Explain.
.
Meaning: To give an account of something with enough clarity and detail to be understood by somebody else.
.
I wasn’t arguing. I was explaining the case. I must have failed.
.
You didn’t grasp the central point of the case. You say, “The right to defend oneself against legal charges should not be constrained at any time.” I totally agree with that. The problem is that Osborne wasn’t trying to defend himself. That is precisely why the Court said he was SOL. If he was trying to defend himself - the Court said - he would have brought a habeas petition or some action for post conviction relief in state court or, failing in that, a habeas petition in federal court. Those are actions by which people continue to assert their innocence and challenge unjust convictions after exhausting their appellate remedies. However, instead of instituting an action to free himself from custody due to an unjust conviction, Osborne brought a civil-rights action, claiming the right to have the evidence tested for whatever purpose he may choose to pursue thereafter.
.
I read the case very narrowly, and I think others will too. As I see it, the court’s ruling - denying the “freestanding” right to DNA testing - cannot be unhinged from the fact that Osborne never tried to defend himself by invoking established post conviction procedures to assert his innocence. Had he tried to seek habeas corpus relief in state court, and was then unreasonably denied discovery to support his claim, the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court would have helped him. The issue then would have been a clear cut question regarding the fairness of the proceeding in denying him the discovery necessary to perfect his liberty interests. In this, there is still the hope. The Osborne decision does not change the existing law that permits post conviction discovery, including DNA testing, for someone seeking post-conviction relief to assert his or her innocence. The Court’s ruling against Osborne merely said that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to get evidence just for the sake of getting evidence isn’t the way to do it.
.
And while you may not like it (and I don’t either), there really were reasons to deny Osborne’s discovery request. There never has been an unlimited right of defendants or convicts to gain access to all evidence in the hands of the prosecution. The constitutional right to access to evidence extends only to evidence that undermines the prosecution’s case at trial or sentencing. The exculpatory value of a DNA test was hardly clear before or during Osborne’s trial. The existing DNA test results tended to inculpate him. Thus, the duty to have the evidence re-tested could only arise upon some information telling the state how a new test might be relevant to prove his innocence.
.
In addition, case law is clear that a prosecutor’s duty to furnish discovery is drastically diminished once there has been a constitutionally valid conviction. After such a conviction, the defendant’s presumption of innocence is gone, and the state’s interest in maintaining repose in judgments becomes more important. Thus, to get post-conviction discovery, one must normally seek a post-conviction remedy and make some threshold showing that the material sought in discovery is relevant, material and likely to prove the claims brought in the post-conviction proceeding. This is the rule in federal court as many states. This is yet another reason why Osborne’s resort to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action didn’t help. He hadn’t instituted the kind of proceeding necessary to get discovery. So, prior to Osborne’s case arriving on the Supreme Court’s doorstep, it never was the case that a convicted defendant had the right to force something like a DNA test simply because he wanted it.
.
Some of the nonsensical things we struggle with looking at Supreme Court cases come from the fact the Court is required to balance any rule it may hand down against on the effect it has on the laws of the various States. It doesn’t pass rules for criminal procedure unless such rules are required by notions of fundamental fairness. Since Alaska’s system permits discovery and re-testing of DNA evidence in the course of post conviction procedures, and because the Alaska legislature hadn’t been slow in addressing DNA testing, the Court didn’t view this as a case where a new rule was required to address some unfairness.

Is it Moore's Law?

Anyway, DNA technology is now a very cost effective way to enhance the pursuit of truth in criminal trials.

I guess a few more Moorian cycles will have to go by before the right wingers on the Supreme Court figure this out.

But don't count on it.

When it is the individual against the government, they side with the government.

No matter how cheaply the truth may be discover, old wrongs righted.

But they really don't care about any of that.

It is all about crushing the minorities who usually get caught up in the "criminal justice system": the "usual suspects".

"Finality".

Actually, they consider spending any time at all reviewing criminal convictions to be

Infra dig.

I think it's good that the decision is back in the hands of the court, but at the same time, so many things went wrong with this trial because they used a very inaccurate type of DNA test in the initial trial and Osborne was denied a more precised form of test because they already believed him guilty. He should have the right to do whatever it takes to prove his innocence, regardless of how the courts want to look.
http://tinyurl.com/mxwjwy