How exactly is justice served by not allowing existing evidence to be tested? The DNA testing is not expensive and the defendant has offered to pay the cost. Why not let him? Why exactly would Alaska oppose it in the first place?
If it’s not his DNA, then justice is served by allowing him to exonerate himself. If it is his, then nothing at all is lost. How does testing this DNS “overthrow” any important state interest? Unless punishing a random person is more important than the determining the facts of the case. This is why a conservative court is dangerous and I hope Obama gets to choose more nominees.
In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars. Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket. Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Osburne is out of luck. Although Roberts conceded that “[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,” he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit. Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.”
