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.

This would suggest you believe Obama didn’t support the court’s decision.
Read your Greenwald.
salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/20/dna/index.html

If we let this wrongfully convicted person use DNA testing to prove his innocence, we’ll have to let every wrongfully convicted person do it, and that’s just too much trouble.

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.

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.