Posted on 03/07/2011 6:29:38 PM PST by neverdem
The Supreme Court opened a legal avenue Monday for prisoners to try to gain access to DNA evidence that might prove their innocence but noted that their chances at success might be slim.
The court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of Texas death row inmate Henry Skinner, who has maintained that he did not kill his girlfriend and her two sons. Skinner came within 45 minutes of being executed last spring before the Supreme Court took up his case.
There was no guarantee in the court's narrow ruling that Skinner, convicted in 1995, will ever gain access to all of the evidence recovered at the crime scene.
Texas is one of 48 states that allow at least some prisoners post-conviction access to DNA evidence, but their rules vary. More than 260 people have been exonerated after conviction through DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project, which investigates cases and represents inmates.
A divided Supreme Court decided in 2009 largely to leave the decision about testing up to Congress and state legislatures. It ruled that the convicted do not have a constitutional right to testing but left a narrow opening for those trying to prove that a state's laws governing access to DNA are inadequate.
Skinner's attorneys tested that opening by suing Gray County District Attorney Lynn Switzer, saying the decision to withhold DNA testing in his case violated his federal civil rights.
Monday's court majority said a federal court could consider that claim.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that court precedents allow civil rights challenges if the result would not "necessarily imply" the invalidity of their convictions...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What would be wrong with giving everyone on death row access to the DNA from their case with the condition that if they DNA shows they did it, the appeals end and it’s straight to the electric chair or whatever the state uses?
What would be wrong with giving everyone on death row access to the DNA from their case with the condition that if they DNA shows they did it, the appeals end and it’s straight to the electric chair or whatever the state uses?
The accused should have access to the DNA that is found on site. There have been enough stories of people being convicted, who would have been exonerated had the prosecution not hidden the DNA evidence.
Texas is one of 48 states that allow at least some prisoners post-conviction access to DNA evidence, but their rules vary. More than 260 people have been exonerated after conviction through DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project, which investigates cases and represents inmates.
People are way to quick with a rope in America to convict innocent people.The wild wild west is OVER.
Nope. The four liberals - sotomayor, kagan, ginsburg and breyer, plus scalia and roberts.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-9000.pdf
I was suprised Kennnedy was a dissenter, which the story listed, and that it wasn’t a 7 - 2 decision. Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link. I’m surprised it took this long for the possibility of exculpatory DNA evidence to get to the Supremes.
FWIW, the Innocence Project confirms the guilt of roughly half the cases they take on.
There are a lot of lazy, liberal DAs convicting a lot of innocent people.
I have a friend who was eliminated as a suspect in a horrible rape/murder case by DNA evidence. Without the DNA tests, he believed that the cops would have been quite happy to settle for him as the perpetrator. He was the boyfriend, and apparently the boyfriend is considered guilty until proved innocent. DNA testing might have saved his life.
All accused criminal should have access to all evidence, I thought it was called “discovery”
I’d like to know why if their DNA evidence can be used to free people from ‘death row’ in a matter of weeks after DNA proof of innocence, why the inverse is not possible was well- execution within weeks (I’d settle for months even a couple years)with same said DNA proof of guilt.
The only reason it costs more to execute than life in prison is because the same people who are opposed to capital punishment are in favor of unlimited appeals. It’s like saying you can’t cross the ocean because it’s too expensive .(because the ONLY way to cross it is by building a giant bridge)
Limit appeals to 2 appeals in 5 years or whichever comes 1st-out of time, out of luck.
“He was the [man], and apparently the [man] is considered guilty until proved innocent.”
I’m surprised too. I would have never expected that vote breakdown on any case before the SCOTUS.
I think it would be incredibly wrong to put anyone to death without using DNA as a way to prove one’s innocence, espically after a conviction that took place before DNA evidence was used.
It may surprise a lot of people to learn that when it comes to protecting the actual constitutional rights of an accused criminal, Scalia is very strong in that area. As much as I like Thomas, it is his greatest weakness.
I’m not surprised, but I follow the U.S. Supreme Court pretty closely.
Trend reversal: Big drop in kids' ear infections
Psoriasis medication rises hope in the fight against multiple sclerosis
What you see is what you do: Risky behaviors linked to risk-glorifying media exposure
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.