WASHINGTON, June 18, 2009
Court: Convicts Have No Right To Test DNA
5-4 Supreme Court Decision May Have Limited Impact Because Of Federal And State Laws
-
(CBS)
-
Blog Court Watch CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.
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, 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.
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.
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Supreme Court
The secrets of tennis legend 
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!
"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?
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.
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.
The GOP constantly whines and blusters about "activism" on the bench yet that is exactly what their chosen judges practice! In their definition, "activism" means that you took the side of Joe Everyday instead of Big Brother.
What a sham! The Supremes should be INSISTING that all available DNA evidence be made available to convicts that did not have the chance to runs tests because the technology didn't exist. Compare the costs of keeping this man in prison against the cost of the test.....
Right-wing lunacy!
Want to bet that in 2010 they suffer another blood bath and the back lash will be fierce and they still will not understand.
All evidence should be availiable. The founding fathers wanted beyound any reasonalble doubt. What happened soon though reactionary party of America soon.