3 replies to this topic

[Fightin_da_Man]

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the government is not obligated to turn over DNA evidence to the legal teams of already-convicted criminals for DNA testing, even if it could conclusively prove innocence, and even if the defense team intends to pay for the testing.  The court's opinion said the question of access to such evidence should be left to the legislature(s) to decide.

Given the number of faulty convictions which have been overturned by re-examining old evidence with a DNA study in mind, it's mind-boggling that the Court is willing to accept the possibility that some convicts would be denied access to this evidence (if the legislature in their jurisdiction decides as such).  It also seems to violate some basic constitutional principles such as equal protection: discovery rules require prosecutors in active cases to turn over ALL evidence to defense teams, which allows them to conduct DNA tests if they believe that such tests would be useful.  Depriving those who have already been convicted of such access seems to deprive them of the same protections as those who are on trial now.  It's nobody's fault that there was no such thing as DNA testing at the time of their conviction, but the state should not deny them access to this evidence if it could prove conclusively that they are not guilty.

http://www.scotusblo...a-access-claim/

[Poor til proven rich]

WOW, that is absolutely horrible...but, i guess it really isnt that surprising. This is just another example of the hypocrisy of the american legal system. there is no justice or rehabilitation in today's america.  basically, those nine judges proved that they have no real interest in truth and justice, just in profit margins (for those who dont know, the prison system rakes in alot of money for the federal government) and they probably didnt want to take on the financial burden that DNA testing for convicts wouldve imposed. thats what it always comes down to anyway...money.

plus, if a bunch of innocent convicts were released based on DNA testing, they couldnt justify raising taxes to build more prisons!

[Little GoGo Dancer]

Yes, I think there was someone in our area who was requesting dna testing after being convicted, I never found out if he got it or not. hmmm... It's only a question of getting access to the evidence, not of costs, if the defense team is willing to pay for the testing. Even though it is only saying that they are not obligated to give access means that there is no real motivation for the legislature to allow them to do the testing, after the "criminal" has already been convicted.

[Lyth]

This is absurd. There is no possible valid reason for this.