The 5-4 Supreme Court strikes again

from NY Times:



Justices Rule Inmates Don’t Have Right to DNA Tests

By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 18, 2009


WASHINGTON — Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence long after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found against William G. Osborne, a convicted rapist from Alaska. But the decision does not necessarily mean that many innocent prisoners will continue to languish in their cells without access to DNA testing, since Alaska is one of only a few states without a law granting convicts at least some access to the new technology.

“DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty,” the majority conceded, in an opinion written by 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.”

And it is not so much up to the federal courts as it is to the state legislatures to establish rules “to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system,” the majority reasoned. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=1&hp

the number of people that have been cleared and not cleared by DNA evidence should make it the standard not this nonsense

claimed during his confirmation. He seems to be a favorite of the freeper set.

Repubs are the only ones in this country who get the red meat tossed their way.

K & R

I'm shocked they ever agreed to hear the case!

Now it's the law of the land...BUT DON'T YOU DARE CALL THEM ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!!!!

:crazy:

You're in prison and wrongfully convicted. Do you think you should have a right to a DNA test that could free you?

Roberts repsonse apparently is no. He would deny himself that right on the grounds that generally the justice system gets it right so therefore he should just suffer. For all the Right's talk of liberty and freedom and individual rights, this is a very 'collectivist' way to think.

In Alaska you die in jail, in other states you get to have a DNA test. That's Robert America.

Also the prisoner does not get to refuse a DNA test if the prosecution thinks it will help their case..I would think that fact should cause people pause on this ruling.

but Mr. Osborne was the wrong person to bring this action. I transcribed his trial and listened to all the evidence against him. This was a heinous crime where Osborne and his friend left the girl for dead naked in a snowbank. I have no doubt at all that he was involved, DNA or no. Whoever brought this all the way up to the Supreme Court could have picked a more sympathetic (and innocent) person to press the issue.

if nobody else did. However, disallowing DNA testing is wrong, plain and simple.

because I can see that it could misused to deny innocent people their right. It's just this guy really is such a slimeball, I couldn't even believe he was contesting this to the SC when I first heard about it.

WTF? I thought the legal process was a search for the truth and not a game to keep fucking over someone the government had previously railroad. Gee, my mistake.

:puke:

The last few opinions have had him on the left.

I wonder if he this is how he gets his exercise.

Well, you were found guilty - so you must be guilty - no second chances.

:(

(Note - not stating my opinion on the matter - just the obvious information I gathered from reading the article.)

of office? :P

Those who supported it are not human.

Would overthrow the criminal justice system?
That means that the CJS must run on convictions....That I guess is their product. Justice has noting to do with it.

but I still wouldn't cut this particular guy too much slack. As I said, I transcribed the trial in this case, and from what I heard, he is guilty. Sometimes when I'm transcribing cases, I disagree with the verdict that the jury rendered, but not this one.



More here http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/835374.html

Whether this guy is guilty or not is really not the question here, the question is whether or not any person has the right to have evidence that could potentially exonerate them examined. You may well be right that this person is guilty, and in that case a positive DNA test would provide another nail in the coffin that would prove his guilt. The Supreme Court was not ruling on whether he was innocent or guilty, they were ruling on whether he had the right to attempt to prove his innocence and it is very disturbing that they decided that he could not.

I mean, really, I DO know. I didn't work in law for 34 years and not pick that up. It's just that I remember how revolted I was as I transcribed this trial, and how amazed I was that he would even contest this to the Supreme Court. I wish they had picked a different defendant to base their case around.

But I agree, this is a dangerous precedent for the Supreme Court to set and they SHOULD have allowed Mr. Osborne's DNA to be retested with the newer technologies because I'm sure it would have put the nail in his coffin for good. This really was a hair-raising case, and I have no sympathy for him at all.

It is really unfortunate that the case of this particular defendant was the one to go before the Supreme Court when there were no doubt other defendants who also attempted to appeal their cases for the same reason but were denied a hearing. While the person's perceived innocence or guilt should not be the issue when it comes to setting a precedent like this there is no doubt that it does play a role in both the judge's decisions and the public's reactions to those decisions and therefore it is important to have the right defendant when bringing a case like this to the Supreme Court.

The new test would have been a wee bit more selective!

Tesha

at least that appears to be the 5-4 logic.

present OR past