NationStates Jolt Archive

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case to decide whether, years after his conviction, a defendant has a constitutional right to test genetic evidence found at the crime scene.

Unfortunately, this may be a case where bad facts make bad law -- as it appears unlikely this defendant is innocent or will be able to overturn his conviction on the basis of new DNA evidence. Please try to look beyond the facts of this specific case and focus on the underlying legal question of whether, just as a defendant has a pre-trial right to access to evidence, a defendant has a post-trial right to DNA testing that was not available at the time of trial.

Anyway, here is a short article on the case:

Court to decide on convict's right to test DNA (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-03-2008/20081103072005_59.html)

The Supreme Court will decide whether, years after his conviction, a defendant has a constitutional right to test genetic evidence found at the crime scene.

The justices, in an order Monday, accepted the appeal of prosecutors in Alaska. They asked the court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling in favor of William Osborne, who was convicted of rape, kidnapping and assault in an attack on a prostitute in 1993.

The woman was raped at gunpoint, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near the Anchorage International Airport.

Osborne admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly identified Osborne as having participated in the crimes. The testing would be done on a condom and hairs found by investigators.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, said Osborne has a right to subject the evidence to advanced DNA testing that was not available at the time of his trial.

Forty-three states and the federal government have laws that give convicts access to DNA testing, but Alaska does not.

Osborne urged the court to reject the appeal, saying that because so many states have laws on the topic, it rarely arises in federal court.

Prosecutors argued that even if testing determines that the hairs and sperm are not Osborne's, other evidence introduced at his trial is sufficient to leave his conviction in place. That matter is not before the high court.

The case is District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 08-6.

Here is a pdf (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC287DD2DAEA120B8825741F0000A029/$file/0635875.pdf?openelement) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opinion holding in favor of the right to access to DNA testing:

In this post-remand appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court that, under the unique and specific facts of this case and assuming the availability of the evidence in question, Osborne has a limited due process right of access to the evidence for purposes of post-conviction DNA testing, which might either confirm his guilt or provide strong evidence upon which he may seek post-conviction relief.

...
We therefore agree with the district court and hold that Osborne’s right to due process of law prohibits the State from denying him reasonable access to biological evidence for the purpose of further DNA testing, where that biological evidence was used to secure his conviction, the DNA testing is to be conducted using methods that were unavailable at the time of trial and are far more precise than the methods that were then available, such methods are capable of conclusively determining whether Osborne is the source of the genetic material, the testing can be conducted without cost or prejudice to the State, and the evidence is material to available forms of postconviction relief

Some other relevant articles/links:
The Justice Project’s Recommendations for Expanding Post-Conviction DNA Testing (http://www.thejusticeproject.org/national/solution/expanding-post-conviction-dna-testing/)
Is There a Constitutional Right to Testing Under the Brady Doctrine? (http://www.dna.gov/uses/postconviction/handling-requests/legalissues/brady)
Is There a Constitutional Right to DNA Testing? (http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2008/11/is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-dna-testing.html)

So, what says NSG:


Should a defendant have a constitutional right to acess biological evidence that can be subjected to more advanced testing?


Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right, should states (and the federal government) permit defendants to access evidence even after the defendant is convicted?


Should it matter to either of the above questions the likelihood that the defendant is innocent?


EDIT: In retrospect I made this entirely U.S.-centric, but it need not be. How does or how should your (or any) country deal with post-conviction DNA testing?

1. Absolutely. The advent of DNA testing has absolved hundreds of wrongfully convicted individuals. It's yet another tool in the arsenal that allows for more accurate prosecution. If the defendants can demonstrate that the DNA found at the scene does not match his own, that's one more wrongfully convicted person eligible for release. This situation has happened dozens of times before, and this is not a landmark case by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Personally, I think it should be standard, however I realize the sheer magnitude of cases and funding required makes this an impossibility. I think that if the convicted person wants to attempt an appeal on the basis of DNA evidence, there should be no restriction. Having someone in jail for a crime does not mean we should go so far as to have the wrong person in jail. One of the pillars of Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement concerns the accuracy of convictions and the legality of detention.

3. I think there should be a reasonable chance that the person could be innocent. Likely there will be many people just grasping at straws, but I think that as DNA evidence is better understood by the general population, we won't see as many people just trying to use it as a potential shot at getting out of jail.

ruling should be as follows. DNA is just one piece of evidence among many. In this case no he should not have access to DNA evidence as he had an accomplice making DNA evidence unreliable and would have no bearing on his conviction.

The lower courts should still have the authority to decide when it is appropriate or not appropriate to explore new evidence.

You seem to have that right in Virginia. What's different in California?

Virginia had to institute a program to preserve DNA evidence - tissue samples, etc. - because the old policy was to throw everything out after the conviction.

I would support the right. However, I think that judges looking at this evidence during an appeal would want to know if the DNA evidence is actually relevant. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

You seem to have that right in Virginia. What's different in California?

Virginia had to institute a program to preserve DNA evidence - tissue samples, etc. - because the old policy was to throw everything out after the conviction.

I would support the right. However, I think that judges looking at this evidence during an appeal would want to know if the DNA evidence is actually relevant. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

The case is from Alaska (also know as St. Palinland):

"Forty-three states and the federal government have laws that give convicts access to DNA testing, but Alaska does not."

I think we are in basic agreement. Evidence ought to be preserved and defendant's ought to have a right to access, but what impact, if any, that any new testing would have depends on the circumstances. A negative DNA test isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card.

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case to decide whether, years after his conviction, a defendant has a constitutional right to test genetic evidence found at the crime scene.

Unfortunately, this may be a case where bad facts make bad law -- as it appears unlikely this defendant is innocent or will be able to overturn his conviction on the basis of new DNA evidence. Please try to look beyond the facts of this specific case and focus on the underlying legal question of whether, just as a defendant has a pre-trial right to access to evidence, a defendant has a post-trial right to DNA testing that was not available at the time of trial.

Anyway, here is a short article on the case:

Court to decide on convict's right to test DNA (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-03-2008/20081103072005_59.html)



Here is a pdf (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC287DD2DAEA120B8825741F0000A029/$file/0635875.pdf?openelement) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opinion holding in favor of the right to access to DNA testing:

In this post-remand appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court that, under the unique and specific facts of this case and assuming the availability of the evidence in question, Osborne has a limited due process right of access to the evidence for purposes of post-conviction DNA testing, which might either confirm his guilt or provide strong evidence upon which he may seek post-conviction relief.

...
We therefore agree with the district court and hold that Osborne’s right to due process of law prohibits the State from denying him reasonable access to biological evidence for the purpose of further DNA testing, where that biological evidence was used to secure his conviction, the DNA testing is to be conducted using methods that were unavailable at the time of trial and are far more precise than the methods that were then available, such methods are capable of conclusively determining whether Osborne is the source of the genetic material, the testing can be conducted without cost or prejudice to the State, and the evidence is material to available forms of postconviction relief

Some other relevant articles/links:
The Justice Project’s Recommendations for Expanding Post-Conviction DNA Testing (http://www.thejusticeproject.org/national/solution/expanding-post-conviction-dna-testing/)
Is There a Constitutional Right to Testing Under the Brady Doctrine? (http://www.dna.gov/uses/postconviction/handling-requests/legalissues/brady)
Is There a Constitutional Right to DNA Testing? (http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2008/11/is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-dna-testing.html)

So, what says NSG:


Should a defendant have a constitutional right to acess biological evidence that can be subjected to more advanced testing?


Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right, should states (and the federal government) permit defendants to access evidence even after the defendant is convicted?


Should it matter to either of the above questions the likelihood that the defendant is innocent?


1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No.

We let Prisoners have access to law libraries, we let them file lawsuits. If a Defendent believes (even incorrectly) that a DNA test can overturn their conviction (and maybe it can?) or help with an Appeal, then absolutely they should have access.
Further, the increased demand and activity will encourage labs to refine faster, more efficient, and more accurate testing procedures that may well cost less, lowering the cost for pre-trial testing.

So, what says NSG:


Should a defendant have a constitutional right to acess biological evidence that can be subjected to more advanced testing?


Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right, should states (and the federal government) permit defendants to access evidence even after the defendant is convicted?


Should it matter to either of the above questions the likelihood that the defendant is innocent?


1. Yes. Even after conviction, your constitutional rights can be abrogated only to the extent that you are confined (ie, reasonable search and seizure is quite different in prison compared to on the street). Principles of fundamental justice should include the ability to request, and receive physical evidence for testing even post-conviction. However, there needs to be a reasonable time limit for the preservation of such evidence, despite the fact that 'more advanced means' might not yet exist. No automatic right to appeal would be included with this right to the evidence...appeals post-conviction (post sanctioned appeals) may need to face a reverse onus.

2. Yes, subject to #1.

3. No. That isn't for state agents to determine any long, post conviction. Hand the evidence over, let the burden rest on the convicted person to make a case for an appeal.

ruling should be as follows. DNA is just one piece of evidence among many. In this case no he should not have access to DNA evidence as he had an accomplice making DNA evidence unreliable and would have no bearing on his conviction.

The lower courts should still have the authority to decide when it is appropriate or not appropriate to explore new evidence.

Although I don't know why you say the DNA evidence would be unreliable, I think I understand you to be saying that the defendant in this case is shit out of luck because of the other evidence against him. But why should that deny him even access to DNA evidence? What harm can it cause?

Further, setting aside the facts of this particular case, why shouldn't defendants generally have access to post-conviction DNA evidence?

Given that SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, what do you think the likelihood is that the Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit and/or hold there is no right to post-conviction DNA testing?

Not just yes but hell yes. The Miranda rights were recognized based on the case of a guy who still was found guilty. All the evidence should always be examined, even that evidence that was found after the trial. If some piece of evidence shows up that conclusively shows that the crime was not committed by the defendant (or the circumstances were different in a legally significant manner) then there should be a new trial. DNA evidence is one of the most powerful tools available to our justice system, and should be made use of as often as is ethical.

Given that SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, what do you think the likelihood is that the Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit and/or hold there is no right to post-conviction DNA testing?

USSC is extremely unlikely to hold that there is no right to post-conviction testing. But it will be an interesting case for establishing precedence in those states which do not have rights regarding this testing. I don't think a finding against the admissibility of DNA evidence would be constitutional, especially given empirical research demonstrating the accuracy of such testing.

USSC is extremely unlikely to hold that there is no right to post-conviction testing. But it will be an interesting case for establishing precedence in those states which do not have rights regarding this testing.

I wish I shared your optimism about the respect (or lack thereof) of the rights of criminal defendants of the current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I wish I shared your optimism about the respect (or lack thereof) of the rights of criminal defendants of the current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Do you have some relevant writings of the justices in question that would give you that lack of optimism?

Should a defendant have a constitutional right to acess biological evidence that can be subjected to more advanced testing?


Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right, should states (and the federal government) permit defendants to access evidence even after the defendant is convicted?


Should it matter to either of the above questions the likelihood that the defendant is innocent?


EDIT: In retrospect I made this entirely U.S.-centric, but it need not be. How does or how should your (or any) country deal with post-conviction DNA testing?

1) Yes. The authority of the state to hold a person responsible for a crime is dependent upon their ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed the crime. If a new, particularly if previously unavailable, test may provide that doubt, the defendant should be able to have it performed.

2) Yes.

3) Not really. If the DNA testing is performed and the defendant wants to try and appeal based on it, the likelihood that it actually presents a reasonable doubt should certainly be examined. But I don't think the right to perform the test should be contingent on the likelihood that it would alter the conviction.

On a different note, TCT, didn't the USSC already hold that there is a time limit after which defendants cannot bring appeals based on DNA testing?

<snip>


Should a defendant have a constitutional right to acess biological evidence that can be subjected to more advanced testing?


Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right, should states (and the federal government) permit defendants to access evidence even after the defendant is convicted?


Should it matter to either of the above questions the likelihood that the defendant is innocent?


1. Sure
2. Sure
3. No

I wish I shared your optimism about the respect (or lack thereof) of the rights of criminal defendants of the current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I'm two classes away from an MS in Criminology, and all research and precedence I have seen thus far predisposes me to careful optimism. Except in the case of some mental health law.

Now that said, we've been looking at landmark cases more than extremely recent decisions, but with the precedence established regarding DNA testing, they will have a hard time justifying an overturn of that decision. This is one of the few areas where I have no concerns about a reversal. Limitations perhaps, but I sincerely doubt the right will be altogether restricted.

There is no reason in my mind why a convict may not use DNA evidence to prove his or her innocent. There have been plenty of cases of it already, and in some situations I have heard of convicted felons getting new witnesses to support their innocence.

Given that SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, what do you think the likelihood is that the Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit and/or hold there is no right to post-conviction DNA testing?

Thats a toughy... depends on a lot of things. I think if the Supreme Court Justices decide to be close minded thugs like a lot of times, than no.

Thats a toughy... depends on a lot of things. I think if the Supreme Court Justices decide to be close minded thugs like a lot of times, than no.

I think it depends on whether they feel like being the Heller court, or the Kelo court. A "Heller" court would say that absolutely, any new finding of exculpatory evidence should be allowed-even encouraged, based on the concepts of Due Process.

A Kelo court would rule against the idea, or severely limit it to make it impractical, on the idea that it's the State's right to convict and imprison whomever it wants by whatever means it wishes so long as the proper form is followed initially.

Note: both decisions came from the same nine justices.

if the op wants us to look at, and consider the implications of precident, without reguard to the cited case, why is the case then being cited?

my lay opinion would be in favor of always admiting additional verifyable evidence.
assuming of course, some could be found to exist, and have signifigant bearing.

So, what says NSG:


Should a defendant have a constitutional right to acess biological evidence that can be subjected to more advanced testing?
Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right, should states (and the federal government) permit defendants to access evidence even after the defendant is convicted?
Should it matter to either of the above questions the likelihood that the defendant is innocent?




Yes.
Yes.
Yes. How can you asses the likehood of the defendant being innocent if you don't allow him to bring to court new proof of his innocence?