TheAgitator.com
Supreme Court Says No Right to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Thursday, June 18th, 2009In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors aren’t obligated to turn over DNA for testing after someone has been convicted, even if the state acknowledges that a DNA test would prove conclusive as to guilt or innocence, and even if the defendant agrees to pay for the testing himself.
Representing the convicted man, the Innocence Project argued that a right to access a simple test that could establish actual innocence would be covered by the Constitution’s due process clause.
I wrote about the case, District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, for The Daily Beast last March.
MORE: I’m troubled by how many people say “I don’t see how you can read a right to DNA testing into the Constitution.” The Constitution isn’t an exhaustive list of your rights. It’s a document that delegates powers to the federal government, and through the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents some states from violating certain rights. One of those is the due process rights of each state’s citizens. If “due process” means anything, I would think it would mean the right of an innocent person to access evidence so he can perform a simple test to prove he isn’t guilty. Yes, the facts of this specific case were unfortunate. It wasn’t the ideal test case. That doesn’t make the ruling any less troubling.
I’m traveling, so I haven’t had time to read the opinion thoroughly, but at first blush it would seem that after Osborne, a state legislature that just realized some serious flaws in its criminal justice system and sees possible exonerations and lawsuits coming down the pike could simply pass a law making it difficult or impossible to obtain DNA evidence post-conviction, and head the looming crisis off at the pass. Seems to me this decision puts a heck of a lot of faith in the political process to keep something like that from happening. And we’ve all seen how good the political process in say, Mississippi, has been at making sure its courts are delivering justice, and not merely convictions.
MORE II: Steve Verdon has a more thorough analysis.
The Dude is speechless.
This defies logic. I really wish I were smart enough to understand such how logic can be twisted around laws so much that an outcome like this is even remotely possible.
Wow, just wow. Just when I think the courts cannot possibly get any more absurd.
Basically SCOTUS is saying that govt has no obligation to admit any error ever. Just gives credence to the saying “government means you never have to say you’re sorry”.
I haven’t read the case, but I do think this is a clear area where formalism needs to take a backseat to basic fairness and realism.
I’m imagining the opinion is well reasoned, and based around the idea that once you have been convicted you no longer have a constitutional right to examine and test any piece of evidence that may be in the government’s possession. As an abstract thought that makes a lot of sense, but in the case of DNA all bets are off. Science has given us a magic bullet, and given the particular facts of this case, and what is at stake in general, the definition of “due process” should be expanded in the interest of justice, and freedom.
The people in Iran have it right.
Actually, the snippets included in the link make the decision sound not well-reasoned at all, and very (gasp!) impact-driven.
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., writing for the majority in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (08-6), noted that DNA testing provides “an unparalleled ability” to prove innocence or guilt, but its availability “cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt.”
The task of writing rules to control access to DNA evidence “belongs primarily” to the legislature, the Chief Justice wrote. Pursuing a “freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access” to DNA evidence through a civil rights lawsuit, Roberts wrote, would “short-circuit” efforts now being made by the federal government and many states to develop tools on access to such evidence. “There is no reason to constitutionalize” access through the courts when elected officials are making “a prompt and considered” response to the DNA phenomenon, the opinion concluded.”
So if elected officials were taking no steps to create access then your opinion would be different? What about “calling balls and strikes”, Your Honor?
The distinction between a civil rights plea and a habeus petition are significant though.
I read the blurb. I sat down and wrote out on a pad exactly which five justices joined in this loathsome decision. I then went to see if I was right. I was: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy.
The USSC has become that predictable.
We have a legal system in this country, not a justice system. Any similarity is purely coincidental.
Anybody have a breakdown of how the votes went?
Thank you Seeker for answering my question before I could finish asking it.
Two thoughts… First, if Sotomayor had already replaced Souter I wonder if this would’ve been a 6-3 opinion.
Second, while I agree that these prisoners should have a right to DNA testing, that doesn’t necessarily lead me to read it into the Constitution (I feel the same way about the right to privacy). A lot of attention has been paid lately (at least in libertarian circles) to the notion of the Imperial Presidency. I wonder if we need a similar discussion about the Imperial Supreme Court. Why must we depend on nine folks in black robes to reach such important decisions? It’s like with Kelo (though, in the case of Kelo, I do think it was decided wrong): shouldn’t we have the common sense to conclude that certain actions are wrong without having to rely on the Constitution to shield us from such abuses? I realize that we obviously DON’T have that common sense right now, but I worry when we turn to the Constitution to shield us from every wrong. The Constitution doesn’t delineate what’s fair from what’s unfair. It simply outlines certain rights that are so paramount that nobody can infringe upon them. But certainly there are other rights not enumerated in the Constitution that should be protected as well, and we need to stand up for those rights ourselves rather than relying on the Supreme Court to do it for us.
Black President, Black Attorney General decide to disallow a fool proof method of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that a man is innocent or guilty, a method which coincidentally seems to have exonerated a majority of innocent and improperly convicted Black Men seems to me to be a form of interracial street violence, just at a different level….
let me get this straight- prosecutors have immunity… even after convicted, the person convicted doesn’t have any recourse to obtain the prosecutor’s evidence that would prove their innocence, nor do they have recourse against the state for the intentional withholding of evidence?
am I missing something or not seeing this correctly?
I sat down and wrote out on a pad exactly which five justices joined in this loathsome decision. I then went to see if I was right. I was: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy.
It would be interesting to know the number of innocent men who will continue to sit in prison because of these “strict constructionists”.
They always, everytime, side with the state and the prosecution. I understand that almost all of those in prison are guilty, but why block the way out for the few who might be innocent? It’s stupid and it’s reprehensible.
Fuck the Supreme Court.
It would serve many politicians well to make a HUGE deal out of this and speak against it publically. Seriously. I almost expect this from the right side (never say sorry), but the moderate to liberal? Have we swung SO far over that this really really beats common sense in a shouting match?
Shocked….just…plain…shocked.
So now prosecutors and attorneys general are incentivized to get that conviction nice and quick. Get that first decision in the books, and you won’t have to play nice with evidence any more. Won’t we just see even more lackadaisical efforts at justice now?
They aren’t even supposed to hand it over. Fuck. So much for justice, can we start calling those twits sitting on the Supreme Court Abritrators or something, Justice just doesn’t seem to fit.
So basically, allowing this might expose the criminal justice system as the incompetent sham that it is, so therefore, it can not be allowed?
Remember: The judges are on THEIR side not OUR side. It is, has been, and always will be US vs THEM. Theortically there was a time when people in government recognized they were the servants and We the People were the boss. That time either never existed or was lost because of the ignorance of the population.
Tir gan teanga, tir gan anam!
Confirms my decision to high-tail it out of the U.S. if I ever become involved in the “justice” system.
It makes perfect sense to me. The goal is for the vast majority of the public to have absolute unwavering faith in the court system. The problem is that people might wonder if the courts are locking innocent people in cages. The solution is to keep innocent people locked in cages. Releasing those innocent people would be directly detrimental to their goal.
Of course, if this had happened to go the other way via a freak accident of conscience, the solution would shift to their backup plan: destroy all the evidence after conviction. Some places already figured this part out.
I haven’t read the opinion and don’t necessarily intend to, but I have to wonder what the strategic reasons were for not getting a better test. I can see several possibilities:
- defendant thought his incriminating DNA might be in the incriminating place.
- lack of money for testing.
- bad defense lawyer.
- defendant thought that prosecutor may have tampered with DNA evidence.
What the remedy should be (if any) seems like it should depend on why defendant didn’t “get it right the 1st time.”
Well, fuck.
Lulz. Were this true, we wouldn’t be posting comments on this site.
I don’t like or feel good about the ruling, and think that DNA should be made available post-conviction. To be fair, and trying to look at the ruling as objectively as possible, what clause in the constitution specifically make this testing a right? I don’t know much about merits of the case so perhaps there is something I’m missing, but while I can see a moral argument for this case I can’t see a valid constitutional one.
This is a scary thing that will only lead to scarier things.
I love the work of the Innocence Project but this was a really bad case to take to begin with.
1. They never requested during the trial that the DNA test be conducted using the differing standard they wanted done during the appeals.
2. The asshole admitted guilt on at least 3 occasions I can find
3. The asshole got released from prison and was re-arrested within 6 months for a home invasion, kidnapping, burglary, and assault.
he’s a dirtbag, this time I hope he dies in prison before he gets out….
Shouldn’t an examination of the police on scene clear this up?
Defense: “Officer McCSI, did you collect DNA evidence.”
Officer McCSI: “Yes, we did sciencey things [begins bias rant]”
Defense (cutting off): “Did any of the DNA evidence link the defendant.”
Officer McCSI: “Oh, we didn’t run that.”
Defense: “Why not?”
Officer McCSI: “Hey, the prosecutor told us not to. It wasn’t my fault.”
Defense: “Move to dismiss”
Hey, I can dream.
Second, while I agree that these prisoners should have a right to DNA testing, that doesn’t necessarily lead me to read it into the Constitution (I feel the same way about the right to privacy).
It simply outlines certain rights that are so paramount that nobody can infringe upon them.
The above thought process is the exact reason why so many thought adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was a stupid idea at the time.
The system is broken. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson.
Hmmm… Is there any doubt that “efforts now being made by the federal government and many states to develop tools on access to such evidence” will suddenly be pursued with less enthusiasm now that the potential Constitutional requirement has been dispensed with?
Also, if “‘There is no reason to constitutionalize’ access through the courts when elected officials are making ‘a prompt and considered’ response to the DNA phenomenon”, then why is there a need to Constitutionalize anything? The legislatures (state and federal) have enacted free speech laws, so why bother recognizing the First Amendment as a Constitutionalization of those rights?
Help me out here. Since when does legislative consideration or intention have any bearing on what our rights are, right now, under the Constitution.
This makes me want to smack myself in the nuts with a hammer repeatedly as hard as I can just to make me think about something else.
Edmund Dantes has said it perfectly… as horrible as the end result might be, there IS nothing in the BOR that 1) says you have a constitutional right to testing and 2) says that states cannot create protections – via new law – for the accused.
Basically, SCOTUS said “We don’t see anything here that involves SCOTUS” and punted it back to the states.
I have little faith the states will rush to do anything to help level the judicial playing field, however, given the number of lawyers/ex-judges in the average statehouse.
Why bother having an actual court system, since actual guilt or innocence plays no part in the trial process? Let’s just bring back the Star Chamber and be done with it.
One way to ensure convictions is for exculpatory evidence, such as DNA on items, “accidentally” show up after The State scores their Big Win (your kidnapping and caging). But this never happens, no sirree Bob …… never …..
The State calls the shots. The State holds all of the cards. The State determines the rules of the game. The State shall always get the Big Win. Justice is for pussies.
I don’t know about you but I guess with this ruling if you are looking for the land of the free maybe need to look at Canada, or Iran! Procedure and convictions trump due process and innocence everytime.
My only surprise over this is at how many people here seemed to be surprised by the ruling. Were you actually expecting logic, or justice, from the Government’s own courts?
The entire system is a failure. It’s past time we scrapped the whole nonsensical idea of “the state” once and for all. Hell – even the Mafia is more honest.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/interviews/keller.html
Quote by a Judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: “We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent. We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important.”
Finality trumps innocence/justice. The Big Win are most important. This is likely how most (>75%) cops/prosecutors/judges think.
@ Tokin42 #28
Interesting points.
Sounds like the guy is a dirtbag and the Innocence Project people took the wrong case up the ladder.
OTOH, what does it say of “justice” if you only offer the legal protections to those you consider ‘good people.’
—-
@ Price # 12
DNA evidence is not “fool proof”. Even if the test is carried out 100% correctly it is still possible that 1) despite a negative test the suspect participated in the crime or 2) despite a positive test, the suspect is innocent.
[A very unlikely, but nonetheless possible scenario:
Person goes to his girlfriends' place, they make love, then have a fight that the neighbors overhear. He leaves. His girlfriend does not lock the door behind him and goes to bed.
A criminal enters the girlfriend's residence, assauts and kills her but does not have sex with her.
Only the boyfriend's DNA would likely be picked up.
DNA would definitely incriminate an innocent man in this situation.
I freely admit this is an extremely unlikely scenario. I only bring it up to show that DNA evidence cannot be considered absolutely conclusive.]
+1 to Tokin42 @28. I think the dirtbag suddenly remember he either didn’t or couldn’t penetrate during the rape and realized he could get an easier time of this conviction if he could get the last one thrown out.
I also think that there is something wrong with this having to go to the top of the federal justice level. But, then again, I’m a firm believer of small federal government, states rights, blah, blah, blah. I guess I’m just dim witted.
Now that we don’t have SCOTUS to keep the legislature and executive branch in check, we’re doomed. There really is no legal avenue to stop government anymore.
Personally I’m shocked that anybody is surprised at this!
What did you expect? Justice? ROFLMAO.
You’ve no rights the state (at any level) need respect. Back to work serfs!
Obviously there were no DNA tests in colonial times, so how could there be a right to DNA testing in the Constitution?
So the end result is that less reliable evidence(confessions, eyewitnesses) can be used to convict, but the most reliable evidence(DNA) cannot be used to exonerate-its as if they forgot the point of a trial. I guess due process means going through the motions. And people get convicted in this country on bite marks!
I’m troubled by how many people say “I don’t see how you can read a right to DNA testing into the Constitution.” . . . If “due process” means anything, I would think it would mean the right of an innocent person to access evidence so he can perform a simple test to prove he isn’t guilty.
I’ll grant that my initial comment may not have been the most articulate, and I agree that the main issue this case boils down to is whether the right to DNA testing is included under the umbrella of due process. However, I think you can make a cogent argument that due process does NOT include the right to further DNA testing after one is convicted. My whole issue with relying on the Supreme Court for matters like this is that is doesn’t have the resources to address every aspect of every state’s judicial system that somebody feels is unfair, and if you simply define “due process” as fair or unfair, you’re asking the Supreme Court to do just that (and keep in mind the plaintiff could have pursued this matter through the state court system but chose not to). That’s why I think it is indeed necessary to limit the definition of “due process” as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, I would define “due process” as a formalized process that is consistent with applicable laws and preserves one’s rights. As such, if “due process” guarantees certain rights then you have to identify some other specific right that’s being violated when he’s denied the DNA test; referring back to due process as that right would be circular logic. From my perspective, there are only two ways to do that: 1.) create a right to DNA testing or 2.) determine it violates due process because it’s fundamentally unfair. Obviously you’d argue that second point, and I can certainly understand that (indeed, I’m still not sure where I fall on this ruling). However, as I explained above, I don’t like calling state actions a violation of federal due process simply because they’re unfair; I don’t believe the Court has the resources to handle such a role and I’m unclear as to why they’re better equipped to handle such issues rather than state supreme courts. If you conclude that the Supreme Court should NOT deem everything it sees as unfair as a violation of due process, then you would view this case as creating a constitutional right to DNA testing when you find for the plaintiff.
Obviously it’s fine if you disagree with me, but I hope you at least understand where I’m coming from. I place the blame mostly with the State of Alaska, who in my opinion is best suited to remedy this, and to a slight extent with his lawyers for filing a §1983 claim instead of a state suit. I think an injustice has been done here, but I’m still not sure it’s the Supreme Court’s mess to clean up.
That zeroes right in on the problem in this decision. The reason that DNA should get special treatment after the appeals process has run it’s course is because of it’s exceptional reliably compared to other forms of evidence.
I could possibly understand how they could justify limiting the horizon on which DNA testing can be introduced in cases that were tried after DNA analysis became common practice, but on older cases it could provide a degree of certainty that was not possible at the time of the original trial. The mere existence of untested DNA introduces an element of doubt in a defendant’s guilt. Eventually, those cases would be exhausted, so this is only a temporary strain on the system.
Of course, it would be a burden on the courts, but think of the resources they would have available to clear all these old cases if only they quit prosecuting people for acts that are only crimes in the administrative sense and not because anyone was victimized.
Unfortunately, by the looks of it, SCOTUS implicitly decided this case by arguing that there is no right to DNA testing in the Bill of Rights.
This is essentially the conservative line of legal thought, and I’ve always held that this is a fundamental misinterpretation of the con law.
The constitution does not, and never has, granted rights. The 1st amendment does not state “There is a right to free speech”. It only states that “the free speech shall not be abridged”. That is a subtle but important difference–mainly that the constitution does not grant rights to citizens, but rather, prevents the government from acting in certain ways.
I’d have this argument with conservatives during the entire Gitmo debate–the crux of the conservative argument then was that the detainees weren’t citizens–therefore they had no rights. That gets it exactly backwards–any person, citizen or not, has the same basic “rights” under the constitution as anybody else–because the constitution doesn’t apply to the individual. It restrains the government from acting upon their person. There are of course, exceptions–citizens are explicitly granted the right to vote, for instance–but the fundamentals–free speech, due process, search and seizure–all of those are restrictions upon government actions. As for any other right, we’re looking at the 9th and 10th, which, as a general rule, reserve those rights to the people.
To apply it to the current debate, no of course DNA testing isn’t explicitly provided for. That’s crazy. But the founders were smart enough to realize that they couldn’t grant rights–to do so would be to somehow anticipate every possible future development or outcome. If the constitution worked according to the “original intent” theory, that’s what they would have had to do.
Instead, they chose to limit the government, so that innovations and the like could be provided for as time passed on. The citizens have no right to DNA testing, yes. But the government is restrained from failing to grant due process. Withholding potential evidence of innocence would fall under this category. The government is restrained from doing so. Therefore, yes, there is an implicit grant of DNA testing in con law.
Sadly, 5 of the justices have taken the tack that the constitution grants rights, which is really useful for tyrants–”oh, you have these rights, and nothing else. Enjoy your free speech as you are crushed under my boot heel.”
@#45: He did try to go through the state courts, they denied him. His last and only recourse was the Federal courts.
Alito’s concurrence is infuriating, he throws out so many BS arguments that they begin to conflict. His sophistry is apparent. I’d like to thank GWB for appointing this statist clown to replace O’Connor.
Just as a follow up, I appreciate the 14th amendment’s guarantee of due process, its scope being that the accused have a right to a trial, and the convicted have the right to appeal the verdict. The latter is vaguer, and one of the arguments to overturn a conviction is there being evidence not available during the trial, that when considered by the jury could reasonably have affected the verdict. This would be the argument when appealing based on DNA testing that wasn’t available during the trial.
My own interpretation is that post-conviction DNA testing isn’t a guaranteed right in all cases, however there are cases where the right to have DNA evidence tested must be granted to satisfy due process. My problem with the ruling is that it made no effort to distinguish when a convict should and should not have this right.
In this particular case, given the evidence against the convict, I don’t think that a reasonable argument can be made that DNA evidence would have significantly influenced the verdict. In the case of convicted rapist, where DNA evidence obtained can contradict the accusation, it should be a right.
I think that the states should be required to establish a system for processing post-conviction rapes where DNA evidence, not available at the time, can be used to reasonably establish guilt or innocence. I’m not holding my breath for this to happen either.
It’s not so narrow an issue as DNA testing. It’s about whether the convicted has a right to access evidence against him after conviction. I think not only the convicted guy, but anybody ought to be able to access the evidence of a trial in almost all circumstances. There’s a reason trials are open to the public. Evidence ought to be open to the public as well, for the exact same reason.
This ruling basically says that the state can throw away all evidence after conviction and then say “We won, you lost, case closed, good luck proving us wrong!”.
For those looking for a specific Constitutional guarantee of the right to DNA evidence, why would it matter? Those rights already specifically enumerated have been largely or wholly eliminated anyway, so what makes you think that a right to DNA evidence wouldn’t somehow be similarly trampled upon?
Scot # 51
True.
Depressing.
But True.
The MO of SCOTUS seems to be “We’re going to side with the state on this issue and if the people want it to be different, they’ll have to pressure for new laws…which we’ll interpret in favor of the state. So, yer fuck’t good, cowboy.”
I think some are missing the fact that he DID have DNA testing before his trial, what he wanted was a different analysis done. The quote from scalia from the actual supreme court hearing is telling…. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/supreme.court.dna.evidence/index.html
guilt OR innocence? I’m not sure anyone has ever claimed he was innocent, shouldn’t that be a bit of a factor when deciding whether or not he just got screwed?
Well the “good news” is more of this shit is sure to come to the American people with the inevitable appointment of Sotomayer.
After all VP bin Binden “assured” national law enforcement interest groups the “she has your back”!
@#54: No, the evidence has not been tested with DNA technology at anytime in the proceedings. Trial counsel had an opportunity to test the sperm from the condom using DQ Alpha, a very primitive DNA test more akin to blood-typing. Later he sought to use RFLP testing, but that was denied. He currently is requesting that STR (more specifically, probably Y-STR) testing of the sperm. It, heretofore, has NOT been subjected to a DNA test. It has, however, been subjected to a blood test. So, in other words, a DNA test would be the second (at least) serological test performed on the semen (hence, a retest), but it would also be the first DNA test.
In any sort of criminal justice proceeding, it is necessary to balance the rights of the accused with the necessity of having a system that’s functional. For example, if all convicts were entitled to have appeals heard at any time and for any reason they chose, the backlog of appeals would make it impossible to hear any meaningful fraction of cases, thus preventing even meritorious appeals from being heard.
While I think there should be more ways for people to appeal various issues, that is properly a matter for legislatures to decide, not courts. Judges who make up their own rules may in some cases hand down decisions that are “fairer” than those dictated by the law, but the slope from there to judicial tyranny is very steep. Only in the most compelling cases should judges even think of going there. The fact that an innocent person might be in prison is not compelling enough reason (if it were, judges could justify throwing out any conviction on the same basis).
The focus shouldn’t be on “DNA testing”, but equating DNA testing with evidence. By this equation the thinking should then be “shouldn’t someone have access to all evidence as part of their due process” — the answer should clearly be YES. You can fill in the blank with anything: DNA testing, phone records, GPS coordinates, IP address, etc. These are all evidence, they don’t need to be written into any law, the simple fact is that one should have access to ALL evidence.
And again I go back to The State holding all of the cards. They collect most of the evidence before you get a chance to collect, they communicate what does and doesn’t exist, they “conveniently” lose, forget to preserve, “find” items after you’re convicted, blah blah blah.
It’s about throwing someone in a cage, sometimes not just because someone must be punished, but for the sake of putting someone in a cage. Sick, twisted, evil people commit these acts.
This is a good point. We must keep in mind that politicians often present themselves as “Law & Order” candidates. They love to get the backing of various police chiefs, police organizations and such. The message is clear, “I’ll help protect you and yours from the savage depredations of the criminals out there.” Its basically a type of scare tactic and voters fall for it.
Thus I can see a politician using, as part of his platform, some sort of cocked-up law for access to DNA that makes it hard or impossible as Radley notes. Why? Why they are protecting the law abiding citizens, of course. Nevermind that the citizen wanting to get the DNA is may also be law abiding and hence his reason for wanting the evidence. Sacrificing a few for the sake of one’s political career is what politicians do. They really can’t be trusted because you’ll never know if you’ll be the next one they throw under the bus to advance their career.
No. See the above, and we have certain things that are not subject to the legislative process such as free speech, and other rights. We see the courts constantly eroding those rights over time…usually in the name of “Law & Order” and protecting the citizenry…and if the innocent sometimes get gobbled up and spit out, so be it. That is what you are really saying, “Yes some percentage of these people are innocent, sucks to be them….whats on television?” This isn’t like having automatic appeals, it is about having a test performed, something a bureaucracy could do as a matter of routine. There doesn’t need to be all this paper being hurled around, prosecutors defending their convictions, etc. Just test the DNA, then if the result confirms the conviction, end of story, if it provides sufficient evidence in favor of innocence get the guy out of prison.
Crap, messed up the html tags….sigh.
But he’s not asking for an appeal… He’s asking to be allowed to perform a test on evidence in the possession of the state. The state doesn’t have to lift a finger, all they have to do is hand it over.
It doesn’t matter whether he wants to perform a DNA test or a consult a witch doctor with the evidence, he ought to be allowed to do so.
Just one more safety valve welded shut.
When a test that can definitively prove innocence is not perceived as a right under the Constitution then there can be no more doubt as to the priority of the justice system.
BamBam@38
The criminal justice system aka, the criminal finality system.
If we want a system that’s functional the courts should be clearing their dockets of low-level dealing and possession cases, not denying access to evidence in life-or-death cases when we have the means to achieve a much higher standard of proof of innocence or guilt (I say much higher because as it’s already been noted here, DNA isn’t 100% infallible. It still beats eye-witness testimony any day, which has been the sole deciding factor in more than a few cases).
There would be some cost (possibly substantial) involved in turning DNA evidence over for private analysis and the subsequent appeals. Why would the resources for that not be available when they clearly have the resources to create the largest incarceration rate on the planet?
Criminal justice in the US is based on body counts just as progress in Vietnam was measured in body counts. They count convictions. Quantity matters. Quality doesn’t. Exonerations are an embarrassment and they suck up resources that could be used to rack up more convictions.
Why after the fact?
Post-conviction appeals are always uphill.
The presumption of innocence switches over.
So are they talking about cases that got
a conviction pre-DNA testing?
They’re talking about cases with convictions pre-DNA testing…and cases where the state conveniently “lost” the DNA sample only to have it turn up 10 years later in an evidence locker somewhere.
[...] Radley Balko [...]
#65 | MDGuy
“…the courts should be clearing their dockets of low-level dealing and possession cases…”
I think we all know how easily that can be accomplished: The answer is to not only decriminalize but to also make it retroactive.
#66 | Dave Krueger
“Exonerations are an embarrassment and they suck up resources that could be used to rack up more convictions.”
That’s the bottom line, right there. ‘Nuff said.
I thought post conviction relief proceedings were civil. Isn’t that a preponderance that the defendant deserves a new trial, that would be 51%. You would think DNA would pass that standard.
scotus is a bunch or idealogue jokes said…
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a majority that said it is up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right” What is not only annoying but pure unadulterated horseshit is scotus’s flipflopping on states’ rights whenever it suits their essentially fascist corporate masters. Scotus can’t support basic justice by requiring defendant’s right to all available evidence, but they can insert their prickheaded opinion between a state, a patient, and a patient’s doctor when it suits them. How much does this have to do with helping states like Mississippi head off lawsuits by DNA exonerated defendants? Who, besides me, is tired of contrived rationalizations by scotus like “you can’t sue the gov’t. because in a democracy you are the gov’t. Can’t sue yourself. What a fucking joke this court and this gov’t. are. Cheney and Wackenhut are celebrating
http://www.narconews.com/Issue40/article1644.html
Narco News: Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. and the Aristocracy of Prison Profits: Part I
Inside the Financial World, Government Agencies and their Private Contractors Lies a Hidden System of Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking and Rigged Stock Market Riches