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?)
|
Advertisement |
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.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!