#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.

#67 | Yizmo Gizmo | June 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
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.

#57 supercat

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.

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.

#57 supercat
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.

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).

#57
For example, if all convicts were entitled to have appeals heard at any time and for any reason they chose…

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.

Seems to me this decision puts a heck of a lot of faith in the political process to keep something like that from happening.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Uhhhmmm no. You are ignoring the precedential value of this decision. It isn’t just this one person who may or may not be a dirtbag, but lots of other people. Radley has documented many cases where the defense is hamstrung. No money for defense forensics experts, go with Hayne or West or both who are pro-prosecution. Is it hard to imagine the following:

Defense: We’d like a DNA test.
Prosecutor: No need we got this other mountain of data.
Judge: I agree with the prosecution.

We’ve plenty of cases where that “mountain” was either fabricated or a mole hill (e.g. Hayne/West–are there others?). We have plenty of cases that supposedly had solid evidence only to find out it wasn’t so solid and the DNA says, “Not the right guy!”

Its simple, dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s and do the damn test.

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.

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).

After all VP bin Binden “assured” national law enforcement interest groups the “she has your back”!

Justice Antonin Scalia quoted Osborne’s own affidavit when making his initial appeal, which said: “I have no doubt whatsoever that retesting of the condom [from the crime scene] will prove once and for all time my guilt or innocence.”

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?