no more DNA tests to prove innocence

[name change request]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
WASHINGTON — Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

read the rest of the story at that link. it's tamer than the headline makes it out to be.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joel

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
WASHINGTON — Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

read the rest of the story at that link. it's tamer than the headline makes it out to be.

Wonderful writing as usual from our lovely press. One cannot prove innocence. One can demonstrate the the blood, sperm etc relied upon as evidence for conviction came from a person other than the one convicted. It does not necessarily follow that the person convicted wasn't there and part of the crime... just that his DNA was not introduced into evidence which is probably enough to illustrate reasonable doubt.... meaning one fails to prove the defenant did it... not that one provoed that he didn't. And no, just to nip it in the bud, it isn't semantics. Not guilty does not equal innocent.

[name change request]

heh

okay but the writing aside, how about the SCOTUS decision...

[PETA]

Was there a link to the ruling? It's been my experience that articles on SCOTUS rulings (hell any legal matters) usually miss the holding entirely and seize on dicta and other bullshit that really don't much matter.

I suspect there was a floodgate argument made that the court may have agreed with but it wasn't clear. In the present case what seemed more likely* was that the court said to defendent, "you had your chance to pursue DNA testing when you made your original defense and declined... you don't get a second bite at the apple because you were convicted." But who knows.



*

A paradox in the case, at least to a layman, is the fact that Mr. Osborne’s lawyer at the time of the trial declined to pursue the most advanced DNA testing available — for fear, she acknowledged later, that it would prove his guilt.

[PeterS]

Yeah, his lawyer's fucked him at his initial trial because they thought the evidence would prove evidence enough to the jury that he "could've" done it. Now they want access to test the evidence to prove he probably couldn't have done it.

Seems like everyone is getting in line to rape this fool in return. His buddy implicated him as well and that guy is out already.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by PeterS

Yeah, his lawyer's fucked him at his initial trial because they thought the evidence would prove evidence enough to the jury that he "could've" done it. Now they want access to test the evidence to prove he probably couldn't have done it.

Seems like everyone is getting in line to rape this fool in return. His buddy implicated him as well and that guy is out already.

"Fucked" him?

Sounds like he probably told his attorney that he did it and she, wisely, decided not to pursue evidence that would make his guilt seem even more certain.

Most convictions are a direct result of the defendant actually doing the crime charged... not a lawyer "fucking" their client... go figure.

Besides, what the article suggested wasn't that he had no right to have his DNA tested but that he had no right to demand that the state pay for it and grant him a new trial on the basis of that testing.

[djdfw]

The article indicates the test was to be at the expense of the convicted party. It goes on to say it was a defense strategic decision not to use advanced accurate tests prior to trial, though they did a test with 95% accuracy. The lawyer surely thought a really accurate test would drive the nail in the coffin and without an accurate test, she still had something to argue at 5% (instead of a 0.000000000001% chance of innocence).
Since it was a strategic decision in this circumstance, it would not be ineffective assistance of counsel

[PETA]

Originally Posted by djdfw

Since it was a strategic decision in this circumstance, it would not be ineffective assistance of counsel

Ineffectiveness of counsel wasn't the issue.

In order to prove up ineffective assistence of counsel one must, iirc, prove that but for the ineffectiveness of counself the outcome at trial have been different. That's a pretty high standard and in many criminal cases the evidence is so overwhelming that defense attorneys sleeping through trials have been cleared of the charge.

[hepkatmama]

how is this going to effect nonprofit groups like the local "Innocence Project" that has freed several lifers who were unfairly convicted decades ago prior to DNA testing?

the nonprofit pays for the test & they didn't have the option to have it done during their trial since the testing didn't exist.

i have been considering helping them with fundraising so i am curious

[PETA]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

how is this going to effect nonprofit groups like the local "Innocence Project" that has freed several lifers who were unfairly convicted decades ago prior to DNA testing?

the nonprofit pays for the test & they didn't have the option to have it done during their trial since the testing didn't exist.

i have been considering helping them with fundraising so i am curious

Can't see how the denial of public funds for testing would effect a private initiative in any way.

And, please do help them raise funds. These projects have helped spring some convicted on DNA evidence that wasn't there own* but the overwhelming majority of of tests solidified the guilt of the convicted party.


*the DNA testing doesn't prove innocence... what it does is determine whether the DNA was the convict's or not. Just because he didn't leave any DNA behind doesn't mean he wasn't there and didn't participate in the crime. However, it does, in some cases, raise the degree of doubt to a level warranting vacating the guilty verdict.