Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Disgusting. How can conservatives call themselves human beings?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/6/18/134724/686

Supreme Court Rejects Right to DNA Test to Prove Innocence
By Jeralyn, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:47:24 PM EST
Tags: dna testing (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a setback to requests for DNA testing by convicted inmates, the Supreme Court today decided the Alaska case of District Attorney's Office vs. Osborne. The opinion is here (pdf).

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found against William G. Osborne, a convicted rapist from Alaska. But the decision does not necessarily mean that many innocent prisoners will languish in their cells without access to DNA testing, since Alaska is one of only a few states without a law granting convicts at least some access to the new technology.

“DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty,” the majority conceded, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “The availability of new DNA testing, however, cannot mean that every criminal conviction, or even every conviction involving biological evidence, is suddenly in doubt.”
Click to expand...

The Innocence Project (which represented Osborne) calls the decision disappointing but of limited impact. ScotusBlog has more. .[More...]

In other words, Alaskans need to change their law. Justice Stevens dissented. Background here

Former FBI Director William Sessions explained why the decision should have gone the other way:

As has been said many times, the Justice Department's mission is to do justice. It is not to seek a conviction—or to uphold one—at all costs.

What interest does Alaska have in denying Osborne access to this evidence, thus obscuring the truth?
Click to expand...
 
the guy in question has admitted to the crime. His lawyer passed on the DNA tests during trial.

Here's a relevant quote from the decision

In an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also said that, if a defense lawyer fails to seek DNA testing during trial, and does so for tactical reasons, there is no constitutional right to seek access following conviction.
 
the dude never had rights refused. He passed on the test during trial. His choice.

Learn WTF you're talking about, you idiots
 
LOL


How the fuck is that relevant at all, shitstain? If there is something that can prove your innocence, your "admission of guilt" is irrelevant, and the time at which you ask for the evidence is irrelevant. That is common sense. That is fairness. It's something conservatives aren't able to understand, because they are disgusting subhumans.
 
The DNA evidence he was convicted on during trial was primitive and would implicate about 16 percent of all black males.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The DNA evidence he was convicted on during trial was primitive and would implicate about 16 percent of all black males.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

What interest does Alaska have in denying him access to the evidence? He even offered to pay for the cost (as if there should be even a question of whether or not he should be charged for proving his own innocence, just look at how far conservatives have shoved society down the moral tube). The only interest they would have is preserving some conservative DA's fake conviction record. Sickening. Conservative have absolutely no interest in justice or fairness whatsoever.
 
Yeah, this is really atrocious. Fortunately, 47 states already have laws that make a supreme court ruling pretty useless. Alaska, however, aint one of them. Don't get get implicated falsely for a crime in Alaska, and don't get caught being retarded or gay in Texas.
 
Watermark said:
LOL


How the fuck is that relevant at all, shitstain? If there is something that can prove your innocence, your "admission of guilt" is irrelevant, and the time at which you ask for the evidence is irrelevant. That is common sense. That is fairness. It's something conservatives aren't able to understand, because they are disgusting subhumans.
Click to expand...

moron, when you pass on using the evidence during your trial, you don't get to say you were denied the use of the evidence. You can't waste the courts time and taxpayer money when you've already had the opportunity to use the evidence. It's clear you're reaction is that of a reactionary simpleton
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, this is really atrocious. Fortunately, 47 states already have laws that make a supreme court ruling pretty useless. Alaska, however, aint one of them. Don't get get implicated falsely for a crime in Alaska, and don't get caught being retarded or gay in Texas.
Click to expand...

dumbass, the dude had the opportunity to use this evidence. What part of that fact evades you? You're willfully ignorant and dishonest
 
tinfoil said:
dumbass, the dude had the opportunity to use this evidence. What part of that fact evades you? You're willfully ignorant and dishonest
Click to expand...

"dude," he had DNA tests done. When he was convicted, DNA tests weren't nearly as advanced as they were today. The DNA evidence used at trial was so imprecise that 1.6 in 10 black men would have been implicated by it.

There is no legitimate reason not to allow him to have his dna checked with modern procedures against the physical evidence of the rape. None. If he's guilty, this will back it up. If he's not guilty, then he deserves to get out of jail immediately and probably get a stipend for time spent in the pen.
 
Watermark said:
LOL


How the fuck is that relevant at all, shitstain? If there is something that can prove your innocence, your "admission of guilt" is irrelevant, and the time at which you ask for the evidence is irrelevant. That is common sense. That is fairness. It's something conservatives aren't able to understand, because they are disgusting subhumans.
Click to expand...

Watermark, You might as well try to talk to a rock...MORONS like Tinfoil are UNAmerican scum bags that would squeal like a baby if they were in Osborne's shoes...

And THAT is the ONLY way any of these UNAmerican scum bags will ever have an epiphany...
 
tinfoil said:
dumbass, the dude had the opportunity to use this evidence. What part of that fact evades you? You're willfully ignorant and dishonest
Click to expand...

He was given the opportunity to apply A test, not A MODERN test. There's a huge difference. Like being given "an oppurtunity" and rejecting the bullshit that it was precludes you from ever using a more modern method. Retard. Do you disagree with the 47 states who allow people to prove their evidence, as well? Dumbass. You are not only stupid, you're pure evil.
 
Watermark said:
He was given the opportunity to apply A test, not A MODERN test. There's a huge difference. Like being given "an oppurtunity" and rejecting the bullshit that it was precludes you from ever using a more modern method. Retard. Do you disagree with the 47 states who allow people to prove their evidence, as well? Dumbass. You are not only stupid, you're pure evil.
Click to expand...

after the criminal has admitted to and described the crime? You bet!

Little moron
 
Bfgrn said:
Watermark, You might as well try to talk to a rock...MORONS like Tinfoil are UNAmerican scum bags that would squeal like a baby if they were in Osborne's shoes...

And THAT is the ONLY way any of these UNAmerican scum bags will ever have an epiphany...
Click to expand...

LOL oh noes! I'm a traitor!!
 
tinfoil said:
after the criminal has admitted to and described the crime? You bet!

Little moron
Click to expand...

As has been proven on numerous occasions, a "confession" is not iron clad evidence. Witness testimony is not iron clad evidence. DNA evidence, however, IS. And he has offered to pay for the testing at NO cost to taxpayers (which is disgusting, that he'd have to pay to prove his innocence, and proves how morally bankrupt conservatives are).
 
Watermark said:
As has been proven on numerous occasions, a "confession" is not iron clad evidence. Witness testimony is not iron clad evidence. DNA evidence, however, IS. And he has offered to pay for the testing at NO cost to taxpayers (which is disgusting, that he'd have to pay to prove his innocence, and proves how morally bankrupt conservatives are).
Click to expand...


what about describing the crime? Are innocent people usually able to describe crime scenes? You're a dumbass
 
tinfoil said:
what about describing the crime? Are innocent people usually able to describe crime scenes? You're a dumbass
Click to expand...

It's not good evidence at all. He could've easily been fed the information. And accounts that didn't match up very well could've been interpreted as matching up well. Again, anecdotal accounts are pretty much useless as testimony. Only DNA and other physical evidence is iron-clad. Why are you so obtuse? What do you have to lose? Why prevent him from paying for his own DNA crime test? Only because you are sick and get pleasure out of seeing darkies in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top