Background
In 1994, William Osborne was found guilty of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a prostitute by the state of Alaska. Semen from a condom collected at the crime scene was subjected to a relatively unrevealing form of DNA testing--the DQ Alpha test. In the context of this case, "unrevealing" means that one in every six or seven randomly-chosen African American men would be a match.
Osborne petitioned for access to the condom so that he could, at his own expense, perform a more accurate form of DNA testing, either STR or mtDNA testing. In the end, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Osborne does have a right to the potentially exculpatory evidence. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The SCOTUS Case
Long story short, in a 5-4 decision, the court decided that post-conviction access to state-owned evidence for the purpose of DNA testing is not a constitutional right. This bears repeating: Although it would incur no cost to the state of Alaska, and be near-definitive proof of innocence or guilt, the state of Alaska may prevent the test from occurring, because Osborne was already declared guilty during a fair trial.
It is worth mentioning that the above is a very rudimentary summary, and there are several technical subtleties to the case. To give a full account of these would be far to much for this post, but two important ones are, briefly:
- Alaskan State Law: Alaska is one of only six states without laws determining person’s access to DNA evidence. Thus Osborne sought remedy by suing in Federal court, an uncommon move.
- Habeas Corpus: A writ of habeas corpus is the typical way by which convicted persons assert that they are wrongfully imprisoned (and therefore innocent). Osborne was convicted by the state of Alaska, and thus he must exhaust all state remedies before applying for the writ. As mentioned above, Alaska has no specific state laws regarding convicted person’s access to state-owned DNA evidence, making the claim difficult.
The Significance
Freestanding Innocence
There is an implicit assumption some people hold that, if new evidence may be brought forward which potentially exonerates one convicted of a crime, that individual should be allowed to present that evidence, and this free himself. More formally, the idea of freestanding innocence is that, although a person may be found guilty after a fair trial in a court of law, he may still appeal to the fact that he is actually innocent in asking for judicial review of his case. It is on this basis that Osborne requested access to the condom. The Constitution does not explicitly state or define this right, although other SCOTUS cases have discussed it.
Liberty Interests
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that:
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...The Fourteen Amendment states that:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...In this context, an individual’s life, liberty, and property are the interests of that individual, and are given special protection. Liberty interest, then, refers to the freedoms given to an individual, of which he cannot be deprived. Osborne’s liberty interests are the freedoms he cannot be deprived of.
Chief Justice Roberts had an interesting quote, which I would like to end this post with. It states:
A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man ... Given a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty.
As a final note, the full Court opinion on the ruling can be found in pdf form here.
I completely agree with freestanding innocence because the guilty verdict was derived with insufficient evidence.To say that "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man", as Chief Justice Roberts says, neglects the laws that say otherwise.It is unfortunate that Alaska's laws were not specific enough to properly address this case on behalf of the defendant. This is an example of how positive law does not incorporate some aspects of the natural law or what is ideal.
ReplyDeleteWith such vague laws under the state of Alaska, questionable and erroneous decisions arose with the concluding verdict. Having such unspecified laws gave Osborne an unfair trail, depriving him of his 5th and 14th amendment rights. I strongly agree with freestanding innocence especially when expository evidence became crucial in determining one’s innocence. The Alaskan government did not take into consideration the morality of natural law when denying Osborne post-conviction access to state-owned evidence.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's time to post my actual opinion.
ReplyDeleteContinuing in their grand tradition of handing down awful 5-4 decisions, SCOTUS has determined that a convict does not have any post-conviction rights to test the DNA evidence against him. As long as the trail is fair, the justice system no longer cares about guilt or innocence.
It is almost comical, how bad this decision is:
1. The state of Alaska has no laws that address Osborne's right to re-test the evidence against him, so he must sue the state for access to the condom.
2. The state claims that the suit is baseless, because he had a fair trail, and claiming innocence is not enough to get what amounts to a re-opening of his case.
3. However, IF he could test the DNA, and IF this test did show his innocent, he could apply for a writ of habeas corpus to free himself.
4. He cannot apply for the writ, because all state remedies have not been exhausted.
5. The state remedies cannot be exhausted, because they do not exist. The only possible remedy is testing the condom and proving his innocence. See Number 1.
No matter how much they attempt to obscure their opinions with legal technicalities, the conservative wing of the court cannot hide the fact that they really do not care about people.
It is not a common thing for a decision to get reversed on appeal. Instead of simply agreeing with the Ninth Circuit decision, they had to go out of their way to craft their own legal justifications. In every sense, the Supreme Court went out of their way to prevent Osborne from getting this test.