ILNews

DNA-access ruling may have limited impact

Michael W. Hoskins
June 18, 2009
Keywords
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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT