This article in the New York Times summarizes some of the questions asked by the Justices, along with information about Osborne himself. Many believe that he is not innocent, and that re-analyzing the evidence would open states to a flood of requests for testing from defendants who are truly guilty.
I found this quote from the article interesting:
Justice Antonin Scalia said he was struck by how equivocal Mr. Osborne had been. Reading from a sworn statement Mr. Osborne had submitted to the Alaska state courts, Justice Scalia said: “ ‘I have no doubt whatsoever that retesting of the condom will prove once and for all time’ — and one expects to follow, ‘my innocence.’ That’s not what it says. ‘Will prove once and for all time either my guilt or innocence.’ ”Mr. Osborne have never stated his innocence under oath. In fact, he confessed his guilt in order to obtain parole.
It will be interesting to see how the Court decides. Even if he is truly guilty, this case could enable others wrongfully convicted to reanalyze old evidence for DNA.
2 comments:
I'm not a legal expert, but -- given Scalia's statement -- I think if the Justices might rule on much more narrow grounds that allow them to defer on the constitutional question at hand. I wonder if they might say something to the effect of: this defendant has admitted his guilt; therefore, the re-analysis of the DNA evidence is moot in this case because his admission is evidence enough to have convicted him. The Justices might be concerned with using this case to set precedent on the large constitutional question because the details make the case too equivocal to meet the standard that they usually desire when establishing larger constitutional precedents.
I would hope the Court would consider the fact that many innocent people plead guilty to avoid harsh punishment (this is especially true in death penalty states), or get out on parole.
Putting Osborne's case aside for a second--imagine you've been incarcerated for several years for a crime you didn't commit, but the parole board says you can get out as long as you confess. If it were me, and I had children at home.... I might just confess, hoping that a day would come when I could clear my name.
I agree--if the Court takes a narrow interpretation then Osborne probably won't get access, and neither will any other defendant in those 6 states who pleaded guilty or confessed for a different reason.
Post a Comment