[excon]

Hello:

I've written a lot on these pages about the righty's on the Supreme Court having empathy for the COPS. They do. What's surprising, is that Obama does too.

Today, the Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 (yes the usual suspects), that an inmate doesn't have the right to DNA testing, even though it could prove him innocent..

The four dissenters, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter, saw that Alaska was wrong to block DNA testing when the technology that could prove someone is unjustly being kept behind bars, is available. Overturning Alaska's denial of due process should have been an easy call.

As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, “There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it.”

You can guess which side I think is right. The unbelievable part of this entire episode, is that Obama supported the RIGHT WING position!

I think we made a mistake. I don't like him much anymore.

excon

[N0help4u]

Gee, sounds like them righties are learning the lefts tricks blocking whatever doesn't suit them.

I do agree that DNA testing should always be allowed as proof in court.

[tomder55]

It's always good to get the facts of the case when making a determination if the court made the correct decision.

William Osborne is convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago.
The woman in Alaska was raped, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near Anchorage International Airport. A condom that was found nearby was used in the assault.The woman, identified Osborne as one of her attackers. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly incriminated him. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004.

So the DNA testing is largely irrelevant to the case in that it doesn't really matter if it is Osbourne's dna in the condom . He was very much a part of the assault by his own admission.

Alaska is one of 3 states (along with liberal blue Massachusetts and conservative red Oklahoma) that doesn't give access to dna tests to convicts .But dna testing was an option during his trial.

Simpler dna testing at the time of the trial revealed that it could have been Osbourne ;but the ability to have more advanced dna testing was passed up on by his lawyer for fear that it would conclusively prove the State's case.

The majority ruled in favor of state's rights and judicial restraint in making this decision. Roberts wrote for the majority... "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response" .

The court found DNA is valuable, but SCOTUS should not open the door to having such testing done in every case.
Instead,SCOTUS found, states should outline how DNA testing should be used and when it should be allowed.

The Obama position was that inmates at least should swear under oath to their innocence before being given access to the evidence. The federal DNA testing law has such a requirement.As noted above ,Osbourne has confessed to his crime to the parole board and has not retracted it.

[excon]

Hello tom:

Actually, you're wrong. Oh, not about the case - about the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court doesn't operate like the lower courts do. They don't pick cases that are or aren't individually compelling. They pick cases to set national precedent.

Even though you may be right about this particular case, the precedent they set was wrong. I'll bet they could have looked through the stack of cases and found one more compelling toward an argument that would lend itself to a favorable outcome. That would be FAVORABLE in the sense that it's consistent with the Constitution. But, they didn't. I wonder why.

Nahhh, I don't wonder why. They picked this case because they knew what they wanted to say about it beforehand (which sounds like judicial activism). What they SAID happens to be empathetic to the COPS and PROSECUTORS and not the citizen.

The question that was resolved is that defendants/inmates don't have the right to question the evidence. It seems to me, that DNA testing would be at the HEART of the Fifth Amendment's requirement for "due process", when trying to determine the guilt or innocence of a person.

As a matter of fact, it IS, and it can't logically be considered anything else. I'm right. You and the wrongwingers on the court are out to lunch.

My outrage, however, doesn't emanate from the wrongwingers on the court. Nahhh. They didn't surprise me. It's that wrongwinged Constitutional lawyer, Obama. HE surprised me. But, he ain't going to again.

excon

[tomder55]

The question that was resolved is that defendants/inmates don't have the right to question the evidence. It seems to me, that DNA testing would be at the HEART of the Fifth Amendment's requirement for "due process", when trying to determine the guilt or innocence of a person.

I would agree with you if there's new evidence ;but there isn't . DNA testing was available at the time of the trial so all 5th amendment concerns were addressed. It was his lawyer who refused to use dna evidence to his favor .

No ,SCOTUS did not rule in favor of COPS and PROSECUTORS but for States Constitutional rights to make the call .

[speechlesstx]

The decision also noted that this guy wanted to establish a new constitutional right without him ever having availing himself of the provisions in Alaska law for obtaining the evidence.

Osborne has brought this §1983 action without ever using these procedures in filing a state or federal habeas claim relying on actual innocence. In other words, he has not tried to use the process provided to him by the State or attempted to vindicate the liberty interest that is now the centerpiece of his claim.

I find nothing in the decision that shows empathy for the cops and prosecutors. If he wants the DNA tested he needs to take advantage of the provisions already made.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The "decision" written by the righty's on the court mentions a new right... However, I assure you, the right is already there in the Fifth Amendment...

You also call the "right" to gay marriage a right that cannot be found, however others, like ME, have, indeed found it...

I realize that you can't see the forest, because the trees are in the way. The only problem I see here, is that you're totally oblivious to the empathy shown here for the COPS and PROSECUTORS.

To me, the intent of the Fifth Amendment is clear. You, and the righty's on the court, see it exactly OPPOSITE the way I (and the framers) do. I cannot understand how you see it differently, WITHOUT having a HEAVY dose of empathy for the cops and prosecutors.

I cannot understand how you think testing evidence to find out who it belongs to, ISN'T "due process of law", which the Fifth Amendment guarantees to us all. How you can call asking for the evidence to be tested a new right is absolutely beyond me.

excon

[speechlesstx]

To me, the intent of the Fifth Amendment is clear. You, and the righty's on the court, see it exactly OPPOSITE the way I (and the framers) do. I cannot understand how you see it differently, WITHOUT having a HEAVY dose of empathy for the cops and prosecutors.

I cannot understand how you think testing evidence to find out who it belongs to, ISN'T "due process of law", which the Fifth Amendment guarantees to us all. How you can call asking for the evidence to be tested a new right is absolutely beyond me.

Ex, I see the 5th amendment quite clearly thank you, and I am absolutely for a thorough examination of the evidence. If this guy won’t take advantage of the provisions for having something re-examined in his state that’s his problem…heavy emphasis on the “re” part. The state says “here’s how you do it” and he won’t do it so why should SCOTUS have empathy for the guy?

[excon]

If this guy won't take advantage of the provisions for having something re-examined in his state that's his problem…heavy emphasis on the “re” part. The state says “here's how you do it” and he won't do it so why should SCOTUS have empathy for the guy?

Hello again, Steve:

If this were an appeals court decision, I would agree with you. It would be about HIM. But, it's a Supreme Court Decision. It shouldn't BE about him. It should BE about all those other inmates who won't get their DNA tested now.

This case should have settled THAT issue. It could have too, if they didn't have empathy for the cops instead.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

If this were an appeals court decision, I would agree with you. It would be about HIM. But, it's a Supreme Court Decision. It shouldn't BE about him. It should BE about all those other inmates who won't get their DNA tested now.

Ex, that's a noble, emotional - strawman - argument. The court simply held that it is up to state legislatures to determine the procedures for postconviction access to evidence and that Alaska's procedures were adequate to satisfy due process. He chose not to pursue access according to Alaska's procedures so it's HIS problem.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

We could argue that stuff through the night, like we always do...

Or, we could address the real point of my post. Obama agrees with YOU! Mr. Constitutional lawyer president, agrees with Scalito, the Wolverine and YOU! UGH!

It's disgusting! He's a disappointment to me.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

We could argue that stuff through the night, like we always do...

Or, we could address the real point of my post. Obama agrees with YOU! Mr. Constitutional lawyer president, agrees with Scalito, the Wolverine and YOU! UGH!

It's disgusting! He's a disappointment to me.

That part just makes me want to say we warned you, but I'm glad you're coming around.

[Skell]

What? You warned Ex that Obama would agree with you guys? I don't think so...

[speechlesstx]

What?? You warned Ex that Obama would agree with you guys?? I dont think so...

No Skell, we warned that Obama wasn't The Messiah he was made out to be. "Just words..."