Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Supreme Court said today that DNA possesses a unique ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty, but the justices nonetheless ruled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files. In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative bloc agreed to stand back and allow states to work out the rules for new testing of old crime samples.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

doc_sarvis

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Prisoners have no right to finding the truth or facts. If the government says you are guilty--you're guilty. Case closed, STFU and die. Thanks to the Activist Judges on the USSC. A new world is opening up for America. Not all changes are good.

Wow, SCOTUS fucked this one up bad.

Wow, SCOTUS fucked this one up bad.

oops

oops

Minorities will suffer the most under this ruling. Racist repubs love executing them

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined in dissent.

Spud too!

Out of all of the damage that Dumbya's reign of errors wrought this slide into slimy conservative thought on the SCOTUS is sure to be in the top two, behind only the Iraqi/Torture fiasco.

As far as Spud is concerned the fact that this alleged rapist's lawyer (prolly court appointed) did not insist on a DNA test prior to the trial itself is reason enuff fer a retrial based on incompetence.

The Innocence Project has provided many people a real eye opener in terms of understanding how often lazy or incompetent cops successfully pin charges on the first suspect they figure they can make it stick on.

Alaska does not give prisoners a right to obtain DNA testing

The state with the highest per capita rape stat in the nation doesn't utilise the one piece of scientific testing that provides the most truth?

*faceplam *

Well, considering Saint Sarah wanted rape victims to pay for their own rape kits that's kinda par for the course now, innit?

Be Well.

It's amazing how few inmates will allow DNA tests; prisoners can block them.

It's kinda hard to cry about being framed when the DNA proves you are the perp. Takes all the fun out of the appeals process.

When we do not do everything we can, to prove guilt, including DNA testing when possible, we risk imprisoning an innocent man.

Even more heinous, is that we allow the real rapist to continue to wander freely among our midst to rape again; and probably again and again.

Vern, do you want rapists to be protected from prosecution?

Cause that is what happens when the wrong guy gets convicted.

Is that what you support Vern?

Is It?

You may wish to recalculate your support for not doing out utmost to make sure we have the right guy.

The DNA Project has freed over 250 men who had been found guilty of crimes they did not commit. One again the Republican Supreme Court has proven that there concern is not for the average American but the Privilege ones. This decision will hurt the minorities in Prison the most, but of course these RACIST Judges had that all ready figured out.....

If DNA testing could free an innocent for no matter what the crime, then it should be, nationwide.
I am disappointed in the decision by the SCoTUS.

Oh crap. I just found myself agreeing with rightnut.

This is a dark day for the SCOTUS.

A ruling like this should be an embarrassment for all citizens.

As much as we tout how we can use DNA to effectively convict someone, we should be equally as enthusiastic to exonerate those found innocent using the same technology.

If DNA testing could free an innocent for no matter what the crime, then it should be, nationwide.
I am disappointed in the decision by the SCoTUS.

#11 | Posted by rightnut

Oh crap. I just found myself agreeing with rightnut.

#12 | Posted by northguy3

Spud too.

* looks out window fer flying pigs *

Be Well.

We do have right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. People who aren't guilty of crimes have the right to prove they are innocent using DNA if the state has the right to use the DNA to convict them.

In the end, though, it comes down to money. DNA tests are extremely expensive. Cut out a few DNA tests and you could pay to have another police officer on the street or another teacher.

On the flip-side, convicts are considered guilty unless they prove they are innocent, so it that way they don't have rights. It also does seem reasonable that one would need some evidence to suggest that DNA testing could exonerate them.

Eventually, DNA testing will probably become cheap enough that it will just always happen

It looks like it will be up to the states to do the right thing. According to the article, 47 of them and the federal government already do.

I hate to say it but I agree with SCOTUS, accept concerning federal prosecution resulting in sentencing. I don't think this case concerned federal convictions but I may be wrong, (as I'm sure someone will point out if I am.)

States run their own justice and that's the way it should be. My county doesn't prosecute unless they're damn sure of evidence and if they push it too much our citizens backlash.

State A.G.s have to be elected and that is where our powers lie as citizens.

Sotamayer said herself, (though I don't believe she would have ruled with this decision,) that her own personal experiences shape her decisions.

This is the beauty of local judges having control of their cases and not the federal government.

Oh yeah. Don't give me no shit about black teenagers put to death in Newark over some murder they didn't do. Sorry for the innocent but just because your justice system sucks doesn't mean the SCOTUS needs to mandate.

GOOD DECISION. Put the responsibility on the people not the government.

State A.G.s have to be elected and that is where our powers lie as citizens.

There is a small handful of states where the A.G. is appointed by the governor.

Excuse me while I do an extreme faceplant!! Business as usual for the Bush court. God, how many times more do I have to hate this man????

Why is it when a liberal does NOT like the decision of a Conservative (even though I believe the majority of people who claim Conservatism are just Republicans trying to feel better.) is of racial motivation? They said it in the article, "the court's conservative bloc agreed to stand back and allow states to work out the rules for new testing of old crime samples." do you need "Obama the First" to make your decisions for you? They made the correct decision to ALLOW the states to address this with their own process. If you don't like what they come up with, write a referendum and get a petition going. Maybe wright your Governor and say to him/her send it to the people to vote upon. God you Stateists make me sick to my stomach, do you even see where you are taking this country! You all are trying to make this place ENGLAND!!! We broke away from them because WE WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS!!! Not be handed our answer from our handlers. WAKE UP!

another 5-4 decision along the same lines? Pathetic.

How many of the lefties here would support a DNA test for all children at birth?

Then, when a crime is committed and DNA is left, the police would KNOW who to arrest. Never charge the wrong guy?

LOL. Most on the left would oppose this (as most of the right would), but for different reasons. The right because of freedom issues, the left cause they are all scared they will be caught!

As for this decision, I agree it is a state issue, not a federal one. Lots of things that have no business being decided by the USSC has been. It should stop. The majority of the power of the feds should be dismantled and returned to the people and the states, as it was intended.

Now, if the question was can the convict have the DNA tests performed, IF HE PAYS FOR IT, then I think there would be less resistance. Forcing the state to pay for test after test after test, just because the inmate has nothing better to do than file papers is crazy.

I think when an inmate sues the prison for something silly (like someone stole his doll) that they should be sent to live in that jail/tent city in AZ 1 day for every buck the state wasted.

they should be sent to live in that jail/tent city in AZ

Actually,except for summertime tent city probably isn't that bad.The rest of the county jails don't have any windows.you do have to shave though.

This is a great decision because it falls along the lines of how the founders set up our government: A limited central government with more governmental powers falling into the hands of the states.

We can argue the merits of such a structure all day long. However, none of these arguments detract from the fact that, for better or worse, this is how our government was structured.


another 5-4 decision along the same lines? Pathetic.

#21 | Posted by Alexandrite

Before the addition of Roberts and Alito, the court still had a shitload of 5-4 decisions, but often the other way.

5-4 decisions are not uncommon in the court's history.

I am encouraged because what I am seeing out of this court is judicial restraint. The trend is toward reducing the power and influence of the court and putting it back to the state and federal legislatures, right where much of the debate belongs.

These great jurists uphold the proud history of the Supreme Court as illustrated by Dred Scott. Somewhere down the road their decision will be viewed with the same amount of disgust. I hope some how, some way, these fine jurists face justice at the hand of jurists who value justice as much as these ones do.

I am encouraged

Of course you are.

right where much of the debate belongs.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ

Whatever simpleton. States like Texas shouldn't be allowed to continually wrongly convict minorities.

"The trend is toward reducing the power and influence of the court and putting it back to the state and federal legislatures, right where much of the debate belongs."

And blah, blah, blah. One innocent prisoner held in prison negates your pompous concern about states' rights. Justice is the primary goal of our Justice System or at least it should be.

Prisoners have no right to finding the truth or facts. If the government says you are guilty--you're guilty. Case closed.

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

That isn't what they said bob. Read the article.

Baaaad ruling.

Hiding under the cover of states' rights, the implicit fact is that they mean to allow states to protect their conviction records no matter that evidence may be in their posession to show the convicted is innocent.

Brilliant.

Is that what you support Vern?

Is It?

You may wish to recalculate your support for not doing out utmost to make sure we have the right guy.

#9 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2009-06-18 09:36 PM | Reply

I'm not talking about the guy on trial, dipshit. IF DNA testing can exonerate him, then that means more justice.

But many accused fight against DNA tests being admitted. What are they afraid of if they are innocent?

I've read where more than 80 percent of convicts who have the DNA option for their appeal refuse it. What are they afraid of?

They are afraid that the test will be conclusive, and lock them away. Their only hope of raping and walking is to argue arcane legalistic shit. Science can be so damned specific.

Minorities will suffer the most under this ruling.

#6 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-18 06:36 PM | Reply

Reminds me of the LAST headline the New York Times will every publish:

World Ends:
Women, Minorities Hardest Hit

Somebody needs to inform the SCOTUS about the existence of the 6th Amendment since they seem to have forgotten.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

They voted based on the expense of retesting all the evidence opposed to voting based on the rights of the accused.

This ruling serves a purpose. Covering the greed, corruption and incompetence that puts poor innocent people in jail and lets rich criminals walk the streets. Under Bush, more than 450 completely innocent "accused terrorists" were released from Guantanamo without trial. The morons had paid millions in bounties for taxi drivers, cooks and vagrants. But many power hungry assholes would rather execute them than expose their own flawed methods to the public. Same as any King or tyrant might do.

One innocent prisoner held in prison negates your pompous concern about states' rights. Justice is the primary goal of our Justice System or at least it should be.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-19 08:45 AM | Reply

Did any of you stupid fucks read the article? (not picking on Danni) or are you just playing the standard "Bush Court Must be Bad" game?

Geez. This is about old crimes and the appeals process. Also, in 47 state convicts can easily use DNA to clear themselves; in the other three it ain't hard, and in federal prisons it is easiest of all:

"Already, 47 states and the federal government have enacted laws or rules that allow prisoners under some circumstances to obtain DNA tests, the high court said."

SO, the question for you illiterate Liberal whiners remains: If DNA evidence will clear a convict, why do so many refuse, and instead choose to argue rules and procedures?

If they are innocent, what are they afraid of?

If you were wrongly imprisoned and knew that DNA would clear you, would you fight against it?

If DNA evidence will clear a convict, why do so many refuse, and instead choose to argue rules and procedures?

Honestly never heard of this before. Do you have a link?

If you were wrongly imprisoned and knew that DNA would clear you, would you fight against it?


Not for a second.

"What are they afraid of?"

Could be ignorance of what DNA is, or, if they are indeed innocent and already feel that they were railroaded into a conviction, that they have no trust that the DNA analysis will be done honestly and know that if it comes back against them that they have no leg to stand on appeal-wise.

they have no trust that the DNA analysis will be done honestly and know that if it comes back against them that they have no leg to stand on appeal-wise

That is why your lawyer should get a sample of what they have BEFORE you send them a sample of your DNA.

Vernon, yes I read this article and several others about it. However...

"Also, in 47 state convicts can easily use DNA to clear themselves;"

Sorry, the fact that 47 states grant the opportunity for convicts to use DNA evidence to clear themselves still leaves 3 states where convicts don't have that right. Sorry...not good enough, equal protection and all that, doncha know.

Technicalities preventing justice are simply opportunities for miscarriages of justice. One innocent person convicted and incarcerated or even executed is one too many. In the country with the highest percentage of the population imprisoned as well as the highest total number imprisoned our SC should be much more willing to make damn sure that those people are at least guilty of the crimes they are accused of and provide the absolute opportunity to all to pursue DNA testing if it could potentially exhonerate them.

That is why your lawyer should get a sample of what they have BEFORE you send them a sample of your DNA.
#39 | Posted by kanrei

MY lawyer?

It was a general "you."

I have a question, and while I don't want to take us off on a tangent here, I've always wondered about this and perhaps someone can satisfy my curiousity.
As we all learned from the OJ trial, DNA evidence has to be very carefully collected, tested and stored. Otherwise, the results are certainly called into question. On these old cases, some of which predated any knowledge of proper DNA handling procedures, how can they possibly have collected and stored the samples properly? How can those samples prove anything, much less provide absolute proof of innocence (or guilt, for that matter)?

Hawk,
Good question. If the DNA matches, then there is good cause to believe the accused is guilty, although, as you said, there can be many things to contaminate it. However, if it doesn't match, then the person is clear because no contamination can take things away, it can only add.

"However, if it doesn't match, then the person is clear because no contamination can take things away, it can only add."
#44 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-19 11:08 AM | Reply

Ah, an excellent point, one I hadn't thought of. Thanks.

UNFORTUNATE. Huge set back for humanity and America.

Vernon, yes I read this article and several others about it. However...

our SC should be much more willing to make damn sure that those people are at least guilty of the crimes they are accused of and provide the absolute opportunity to all to pursue DNA testing if it could potentially exhonerate them.

I thought someone pointed out the request was for OLD DNA collected. Where does the article imply the Justices have reduced the accused opportunity during their trial? Other than the thread and LA Times misleading headlines. But you read the article and others, right?

How can those samples prove anything, much less provide absolute proof of innocence (or guilt, for that matter)?
#43 | Posted by hawk

A mishandled sample will not yield a false positive id, nor will it implicate someone else. You'll either get a usable sample or you won't.

In the OJ trial, DNA evidence was fairly new thing and juries had a hard time accepting the level of certainty that DNA provides. I'd think that a jury today would have a much harder time finding him not guilty.

couple of things to consider

osbourne wanted to pay for the testing himself

he was released already after serving 15 years (he was rearrested for a home invasion).

he admitted to the crime according to him to get a positive parole approval for his release.

many states put significant restrictions on who can get post conviction testing.

according to the innocence project 250 or so convictions were overturned based on post conviction DNA testing and 103 of these lead to identifying the actual perpetrators of the crime!

seems to me this would be a great way to keep our streets safer.

As for the SC judgement, I think that this should fall under federal authority under Article 6 of the BoR.

SO, the question for you illiterate Liberal whiners remains: If DNA evidence will clear a convict, why do so many refuse, and instead choose to argue rules and procedures?

funny you claiming liberals are the illiterate ones

from the NYTimes:

Many states that do allow postconviction testing impose conditions on who may seek it. Prosecutors often fight hard to deny access to DNA evidence even in states that nominally allow it, saying the prisoner in question had not met the statutory conditions.

(a) DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty. The availability of new DNA testing technologies, however, 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. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719. Forty-six States and the Federal Government have already enacted statutes dealing specifically with access to evidence for DNA testing. These laws recognize the value of DNA testing but also the need for conditions on accessing the State's evidence. Alaska is one of a handful of States yet to enact specific DNA testing legislation, but Alaska courts are addressing how to apply existing discovery and postconviction relief laws to this novel technology. Pp. 8-11.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

Once again the 9th Circuit is overturn for the umpteenth time. Strange the article never delved into what are the current laws on the books or current legislations being prepared.

How about doing what is right?
Whether you legally have to or not.

Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong, and just because something is legal does not make it right.

again I am sure that someone has already pointed out that the SC didNOT say they had no right to the tests.
they said that it was up to the states...

there's that old pesky 10th amendment thing coming in again that LIBS just hate and would love to send packing

again I am sure that someone has already pointed out that the SC didNOT say they had no right to the tests.
they said that it was up to the states...

Not according to the standard libs here. They only comment on the headline.

again I am sure that someone has already pointed out that the SC didNOT say they had no right to the tests.
they said that it was up to the states...

Not according to the standard libs here. They only comment on the headline.
#54 | Posted by crispee_oc

Isn't that as good as saying you have no right to the tests that your state doesn't give you?

I don't see what your problem is with the headline.

again I am sure that someone has already pointed out that the SC didNOT say they had no right to the tests.
they said that it was up to the states...

there's that old pesky 10th amendment thing coming in again that LIBS just hate and would love to send packing

#53 | Posted by afkabl2

except the 10th doesnt apply: as this is reserved by the 6th Amendment. It wouldnt be creating a new constitutinal right.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

(the appeals process is part of the judicial process)

What I find funny is the automatic agreement with the court due to the fact that it was the conservatives on the court who decided the case. I don't believe for a minute that most of the righties agreeing with them do so out of any reasoning, no they automatically agree because it is the all or nothing partisanship of the right.
If this case had been decided by the liberal part of teh court the same people who support the decision here would be desiagreeing with it then.
It's just like the health care debate, the same people saying "it's too expensive" were silent when Bush spent hundreds of billions in Iraq and ran up 5 trillion in debt. I don't even thing their partisanship is really based on any philosophical position, no I think it is much more connected to their feelings of intellectual insecurity and thus they oppose anything that they perceive to be supported by "intellectuals" who they identify with the left. It almost boils down to the old blue collar/white collar divide which determines which side of many issues people are on.
It is a culture war more than it is a debate about individual issues because the sides are formed before the issues are presented.

Danni,
It isn't the conservative court, but our reaction. If we thought this was brilliant, the righties here would be condemning us and the court.

www.scotusblog.com

Interesting reading.

Especially this line

"(Osborne had confessed his guilt to the parole review board in an attempt to secure an early parole.)

(Osborne's trial attorney made a tactical decision to forego the DNA testing that was available at the time of trial.)"

yeah okay
truth

should have specified the 10th was talking about staes rights...gottcha

Danni,
It isn't the conservative court, but our reaction. If we thought this was brilliant, the righties here would be condemning us and the court.

#58 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-19 12:24 PM

I for one condemn those who never bothered to read the article and make ignorant implications. Just so happens they were libs. Not to mention bringing Bush or Palin into the mix. Again they happened to be libs.

Crispee,
It appears you agree with the libs for the most part. Didn't you say: our SC should be much more willing to make damn sure that those people are at least guilty of the crimes they are accused of and provide the absolute opportunity to all to pursue DNA testing if it could potentially exhonerate them; or did I misread this and it was you quoting someone else?

The court was not 5-4 on all the issues involved.

Crispee,
It appears you agree with the libs for the most part. Didn't you say: our SC should be much more willing to make damn sure that those people are at least guilty of the crimes they are accused of and provide the absolute opportunity to all to pursue DNA testing if it could potentially exhonerate them; or did I misread this and it was you quoting someone else?

I think that was someone who claimed to have read the article and made this comment.

"It isn't the conservative court, but our reaction."

It has largely become a game of besting the other side, not really a discussion of issues because no one really considers the validity of the views on the other side (and I know I am probably guilty just as anyone else). When you start recognizing that it makes one think just trolling like some do with jokes would be just as worthwhile of a way to pass time. I think it is like that in the real world too, Jon Stewart makes a career out of it by highlighting the foolishness of both sides.

I have to say that while I am a huge fan of the Innocence Project and the entire concept of DNA testing wherever possible, it does strike me as terribly unnecessary to add a whole new layer of constitutional protections as a solution to the problem of people using wrong-headed tactics in court. The defense attorney specifically didn't want test results to be part of the proceedings. As a result, the client may be screwed. If it amounts to a lack of due diligence or incompetence, then there are already remedies available under all state laws.

Had the minority won here, every defendant could shoot the moon in court, then later on demand they get to use a different defense later. And on and on. Talk about your judicial nightmare scenarios.

If people want change, then vote for better state legislators instead of beating the presidential and Supreme Court drums all the time.

It has largely become a game of besting the other side, not really a discussion of issues because no one really considers the validity of the views on the other side (and I know I am probably guilty just as anyone else).

How does bringing Bush and Iraq into the thread advance the issue?

Jun 18 2009 Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to Part II. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined as to Part I. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

It wasn't all 5-4.

Wow, SCOTUS fucked this one up bad.

#2 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Why? They gave it to the states where it belongs. You don't think that the states can handle this?

These great jurists uphold the proud history of the Supreme Court as illustrated by Dred Scott. Somewhere down the road their decision will be viewed with the same amount of disgust. I hope some how, some way, these fine jurists face justice at the hand of jurists who value justice as much as these ones do.

#26 | Posted by danni

What....in... the....fuck....are you talking about? How is justice not being meted out? Are you saying that the states can't handle this issue on their own? Does everything have to be run and handled by the feds in your world? Never mind. I already know the answer to that.

I agree with #66. Also, to claim that justice has not been done in this particular case is mind-numbingly stupid. This guy admitted to the disgusting crimes at issue in applications for parole. The Constitution does not guarantee you indefinite access to every new type of evidence technology that might raise a doubt as to your guilt if there was sufficient evidence of your guilt to convict you in the first place. As many have pointed out, there are procedures in place for how that evidence can be accessed, no Constitution necessary.

The biggest problem here is that folks like Danni, whose home state of Florida has one of the worst, most disjointed and unpredictable criminal justice systems in the nation, would rather spend their time bitching and moaning about the Supreme Court not taking a million cases a year and deciding them based solely on notions of "fairness" then to figure out what is happening at the trial court level, and campaign for good judges and good state officials to make good rules to begin with.

It is not the job of the highest court in the land to act as trial lawyer for every criminal defendant in the country whose trial strategy failed to achieve their desired result.

"It is not the job of the highest court in the land to act as trial lawyer for every criminal defendant in the country whose trial strategy failed to achieve their desired result."

Except, that it was a pretty basic, universal right to evidence that was the basis for this case, it was not, by any stretch, a trial about the basic facts introduced at the original trial. So, your point sounds like it is good and might be if four members of the SC didn't agree with me.
You are completely right about the Florida justice system though.

"This guy admitted to the disgusting crimes at issue in applications for parole."

Has anyone gotten paroled while maintaining their innocence?

Why? They gave it to the states where it belongs. You don't think that the states can handle this?

#69 | Posted by everlong

it's not a state issue
its the 6th amendment.

the SC got it wrong.

the Feds have the responsibility to protect the 6th Amendment and this is clearly a 6th amendment issue.

Also, to claim that justice has not been done in this particular case is mind-numbingly stupid.

that's just plain wrong, if Osbourne wasnt pretty sure he would pass the DNA test, he wouldnt be pushing the issue.

Also, to claim that justice has not been done in this particular case is mind-numbingly stupid.

that's just plain wrong, if Osbourne wasnt pretty sure he would pass the DNA test, he wouldnt be pushing the issue.

Maybe he can go back and ask to go on the stand because he knows it will help him. Just like he had a chance to bring up the DNA which his lawyer decided not to do.

DNA was alot less of a sure science when he went to trial

Danni, due process is the basic, universal right. And it is not infinite. This guy chose not to obtain the evidence and use it at trial. His attorney did nothing wrong. It was a choice. If he was innocent, it was a stupid choice. How exactly was his due process violated by not getting a re-do?

If there is any question as to procedural fairness, substantial lawyer incompetence, erroneous jury instructions, access to evidence, etc. etc. then I think everyone would agree they should get a new trial where it may have affected the outcome. But a re-do for the sake of strategy is a terrible precedent.

Danni, why are you not screaming about these issues on a local or state level if you think the system is broken? That's how the US government was designed to work, is it not? Why jump to federal authority? Why invoke new constitutional protections when you could more easily push to enact or fix a state law?

think of things a bit differently.

If Osbourne didnt do this crime, then the perpetrator who did it got away with it and is potentially still at large.

"This guy admitted to the disgusting crimes at issue in applications for parole."

This type of evidence, along with eyewitness identifications, is much less reliable than other types. Denying access to definitive evidence on the basis that other less reliable evidence exists is really stupid. While there are many good reasons why this guy shouldn't get a new layer of constitutional protections, his "confessing" to a parole board is not one of them.

"if Osbourne wasnt pretty sure he would pass the DNA test, he wouldnt be pushing the issue."

What would it mean to you if he passed this test? The following evidence from the case would serve to contradict any other conclusion:

The driver during during the rape and assault told police that Osborne was his passenger. The victim picked out his photograph, and at trial she identified Osborne as her attacker. Other witnesses testified that shortly before the crime, Osborne had called Jackson from an arcade, and then driven off with him. An axe handle similar to the one at the scene of the crime was found in Osborne's room on the military base where he lived. DNA testing available at the time was performed, which can clear some wrongly accused individuals, but generally cannot narrow the perpetrator down to less than 5% of the population. The semen found on the condom had a genotype that matched a blood sample taken from Osborne, but not ones from the driver, the victim, or a third suspect. Osborne is black, and approximately 16% of black individuals have such a genotype. In other words, the testing ruled out the driver and third suspect as possible sources of the semen, and also ruled out over 80% of other black individuals.

If Osbourne didnt do this crime, then the perpetrator who did it got away with it and is potentially still at large.

I believe someone already pointed out he admitted to the crime.

to get out on parole, seems like a good reason to admit to something you didnt do.

"DNA was alot less of a sure science when he went to trial"

You get arrested for a murder you didn't commit. The lawyer tells you there is a test that can narrow the field of suspects to only 5% of the population. Why in the world would you not jump on that opportunity? Had he been convicted, they could have gone back and re-tested using updated techniques. And no one would have been able to claim he didn't do all the right things at trial to justify the later testing. Had that been the case, and Alaska denied him a re-test, then I would fully agree that the Supreme Court should call it a violation of due process. He was paying for the tests himself. The state need do nothing but address a miscarriage of justice should it be discovered. And they should have every incentive to do that.

so your argument is that because during trial he chose one option based on a level of uncertainty of the DNA testing process that he has surrendered his rights to obtaining evidence in his defense? that is patently absurd.

to get out on parole, seems like a good reason to admit to something you didnt do.

#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:35 PM

Just like someone who pleads guilty? Come on truth. Read Joe's post and continue to defend this scumbags innocence.

"Why? They gave it to the states where it belongs. You don't think that the states can handle this?"

When it comes to the protection of citizens' rights, the states can't handle jack shit, as they have proved any number of times.

Things have come to an appalling pass when the Supreme Court of this nation rules that citizens have no right to expect that evidence that could clear their names be collected and used. I knew that things were going to get pretty bad under Roberts, but I didn't foresee a masterpiece of idiotic reasoning like this.

I am sick and goddamn tired of hearing the phrase "States' Rights," anyway. There are certain basic freedoms and rights that all Americans have, or should have, and leaving their granting and enforcement up to states will always mean that some citizens of this country will have them, and others will not. I well remember when we had miscegenation laws on the books in some states and not in others. That was wrong, and it was addressed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

How is it that we could do something wonderful like that forty-five years ago, settling a civil rights question once and for all, and today it's all up to some jerks in black robes - or worse yet, voters?

While there are many good reasons why this guy shouldn't get a new layer of constitutional protections, his "confessing" to a parole board is not one of them.

#81 | Posted by kevin23 a

this is not a new layer of constitutional protection. It is clearly the 6th amendment

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

you have that right

witnesses applies to the DNA evidence.

the 6th amendment applies to the appeals process

sorry he has a federal right under the bill of rights to the DNA test.

to get out on parole, seems like a good reason to admit to something you didnt do.

#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:35 PM

Just like someone who pleads guilty? Come on truth. Read Joe's post and continue to defend this scumbags innocence.

#87 | Posted by crispee_oc at

I am not stating whether the person is guilty or not, I am only saying that he is entitled to the DNA test. If other evidence ties him to the crime, so be it. perhaps he was there and beat or shot the woman but did not rape her. he did his 15 years and doesnt want a sex crime hanging over him. I am not in a position to comment on the whole case only the fact that he is entitled to the test.

The state need do nothing but address a miscarriage of justice should it be discovered. And they should have every incentive to do that.

#85 | Posted by kevin23 at

except that is not the only incentive they have. reelection, crime statistics, conviction rates, lawsuits over wrongful prosecution, etc etc etc give pretty good incentive to prevent relooking at convictions.

I am not in a position to comment on the whole case only the fact that he is entitled to the test.

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:44 PM

How do you ignore he waived his right of the DNA samples during the trial? Regardless of it's early stages and it's use in courts back in 1993.

"witnesses applies to the DNA evidence.

the 6th amendment applies to the appeals process

sorry he has a federal right under the bill of rights to the DNA test."

That logic would leave courts in an untenable position. If DNA evidence was 99% accurate, and a new method of testing came out that was 99.1% accurate, would criminal defendants all be entitled to such a test? In the next year when a test comes out that is 99.2% accurate, is every convicted criminal in America likewise entitled to that test? And so on and so forth. At some point you have to look at all of the evidence that points the other way and determine whether it removes any reasonable doubt without regard to any new techniques that are now available.

I am not in a position to comment on the whole case only the fact that he is entitled to the test.

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:44 PM

How do you ignore he waived his right of the DNA samples during the trial? Regardless of it's early stages and it's use in courts back in 1993.

#92 | Posted by crispee_oc

because that act does not waive his right to the use of the DNA, he chose not to use it is his defense. There is a difference. According to the article he weighed the possibility of clearing him to the chance he would fall under that 5% and make him look even more guilty. that may have been because he was guilty or because of a lack of knowledge on DNA at the time.

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:41 PM

He already had his day in court, and the opportunity to demand testing. Sorry to you too, because you are wrong to assume the 4th and 6th amendments are infinite in scope.

#91 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:46 PM

Notice I used the word "SHOULD" not "WILL". Reading to comprehend is important.

"witnesses applies to the DNA evidence.

the 6th amendment applies to the appeals process

sorry he has a federal right under the bill of rights to the DNA test."

That logic would leave courts in an untenable position. If DNA evidence was 99% accurate, and a new method of testing came out that was 99.1% accurate, would criminal defendants all be entitled to such a test? In the next year when a test comes out that is 99.2% accurate, is every convicted criminal in America likewise entitled to that test? And so on and so forth. At some point you have to look at all of the evidence that points the other way and determine whether it removes any reasonable doubt without regard to any new techniques that are now available.

#93 | Posted by JOE

any evidence that would clear an innocent person of a conviction is fine by me. Your arguement comes down to feasibility etc and costs. that is a legislative item, for example state only pays for costs if the testing frees the person. Otherwise the convict pays for the testing.

the rest of your argument is for trial or retrial, that is not apropos to whether a person has a right to something.

"any evidence that would clear an innocent person of a conviction is fine by me."

Problem is that no one knows if it "would" or not until it is adjudicated.

He already had his day in court, and the opportunity to demand testing. Sorry to you too, because you are wrong to assume the 4th and 6th amendments are infinite in scope.

#91 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-19 01:46 PM

Notice I used the word "SHOULD" not "WILL". Reading to comprehend is important.

#95 | Posted by kevin23 a

sooooo the 4th and 6th dont apply to the appeals process? that would be news to me. when do we lose our rights? at conviction?

Your arguement comes down to feasibility etc and costs. that is a legislative item, for example state only pays for costs if the testing frees the person. Otherwise the convict pays for the testing.

Which is exactly what the Majority Opinion wrote. Why not leave it up to the States?

"any evidence that would clear an innocent person of a conviction is fine by me."

Problem is that no one knows if it "would" or not until it is adjudicated.

#97 | Posted by kevin23 at

fine than have the convict pay for the test unless the result is an overturning of the conviction.

But fair enough, I dont have a problem with the test being weighed against the balance of the evidence, however DNA is by nature a pretty strong determiner of innocence or guilt in many instances.

"sooooo the 4th and 6th dont apply to the appeals process? that would be news to me. when do we lose our rights? at conviction?"

An appeal is not designed to re-evaluate the evidence. That role is solely for a jury.

Your arguement comes down to feasibility etc and costs. that is a legislative item, for example state only pays for costs if the testing frees the person. Otherwise the convict pays for the testing.

Which is exactly what the Majority Opinion wrote. Why not leave it up to the States?

#99 | Posted by crispee_oc

because the SC didnt guarantee the 6th amendment rights of the convict.

"But fair enough, I dont have a problem with the test being weighed against the balance of the evidence, however DNA is by nature a pretty strong determiner of innocence or guilt in many instances."

Then there are challenges as to how tests were conducted, samples collected, integrity of storage procedures, etc. etc. etc. This is not as simple as a yes or no test result.

"sooooo the 4th and 6th dont apply to the appeals process? that would be news to me. when do we lose our rights? at conviction?"

An appeal is not designed to re-evaluate the evidence. That role is solely for a jury.

#101 | Posted by kevin23

sure, but that doesnt remove your rights as a citizen. hey perhaps I am missing something on constitutional law, i am certainly no expert, but it seems from my simple reading of things that people have a right to defend themselves, even or especially against a wrongful prosecution.

"But fair enough, I dont have a problem with the test being weighed against the balance of the evidence, however DNA is by nature a pretty strong determiner of innocence or guilt in many instances."

Then there are challenges as to how tests were conducted, samples collected, integrity of storage procedures, etc. etc. etc. This is not as simple as a yes or no test result.

#103 | Posted by kevin23 at

that's a matter for the jury to decide.

"sure, but that doesnt remove your rights as a citizen. hey perhaps I am missing something on constitutional law, i am certainly no expert, but it seems from my simple reading of things that people have a right to defend themselves, even or especially against a wrongful prosecution."

Yes. Up to a point. And practically speaking, unless there were procedural issues or substantial errors, it starts and ends with a jury of your peers. Appeals are to ensure that the trial gave you procedural fairness.

"that's a matter for the jury to decide."

How many juries? 10? 20? 100?

I believe it was stated up thread that with DNA either the sample is good or not.

if good your DNA is either there or not. If there, guilty, if not well that places in question depending on the case circumstances whether the whole case is correct.

Using osbournes case. Suppose they he won.

Either the sample from the condom (presumably the evidence in question) is good or not. If not Osbourne is screwed. If good, you run the test

If his DNA is there, than the conviction is strong.

if the dna is NOT there, then the whole case is in question. and there is a good possibilit that someone else's DNA is there, thus leading you to the actual criminal

hey perhaps I am missing something on constitutional law, i am certainly no expert, but it seems from my simple reading of things that people have a right to defend themselves, even or especially against a wrongful prosecution.

I thought it was about wrongful conviction? Big stretch don't you think?

"that's a matter for the jury to decide."

How many juries? 10? 20? 100?

#107 | Posted by kevin23 at

when evidence as definitive as DNA is in play? as many as it takes to reach the truth.

Truth-

I'm off to a 3 cocktail lunch. Someone else will need to further explain how our legal system works. No, a convicted criminal does not, under the constitution, have limitless rights to adjudication. DNA testing is not nearly as simple as you think it is. There are problems with samples over time. Were I a convicted murderer, I'd LOVE the opportunity to, 10 years later, have them be forced to provide a positive test result with really OLD samples. How could I lose? It is stupid to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The issue as I see it is, Is Osbourne entitled under the 6th Amendment, to the test?

do you lose your rights once convicted of a crime?

that is not a state's right issue, that is a 6th Amendment issue.

The SC acknowledged the unique power of DNA.

Their decision is acceptance of this would create a new constitutional right. How does the 6th Amendment not apply?

if the dna is NOT there, then the whole case is in question. and there is a good possibilit that someone else's DNA is there, thus leading you to the actual criminal

Problem with that scenario is the State can't come back and charge Osbourne. Why do you keep pointing to another perp? It is established Osbourne admitted doing it.

yes cause every admission is true.

he lied to get paroled, pretty clear.

"pretty clear"

No it's not. Don't make stuff up.

do you lose your rights once convicted of a crime?

actually don't you lose some Constitutional rights when you are convicted of a crime and incarcerated?

This does appear to be a states rights issue.

Make sure you commit a crime in the right states!

In parole proceedings, however, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a separate bid for release from prison.

that from what I have read is the only time he admitted to the crime.

do you lose your rights once convicted of a crime?

actually don't you lose some Constitutional rights when you are convicted of a crime and incarcerated?

This does appear to be a states rights issue.

Make sure you commit a crime in the right states!

#116 | Posted by donnerboy

or more accurately make sure you dont commit a crime the right states.

do you lose your rights once convicted of a crime?

Don't felons lose the right to vote?

interesting website with some good recommendations for post conviction DNA testing legislation

www.innocenceproject.org

The Innocence Project recommends the following elements be contained in new statutes or existing statutes in need of amending:

Include a reasonable standard to establish proof of innocence at the stage where an individual is petitioning for post-conviction DNA testing;

Allow access to post-conviction DNA testing wherever it can establish innocence, even if the petitioner is no longer incarcerated, and including cases where the petitioner pled guilty or provided a confession or admission to the crime;

Exclude "sunset provisions," or absolute deadlines, for when access to post-conviction DNA evidence will expire;

Require state officials to account for evidence in their custody;

Require state officials to properly preserve and catalogue biological evidence for as long as an individual is incarcerated or otherwise experiences any consequences of a potential wrongful conviction (e.g. probation, parole, civil commitment or mandatory registration as a sex offender); (Read more about evidence preservation here)

Disallow procedural hurdles that stymie DNA testing petitions and proceedings that govern other forms of post-conviction relief;

Allow convicted persons to appeal from orders denying DNA testing;

Require a full, fair and prompt response to DNA testing petitions, including the avoidance of debate around whether currently available DNA technology was available at the time of the trial;

Avoid unfunded mandates by providing funding to DNA testing statutes; and

Provide flexibility in where, and how, DNA testing is conducted.

Voting isn't a right, but they do lose the right to bear arms which is.

actually voting is a right

Amendment XIX
(Ratified August 18, 1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

fair enough, some rights are abridged or lost as a result of conviction, but I would hold that the 6th Amendment still applies.

Actually, it isn't..it is a priveldge. That Amendment only says it cannot be taken away "on account of sex" meaning it can be taken away based on other things, like conviction. Only the States have the right to vote, not individuals.

the 7th speaks to conviction of crimes

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

a convict is deprived of his rights by due process of law.

I would still hold that the 6th Amendment is applicable.

Say a person is convicted based on lies by a witness.

The witness recants his testimony. I believe, in an appeal the convict has a right to compell the person to testify to the truth.

Actually, it isn't..it is a priveldge. That Amendment only says it cannot be taken away "on account of sex" meaning it can be taken away based on other things, like conviction. Only the States have the right to vote, not individuals.

#124 | Posted by kanrei

huh? not sure what you are talking about. The amendment clearly states voting is a right.

yes we are in a representional democracy and it is the electors we are voting for but we still have the right to vote.

and as for the condition of crimiinals the 7th handles the revocation of rights.

excuse me the 5th amendment

The "right versus privilege" debate is long going with no clear answer; like the "is the Constitution a living document or a dead document that can be amended" debate. The only clear right to vote in the Constitution is where states send delegates to the Electoral College, but it is left for each state to determine how those delegates are selected.

The Amendment you quote only says you cannot give the ability to some and deny it from others based on the sex of the individual, not that all individuals have the right to vote as I see it.

"In parole proceedings, however, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a separate bid for release from prison."

"that from what I have read is the only time he admitted to the crime."

And? Parole applications are sworn statements. Are you saying he shouldn't be held to that or that it should be seen as having no value?

a convict is deprived of his rights by due process of law.

#125 | Posted by truthhurts

But, he wasn't deprived of due process. From reading the many sites now posting this issue and its text, the court was looking at the guys' right to habeus and was pursuing this case in a new direction because of the Appeal court's view.

Plus, the ruling from this court was not 5-4 on all issues. I'm still seeing that. It was not 5-4 on all the issues so it wasn't completing along lines.

The issue of the validity of DNA wasn't the issue before the court but the issue of whether the argument could be raised directly as a free standing innocence.

There is due process available and it appears to have taken a back door approach.

I agree DNA should be tested for the sake of innocence. But I also see the need for due process to be followed or it becomes due anarchy.

While I understand the constitutional reasoning behind the majority's decision, I can't agree with it. Furthermore, what's up with Alaska, or any other state that doesn't give DNA testing. Especially in the case of rape, which (forgive the crudeness) leaves a lot of DNA behind.

Any Tenth Amendment issues are resolved when the states step up and do the right thing from the start. So there's no need for "a freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access to this type of evidence"? Fine, Alaska, there's your cue: you have a problem, now fix it.

Is there a constitutional reason for this decision? Yes.
Was it the right decision? No.
Can it be solved at the state level? Yes.
So, the question is, why the hell hasn't it been solved already?

The article doesn't say when the alleged crime occurred, but given how long cases can take to get to SCOTUS, that should've been more than enough time for Alaska to fix this issue, and for other states to follow suit.

"what's up with Alaska, or any other state that doesn't give DNA testing"

You need to read the case.

The State provides a substantive right to be released on a sufficiently compelling showing of new evidence that establishes innocence. It also provides for discovery in post-conviction proceedings, and has through judicial decision specified that such discovery is available to those seeking access to evidence for DNA testing. These procedures are similar to those provided by federal law and the laws of other States, and they satisfy due process.

Thank you.
Sorry, I shouldn't have phrased it "doesn't give DNA testing."

Being innocent of the crime is no excuse!

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06-18 05:00 PM | Reply |

Wow, SCOTUS fucked this one up bad.

#2 | Posted by ZombieHunter

It's a State issue to deal with--not the constitution.

The States already have processes in place to review DNA and have let many go free.

re: 121 (Cal Chris)

Felons cannot vote, unless they are registered by A.C.O.R.N. (also the deceased in Chicago).

PS: What part of CA are yo from? I visited SF a yr ago, quaint town.

"Felons cannot vote"

#137 | Posted by JROD at 2009-06-19 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag: wrong

Felon voting is decided by the states. Some allow it, some don't, some have restrictions:

Although some felons have been legally disenfranchised, others have not. Specifically, while only four states allow felons to vote while they are in prison, 18 allow felons to vote while they are on parole and 21 allow them to vote while on probation. Only 10 states permanently disenfranchise all felons and another handful do so to some ex-offenders or restore the ability to vote after a time limit. The Sentencing Project, a prisoner advocacy
www.straightdope.com

"Felon voting is decided by the states."

One hopes they'd have figured that out before showing up here.

Oh well.

What about their Constitutional Right to "Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?

That "Right" is completely restricted and voided if an "innocent" prisoner isn't allowed to "prove" his innocence by way of the standard forensic dna tests that now exist!!!

The Constitution does not guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, anticadillac. That's in the Declaration of Independence.
But objective evidence like fingerprints and DNA should be a right, simply because they are objective.

"That's in the Declaration of Independence."

But isn't that also a declaration of our principles? The touchstone to which we should return if in doubt as to what the Constitution means?

For example...say what you will about the Due Process clause, or the Equal Protection clause, the DOI includes the phrase all men are created equal. That guides my view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Should it, or not?

"objective evidence like fingerprints and DNA should be a right, simply because they are objective."

Agreed. Call me crazy, but if we have a "correct" answer, it should be heeded every time.

It was a declaration of one group's principles before the Revolution, yes. But if you want the principles behind the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers. Those remove much doubt about what was debated as to rights.
Side note: The New Jersey Constitution in Article 1 went into Jeffersonian orgasm and enshrined "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" into the text. Any lawyers out there need a test case and want me to walk naked down the street smoking a joint while reading Soldier of Fortune magazine?

"if you want the principles behind the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers. "

Did they believe "all men are created equal", or did they carve out subset groups whose equal rights should be summarily denied?

"Any lawyers out there need a test case and want me to walk naked down the street smoking a joint while reading Soldier of Fortune magazine?"

I'll cheer you on! When and where?

Can't do it, Danforth. I don't smoke and nakedness would be a provable public menace at my age.

The issue here is whether or not the court can compel the states to use DNA evidence after-the-fact - is this 'right' enumerated in the Constitution?

I say, no, it isn't. This is an issue for the legislature to tackle. Not the court.

While I agree that DNA evidence should be allowed; this isn't about what I think.

We have a process and it needs to be followed.

Lefties have gotten awfully comfortable with judicial activism over the last few decades - screw the process, it's all about outcome.

Well, we are now starting to get court decisions showing some judicial restraint; just the way it should be.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable