Subscribe Via RSSU.S. Supreme Court Decision on DNA Testing Is Disappointing
But Will Have Limited Impact, Innocence Project Says
(WASHINGTON, DC; June 18, 2009) – Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision denying post-conviction DNA testing to an Alaska prisoner is flawed and disappointing but will have a limited impact on cases across the country, according to the Innocence Project.
William Osborne sought DNA testing that could prove his innocence in a 1993 rape; the Innocence Project represents Osborne. Although the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision did not completely deny that there is a constitutional right to DNA testing, it found that Osborne’s constitutional rights were not violated.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said Osborne’s rights were not violated because of the specific facts of his case and Alaska’s procedures for post-conviction appeals. The decision erroneously asserts that Alaska has an adequate process for granting DNA testing to people who have been convicted. Alaska is the only state in the nation with no known case of a prisoner receiving DNA testing, either through a court order or a prosecutor’s consent. The decision also said state legislatures and state courts should determine how and when people who have been convicted of crimes can get access to DNA testing that could prove their innocence.
“While this is a deeply flawed and disappointing decision, we have always said this case would have a very limited impact. In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to testing without a court order. That will continue to happen,” said Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld, who argued on behalf of Osborne at the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law, Congress and 47 states have passed legislation granting DNA testing in at least some cases. “Today’s decision recognized the unique power of DNA testing to prove guilt or innocence and noted the progress we’ve made in state legislatures. We are more determined than ever to pass laws granting DNA testing in Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma, and to improve the existing laws in Alabama, Kentucky and other states,” Neufeld said.
In states without adequate laws granting DNA testing, federal court can be the last option – as it was for Osborne. Less than a dozen of the 240 people nationwide who were exonerated through DNA testing received that testing through federal court. “Most people who need DNA testing to prove their innocence will not be affected by today’s ruling, but the small number of people who are impacted may suffer greatly. As a result of this decision, more innocent people will languish in prison and some may die in prison because they were prevented from proving their innocence,” Neufeld said.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that the finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted. “We sharply disagree that finality is more important than scientific certainty. Fortunately, most state legislatures and state courts also disagree and grant our clients DNA testing that has proven innocence in case after case,” said Nina Morrison, Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project who worked on the Osborne case.
Osborne is in prison in Alaska. In a statement issued by the Innocence Project today, his sister urged Alaska legislators to pass a law granting post-conviction DNA testing. “This ruling is devastating because the Supreme Court was William’s last hope. Alaska should have a law for DNA testing in cases like this, and we hope they pass one quickly,” said Osborne’s sister, Evelyn Smalls, who attended oral arguments in the case at the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Technorati Tags:
