the_plunk (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} the_plunk) wrote,@ 2009-06-19 00:06:00 |
|
Here's a fun story that no one will read
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that people who have been convicted of a crime cannot access stored DNA evidence that could be tested and exonerate them.
To repeat, a 5-4 decision of our highest court has denied innocent people who have been wrongly convicted the ability to prove their innocence because, in the words of John Roberts, "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response."
I don't really know what that legislative response part means, exactly, other than that it makes people uncomfortable that the innocent are sometimes convicted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0
The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.
The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing has led to the exoneration of at least 232 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes.
The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
"It's hard to know whether this ruling is going to speed up the national trend toward more DNA testing," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "Even many prosecutors are pushing for it, or at least allowing it, in certain cases where it would be relevant. In the meantime, 13 innocent defendants have been exonerated this year alone."
William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt.
Separately, in parole proceedings, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a bid for release from prison.
The high court reversed the appellate ruling. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.
"To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Roberts said.
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. "The court today blesses the state's arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks," Stevens said
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that people who have been convicted of a crime cannot access stored DNA evidence that could be tested and exonerate them.
To repeat, a 5-4 decision of our highest court has denied innocent people who have been wrongly convicted the ability to prove their innocence because, in the words of John Roberts, "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response."
I don't really know what that legislative response part means, exactly, other than that it makes people uncomfortable that the innocent are sometimes convicted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0
The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.
The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing has led to the exoneration of at least 232 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes.
The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
"It's hard to know whether this ruling is going to speed up the national trend toward more DNA testing," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "Even many prosecutors are pushing for it, or at least allowing it, in certain cases where it would be relevant. In the meantime, 13 innocent defendants have been exonerated this year alone."
William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt.
Separately, in parole proceedings, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a bid for release from prison.
The high court reversed the appellate ruling. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.
"To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Roberts said.
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that a simple test would settle the matter. "The court today blesses the state's arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks," Stevens said
