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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT