Supreme Court to criminal defendants: No DNA testing rights for you!
Photo: State of Alaska ADF&G
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday to deny convicts a constitutional right to DNA testing. It wasn’t a surprise. While acknowledging that DNA can provide powerful new evidence, the majority distinguished between those presumed innocent at the onset of a trial and those already convicted during a trial. In District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.”
That may be true, but what if the verdict arrived at by the jury was wrong? Roberts argument is a non sequitur. The purpose of DNA is to provide more certain evidence as to the party’s guilt or innocence. If DNA was not utilized in the court of first instance, how certain is the jury’s verdict of guilty in the first place?
