Pick A State, Any State: Resolving DNA Disputes
Paul Wallin
September 17, 2009
In a recently released and much talked about opinion, the United States Supreme Court stated that post-conviction DNA testing was not a constitutional right. The decision, District Attorney´s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009 DJDAR 8847), sparked a firestorm of media coverage and has led to a national discussion on prisoner´s post-conviction rights. Though the media reports have portrayed the decision as one of national importance, it actually is one that will vary from state to state.
The Defendant, Osborne, was convicted of sexual assault and other crimes in state court. Years later, after a confession and subsequent prison time, Osborne filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming he had a due process right to access the evidence used against him. The evidence in this case was DNA. Osborne argued that he should be able to subject this DNA to additional testing at his own expense. Osborne´s claim was initially dismissed by the District Court, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, remanded, and subsequently affirmed the lower court´s modified decision. The United States Supreme Court consequently reversed the Ninth Circuit.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that the task of establishing rules to harness DNA´s power to prove innocence, without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system, belongs primarily to the legislature. The Court went on to say that forty-six states and the Federal Government have already enacted statutes specifically dealing with access to evidence for DNA testing. Going further, the Court said that Alaska, where the case originated, was only one of a handful of states yet to enact specific DNA testing legislation. The Court ruled that the Federal Courts may upset a state´s post-conviction relief procedures only if they are fundamentally inadequate to vindicate the substantive rights provided by the Federal Constitution. In this case, the Court said that allowing the decision from the Ninth Circuit to stand would "constitutionalize" an issue traditionally left to states to decide.
The Supreme Court cited to the record of the case in pointing out that Alaska had already performed DQ Alpha testing on sperm found in the condom that was left at the scene. This DNA test, though not as precise as others, served, along with other evidence, as enough to convict Osborn. The court also cited to the record of Osborne´s attorney´s statements that further testing would do more harm than good. The Court explained that the testing could have been done before or during the trial, but, through the advice of the attorney, it was not. This type of strategic error is not something that the court wanted to endorse.
But what of the Due Process claim? Shouldn´t a prisoner have the right to access at his own expense the evidence that was used against him? The Court tried to answer these questions without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice. Its response: Leave it to the state legislatures.
The Court cited numerous state laws that allow access to newly available DNA testing that will prove the Defendant to be actually innocent. Though the Court did not endorse any one state´s law, it did express in dictum some agreement with the right to "newly discovered evidence" pursued with due diligence that "establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is innocent." However, the court stopped short stating that any new evidence must be disclosed to the defendant after the defendant has been convicted and the case closed. "Osborne´s right to due process is not parallel to a trial right, but rather must be analyzed in light of the fact that he has already been found guilty at a fair trial, and has only a limited interest in post-conviction relief." In other words, the process will vary from case to case and from state to state.
The Court was adamant in stating that it is the defendant´s burden to demonstrate the inadequacy of the state-law procedures available to them in state post-conviction relief. If the procedures appear adequate on their face, the Court will not disturb the states´ right to legislate their own criminal procedures. The Court finally held that there was no freestanding right to DNA evidence, at least on the federal level. Though states´ systems will undoubtedly be imperfect, the Court held that DNA evidence must remain outside of its prescription powers. "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response."
In short, it is well worth the price to have an experienced San Diego criminal defense attorney. Although this case did not come out exactly the way Osborne wanted, it achieved national recognition and highlighted an emerging area of law. With skilled attorneys, the law can be transformed to give more rights to the accused. Wallin & Klarich has many skilled criminal defense attorneys that can help. Our attorneys have years of experience dealing with similar cases. Their perseverance and competence in similar actions has lead to equal due justice. If you or someone you love has been charged with a crime in California, contact Wallin & Klairch today at 1-888-280-6839 for a case evaluation. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.
The Defendant, Osborne, was convicted of sexual assault and other crimes in state court. Years later, after a confession and subsequent prison time, Osborne filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming he had a due process right to access the evidence used against him. The evidence in this case was DNA. Osborne argued that he should be able to subject this DNA to additional testing at his own expense. Osborne´s claim was initially dismissed by the District Court, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, remanded, and subsequently affirmed the lower court´s modified decision. The United States Supreme Court consequently reversed the Ninth Circuit.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that the task of establishing rules to harness DNA´s power to prove innocence, without unnecessarily overthrowing the established criminal justice system, belongs primarily to the legislature. The Court went on to say that forty-six states and the Federal Government have already enacted statutes specifically dealing with access to evidence for DNA testing. Going further, the Court said that Alaska, where the case originated, was only one of a handful of states yet to enact specific DNA testing legislation. The Court ruled that the Federal Courts may upset a state´s post-conviction relief procedures only if they are fundamentally inadequate to vindicate the substantive rights provided by the Federal Constitution. In this case, the Court said that allowing the decision from the Ninth Circuit to stand would "constitutionalize" an issue traditionally left to states to decide.
The Supreme Court cited to the record of the case in pointing out that Alaska had already performed DQ Alpha testing on sperm found in the condom that was left at the scene. This DNA test, though not as precise as others, served, along with other evidence, as enough to convict Osborn. The court also cited to the record of Osborne´s attorney´s statements that further testing would do more harm than good. The Court explained that the testing could have been done before or during the trial, but, through the advice of the attorney, it was not. This type of strategic error is not something that the court wanted to endorse.
But what of the Due Process claim? Shouldn´t a prisoner have the right to access at his own expense the evidence that was used against him? The Court tried to answer these questions without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice. Its response: Leave it to the state legislatures.
The Court cited numerous state laws that allow access to newly available DNA testing that will prove the Defendant to be actually innocent. Though the Court did not endorse any one state´s law, it did express in dictum some agreement with the right to "newly discovered evidence" pursued with due diligence that "establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is innocent." However, the court stopped short stating that any new evidence must be disclosed to the defendant after the defendant has been convicted and the case closed. "Osborne´s right to due process is not parallel to a trial right, but rather must be analyzed in light of the fact that he has already been found guilty at a fair trial, and has only a limited interest in post-conviction relief." In other words, the process will vary from case to case and from state to state.
The Court was adamant in stating that it is the defendant´s burden to demonstrate the inadequacy of the state-law procedures available to them in state post-conviction relief. If the procedures appear adequate on their face, the Court will not disturb the states´ right to legislate their own criminal procedures. The Court finally held that there was no freestanding right to DNA evidence, at least on the federal level. Though states´ systems will undoubtedly be imperfect, the Court held that DNA evidence must remain outside of its prescription powers. "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response."
In short, it is well worth the price to have an experienced San Diego criminal defense attorney. Although this case did not come out exactly the way Osborne wanted, it achieved national recognition and highlighted an emerging area of law. With skilled attorneys, the law can be transformed to give more rights to the accused. Wallin & Klarich has many skilled criminal defense attorneys that can help. Our attorneys have years of experience dealing with similar cases. Their perseverance and competence in similar actions has lead to equal due justice. If you or someone you love has been charged with a crime in California, contact Wallin & Klairch today at 1-888-280-6839 for a case evaluation. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.
Print
Email
