Supreme Court’s DNA Decision Is Political Above All Else

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the federal government has no obligation to mandate DNA testing for convicted individuals who claim innocence. The ruling, available in PDF form, boils down to consideration for state’s rights: Mandating DNA tests for all who request them “…would take the development of rules and procedures … out of the hands of legislatures and state courts … and turn it over to federal courts.”

As some have already pointed out, DNA testing isn’t “the skeleton key to unlocking the truth in every case.” One never knows who tampered with your crime scene, or how often you used the knife before it became a murder weapon. But, holding all else constant, DNA testing certainly provides a high level of statistical reliability.

That said, an interesting aspect of the rape case in question is that the defense’s argument involved mistaken identity. In other words, the defense attorney believed her client was guilty, and therefore argued that DNA evidence would place her case in jeopardy. She wanted relatively inaccurate testing.

William Osborne, the accused rapist, argued, post-conviction, that he was the victim of ineffective council. He appealed his conviction twice and was rejected by Alaskan appellate courts because 1) a great deal of evidence suggested he was guilty (among other seemingly unjustifiable corroboration, he admitted guilt under oath during a parole hearing in 2004), and 2) the Alaskan courts argued that if he really wanted DNA testing in his initial trial, he would’ve asked for it instead of going with his defense attorney’s grossly unethical suggestions.

The situation is complicated, to be sure. And Roberts’ summary argument doesn’t particularly have much to do with Osborne’s case, rather than underscoring a belief that federal courts should stay out of situations where elected state officials have obviously made a “prompt and considered legislative response.” The opposing question, though, is: What’s more important? — upholding a particular reading of the constitution, or ensuring that all available evidence is made available by federal mandate?

The Supreme Court’s answer, unsurprisingly, seems more political than it should be.

Further reading:

* Criminal DNA databases get a constitutional stamp of approval

* ‘I still see Ronald Cotton’

* Chief Justice John Roberts: The Elephant in the SCOTUS Courtroom?

* No More Mr. Nice Guy — Roberts profile in The New Yorker