In pursuing a civil claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the convicted does not have a constitutional right to postconviction access to State’s evidence for DNA testing.
The case concerned the conviction of William G. Osborne on charges related to the rape and beating of a prostitute. The prostitute had been beaten with an axe handle, shot in the head, and left in an Alaskansnowbank. On a combination of eyewitness testimony and DNA evidence from a condom found at the scene, Osborne was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault. He was sentenced to 26 years in prison for these offenses. The testing method used on the condom, DQ Alpha, was a relatively inexact form of DNA testing that generally cannot narrow the perpetrator down to less than 5% of the population.
After his conviction, Osborne sought for the state's evidence to be put to Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) testing according to his rights under Alaska Statute §12.72.010(4) (2008) for postconviction relief, and according to his State and Federal Constitution rights. The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Osborne had neither Federal constitutional right to postconviction testing, due to lack of precedent, nor a State constitutional right, on the basis that the other evidence of his guilt was too strong and RFLP testing was not likely to be conclusive.[3] Alaska prosecutors do not dispute that advanced DNA testing could potentially prove Osborne's innocence beyond any doubt, but refused to allow him additional testing despite a decade-old request.[4]
Following the refusal, Osborne filed suit, claiming the state violated his right to due process.[5] In this suit, Osborne challenged the state's "deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution" and requested the DNA evidence against him be tested at his personal expense by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, a method more discriminating than both RFLP and DQ Alpha, and unavailable at the time of his trial. The State instead insisted that Osborne's claim must be brought under 28 U.S.C. §2254, which allows a prisoner to seek "a writ of habeas corpus . . . on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution." Osborne argued against this approach, as access to evidence, or even vindication through said access, would not automatically invalidate his conviction. The case was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court, which overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgement in Osborne's favor and ruled that "assuming Osborne’s claims can be pursued using §1983, he has no constitutional right to obtain postconviction access to the State’s evidence for DNA testing."
Opinion of the Courtedit
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Part II. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that Alaska provided for discovery in postconviction proceedings, and has through judicial decision, specified that such discovery is available to those seeking access to evidence for DNA testing. The Court decided these procedures are similar to those provided by federal law and the laws of other States, and they satisfy due process. Osbourne brought this case under section 1983 without ever using procedures in filing a state or federal habeas claim relying on actual innocence. The Court found he had not tried to use the process provided to him by the State or attempted to vindicate the liberty interest that was disputed in this case. As such, the Court found no substantive due process rights infringed.
Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Souter joined as to Part I. Justice Stevens found Osborne made full use of available state procedures in his efforts to secure access to evidence for DNA testing so that he might avail himself of the postconviction relief afforded by the State of Alaska, but that he was repeatedly rebuffed in a manner which left doubt about the adequacy of the procedural protections afforded to litigants under Alaska Stat. §12.72.010(4), and which proved contrary to the majority assertion that Osborne could gain access to the evidence were he simply to seek it through the State's discovery procedures. Justice Souter filed a separate dissenting opinion on procedural grounds, arguing that while Alaska had facially reasonable conditions guaranteeing access to DNA evidence, the way it went about applying those conditions added up to procedural unfairness that violated the Due Process Clause.
Analysis and commentaryedit
Some consider the decision to be a rebuke of the Innocence Project, which offered to fund Osborne's DNA testing and exonerated 240 prisoners as of the date of the decision.[6] Additionally, former FBI DirectorWilliam S. Sessions was among those who sought to have the evidence revealed, arguing the Justice Department should intervene and demand testing since the department's very name implies "justice". He wrote "Why should our criminal justice system be afraid?"[4][6]
^Osborne v. State, 110 P.3d 986 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005).
^ abSessions, William S. (February 27, 2009). "Obama's Testing Test: Why is the Justice Department on the wrong side of a Supreme Court case about DNA evidence?". Slate.
Text of District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarOyez (oral argument audio)
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne (SCOTUS wiki)
District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (Cornell University Law School)
Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests (NYT)
April 15, 2024
district, attorney, office, osborne, district, attorney, office, third, judicial, district, osborne, 2009, case, which, united, states, supreme, court, decided, that, constitution, process, clause, does, require, states, turn, over, evidence, party, seeking, c. District Attorney s Office for the Third Judicial District v Osborne 557 U S 52 2009 1 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution s due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence to a party seeking a civil suit under 42 U S C 1983 2 District Attorney s Office v OsborneSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 2 2009Decided June 18 2009Full case nameDistrict Attorney s Office for the Third Judicial District et al v OsborneDocket no 08 6Citations557 U S 52 more 129 S Ct 2308 174 L Ed 2d 38 2009 U S LEXIS 4536Case historyPrior110 P 3d 986 Alaska App 2005 445 F Supp 2d 1079 D Alaska 2006 163 P 3d 973 Alaska App 2007 521 F 3d 1118 9th Cir 2008 cert granted 555 U S 992 2008 HoldingIn pursuing a civil claim under 42 U S C 1983 the convicted does not have a constitutional right to postconviction access to State s evidence for DNA testing Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P Stevens Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy David SouterClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoCase opinionsMajorityRoberts joined by Scalia Kennedy Thomas AlitoConcurrenceAlito joined by Kennedy Thomas Part II DissentStevens joined by Ginsburg Breyer Souter Part I DissentSouterLaws appliedU S Const amend XIV Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 Analysis and commentary 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground editThe case concerned the conviction of William G Osborne on charges related to the rape and beating of a prostitute The prostitute had been beaten with an axe handle shot in the head and left in an Alaskan snowbank On a combination of eyewitness testimony and DNA evidence from a condom found at the scene Osborne was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault He was sentenced to 26 years in prison for these offenses The testing method used on the condom DQ Alpha was a relatively inexact form of DNA testing that generally cannot narrow the perpetrator down to less than 5 of the population After his conviction Osborne sought for the state s evidence to be put to Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism RFLP testing according to his rights under Alaska Statute 12 72 010 4 2008 for postconviction relief and according to his State and Federal Constitution rights The Alaska Court of Appeals ruled Osborne had neither Federal constitutional right to postconviction testing due to lack of precedent nor a State constitutional right on the basis that the other evidence of his guilt was too strong and RFLP testing was not likely to be conclusive 3 Alaska prosecutors do not dispute that advanced DNA testing could potentially prove Osborne s innocence beyond any doubt but refused to allow him additional testing despite a decade old request 4 Following the refusal Osborne filed suit claiming the state violated his right to due process 5 In this suit Osborne challenged the state s deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution and requested the DNA evidence against him be tested at his personal expense by Short Tandem Repeat STR analysis a method more discriminating than both RFLP and DQ Alpha and unavailable at the time of his trial The State instead insisted that Osborne s claim must be brought under 28 U S C 2254 which allows a prisoner to seek a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution Osborne argued against this approach as access to evidence or even vindication through said access would not automatically invalidate his conviction The case was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court which overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgement in Osborne s favor and ruled that assuming Osborne s claims can be pursued using 1983 he has no constitutional right to obtain postconviction access to the State s evidence for DNA testing Opinion of the Court editChief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices Scalia Kennedy Thomas and Alito joined Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kennedy joined and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Part II In the majority opinion the Supreme Court found that Alaska provided for discovery in postconviction proceedings and has through judicial decision specified that such discovery is available to those seeking access to evidence for DNA testing The Court decided these procedures are similar to those provided by federal law and the laws of other States and they satisfy due process Osbourne brought this case under section 1983 without ever using procedures in filing a state or federal habeas claim relying on actual innocence The Court found he had not tried to use the process provided to him by the State or attempted to vindicate the liberty interest that was disputed in this case As such the Court found no substantive due process rights infringed Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined and in which Justice Souter joined as to Part I Justice Stevens found Osborne made full use of available state procedures in his efforts to secure access to evidence for DNA testing so that he might avail himself of the postconviction relief afforded by the State of Alaska but that he was repeatedly rebuffed in a manner which left doubt about the adequacy of the procedural protections afforded to litigants under Alaska Stat 12 72 010 4 and which proved contrary to the majority assertion that Osborne could gain access to the evidence were he simply to seek it through the State s discovery procedures Justice Souter filed a separate dissenting opinion on procedural grounds arguing that while Alaska had facially reasonable conditions guaranteeing access to DNA evidence the way it went about applying those conditions added up to procedural unfairness that violated the Due Process Clause Analysis and commentary editSome consider the decision to be a rebuke of the Innocence Project which offered to fund Osborne s DNA testing and exonerated 240 prisoners as of the date of the decision 6 Additionally former FBI Director William S Sessions was among those who sought to have the evidence revealed arguing the Justice Department should intervene and demand testing since the department s very name implies justice He wrote Why should our criminal justice system be afraid 4 6 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 557 List of United States Supreme Court casesReferences edit District Attorney s Office v Osborne 557 U S 52 2009 nbsp This article incorporates public domain material from this U S government document 42 U S C 1983 Osborne v State 110 P 3d 986 Alaska Ct App 2005 a b Sessions William S February 27 2009 Obama s Testing Test Why is the Justice Department on the wrong side of a Supreme Court case about DNA evidence Slate See 42 U S C 1983 a b Lundin Leigh June 28 2009 Dark Justice Criminal Brief Retrieved June 29 2009 External links editText of District Attorney s Office for the Third Judicial District v Osborne 557 U S 52 2009 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived District Attorney s Office for the Third Judicial District et al v Osborne SCOTUS wiki District Attorney s Office v Osborne Cornell University Law School Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests NYT Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title District Attorney 27s Office v Osborne amp oldid 1175141511, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
