District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 08-6
06-18-09, U.S.
Holding: An individual whose criminal conviction has become final does not have a federal constitutional right to gain access to evidence in State’s possession so that it can be subjected to DNA testing to try to prove his innocence. DNA testing provides “an unparalleled ability” to prove innocence or guilt, but its availability “cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt.” The task of writing rules to control access to DNA evidence belongs primarily to the legislature. There is no reason to constitutionalize access through the courts when elected officials are making a “prompt and considered” response to the DNA phenomenon. Held, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion at 521 F.3d 1118 reversed and remanded. Alito, J., joined by Kennedy, J. and Thomas, J., CONCURRING, stressed possibility that DNA evidence can be contaminated and that the few testing labs that exist are already overburdened; also, a defendant who, “for tactical purposes, passes up the opportunity for DNA testing at trial,…has no constitutional right to demand to perform DNA testing after conviction.” Stevens, J., joined by Ginsburg, J. and Breyer, J., DISSENTING, said, “When absolute proof of innocence is readily at hand, a State should not shrink from the possibility that error may have occurred.” Souter, J., DISSENTING, would decide case on procedural due process grounds, noting that Alaska’s procedures have proven so inadequate that federal relief is warranted.
Note: I.C. 35-38-7-1, et seq. establishes detailed procedures to petition courts for post-conviction DNA testing and analysis in Indiana. This ruling should have limited impact given that most jurisdictions now provide inmates some means of obtaining evidence for DNA analysis.
