Supremes botch DNA ruling

The most odious offender has the right to a solid defense. In this forensic-minded world, DNA is one of the more obvious means of corroborating — or debunking — a defendant’s alibi. So prevalent is DNA evidence on our TV crime dramas, in books and in movies, that prosecutors have been lamenting the so-called “CSI effect’’ on juries for years, citing the popular television series. The concern is, juries tend to assume DNA evidence is always necessary to prove there was a crime.

Yet when there is DNA evidence, it should be looked at, and that’s what makes the Supreme Court’s ruling in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne so questionable.

William Osborne, convicted of violently raping a woman 16 years ago in Alaska, sought access to a condom used during the crime, saying the DNA evidence it contained would clear him. (Or possibly not: he reportedly admitted his guilt during parole proceedings and his attorney said no to such testing during trial, fearing it might establish Osborne’s guilt. Whatever the case, though, it seems the DNA testing might settle the matter, so why not allow it?)

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Osborne; the Supremes said no, mysteriously finding that constitutionalizing a convict’s right to access DNA evidence would “short circuit” state legislatures.

Never mind the 240 people left to rot in jail after being wrongfully convicted, then freed through DNA testing. Never mind that George Bush, while governor of Texas, granted an emergency stay of execution for Ricky McGinn to allow for more enhanced testing of DNA. (The new test conclusively linked McGinn to the murder of his stepdaughter and he was executed). Never mind Colorado’s own Tim Masters, cleared by DNA evidence nearly 10 years after going to prison for a murder he did not commit.

It is true that 47 states have some form of law allowing prisoners access to DNA evidence, though some are limited to certain crimes. (Alaska’s not one of the 47, hence Osborne’s case). But that makes the high court’s ruling all the more puzzling — obviously, few are going to object to “constitutionalizing” the matter. It seems the time has come for uniform rules allowing access to DNA evidence.