Supreme Court Rules No Constitutional Right to DNA Testing for Convicts

June 19, 2009 by Suzanne Conlon

Although 47 states have laws that allow convicts limited access to genetic evidence, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that convicts do not have a constitutional right to use DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime.

The case before the court involved William Osborne, a man from Alaska who was convicted of kidnapping, raping, and shooting a prostitute in 1993.  Osborne is currently serving a 26 year prison sentence.  His lawyers argued that if a condom found at the crime scene was tested, it would prove that he was not guilty of the crime and that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause requires the government to provide Osborne with access to evidence.  In parole proceedings, however, Osborne has pled guilty in hopes of an early release from prison.

The Supreme Court decision was a reversal of the decision by the appellate court.  “To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,” said Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion.  “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,” he continued, and added that the question of whether “proof ‘actual innocence’” is justification for overturning a conviction is an open question.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, was in the minority and voted in favor of Osborne’s case and said that with its decision “the court . . . blesses the state’s arbitrary denial of the evidence Osborne seeks.”  The Obama administration has said that it supports the minority opinion and supports wider access to DNA testing.

“Today’s decision is limited: the Court merely spoke about what is constitutional, not what is good policy,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “DNA testing helps ensure justice is done.  I hope that in light of today’s decision, all levels of government will follow the federal government’s lead by working to expand access to DNA evidence.”

Only Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma have no legal provision for DNA testing.  Convicts can still seek DNA testing to absolve them of crimes, but it is not their legal right to such testing.  Advances in DNA technology “cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every criminal conviction involving biological evidence is suddenly in doubt,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts.  “The dilemma is how to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of justice.”

Dissenters on the Court argue that the decision values “protecting the finality” of convictions over “ensuring that justice is done.”