DNA-access ruling may have limited impact

Michael W. Hoskins
June 18, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A ruling today from the nation's highest court says convicts don't have any constitutional right to test state DNA evidence after their convictions become final, but that decision may not impact Indiana or much of the country.

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a 62-page decision in District Attorney's Office v. William G. Osborne, No. 08-6, which by a split 5-4 vote said the task of writing rules to control access to DNA evidence belongs primarily to state legislatures.

Because the Indiana legislature already allows access to post-conviction DNA evidence for testing through a 2001 statute, and most states already allow that access in some form, the impact will likely be minimal and confined to the few states without those laws on the books.

"I look at this as a reminder to agencies and state legislatures that it's up to them to take the lead and to stay vigilant," said Will McAuliffe, executive director of the Indiana Coalition Acting to Suspend Executions. "Most states have some sort of provision allowing for defendants to petition for DNA access, so this really is reflective of the small number that don't."

The SCOTUS ruling comes from a case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California involving the 1993 non-fatal rape, beating, and shooting of a prostitute in Alaska. Osborne was one of two men convicted and sentenced for the crime and got 26 years in prison. He later raised a federal constitutional claim that he had due process right to access the DNA evidence used against him for testing at his own expense. He won at the District and Circuit levels, gaining access to a blue condom used in the attack that he argued would firmly establish his guilt or innocence. But today's ruling reverses those earlier victories for Osborne on the grounds that he didn't have a right to that evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted that DNA testing provides an "unparalleled ability" for someone to prove guilt or innocence, but its availability "... cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt. The task of establishing rules to harness DNA's power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system belongs primarily to the legislature."

To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response, the chief justice wrote.

Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurring opinion that went further, saying that these claims should not be allowed in civil rights litigation but through only a habeas corpus plea, and that if a defense attorney fails to request DNA access during trial as a tactical reason, there is no constitutional right to see that access post-conviction.

Meanwhile, Justice John Paul Stevens dissented because he believes Osborne had a constitutional right to access that DNA evidence; Justice David Souter also dissented, stopping short of the constitutional question and writing he would have allowed the access on procedural, state-statute grounds.

Nationally, figures show that DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 200 people who've been convicted of murder, rape, or other violent crimes. That includes several in Indiana, who've been assisted by national wrongful-conviction advocates and attorneys and law school clinics at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis and Northwestern University School of Law.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?