RSS
Home
Obama's position on post-conviction access to DNA testing is alarming
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
On March 2nd, 2009, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in District Attorney v Osborne, by an inmate asserting that he has a constitutional right to DNA testing which may help overturn his rape conviction. The Ninth Circuit, relying on Brady v Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, agreed with the inmate's claims. Brady is a landmark case which states that the government, in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, must turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, has urged the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling and deny William Osborne's claim. The solicitor general, on behalf of the government has argued that Osborne should not have his DNA compared to samples found at the crime scene, even at his own expense.
It is difficult to comprehend the government's claim that Osborne's request would undermine his conviction. If prosecutors are so certain that the right person is imprisoned, what is the harm in testing? Results would confirm the prosecution's theory of the case at trial and affirm that Osborne was the perpetrator. If testing revealed Osborne was not the rapist, then it would be apparent that a grave injustice had occurred and that the real assailant was at large. Regardless, what the government believes about the finality of a conviction is immaterial: the law states that the prosecution's duty “is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”
Moreover, Brady unequivocally mandates that prisoners have access to such testing. Specifically, Court has held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. The Ninth Circuit underscored that this duty does not terminate with a defendant's conviction. Alaska, where Osborne was convicted, is one of six states that does not have laws giving prisoners’ access to DNA evidence. More importantly, DNA testing was not available to Osborne at the time of his trial; in addition, cases based on circumstantial evidence and faulty eyewitness identification have have resulted in numerous wrongful convictions.
The magnamity of these problems has led victims like Michelle Mallin to support Osborne's claims. Mallin, the victim of a rape, identified her perpetrator in a photo lineup, live lineup, and at trial. DNA testing recently conducted; however, revealed that Timothy Cole, the man convicted of the rape at trial, was innocent. Tragically, Cole, who maintained his innocence from the inception, died in prison while serving out his 25 year sentence. Cole was exonerated 24 years after his conviction and ten years after his death. Mallin has come forward to clear Cole's name and champion access to post conviction evidence.
In her interview, Mallin questions why anyone would oppose DNA testing and her words cause one to wonder why President Obama would continue to adhere to the Bush administration's position on this issue. Obama's stance on this signifcant issue is dismaying considering his background in constitutional law; furthermore, it is a disservice to victims and prisoners alike. If your loved ones were the victims of a horrific crime, wouldn't you want to make sure that the right person was behind bars? If your loved ones were the accused, wouldn't you want them to have all of the available evidence at their disposal? The potentially exclupatory value of DNA testing makes the denial of Osborne's claim unjust, unconstitutional, and unreasonable.
Related Articles:
Comments
