Post Conviction DNA Testing is Not a Constitutional Right

Yesterday, the Supreme Court said that while DNA possesses a unique ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty, the justices nonetheless ruled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files. The United States Supreme Court ruled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction, even though the technology provides an "unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a majority that said it is up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right to testing that might prove innocence long after conviction. The "challenges DNA technology poses to our criminal justice systems and our traditional notions of finality" are better left to elected officials than federal judges, Roberts wrote for the majority in a 5 to 4 decision. "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response," Judge Roberts wrote. "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man," he wrote, and thus states have more "flexibility" in deciding procedures for post-conviction relief.

William G. Osborne was convicted of the brutal rape and assault of a prostitute in a secluded area near Anchorage International Airport in 1993. Osborne wanted to pay for a more discerning test of semen found in a condom at the crime scene, a test prosecutors agreed would almost definitively prove his guilt or innocence. But prosecutors refused to allow it, and Alaska courts agreed that Osborne did not qualify under the procedures they had established.
While Roberts stressed the virtues of judicial restraint, the dissenters said the court was abdicating its duty to seek justice.

Dissenting justices, led by John Paul Stevens, said the right to post-conviction DNA testing should not depend on the widely varying laws enacted by the states. Allowing a prisoner to test DNA evidence at his own expense would "ascertain the truth once and for all," Stevens wrote.

Only four states — Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma — do not have laws in place specifically dealing with postconviction DNA testing, and Alabama recently enacted one limited to death row inmates that will become effective soon. Many states that do allow postconviction testing impose conditions on who may seek it. Including Alabama, 47 states and the federal government have enacted laws or rules that allow prisoners under some circumstances to obtain DNA tests, the high court said.