Does the Constitution Grant a Right to DNA Testing That Could Prove Innocence?

[naaman fletcher]

Does the U.S. Constitution permit an innocent person to be imprisoned or executed? Seems like a question with an obvious answer.

Here’s another question: If a convict can establish irrefutable proof of his innocence with a simple DNA test, does he have a constitutional right to that test, even if he has exhausted his legal appeals?

The answer to both questions isn’t at all clear, and may depend on how the Supreme Court rules in the case of District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, which it heard today. Surprisingly, 32 states, the city of New York, and the Obama administration are urging the Court to answer "no."

The defendant in the case is William Osborne, who in 1993 was convicted of a brutal kidnapping, rape, and assault in Alaska. DNA testing on semen found in a condom at the crime scene didn't exclude Osborne, but it did include as many as 16 percent of all black men. More sophisticated testing not available at the time of Osborne’s trial would today conclusively determine whether he actually committed the crime. Even the state of Alaska concedes that a negative test would confirm that Osborne is innocent. The test would cost all of $1,000, a fee that would be paid not by the state, but by Osborne’s own legal team at the Innocence Project.

(read the rest at the link)

http://reason.com/news/printer/131995.html

[Richard Steele]

1. K&R

[whoneedstickets]

2. One would think so..BUT..Lawyers and judges have this 'belief'..

..that somehow courtrooms are crucibles that burn away impurities to reveal truth.

Consequently post-hoc scientific tests that invalidate the output of their sacred proceedings have the undesirable result of revealing the inherent fallibility of the legal system. They fear this could be 'corrosive to society' like corruption destroys faith in governance institutions.

To judges and lawyers the outcome of a court proceeding is 'settled fact' only subject to challenge through legal appeal. They are impervious to any other veracity challenges. Even if you did the DNA test it wouldn't invalidate the court's finding until such was legally recognized.

It is through this fiction that the legal profession recursively creates and maintains its authority. Too many science-based invalidations of court findings could make the 'Bar' cede the ground of truth-maker to a rival intellectual realm.

I suppose you can't blame them for the turf protection, it was only a century ago that they wrested the position away from the priests!

[Festivito]

5. But, it is burnt in a time-framed, i.e. context limited, crucible.

Eternal vigilance is the price of peace, and these people stopping this man from this testing should have no peace. That eternal is infernal.

Thank you for your response. I do not like the idea that so many of our judiciary would be small minded.

[unblock]

6. scalia has an even scarier view on such matters, and i already know how he'll rule on this one

his view is that you're constitutionally entitled to a fair trial. period.
you're not entitled to a correct trial
you're not entitled to the truth
you're only entitled to a fair trial.
if that fair trial produces an incorrect result, well that's just a damn shame but there's nothing to be done about that.
scalia doesn't even pretend that the results of a trial have anything to do with the truth.

so his view will simply be that the if a technology like really accurate dna testing wasn't available at the time of the trial, would can't say that the trial wasn't fair at the time, so off with his head! we can't have people coming up with new technologies every few years and delaying our most important national product -- executions!

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

3. The Constitution was written WITH THE INTENT OF,...

,...protecting the innocent from punishment.

It's not merely about the process intended to protect the innocent. NO PROCESS covers every situation and ours has proven to be quite flawed (with flawed human beings running everything,...all three branches plus that so-called "free speech" and "free market" and all).

I believe most of the best court decisions acknowledged the flaws of "process" and asserted intent to correct those flaws.

I hope this Court will do so, no matter the aftermath. If concern over flooding the court system is asserted as an excuse for denying ANY HUMAN BEING justice, we may as well call ourselves a nation without allegiance to any of the protections the founders attempted establish, with what little foresight they could possibly have about just how far power-mongers would go to assert power (and they did have some clue).

If there is absolute evidence of innocence, process should NEVER trump justice, EVER.

Of course, it has, does and still will. Sadly.

[pansypoo53219]

4. where is the need for truth?

ISN'T BETTER TO IMPRISON A GUITY PERP? DUH! sure. he may be guilty, but prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. we can do that now.

[Control-Z]

7. There is just no excuse

for preventing anyone from establishing the scientific data that would, one way or another, lead to concrete "proof". Period. This sounds like an 8th grade argument, with hormonally fragmented thought processes, or just out and out bullying, for a myriad of reasons - popularity, control, to cover ones shortcomings - to gain something other than justice.

It doesn't warrant debate, imo. Some things are just right, and some things are wrong. And I don't believe there is honestly a person alive (of intelligence and integrity) who would deny the concrete evidence that science offers us today. Seriously.

There may need to be new laws and considerations, to deal with issues of scientific evidence, but so what? An innocent person is owed those new laws and the effort that would go into enacting them.

[struggle4progress]

8. One should hope "actual innocence" mattered -- but the current wackos on the court

seem to hold different views