Court: Convicts Have No Right To Test DNA

(CBS/ AP)  The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.

The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing has led to the exoneration of at least 232 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes.

The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.

"It's hard to know whether this ruling is going to speed up the national trend toward more DNA testing," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "Even many prosecutors are pushing for it, or at least allowing it, in certain cases where it would be relevant. In the meantime, 13 innocent defendants have been exonerated this year alone."

William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt.

Separately, in parole proceedings, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a bid for release from prison.

The high court reversed the appellate ruling. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

"To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Roberts said.

But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. "The court today blesses the state's arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks," Stevens said.

In other Supreme Court rulings:

The Court sided with a former Enron Corp. executive in a ruling that makes it unlikely he can be tried a second time on charges related to financial fraud at the one-time energy giant.

The court, in a 6-3 vote, threw out an appeals court ruling that would have allowed a retrial of F. Scott Yeager, a former executive at Enron's failed broadband venture, on charges for which a jury could not reach a verdict at his first trial.

The Court agreed to reinstate a roughly $500 million settlement of asbestos lawsuits against the Travelers Companies Inc.

Travelers had been named in lawsuits alleging that it tried to hide dangerous health effects of asbestos. The company argued that asbestos claims be paid out of a trust created by Johns Manville in the 1980s and approved by a federal bankruptcy judge.

Travelers settled with several groups of plaintiffs with the caveat that federal courts make clear the company would not have to face any new similar lawsuits.

The 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned lower-court approval of the settlement, saying a bankruptcy judge lacks the authority to act so broadly.

The high court overturned that decision.

[toldyouso29]

If DNA evidence would help to establish guilt or innocence WHY would the SCOTUS want it to be denied to anyone--that is a direct violation of "life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. Because if DNA testing can help reassure or grant liberty--it should be allowed--why would it not ever be? Roberts et al, should remember that the laws exist to serve the people, not be an academic exercise, not serve Congress and not to be a political or ethical football used to deny rights. DNA evidence should be allowed and we all should picket this decision until the courts reflect the will of the people and not codicils, a nuance or loopholes in the "law".

[jt92202]

The Constitution has to be read as it is not as we want it to be read, if you want to change it then do it but the Judges cannot just say Oh well it should have been written like this or it should say that. I believe the States are the ones that should decide this and most of them have. Also "Separately, in parole proceedings, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a bid for release from prison". Why would anyone admit guilt if they didn't do it? I would rot in jail before I admitted to something I didn't do! And to admit it before the ruling came down from the SC, what does that tell you? Dont get me wrong, DNA should be open for these people to check, many people have been wrongly acused and jailed but don't blame the SC for doing their job. Write your Legisation and get them to ammend the Constitution.

I am more concerned that the ENRON Exec is not going to be put back on trial. Americans are so here and now they forget what these people did to the energy sector and America. They get to slide while there are still people that have nothing because of them!

I am tired of Corporate America getting away with everything cuz they have the politians in their pockets. ENRON, AIG, the Banking sector, Wall Street, Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac, and on and on I can go! Politians work for us not Corporate America, we need to start making that clear with our vote. Next election, don't vote party lines, vote for the person that can be trusted with our country. No more Dems or Repubs they are all the same lying snakes in the grass with a different letter behind their names!

[bigmo47]

by jt92202 June 18, 2009 11:45 AM PDT

"Separately, in parole proceedings, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a bid for release from prison". Why would anyone admit guilt if they didn't do it? I would rot in jail before I admitted to something I didn't do!

--------------------------------------------

The thing is, How long has this man been in prison? If it has been many years, then I can understand being so ready to get ot that you admit to something even something you didn't do. People do it all the time. That plea deal was only offered because the DNA issue was sent to the state SC. He may actually be innocent, but when someone says you have two options:
1. wait and see if the state SC gives you the right to a test and if they don't you go back to jail for the remainder of your life or
2. Admit guilt and you will be released next week. All you have to do s drop the DNA request..

Another way to think about it is, if the prosecuter knows that he is guilty and he has already been convicted, why are they offering a plea deal?

[toldyouso29]

Some people admit to doing things so they can get out--they feel that telling the truth did them no good--so they admit to something that they did not do. There are cases of people admitting to crimes that they could never have committed due to not having been born or living too far away--but in a bid for freedom--at some point, some people will admit to anything--just like with torture.

Word to the wise--never expect or judge the actions of anyone else, based on how you personally feel or what YOU would do. YOUR views and actions are neither definitive or holy--another may indeed react differently and their reasons may be just as valid as yours or mine.

[SusanStoHelit]

I think they could make a case for this ruling being OK - if there's someone captured on videotape committing the crime - but then just to harass the system and relieve their own boredom in jail - they go ahead and demand a ton of DNA testing - that would not be right.

I think it should go beyond DNA. Say that ANYTIME there is a piece of untested evidence that can conclusively disprove their guilt - it must be tested on request. Whether it's DNA, or some future technology - if there's something that could disprove guilt, it must be looked at.

But if the evidence would not disprove guilt - requiring tests to be done mean that bored and malicious convicts can waste our money.

[parrots7]

But this is simply not the case usually - especially with the high number of inmates already found innocent through this same DNA testing.

[spredbury]

I can't understand why the SC would deny the right to DNA testing. This is just crazy. Every citizen of this country should have the right to any and all evidence that would prove innocence or guilt and every state AG should insure this occurs. I would think Palin's Alaska would insist this man be given this test since Palin is so concerned about citizens' rights......not.... and yes I'm trying to politicize this. This is as much a political issue as it is a citizens' rights issue.

[TheMasses0003]

Only an idiot would politicize this.