Supreme Court Rules Convicted Man Has No Right to Test DNA
The Associated Press is reporting: that today the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, 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. William Osborne won a federal appeals-court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Mr. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt. Separately, in parole proceedings, Mr. 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," Mr. 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," Mr. Stevens said.
In the opinion, in concurrence, Judge Samuel Alito explained: 
I see no reason for such intervention in the present case. When a criminal defendant, for tactical purposes, passes up the opportunity for DNA testing at trial, that defendant, in my judgment, has no constitutional right to demand to perform DNA testing after conviction. Recognition of such a right would allow defendants to play games with the criminal justice system. A guilty defendant could forgo DNA testing at trial for fear that the results would confirm his guilt, and in the hope that the other evidence would be insufficient to persuade the jury to find him guilty. Then, after conviction, with nothing to lose, the defendant could demand DNA testing in the hope that some happy accident—for example, degradation or con- tamination of the evidence—would provide the basis for seeking postconviction relief. Denying the opportunity for such an attempt to game the criminal justice system should not shock the conscience of the Court.
Further noting "There is ample evidence in this case that [Osborne] attemtped to game the system."
