Font Size: 
High Court Rejects Post-Conviction DNA Access
The National Law Journal
June 19, 2009
Criminal defendants have no federal constitutional right of access to DNA evidence after they are convicted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
By a 5-4 vote in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (pdf), the Court concluded that establishing rules on DNA evidence should be the job of legislators, not justices. "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response" by the states and Congress, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. for the majority.
With laws on the books in 47 states and the federal government providing at least some post-conviction access to DNA evidence, the impact of Thursday's ruling may be limited. Only Alaska (where the Osborne case originated), Massachusetts and Oklahoma are without laws in this area, and Alaska is considering such a law now.
The ruling may have more symbolic meaning, sending a mixed message about how the high court regards the power of DNA evidence, which has been available for more than 20 years and has exonerated more than 200 people convicted of murder, rape and other crimes in recent years.
On one hand, Roberts praised DNA testing as "powerful new evidence unlike anything known before" and said it offers "an unparalleled ability to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty." But he also noted the challenges it poses to "our traditional notions of finality" and said the availability of DNA "cannot mean that every criminal conviction ... is suddenly in doubt."
Roberts was joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.
Nina Morrison of the New York-based Innocence Project, which represents defendant William Osborne, said, "It is very disappointing that the Court apparently views finality as more important than accuracy. It's very hard for laypeople to understand that." Morrison said "other avenues" are being explored to pursue Osborne's appeal further.
Osborne was convicted of sexual assault in a 1993 attack on a female prostitute near Anchorage, Alaska. For strategic reasons, his lawyer on appeal did not seek the DNA evidence, and in parole proceedings Osborne confessed to some of the actions involved in the crime. He requested the DNA testing in post-conviction proceedings. Ultimately, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state was obliged to perform the testing and give him the results because he had a "potentially viable" claim of innocence.
Alito wrote a concurrence that extensively detailed potential flaws in DNA evidence, seeking to refute its reputation as offering virtually certain evidence of innocence or guilt. "Alas, it is far from that simple," wrote Alito, citing issues of sample contamination, human error and laboratory backlogs. "My point is that requests for postconviction DNA testing are not cost free."
Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, countered that "the DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise." Stevens wrote, "It seems to me obvious that if a wrongly convicted person were to produce proof of his actual innocence, no state interest would be sufficient to justify his continued punitive detention. If such proof can be readily obtained without imposing significant burden on the state, a refusal to provide access to such evidence is wholly unjustified."
Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined Stevens' dissent.
