High court says convicts lack right to DNA testing

[JohnBrowdie]

the headline is tendentious, even for the AP.  all the SCOTUS said, quite reasonable and rationally, is that use of
DNA testing is up to the states.  for the SCOTUS to have ruled in favor would have to removed this entire area
of law from the reach of legislatures.

and of course, this will be framed as a covertly racist issue . . ..  the theme will be "minorities will suffer because the
conservative judges votes to deny them access to this technology".

what is TRULY scary is that four justices voted in favor.

and it would have set off 5 million demands for DNA tests from every convict in every prison in the US.

High court says convicts lack right to DNA testing

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence.

In a 5-4 vote, with the conservative justices in the majority, the court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions.

William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. A federal appeals court said he had a right to conduct the test.

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project, which works to free people who were wrongly convicted.

More

[Vonne]

What is TRULY scary is that four justices voted in favor.

It would have set off 5 million demands for DNA tests from every convict in every prison in the US.

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.  If I'm not mistaken, prisoners in 47 states already have access to this critical evidence.  By the very article, only 3 states don't already grant them access to genetic evidence.  So at worst, would it not only affect the prisoner populations of those 3 states?  Not the entire prison population of the United States?  If 47 states already grant this, it certainly can't be deemed an unfair burden of the state.

Shrugs, I'm just not sure why we wouldn't grant prisoners the right to review the evidence against them.  To do otherwise seems like a greater threat on liberty.  Shrugs. 

What is it about this, that you're against, if I may ask?

[Miss Mia]

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.  If I'm not mistaken, prisoners in 47 states already have access to this critical evidence.  By the very article, only 3 states don't already grant them access to genetic evidence.  So at worst, would it not only affect the prisoner populations of those 3 states?  Not the entire prison population of the United States?  If 47 states already grant this, it certainly can't be deemed an unfair burden of the state.

Shrugs, I'm just not sure why we wouldn't grant prisoners the right to review the evidence against them.  To do otherwise seems like a greater threat on liberty.  Shrugs. 

What is it about this, that you're against, if I may ask?

I especially agree with that, considering the Dallas County DA has released around 20 men wrongfully committed once DNA evidence was looked into.

[Vonne]

Dallas County DA has released around 20 men wrongfully committed once DNA evidence was looked into.

Oh, the Detroit Police Crime Lab has that one beat!  The entire department was recently shuttered by the State Police and FBI.  As they were essentially asking the police, "What would you like the evidence to say?" while conducting their analysis!  The Chief Prosecutor went absolutely and justifiably bonkers, realizing that essentially EVERY trial for the last few years now would have to be reviewed!

[Miss Mia]

Oh, the Detroit Police Crime Lab has that one beat!  The entire department was recently shuttered by the State Police and FBI.  As they were essentially asking the police, "What would you like the evidence to say?" while conducting their analysis!  The Chief Prosecutor went absolutely and justifiably bonkers, realizing that essentially EVERY trial for the last few years now would have to be reviewed!

Poor Detroit.  Your former mayor is living around here now I believe.

[JohnBrowdie]

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.  If I'm not mistaken, prisoners in 47 states already have access to this critical evidence.  By the very article, only 3 states don't already grant them access to genetic evidence.  So at worst, would it not only affect the prisoner populations of those 3 states?  Not the entire prison population of the United States?  If 47 states already grant this, it certainly can't be deemed an unfair burden of the state.

Shrugs, I'm just not sure why we wouldn't grant prisoners the right to review the evidence against them.  To do otherwise seems like a greater threat on liberty.  Shrugs. 

What is it about this, that you're against, if I may ask?

I am against federalizing what is clearly a state matter.

[JohnBrowdie]

I especially agree with that, considering the Dallas County DA has released around 20 men wrongfully committed once DNA evidence was looked into.

the dallas county DA is obviously county government.  that is actually an argument in support of allowing state and local jurisdictions to handle their own judicial systems. 

[JohnBrowdie]

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.  If I'm not mistaken, prisoners in 47 states already have access to this critical evidence.  By the very article, only 3 states don't already grant them access to genetic evidence.  So at worst, would it not only affect the prisoner populations of those 3 states?  Not the entire prison population of the United States?  If 47 states already grant this, it certainly can't be deemed an unfair burden of the state.

Shrugs, I'm just not sure why we wouldn't grant prisoners the right to review the evidence against them.  To do otherwise seems like a greater threat on liberty.  Shrugs. 

What is it about this, that you're against, if I may ask?

whether or not it creates an unfair burden on the states isn't the question.  the question is whether or not the central government should dictate evidentiary procedure to the states.  the question to be decided when something gets to the supreme court isn't "Is this reasonable?" or even "Is this a good idea?", the question to be answered is "Is this a constitutional".

[Vonne]

whether or not it creates an unfair burden on the states isn't the question.  the question is whether or not the central government should dictate evidentiary procedure to the states.  the question to be decided when something gets to the supreme court isn't "Is this reasonable?" or even "Is this a good idea?", the question to be answered is "Is this a constitutional".

It might not be a question, but you were certainly attempting to imply that it was a factor.

What is TRULY scary is that four justices voted in favor.

It would have set off 5 million demands for DNA tests from every convict in every prison in the US.

As for the rest... we do have Public Law 93-595 which enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence

AUTHORITY FOR PROMULGATION OF RULES
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general
rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in
the United States district courts (including proceedings before
magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.

Of course, damn the law, damn those communist, and damn those who think that more federal laws apply than those expressly written in the Constitution.  Which I keep in my back pocket, thanks to those fine folks from the John Birch Society who handed them out at the county fair!  Yee haw!

All hail Che, Viva La Revolucion!!!

Or something like that  :