Another slap by the less than supreme court

[Robert]

The same court that is not afraid to take away our rights and force gays on us is now denying some at their own cost the dna testing that will either confirm or deny their innocence and defering the decision to congress and the states. I will also say that the court views prisoners as citizens with little or no rights. I am not saying that there are some that are the scum of the earth and that they should rot but there are millions of people that have gotten out of prison and live a good life that still don't have the rights that you and me enjoy. Some of which is the right to own a gun. YES YES YES there are some that have no business being out much less a gun but do the research and ask see how many second class citizens are around you may be surprised. I personally think that these justices are no better and should get jail time for some of the decisions they hand down maybe then they would be a bit more humble. The other thing that kind of pissed me off was when Roberts said that" To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response" So the heck with people as long as they don't they don't muck up your system. I can only hope that when they die that when they stand in front of the Ultimate Judge that He may say the same words to them.

   

Supreme Court rejects inmates' right to have DNA test
Rules officials, states must set own policy
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said it is up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right to the genetic testing.    Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said it is up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right to the genetic testing.
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post / June 19, 2009

WASHINGTON - Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, even though the technology provides an “unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.’’
   Discuss
COMMENTS (11)

In the court’s first examination of how to treat the rapidly evolving field of biological testing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a majority that said it is up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right to testing that might prove innocence long after conviction.

The “challenges DNA technology poses to our criminal justice systems and our traditional notions of finality’’ are better left to elected officials than federal judges, Roberts wrote in the 5-to-4 decision.

“To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,’’ he wrote.

The case was one of the most anticipated of the term, given the revolutionary role DNA testing has played in modern criminal proceedings. The Innocence Project, a group representing those who say they have been wrongfully convicted, said such testing has exonerated 240 people nationwide, at least 17 of whom had received the death penalty.

Dissenting justices, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the right to postconviction DNA testing should not depend on the widely varying laws enacted by the states. Allowing a prisoner to test DNA evidence at his own expense would “ascertain the truth once and for all,’’ Stevens wrote.

He was joined in dissent by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

The case at hand comes from Alaska, one of three states without a law allowing postconviction access to biological evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

William Osborne was convicted of the 1993 rape and assault of a prostitute in a secluded area near the Anchorage International Airport. Osborne wanted to pay for a more discerning test of semen found in a condom at the crime scene, which prosecutors agree would almost definitively prove his guilt or innocence. But prosecutors refused to allow the test, and Alaska courts agreed he did not qualify under the procedures they had established.

Osborne appealed to the federal courts, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco recognized a right to such testing under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

But Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, said that was wrongly decided.

“A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,’’ he wrote, and thus states have more “flexibility’’ in deciding procedures for postconviction relief.

The majority said Alaska’s procedures seemed sufficient and there was no reason for federal courts to “leap ahead’’ of the states.

Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, who argued the case before the court, said the decision will mean that “more innocent people will languish in prison’’ because they lack the legal right to DNA testing.

“Some state statutes are simply inadequate,’’ he said, noting that the patchwork of state and federal laws regarding testing means some prisoners will be unable to gain access to testing that would prove them innocent.

Even within the court’s narrow decision on Osborne, there were divisions within the two sides. Alito and Kennedy would go further than Roberts, holding that anyone who waived DNA testing at trial for tactical reasons has no right to pursue it after conviction.

Souter declined to join the other dissenters in recognizing a constitutional right to the testing. He said he would rule for Osborne simply because Alaska’s procedures for obtaining access to DNA evidence were insufficient.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

[JimL]

Robert I have to agree with you on this one.  I will start of by saying that my ideological leanings are very conservative, as a matter of fact there are probably few on this board that are more conservative than myself.  That having been said, this is the only time in recent history I can remember in which I emphatically agree with a dissenting option by (Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer).  Even though I have little reason after having read the details of this case to believe Osbourne is innocent, it troubles me that this case could be used as a legal precedent to deny someone access to DNA material that could be used to prove their innocence.

Former Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote..."It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man".  I don't agree with this statement entirely, because as a practical matter it would be virtually impossible to convict any criminal using such a strict standard.  However I think all of us have imagined what it would be like to be that 1 person.

Since this is an imperfect world, it does seem reasonable to me that all reasonable means should be afforded a defendant to prove their innocence.  Access to DNA material in my opinion is reasonable.

[Willow]

I, for one, Robert, am confused by your ire.  The Supreme Court, according to the story, refused to step in and overrule the state's authority in this case.  I'm not sure what part of the U.S. constitution would be used to prove that a convicted felon has an inalienable right to biological evidence for DNA testing.  

These poor justices don't stand a chance.  If they decide to loosely interpret the Constitution and use federal law to impose their will upon the states they get blasted.  When they interpret the Constitution specifically as it was written and decide that this area is one that belongs to the states, then they get blasted from someone else.

It seems to me from the little bit the story gives us that in the interest of justice the convicted rapist should be given access to the evidence that the prosecution has, but I don't see where the Federal government should step in under the Constitution and correct the State of Alaska.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once.

 ???

[Robert]

Willow I have 2 problems one is that the court in the majority of case has run roughshod over the rights of the states. With this said if I thought that this was the first case that would be a change I would at least have some comfort in that fact. But the lack consistency with which the courts side is very disturbing. As I mentioned with gay rights and it could be a multitude of rulings they have made its just the first to come to mind. To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response. Well how much change is there now because of gay rights? They didn't give a flip about the states or the majority of people in the US they just cared about that one rule they made. So why did they have such a change of heart here? Is it because prisoners either guilty or not are less than dirt and don't deserve their time? That view is expressed by Roberts in not such a flamboyant way if you read the article. I also guess as a idealist that I would think that the courts would want to have fresh evidence in a persons guilt or innocence that the person pays for and doesn't cost the court a thing. But all to often in this country of ours I have seen that people who really deserve to be thrown in jail for life go free and the ones that may be innocent that will even pay for their own defense not get fair justice. How, because due to a number of circumstances get convicted go to jail and then new evidence is found that proves innocence and to save a prosecutors face the case is never reopened and that guy innocent is left to rot in jail. I will preface my remarks by saying that there are not allot of cases that are wrong and some abuse the system but shouldn't even the supreme court that should be above these squabble that comes if the prosecutor has to review a case be in favor of ruling for the person if indeed they are the champion of individual rights over the state as they have been lately.

[Momz]

Oh god, what next?

Maybe the Supreme Court will allow Gay men to buy, register, and bear arms.

Just what is this country coming too?

I stayed at a Holiday Inn once, but it was a long time ago.

[Oss]

I have not (and probably wont anytime soon) read the opinion, but am never happy to hear any PERSON is unable to get simple evidence which may exonerate or fry his ass.

Keep in mind that if the DNA says he did it he is a crispy fry if he gets electrified or just as dead if injected so what are the THE STATE PROSECUTORS afraid of.  Now there will be new laws suggested in 50 states plus congress and maybe an ACLU parade or 3 because of this decision.

You can get DNA off of a hair, a bodily fluid or even dandruff. Whats the big deal to run a test is just a couple bucks.  less than it costs to feed and house the prisoner for a day.  The 18b attorney probably gets 40 bucks an hour to make the motion for the test and the lab a few bucks.
We all deserve the rights to confront our accuser and if the people say he was there and its his blood or semen and the DNA shows it aint his well then the jury should be able to know this in making their deliberation.

Our govmt will give a thousand billion to some corporation of banks who stole our money but wont let you prove you are innocent  Yeah I feel real safe now thank you   Hope this turns out to be one of those snopes things that is just an urban legend

Oss gets off the soapbox

[Willow]

...  Whats the big deal to run a test is just a couple bucks.   ...
We all deserve the rights to confront our accuser and if the people say he was there and its his blood or semen and the DNA shows it aint his well then the jury should be able to know this in making their deliberation.

I agree with your perspective, Counselor, but if I understand correctly, this case was already through the jury, the prosecution did not use DNA evidence to convict, and after the fact the convicted rapist was petitioning the state to turn over the biological evidence so that DNA testing could be done.

Presence of DNA evidence will prove the donor's attendance to the crime scene.  Does a lack of DNA evidence prove that the accused wasn't there? 

Regardless of our perspective on whether or not the convicted felon should have been given access to the evidence, the case before the Supreme Court was to rule on whether the U.S. Constitution trumped the State of Alaska's laws in this particular case.  They interpreted the Constitution to say that it was the state's prerogative, right or wrong, and to be dealt with at the state level.

I'm inclined to believe they got it right.  I do suspect that the defense should have had some access to the biological evidence, but the prosecution seemed to think that it wasn't applicable to the case.  Perhaps it was tainted.  Why didn't the defense demand it during the trial?  And again, would the absence of the accused's DNA have proven that he wasn't there?

Those poor Supreme Court justices just can't get a break.    

[Oss]

So lets see if I got this right

Neither defendant nor the state asked for dna evidence at trial, so then its waived as to the state and now if Alaska says its waived by Defendant then its waived.  But even if so then he may now get a new shot as his counsel was maybe incompetent after this ruling on a writ of habeus corpus to the court.

DNA Dont prove you werent there but can prove you may not have been inside the victim if a rape kit was done. This stuff makes me ill its why I do happy law, right Joe?

Yes its tough to get a break as a judge, attorney and a litigant

Thank goodness I gots me a free parking space for my bike in front of the Courthouse right in back of the hotdog truck

Its the only break I get

[JimL]

I'm inclined to believe they got it right.  I do suspect that the defense should have had some access to the biological evidence, but the prosecution seemed to think that it wasn't applicable to the case.  

Willow clearly you have read the case, the opinion and understand the basic premise of what the justices where asked to adjudicate.  I agree with just about every point you make except for your conclusion.  In a case where there is DNA evidence I am reluctant to leave it to the prosecution to decide whether or not it is applicable, especially when a man's life is on the line.  I agree with you that the prosecutions case demonstrated (rather convincingly) that Osborne was guilty.  I would agree that the DNA should not be allowed if it has been demonstrated to be tainted, however to my knowledge that was not the case here.

As much as I hate to agree with Stevens (I usually don't) ...I feel that he got it right this time in his dissenting opinion...."the state's failure to provide Osborne access to the evidence constitutes arbitrary action that offends basic principles of due process."

[Bonzo]

I don't happen to agree with the SC's decision

We have the a system of government in place that has worked for around 232 years. What the court said was the States should make the rules on DNA testing. The more conservative Justices were the majority on this ruling, after all it was on "States Rights". Nothing to do about civil right, gay rights, gun rights.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/304.php

[Ghillie]

When you consider all the times the Court has trod on areas of state rights, it amazes me when the court actually chooses to stay out of the arena. I just wish they would make up their damn minds if they are or are not supposed to decide things that appear to be within the purview of the state legislature. In this particular case, when the issue of true justice is at stake, it pains me that the guy can't get a dna test admitted. Do courts want a conviction, or do they want justice? I am glad they decided that criminal procedure falls to the states to decide where constitutional issues are not whats at stake. I just wish they would take the same logic on a consistentl basis.