Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man

By Ian Millhiser on June 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm

"In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man"

Share:

google plus icon

roberts-alitoIn 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska.  He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars.  Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket.  Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Osburne is out of luck.  Although Roberts conceded that “[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,” he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit.  Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.”

In dissent, Justice Stevens explains why this decision makes no sense:

The State of Alaska possesses physical evidence that, if tested, will conclusively establish whether respondent William Osborne committed rape and attempted murder. If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence. If  not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice. The DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise. Yet for reasons the State has been unable or unwilling to articulate, it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.

It’s unclear why the five conservative justices think that determining Osborne’s guilt or innocence would overthrow “the established system of criminal justice,” and equally unclear why a system that would prevent a potentially innocent man from proving his case at his own expense does not deserve to be overthrown.

‹ PREVIOUS
SCOTUS To Older Americans: Learn To Read Minds

NEXT ›
Bork: There’s Nothing Alarming About Sotomayor’s Record, But I Still Oppose Her

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.