Post-Conviction DNA
Via Howard Bashman, the WaPo decries the majority ruling in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, which held 5-4 (and you don’t have to guess who the 5 and the 4 were) that prisoners have no constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, though they do have that right under the laws of most states. What I’d like to know is, what on earth do the other 4 Justices think? That the Sixth Amendment guarantees every criminal defendant the right to two speedy trials? Seriously. It’s one thing to allow post-conviction DNA testing for convicts who had no reasonable opportunity to present that same evidence at trial. That I support fully. But it’s quite another to ask for post-conviction DNA testing for a rapist/kidnapper who had every opportunity to present that same evidence at trial, and declined to do so because he knew the results would be damning. If we’re going to give criminal defendants a second bite at that apple, why stop with DNA? Let’s give every criminal defendant a right to two criminal trials, with the second trial allowing him to adopt every legal theory of innocence, justification or excuse that was not raised at the first. Lost the “I didn’t do it” trial? No problem, plead insanity now.
This story also raises troubling questions about Alaska’s criminal justice system. According to the WaPo, Osborne was actually paroled for this brutal attack two years ago, after finally admitting to the Parole Board that he had in fact committed the crime. Apparently in Alaska, no crime is too heinous for parole; you just have to admit that you did it and pinky-swear you won’t do it again. And so far, Mr. Osborne hasn’t done it again. OK, so he maybe did break into some family’s home, duct-tape and pistol-whip the occupants and rob them at gunpoint. There is that. But at least he didn’t rape anybody, which was the crime he had pinky-sworn not to do, so I’m sure the Parole Board can rest easy.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
If I were in prison, with nothing better to do than “turn” the new prisoners, I would be filing all kinds of papers, too, on any conceivable colorable issue.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Two things. Keep in mind that alot of these convictions are from before the availiability of DNA tests. And the second thing to keep in mind is that most parole boards require an admission of guilt before paroleing someone. They tend not to let out people who proclaim their innocence.