The US Supreme Court announced a very important case on Thursday that illustrates many things we have been talking about, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE V. OSBORNE. You can read about the case in stories in any of the major newspapers, like the NY TIMES or the WASHINGTON POST (the story there is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061801610.html). You can also find the case itself with its syllabus where you found the previous cases in our question about the Courts. Here is what I want from you.
1. A brief review of what the case was about.
2. What new right was being asked for in the Constitution?
3. How did the split on the Supreme Court fit with what we have been saying about how the Supreme Court makes its decisions?
4. What would you have done on this case and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The case District Attorney’s Office V. Osborne was about a decision to allow DNA testing after Osborne’s conviction. Osborne was accused of molesting and assaulting a prostitute. Osborne wanted to have a test; however prosecutors did not allow this to occur. Osborne asked for the right of the Fifth Amendment under the “due-process clause.” The split of the Supreme Court fit was in a decision of 5 to 4. This relates to what we have been saying about Supreme Court decisions because this case refers to the Fifth Amendment that we learned about in Chapter 8 of our text. I would have allowed for Osborne to pay for the extra testing he desired. I would have done this because the government would have not had to pay. I also believe that a person that is innocent will not be willing to pay for a test that is not necessary.
ReplyDeleteNoemi Bauer
William G. Osborne was convicted of rape and aggressive assault of a prostitute in 1993 in the state of Alaska. Sixteen years after his conviction Osborn wants to pay for a DNA testing that he is almost postive it will prove the court that he was innocent. Osborne attempted to appeal to the federal courts under the 5th amendment of due process clause, which the constitution states that "The fifth amendment prevents individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." This contradicts what what Chief Justice Robert claimed "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man" This is where the constitituion is not clear on what it is saying. The due process clause does not clarify what kind of "individuals" it just states "indviduals" This allows for interpretation in situations like this one.
ReplyDeleteThe right that was trying being asked was the ability to have DNA testing after conviction of a crime. The split in this case was a 5-4 decision. This relates to our discussion of the Supreme Court because it seems to have a lot of paradoxes which is our topic of American Government. Im not 100% positive on what i would do in a case like this, but i agree with Chief Justice Roberts that once convicted your not entitled to the rights of a free man. but Im uneasy about this because it does contradict the 5th amendment due process clause. I have to say that i have neutral feelings about the Osborne case. If it ever came down to it then I would rule in favor of the court because he was convicted 16 years ago and the evidence is there for assault and was identified by the accomplice.
- Andrew Mewshaw
William G. Osborne was convicted of rape of a prostitute in 1993. Now at the time of this case, his attorney told him that it was best not to use any further testing because it might make matters worse.He was convicted being that the victim and a witness identified him. Osborne wanted to appeal under the 5th Amendment of "due process clause". Chief Justice Roberts stated that "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man". How is it fair if all testings weren't done to prove his innocence?This statement refers back to what we've learned. I've learned that the Constitution is interpreted in many ways. It is evident that the 5th Amendment does not state what kind of people or circumstances it refers to or excludes. The decision was 5-4 split. If it was my decision, I was let the DNA Testing to be done. If a man was wrongfully accused and still feels that there was injustice, then why not let him prove his innocence. I think prosecutors are forgetting the purpose of conviction and its to prove innocence or guilt not to just close a case.
ReplyDeleteNancy Mills
In the case of District Attorney’s Office versus Osborne, the question of whether DNA evidence should be allowed to exonerate criminals after trial. In this case Osborne asked for DNA evidence to be used in court to prove his innocence. The court did not allow it and found him guilty. He appealed based on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment but the Supreme Court agreed with Alaska in a 5 to 4 decision. This case relates to our text first with regards to the Fifth Amendment rights and also to how the courts make decisions. If I had to make a decision I would say that DNA evidence should be allowed in courts just like any other evidence. However, I would not allow for DNA evidence to be allowed to exonerate prisoners. I feel we need to also have a clear cut method in all states for how DNA evidence is processed and handled so there is no disputes on the legitimacy of the evidence.
ReplyDeleteJason Hoffman
In simple terms the case is about whether or not William Osborne should be able to have a DNA test done to prove his quilt or innocence. Also whether or not it is a right to someone after they have been convicted and tried of a crime and been given a sentence. The new right be asked for is does such testing fall under the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The split was 5 to 4, with the decision not allowing Osborne to have a DNA test done after his trial and conviction. We have been reading and studying the Constitution and specifically our rights, and in this case the Fifth Amendment comes in question, which we studied in Chapter 8: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. I agree with the overall decision of the court. If Osborne hadn’t of been identified by the woman he attacked as well as an accomplice, then maybe. If it was a case where there were no witnesses or people that could identify him then a DNA test would prove helpful.
ReplyDeleteMelanie Ellman
The case of Attorney’s Office v. Osborne argued March 02, 2009, decided June 18, 2009, by the ninth circuit. William G. Osborne was convicted of brutal rape and for a host of other crimes committed against a prostitute, in 1993. Osborne assaulted this young woman in a deserted area near the Anchorage International Airport. He was accused of raping, beating and leaving the woman for dead; she survived the assault. Osborne was found guilty by the Alaska trial court; he was sentenced to 26 years. Osborne filed a suit claiming that he had a right to due process. He wanted access to the evidence that was used to convict him. He requested the right to retest the evidence at his own expense. The claim was first pursued under Heck v. Humphrey but was dismissed in Federal District Court. The decision was reversed by the ninth circuit because there was cause for the claim. Many cases, such as, Washington v. Glucksberg were used to establish that DNA testing could be critical in many cases. Results from DNA testing have the ability to exonerate the wrongly convicted or identify the guilty. It is questioned why more precise testing was not taken considering the results. A standard DNA test was administered and while the results matched Osborne’s, they would have been a match for fifteen percent of African Americans. The Supreme Court ruling against Osborne’s claim was delivered by Roberts, C.J; the decision was split 5-4. Alito, J filed a concurring opinion which Kennedy, J. and Thomas, C. joined. Stevens, J filed a dissenting opinion in which Ginsburg, Breyer, J.J. and Souter J. joined.
ReplyDeleteI feel that all persons are entitled to a fair trial as well as evidence proven beyond the reasonable doubt. While there seems to be evidence against Osborne, there still seems to be doubt as to whether the more precise test would prove that he is guilty or a victim. I think that the cost of a person’s life is worth far more that the few more dollars this test would cost.
Shelette Johnson
The case was to decide if prisoners convicted of a crime had a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction. The case brought before the supreme court was of William G. Osborne who was convicted of the brutal rape and assault of a prostitute.
ReplyDeleteThey were asking the Supreme Court to decide if DNA testing after conviction could be considered as a constitutional right under the “due-process” clause under the fifth amendment.
The Supreme Court was split along party lines as most decisions are. The ruling was 5-4 supporting the state’s right and flexibility to determine post conviction relief.
In this case I would have decided to over-rule the state…..to me if there is any question of innocence, this is new evidence, new technology, so it should be available.
Submitted by
Ashley Wheeler
William Osborne was convicted of brutally raping and assaulting a prositute near the Anchorage National Airport in 1993. One important piece of evidence found at the crime scene was a condom. Osborne wanted to pay to have the condom more thoroughly tested to determine if the semen found in the condom was actually his. However, the prosecuters refused to allow it and the state of Alaska decided that Osborne did not qualify under the procedures that they had established. Osborne appealed to the federal courts when U.S Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit recognized a right to such testing under the fifth amendment. The split was 5-4 with the decision to not allow Osborne to recieve a DNA test after his trial. The new right brought up was whether or not DNA testing after conviction could be considered as a constitutional right because of the "due process" clause of the fifth amendment. We have learned about this in Chapter 8 of our online text which discusses the Constitution and the amendments. I would have ruled on behalf of Mr. Osborne especially because his innocence was in question.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Edmonds
In 1993, an Alaskan prostitute was kidnapped and brutally assaulted and raped by two men. One of the men, D. Jackson, was apprehended, and identified William Osborne as his accomplice. The evidence underwent testing which showed that the DNA was of the same type as one in every six or seven African-Americans, including Osborne. A more accurate DNA test was also available at the time, but was not requested by Osborne's attorney. Osborne was convicted based on witness testimony and the rudimentary DNA test results, and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Osborne later applied for post-conviction review, claiming that he had a "due process" right to have the evidence retested using more precise tests that those that were available during his trial.
ReplyDeleteThis Supreme Court case presented two questions: One, whether a criminal can file a civil rights suit to challenge his court conviction, instead of going through the established post-conviction "habeas corpus" proceedings; and two, whether the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes post-conviction access to new biological evidence and tests.
The Court was split 5-4 on the decision, which was to uphold the Alaska supreme court's decision that access to evidence for DNA testing is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution if a fair trial has already been conducted, and such matters should be left to the states (or Congress) to decide. In fact, the Court stated that a convict is still allowed to request access to evidence post-conviction, as long as the request is made by way of a "habeas corpus" challenge. The majority opinion of the Court, given by Chief Justice Roberts, seemed concerned with avoiding creating new Constitutional rights; while the dissenting opinion, given by Justice Stevens, seemed most concerned with ensuring "due process".
Personally, I disagree with Chief Justice Roberts statement that "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man", since how can the trial be called fair if all possible avenues are not pursued to ascertain guilt or innocence with certainty? However, I do agree that such procedures should be left up to Congress or the states to decide, but I also feel that if someone has waived testing previously (as Osborne did) and has also pleaded GUILTY (as Osborne did to try to gain parole) he should not be able to all of a sudden change his mind and decide that he wants to try to take a test to prove his innocence.
This case focused on inmates not having the rights to DNA testing after being convicted and sentences for a crime. It is specifically focused on William G. Osborne, whom was convicted of the brutal rape and assault of a prostitute in Alaska. He wanted to pay more for a discerning test of semen found in a condom at the crime scene but prosecutors refused to allow it. Also, the courts of Alaska agreed the he did not qualify under the procedures they had established.The right being asked for in the Constitution, was for inmates to have constitutional rights to DNA records after their conviction.This shows when the 9 judges cannot come to an equal agreement, how they persuade others in their direction to make the decision split.I would have gone against the 5-4 decision, because even though inmates do not have the same rights as a free man, they are still citizens of the U.S. and have constitutional rights also. Furthermore, they especially should have their rights to DNA evidence if they solely believe they have been wrongly convicted.
ReplyDelete-Amber Jamison
The Osborne case was originally about William Osborne being convicted of the rape and assault of a prostitute. This all occurred near Anchorage International Airport in 1993 in a secluded area. Osborne believed that he was innocent and therefore wanted to pay to have semen tested that was found at the crime scene. The testing of this evidence could have proven his innocence. The new right being asked for was to allow prisoners the right to DNA testing after they have been convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 against this. The reason for their decision was that they thought “to suddenly constitutionalize this area would short circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response” (Barnes, 2009). Osborne tried to appeal this decision to the U.S. Courts of Appeal saying that it violated his Fifth Amendment right. But the courts said “a criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty as a free man, and thus states have more flexibility in deciding procedures for post conviction relief” (Barnes, 2009).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that they should have let him have the test done because he was not asking them to pay for it. Also, everyone knows that back then they did not have the right equipment to test forensic evidence and therefore now with technology it could prove his innocence. Possibly by them denying him this right, they have kept another innocent man locked up.
Barnes, R.(2009). Courts Limits Access to DNA Evidence. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061801610.html.
Elizabeth Haynes
This was a case over Osborne's fifth amendment right to due process law. He wanted to have a DNA test done to prove that he did not allegedly molest and assault the prostitute. The fact that the court decision was split 5 to 4 some what shows what we have learned in the previous chapters. The court will rule either in favor of the their own morals or their own interpretation of the Constituition. I believe that he if he wants the test that there i no reason not to let him have it. If he is guilty it will only reinforce the fact however if he is not then we have set an innocent person free.
ReplyDeleteChip Dowdy
The main focus of this particular case is the new ruling, as of June 19, 2009, that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to DNA testing after they are convicted. The focus is on one case in particular that took place in Alaska. William G. Osborne was convicted in 1993 of brutally raping and assaulting a prostitute. Osborne tried to pay for a more thorough test on semen found in a condom from the crime scene. This test would prove his guilt or innocence. Prosecutors refused to have the test done, and the court agreed. Osborne was convicted off of statements made from the prostitute and an accomplice, and one test of the semen. The test matched about 15 percent of the population of African American men. Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project argued Osborne's case because he said that their decision would mean "more innocent people will languish in prison." The question being asked is whether or not DNA testing after conviction is a constitutional right under the fifth amendment. The split decision was a 5 to 4 decision, and it it relates to what we have been discussing because we have been reading about the Constitution and the amendments. I think if Osborne was willing to pay for the test then he probably was innocent, and they should have allowed it.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Lockett
William Osborne was convicted of rape and assault of a prostitute. Osborne asked for an appeal under the 5th Amendment of "due process clause". The new right being asked for was to allow prisoners the right to a DNA testing after being convicted of a crime. The decision was split 5 to 4. This relates to what we have been studying because we have studyied the constitution and rights in. In this case, the fifth amendment is questioned, pertaining to chapter 8. I would have allowed the DNA test to provide more evidence to the case. Even though convicts do not have the same rights as free people, they should be allowed something as simple as a DNA testing to prove their innocence.
ReplyDeleteLeanne Josey
It seems like the case has been explained pretty well already, Osborne got convicted and is asking for a more precise test of DNA. The new right is for convicts to get DNA testing post-case (in which one has already been done-involving the fifth amenment).
ReplyDeleteThe split of 5 to 4 seems to be based on what their parties wanted them to do, in support of the state's right to choose from now, and not for Osborne to get his test right now.
I think criminals get a lot of rights, when they've already been convicted. However, if you've ever been accused of something you didn't do, you know it's like the worst feeling in the world, especially when no one will believe you. I really don't understand their decision to not allow the test, and I actually think it goes against the "due process" concept. Roberts' quote is probably going to haunt him later on, I imagine. And this decision is pretty strange, it's probably going to cause trouble for inmates who want to try to prove their innocence. Personally I would not have liked to support Osborne, but I would have, looking at the big picture of proving innocence.
Sixteen years ago, Osborne was on trial for brutal rape and assult of a prostitute. He was found guilty, and since then has spent his time in jail. Since new technology has come out since his original sentence in 1993, he would like to pay for his own DNA testing, to prove his innocence. The Fifth Admendment's right of due process is in question by the Constitution. Osborne wants to make sure the correct procedure is carried out and that the governement has a good enough reason to take someone's life, liberty, or property. Osborne feels with this new evidence, the question of the government taking his liberty is unfair. The Supreme Court's decision on this was split, showing how the case come down to a matter of interpretating the Fifth Admendment of the Constitution. I feel the Supreme Court's decision is correct to not accept is offer a new trial based on DNA testing. If people can not "twice be put in jeopardy of life or limb" the should also not have the right to be found innocent twice either. The Constitution says you can not be put in double jeopardy, so one can not be put in "double liberty," for lack of a better term.
ReplyDelete-Michelle R.
In Alaska, proceedings were being held about testing William G. Osborne semen to prove his innocence after being convicted in a rape trail. The problem was U.S. states have the power to allow the testing based on the state laws. Many felt if the evidence could prove your innocence they sure test it thoroughly, and other felt once convicted they do not have the same rights as a citizen on trial. The right for inmates to receive the privilege to test DNA evidence after conviction was questioned. The Supreme court came to a split decision not to accept the new privelege right. I don't agree because many inmates are living and dying in jail daily for crimes they didn't commit. Many of them losing their families and friends, most importantly their freedom to live their lives freely. Knowing that this does happen why deny a man that? Why not offer Osborne the right to prove his innocence? Justice is "suppose" to be based on fairness then where is the fairness in allowing a man to prove his innoncence.
ReplyDelete~Dretecia Pearson~
William Osborne was convicted of rape against a prostitute in the state of Alaska in his orginal sentence in 1993. But then Osborne wanted a retrial to get a better DNA test to prove his innocence. But the state of Alaska said no because the woman and an eye witness witnessed the crime. The Supreme Court came to a split decision of 5-4. Even though this DNA test would prove his innocence or quilt at his own expense the courts still said no. The thing is he admitted he did it. point blank. so why come back almost 15 years later and want a test to prove your innocence. Why not prove it back then? That is my stand point he already committed to doing the crime...so guess what? He did it!
ReplyDeleteThat woman does not need to go back through trial just to get told once again that this was the man who raped her.
Sarah Cartrett
All of you had reasonable answers to this most interesting case. I have a few comments to add.
ReplyDeleteMany of you wanted to allow the test because Osborne was willing to pay for it himself. But the court was right that this is not a good reason, because once a right is created, it cannot only apply to those with the resources to pay—it must apply to everyone.
The due process clause in the 5th amendment applies to federal proceedings, and this was an Alaska case. However, the 14th says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” so the claim was that Alaska was really violating that amendment. If you remember, this is part of the incorporation theory that ties the other rights in the Bill of Rights to the states by way of the 14th amendment.
Criminal proceedings mostly take place in state courts, and the national government generally allows a fairly wide range of practices to take place. Interestingly, almost all but a handful of states (I think 3, including Alaska) do specify that these tests be done, though they all have different circumstances under which they are allowed. Some, for example, only allow them in capital cases—others allow for a wide variety of cases. In virtually all these situations this kind of test was not available at the time of the trial. And so far, some 240 convictions have been reversed because of these tests, which are nearly perfect in accuracy, even in some cases where there were eye witnesses! A lot of studies show that eye witnesses are far less reliable than most people would think. Of course, that means that we had a lot of innocent people in prison, and likely still do, and at the same time, the actual perps are still out there. That is a double cost to us all. Even so, some argue that the costs for doing these tests are too high, but I wonder if that accounts for the costs of not doing them. The Constitution does not say that all are entitled to due process unless a state decides that the cost is too high.
So we see a lot of different things here, federalism, how the Constitution must inevitably be interpreted, and how the models of justice in the ideological values of the justices predicts how they will vote in cases where interpretations could go either way—this was the familiar 5 to 4 split with Kennedy once again being the swing vote, this time in the direction of the crime control model of justice. In short, the court said that it is ok if we accidentally punish some of the innocent. I would observe, though, that this is not even entirely consistent with the values of crime control, because it allows punishment of the innocent while allowing some guilty to get away! It says that we are willing to punish the innocent because it might be too expensive to make sure that we have the right person, and leaves that judgment to the states.
Most states are moving in the direction of allowing these tests, but it is and will not be uniform across the nation because of this court decision. That is little solace to those innocent who are in prison, however many or few they may be.
Two other notes: double jeopardy does not apply here at all, because this was initially a conviction. It only applies if the initial finding was innocent. It is also not at all uncommon for people to take a plea of guilty even if they believe they are innocent because of the risk for a harsher sentence if they go to trial and lose. It depends on how certain the defendant is that he/she can rebut state evidence—it is a bargaining situation in which prosecutors pressure people to take pleas, simply because they do not have the time or resources to try every case. Moreover, a plea also increases the conviction rate, which is how job performance of prosecutors is measured. Had that DNA test been available then, Osborne might have thought differently, or he might not even have been charged.
Bob B