Search Term(s):
Blog Tags:
Order by: Date Relevancy
Your search returned 17 entries.
The Constitutional Right to DNA Testing
Posted: January 27, 2009 2:54 pm
In a brief filed yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Innocence Project argues that prisoners have the constitutional right to DNA testing that can prove their innocence. The court will hear oral arguments on March 2 in the case of Innocence Project client William Osborne, who was convicted in 1993 in Alaska of a rape he says he didn’t commit. Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld will argue on Osborne’s behalf.
Read today’s Innocence Project press release here, and download the full brief filed in the case.
“The issue in this case is whether a state can deny a prisoner access to DNA testing that was not available at the time of trial and has the potential to prove his innocence,” Neufeld said. “In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to testing without a court order. Alaska is the exception. It is the only state in the nation with no known case of a prisoner receiving DNA testing, either through court order or a prosecutor’s consent. This case involves a very important constitutional protection – one that is the only option for William Osborne.”
Tags: William Osborne
Prosecutors, Crime Victims and Exonerees File in Innocence Project Supreme Court Case
Posted: February 5, 2009 6:45 pm
Diverse voices from across the criminal justice system filed friend-of-the-court briefs this week urging the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that the federal Constitution allows prisoners access to DNA testing that could prove their innocence. The Innocence Project represents an Alaska man who is seeking DNA testing that could prove his innocence; the Supreme Court will hear the case next month.
Among the individuals and groups filing on behalf of William Osborne were current and former prosecutors, who argue that the majority of prosecutors are willing to review cases where DNA testing could change a verdict – but that relying solely on the unfettered discretion of prosecutors can sanction injustice. A group of crime victims also filed a brief, including a woman who was raped by a man who remained at large while an innocent person was in prison for his previous crimes.
“These briefs reflect the growing consensus that everyone – prosecutors, defendants, crime victims, the government and society – has an interest in making sure people have access to DNA testing that can prove innocence,” said Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. Neufeld will argue the case at the Supreme Court on March 2. “In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to testing without a court order. Alaska is the exception. It is the only state in the nation with no known case of a prisoner receiving DNA testing, either through court order or a prosecutor’s consent. This case involves a very important constitutional protection – one that is the only option for William Osborne.”
Read the full Innocence Project press release here and download the full briefs in each case.
Oral arguments in William Osborne’s case will be heard March 2. Read more about the case, and download the Innocence Project brief.
Tags: William Osborne
Alaska Case to Appear Before Supreme Court in Two Weeks
Posted: February 17, 2009 4:15 pm
The case of Innocence Project client William Osborne will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in less than two weeks. Justices will hear arguments March 2 from Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld and an attorney for the State of Alaska on the constitutional right to DNA testing that can prove their innocence.
Osborne is seeking DNA testing on evidence from a rape he was convicted of 1993. The state concedes that the evidence could prove innocence and the Innocence Project would pay for DNA testing, but prosecutors have refused to grant access to testing.
Neufeld told McClatchy Newspapers that the resistance from prosecutors in Osborne’s case is rare.
"We're not talking about vacating a conviction or a retrial or anything like that. We're just talking about a test. What's the big deal? Why can't you give them the test?" Neufeld said.Download briefs, press releases and more resources in the Osborne case here.
DNA is different than any other type of evidence - eye witnesses and recantations and even fingerprints, he said. "DNA is this truth machine."
…."Most prosecutors want to do justice and they want to get to the truth," Even if they believe deep down that a defendant is guilty, many also reason, "Fine, I'll give them the test. What's the downside? It's just a test - it's not letting them out of prison."
Read the full story here. (Juneau Empire, 2/17/09)
Tags: William Osborne
Join Us in Washington, D.C. on February 26
Posted: February 19, 2009 3:39 pm
Next week in Washington, D.C., an unprecedented group of exonerees, leading legal authorities on federal post-conviction remedies, a crime victim from a recent high-profile Texas wrongful conviction case, and others will lead a discussion on District Attorney’s Office v. William G. Osborne, which is set for oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2.
The event is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 26 at McDonough Hall, Georgetown University Law Center (600 New Jersey Ave, NW).
The event is free and open to the public — if you’re in the D.C. area, join us and click here to send an email to friends inviting them to the event.
Download a flier for the event here, and read more about the Osborne case here.
Tags: William Osborne
Osborne and the Blogosphere
Posted: February 24, 2009 3:23 pm
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Innocence Project client William Osborne, who is seeking DNA testing that could prove his innocence of a 1993 Alaska rape. And on Thursday, Georgetown University Law School in Washington, D.C., will host an unprecedented gathering of people directly affected by the injustice of wrongful convictions. Joining several exonerees at Thursday’s discussion will be Michele Mallin, a rape victim who recently joined with the family of Timothy Cole to clear his name years after he died in prison.
Learn more about the case and Thursday’s event.
Discussion of the Osborne case is hearing up this week on the blogosphere. Yesterday at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum wrote that he is not persuaded by arguments that allowing DNA testing when it can prove innocence opens floodgates to frivolous requests. Today, at the Atlantic, Megan McArdle responds to Drum, writing that DNA testing is an extremely affordable way to determine the truth and should be a right. Lively discussions are going on at both sites.
The Innocence Project has a guest blog post about the case today at Justice Watch, and Erica Goldberg wrote an extensive preview of the case last week on the SCOTUSblog.
We’ll be posting more about the case throughout the week.
Tags: William Osborne
Osborne Case Draws Near
Posted: February 27, 2009 1:17 pm
Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday in the case of District Attorney’s Office vs. William Osborne. Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that prisoners have a constitutional right to DNA testing when it can prove their innocence. We’ll update the case here – and on twitter – as we have details on Monday. For more background on Osborne, get briefs, press releases, media coverage and more on the case here.
Yesterday, exonerees and others whose lives were directly affected by wrongful conviction came together in Washington, D.C., to discuss the case and the importance of DNA testing. Watch a video of the event here. Today, Louisiana exoneree Rickie Johnson spoke to students about the case at a Virginia High School’s Case Day.
And legal experts from across the country continued this week to speak out on Osborne’s behalf. In today’s New York Daily News, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Mogenthau wrote that Alaska prosecutors have no logical reason for failing to grant Osborne a DNA test.
When a defendant who has always protested innocence will pay for a test that will resolve that protest one way or the other, only stubbornness can explain denying him access to the evidence. What can Alaska be afraid of - finding that it has imprisoned the wrong man?Attorney David C. Fathi writes in today’s Huffington Post that he strongly disagrees with the choice by the Obama administration to proceed with the brief filed under Bush that argues against the right to DNA testing.
The Bush administration argued in its brief -- now effectively adopted by the Obama administration -- that the decision about whether to allow DNA testing should be left up to the states as part of a "vibrant democratic process." But some things shouldn't be put up for a vote -- and the liberty of a possibly innocent person is one of them.
Tags: William Osborne
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Osborne Arguments
Posted: March 2, 2009 11:43 am
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in the case of District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne, in which Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld argued that prisoners have a constitutional right to DNA testing that can prove their innocence.
Briefs and resources on the case are here. A sample of national media coverage from yesterday and this morning is below, and we’re posting real-time updates on twitter.
We will post a link to argument transcripts this afternoon.
NPR Morning Edition: Court to Examine Prisoners' Right to DNA Evidence
New York Times editorial: The Right to DNA Evidence
Associated Press: High Court Looks at Prisoners' Right to DNA Test
Tags: William Osborne
Osborne Transcript
Posted: March 2, 2009 3:36 pm
Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld argued before the Supreme Court today that prisoners have a constitutional right to DNA testing that can prove their innocence.
"It is absolutely undisputed in this case that there is a DNA test that Mr. Osborne seeks that could conclusively prove his actual innocence," Neufeld said today. "This is the very first case litigated to our knowledge anywhere in the country where the prosecutor concedes that a DNA would be absolutely slam-dunk dispositive of innocence, but doesn't consent to it."
Alaska Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Rosenstein argued for the state of Alaska and Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued on behalf of the United States.
Download the full transcript of toda's oral arguments here. (PDF)
And get briefs, press releass and more on our resource page.
Tags: William Osborne
The Day After Osborne
Posted: March 3, 2009 1:30 pm
Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld argued yesterday before the Supreme Court that prisoners have a constitutional right to DNA testing that can prove their innocence. Innocence Project client William Osborne is pursuing DNA testing that can prove his innocence but has been denied access to the evidence by Alaska authorities. Visit our Osborne resource page for yesterday’s oral argument transcript, briefs in the case and more.
Below is a sample of the national media coverage of the oral arguments:
USA Today: Supreme Court considers convicts' right to evidence
New York Times: Convict Asks Justices to Find a Right to DNA Testing
Associated Press: Supreme Court Closely Divided on Felon’s Right to DNA Test
Talk Left: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in DNA Case
Truthout: The Supreme Court Confronts a Mystery
Tags: William Osborne
A Disappointing Decision and a Renewed Call for Reform
Posted: June 18, 2009 5:45 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today to deny DNA testing in the case of Innocence Project client William Osborne, who is seeking tests that could prove his innocence of a 1993 Alaska rape. The court ultimately ruled that the finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted.
Today’s decision is deeply disappointing and flawed, but it will have a limited impact because most cases are resolved at the local or state level. One effect of the decision will be to bring new urgency to the movement to ensure that all prisoners in all states with valid claims of innocence have access to DNA testing that can prove their innocence.
Please take action today and sign the Innocence Project petition for DNA testing access.
Download the full Supreme Court brief and other materials from the Osborne case here, and read a sample of today’s media coverage below.
New York Times: Justices Rule Inmates Don’t Have Right to DNA Tests
CBS News Court Watch: Court Content to Follow, Not Lead, On DNA Testing
NPR: Court Rules Convicts Have No Right To DNA Tests
Associated Press: High Court Says Convicted Lack Right to DNA Testing
Tags: William Osborne
Friday Roundup: The Struggle for DNA Access
Posted: June 19, 2009 12:00 pm
The big news in the innocence movement this week came from Washington, D.C., yesterday, where the U.S. Supreme Court denied Innocence Project client William Osborne access to the DNA testing that could prove his innocence. (The Innocence Project’s comment on the case is here and the full Supreme Court opinion is here).
The impact of yesterday’s decision will be limited, however, because most prisoners obtain access to DNA testing at the state level. Osborne’s case is an example of one in which DNA access at the state level is difficult, and Kenneth Reed’s is another.
A prestigious group of DNA and legal experts filed a brief this week in a Louisiana appeals court backing a judge’s decision to grant DNA testing in Reed’s case. Reed, an Innocence Project client, was sentenced to life for a 1991 Louisiana rape he says he didn’t commit and he is seeking DNA testing that could prove his innocence.
The Ohio Supreme Court will hear the case of a former Ohio police officer seeking DNA testing to prove his innocence.
A Missouri man convicted of a 2005 murder he says he didn’t commit was denied a new trial this week.
The family of Texas exoneree Timothy Cole is hoping state legislators will return for a special session to review a bill allowing Gov. Rick Perry to issue Cole a posthumous pardon.
The Dallas Morning News crime blog ran a Q&A this week with public defender Michelle Moore, who has represented seven of 20 people cleared through DNA testing in Dallas.
A man who spent 17 years in prison in Japan for a murder evidence shows he didn’t commit visited his hometown this week and received an apology from the police chief.
‘‘I apologize from the bottom of my heart for imposing on you this hardship for such a long time,’’ the chief told 62-year-old Toshikazu Sugaya.
Tags: Access to DNA Testing, William Osborne
A Strong Response to the Supreme Court
Posted: June 22, 2009 3:35 pm
In a 5-4 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied DNA testing access to Innocence Project client William Osborne, ruling that the finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted.
The disagreement from the press and the public was swift and strong. The New York Times called the ruling “appalling.” The Washington Post said “access to DNA evidence should not be based on the luck of the draw.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram called the decision a “devastating setback for prisoners.” The Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger added: “In its ruling the court made clear it cares more about procedure than making certain the right person has been convicted.”
Political strategist Robert Creamer wrote today on the Huffington Post that “in the view of the majority of the court, justice and due process are irrelevant.”
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement separating the decision from the interest of fair justice. “Today’s decision is limited: the Court merely spoke about what is constitutional, not what is good policy,” Holder said. “This administration believes that defendants should be permitted access to DNA evidence in a range of circumstances.”
Discussion boards and social networks have been active with discussion of the decision, as well. Several commenters on the Innocence Project Facebook Page expressed dismay with the decision, and hundreds of people have criticized the decision on twitter.
The Innocence Project is now more determined than ever to pass DNA access laws in the three states that lack them (Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma). DNA access statutes in other states, like Alabama and Kentucky, are in desperate need of improvement. Join our call for fair justice today by signing the petition for DNA access.
Tags: William Osborne
The Osborne Case: A Misguided Decision and the Path Forward
Posted: June 24, 2009 4:43 pm
In a guest post today on the American Constitution Society blog, Innocence Project Staff Attorney Nina Morrison analyzes last week's Supreme Court decision on DNA access and how it will affect efforts to obtain DNA testing for prisoners seeking to overturn wrongful convictions. She writes:
In an already much-criticized decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week that Innocence Project client William Osborne could not use the federal civil rights law to obtain DNA testing for the purpose of proving his innocence of the rape for which he was convicted and sent to prison in 1994. The decision was disappointing and surprising given the broad national consensus about DNA testing's unprecedented capabilities to exonerate the innocent. But the court ultimately decided that principles of finality and deference to state law trumped fundamental fairness, even where scientific proof of actual innocence is concerned.
Read the full post at the ACS Blog.
Tags: William Osborne
Innocence Denied
Posted: June 29, 2009 4:10 pm
In a new Q&A on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund blog, Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld talks about the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to deny DNA testing to Alaska prisoner William Osborne. While the decision was disappointing, Neufeld also says it represents “a call to action for all of us to pass legislation granting DNA testing in the three states with no laws on the books and improve the existing laws in other states.”
He goes on to discuss the disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos among people exonerated by DNA testing (70% of the 240 DNA exonerees are people of color).
LDF: Can one draw any meaning out of these numbers and what they say about racial disparities in the criminal justice system?
Neufeld: In many ways, the numbers speak for themselves. It’s impossible to look at the racial breakdown of the people who have been exonerated through DNA testing and not see that our criminal justice system disproportionately impacts people of color. Digging deeper, most of the DNA exonerations are people of color who were wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting white people. Two-thirds of the exoneration cases are cross-race sexual assaults, while the Department of Justice says that less than 15% of all rapes are cross-race. There’s a long history of the American criminal justice system treating the rape of a white woman by a black man as a particularly vile crime. One consequence of treating such crimes with particular zeal is that people of color will be wrongfully convicted more frequently.
The DNA exoneration cases also illustrate the intersection of race and class. In case after case, defendants could not afford top-quality lawyers to challenge prosecutors who often over-stepped the line to secure a conviction – and in the vast majority of cases, the defendants were people of color. Years later, when they are exonerated through DNA testing, they are released without adequate financial compensation and little or no services from the state.Read the full post at The Defenders Online.
Tags: William Osborne
Diverse Views on DNA Access in Tennessee
Posted: July 8, 2009 5:12 pm
A package of stories today in the Tennessean approaches the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on access to DNA testing from a wide variety of perspectives. In an editorial, the newspaper argued that the justices had erred in their decision.
Knowing what we know about the strength of DNA testing, it is an injustice to the country not to allow DNA to help bring fairness to any person suspected of a crime. The Supreme Court got this one wrong in a disappointing way.Reader William Haupt disagrees with the editorial, siding with the majority of justices in arguing that the DNA testing access should be left to the states to decide. Haupt writes:
The Constitution allocates specific responsibilities to the states and others to the feds.But most readers disagreed with the decision, calling it “appalling” and “baffling.” Reader Corinne H. Lane from Nashville writes:
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court did not claim an inmate had no constitutional right to DNA tests, but that a state's DNA laws supersede those of the federal courts.Each state is entitled to make laws applicable to their own geographical and sociological needs as long as they are constitutional.
DNA works and should be used. Our Constitution was created to give all equal rights, and this is just one more right that is being chiseled away. The Supreme Court should be anxious to preserve our rights according to the Constitution, and just because DNA was not known when the Constitution was written does not mean it cannot apply to the principle of equal protection now.Read the newspaper’s editorial and the readers’ views.
Read more on the Osborne case.
Tags: Access to DNA Testing, William Osborne
Sotomayor and the Osborne Case
Posted: July 15, 2009 3:26 pm
While Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor fielded questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee for the second day today, court watchers considered the significance of her answer to a question on DNA testing from Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.
Durbin asked Sotomayor about the recent case of District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (in which the Innocence Project represented Alaska prisoner William Osborne, who is seeking DNA testing that could prove his innocence).
Here’s the exchange:
DURBIN: And this is a recent case before the Supreme Court I'd like to make reference to, D.A.'s Office v. Osborne, involving DNA. It turns out there are only three states in the United States that don't provide state legislative access to DNA evidence that might be -- might exonerate someone who is in prison.One blogger wrote at DailyKos that while Sotomayor’s reluctance to criticize a recent court decision is understandable, she may have missed an opportunity to “defer to wisdom than caution when the two part ways.”
I am told that, since 1989, 240 post-conviction DNA exonerations have taken place across this country, 17 involving inmates on death row. Now, the Supreme Court in the Osborne case was asked, what about those three states? Is there a federal right to access to DNA evidence for someone currently incarcerated who questions whether or not they were properly charged and convicted? And the court said, no, there was no federal right, but it was a 5-4 case. So, though I don't quarrel with your premise that it's our responsibility on this side of the table to look at the death penalty, the fact is, in this recent case, this Osborne case, there was a clear opportunity for the Supreme Court right across the street to say, "We think this gets to an issue of due process as to whether someone sitting on death row in Alaska, Massachusetts or Oklahoma, where their state law gives them no access, under the law, to DNA evidence."
So I ask you, either from the issue of DNA or from other perspectives, isn't it clear that the Supreme Court does have some authority in the due process realm to make decisions relating to the arbitrariness of the death penalty?
SOTOMAYOR: The court is not a legislative body. It is a reviewing body of whether a particular act by a state in a particular case is constitutional or not. In a particular situation, the Court may conclude that the state has acted unconstitutionally and invalidate the act, but it's difficult to answer a question about the role of the Court outside of the functions of the Court which is we don't make broad policies. We decide questions based on cases and the principles implicated by that particular case before you.
Full coverage of the Osborne case, including the decision and briefs, is here.
Tags: William Osborne
Economist: Improved DNA Access Would Mean More Exonerations
Posted: August 4, 2009 5:26 pm
An article in this week’s Economist questions the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to deny DNA testing in the case of Innocence Project client William Osborne, who is seeking DNA testing that could prove his innocence of a 1994 rape. While the use of DNA testing to secure convictions is growing fast, the magazine writes, the use of DNA testing for potential exonerations has met a harder road.
Many prisoners might be cleared were DNA testing more routinely available. The American legal system encourages plea bargains, whereby accused people accept a much lower sentence than would be imposed if they were found guilty. In the absence of the DNA evidence that would clear them, even innocent people may conclude that a plea bargain is the safer option. More than 90% of convictions in the United States result from such bargains. Steven Benjamin of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers contends that the restrictions on post-conviction testing amount to a fear of the truth. He may be right.
Tags: William Osborne