District Attorney's Office v. Osborne

District Attorney's Office v. Osborne
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2009 Decided June 18, 2009
Full case name	District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne
Docket nos.	08-6
Citations	557 U.S. ___
Holding
There is no constitutional right to obtain postconviction access to a State’s evidence for DNA testing.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Concurrence	Alito, joined by Kennedy; Thomas (in part)
Dissent	Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer; Souter (in part)
Dissent	Souter
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence of those convicted of crimes.

The case concerned the conviction of William G. Osborne on charges related to the rape and beating of a prostitute. The prostitute had been beaten with an axe handle, shot in the head, and left in an Alaskan snowbank. Osborne was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Alaska prosecutors do not dispute that advanced DNA testing could potentially prove Osborne's innocence beyond any doubt, but refused to allow him to do this testing despite a decade old request.^[1]

Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, joined. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Part II. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Souter joined as to Part I. Justice Souter filed a separate dissenting opinion.

Former FBI Director William S. Sessions was among those who sought to have the evidence revealed, arguing the Justice Department should intervene and demand testing since the department’s very name implies "justice." He wrote "Why should our criminal justice system be afraid?"^[1][2] Some consider the decision to be a rebuke of the Innocence Project, which offered to fund Osborne's DNA testing and exonerated 240 prisoners as of the date of the decision.^[2]

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 557
• List of United States Supreme Court cases

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Sessions, William S. (2009-02-27). "Obama's Testing Test: Why is the Justice Department on the wrong side of a Supreme Court case about DNA evidence?". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2212474/. 
2. ^ ^{a b} Lundin, Leigh (2009-06-28). "Dark Justice". Criminal Brief. http://www.criminalbrief.com/?p=7480. Retrieved 2009-06-29. 

External links

• The Court's opinion (PDF)
• District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne (SCOTUS wiki)
• District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (Cornell University Law School)
• Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests (NYT)