In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man
In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man
In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars. Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket. Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Osburne is out of luck. Although Roberts conceded that “[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,” he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit. Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.”
In dissent, Justice Stevens explains why this decision makes no sense:
The State of Alaska possesses physical evidence that, if tested, will conclusively establish whether respondent William Osborne committed rape and attempted murder. If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence. If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice. The DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise. Yet for reasons the State has been unable or unwilling to articulate, it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.
It’s unclear why the five conservative justices think that determining Osborne’s guilt or innocence would overthrow “the established system of criminal justice,” and equally unclear why a system that would prevent a potentially innocent man from proving his case at his own expense does not deserve to be overthrown.
12 Responses to “In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Hmm. We missed the boat on impeaching Cheney and Bush so now we have another chance. If denying a man the right to prove his innocense isn’t against everything that is American I don’t know what is. Where do we start the proceedings on Roberts?
June 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pmIt’s day like these that I fear the principles on which our country was founded have truly been lost.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty was surely not meant to imply that a guilty verdict be considered infallible. This decision shows an utter lack of faith in our criminal justice system and a tacit recognition that we are currently jailing many people who would be exonerated by a review of the evidence against them using modern investigative techniques.
The sad thing is that for every inmate who was jailed on false evidence there is a criminal who has gone unpunished for the actual crime. Yes, it is a travesty, but I think our society would be better served by correcting these injustices when possible rather than shuffling them under the carpet in the name of political expediency.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pmI also find it absolutely shameful that this went to the Supreme Court at all. Every clerk, lawyer, prosecutor, and, yes, god damn governor, who has been asked to weigh in on this decision should be ashamed of themselves. Have they no empathy?
June 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pmThat’s a “free” country for ya. “Freedom” can’t stop to smell the roses (and potentially free and innocent man), it must gloriously march on to Tehran, Pyongyang leaving behind some poor bastard to rot in prison. Yeah, I love this country, really something worth to stand up and defend …… not.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:03 amDisgusting.
I’d suggest Barry stack the Supreme Court and name a new chief justice, but we’d be likely to simply get more statist, DINO Villagers.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:18 amWhat Roberts means by “established” is that however flawed the criminal justice system is he’s not interested in fixing it. Sounds like he has a vested interest in for-profit prisons or a cheap prison labor workforce. So much for justice for the guilty and rights to prove innocence!
June 19th, 2009 at 3:00 pmThey don’t want to look like they made a mistake in convicting him, but really this decision to not allow the DNA test makes them far less credible than potentially clearing a prisoner’s name. Somehow the checks and balances were absent in this decision.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:03 pmI feel bad for Osborne.
href=”http://tinyurl.com/mxwjwy
Ummmm….yeah. Osborne…umm…Osborne doesn’t match the snow in Alaska. My guess (haven’t looked at the details) is this had something significant to do with this outrageous decision.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:38 pmShorter Chief Justice Roberts:
June 19th, 2009 at 4:39 pm“I’d suggest Barry stack the Supreme Court and name a new chief justice…”
This would suggest you believe Obama didn’t support the court’s decision.
June 20th, 2009 at 8:08 pmRead your Greenwald.
salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/20/dna/index.html
I’ve seen so much inhumanity amongst Americans toward other Americans. Perhaps some of the same Americans who write the comments supporting Mr. Osborne are inhumane on other issues. Just a thought. As regards The Supremes vs. Mr. Osborne: why aren’t we taking to the streets? This one is really serious.
June 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pmDid anyone read the decision? I thank Ian for offering the link rather than merely quoting out of context. Most of you are missing numerous significant issues here. While I side slightly on the liberal edge of this decision, primarily along Souter’s reasoning, you have to note that:
1. Osborne almost certainly committed the crime:
-identified by victim and accomplice,
-possible match with less precise DNA test done at the trial –defense lawyer thought he was guilty,
-he confessed under oath for parole hearing.
Generally, non-guilty people don’t manage to accumulate double eyewitness testimony, semi-strong DNA evidence, their own advocate not believing them, and a public sworn confession.
2. Alaska offers a procedure for appealing based on new evidence and he hasn’t fully followed it but instead has taken his case to the federal level.
So this isn’t some sort of “no one may access DNA evidence post-conviction” decision. You still have rights. A guilty criminal has failed to make an adequately convincing argument that the federal government should tell Alaska how to handle post-conviction appeals of violent criminals found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with no real claim to possible innocence. Souter is probably right that there’s no harm in giving Osborne the evidence, but we do not actually have a Supreme Court consisting of 5 Sith Lords and 4 Jedi Knights.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 am