In 1994 William Osborne was sentenced to 26 years in prison for the kidnap and rape of a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. At the time, rudimentary DNA testing performed on semen recovered from a condom found at the crime scene indicated that Osborne, along with 15% of the African American male population, could have been the source of the semen. Osborne has always maintained his innocence and, since 1997, has been pushing for new DNA testing that would conclusively determine whether the semen found at the scene in fact belonged to him. At the time of the original trial, more advanced DNA testing was available and Osborne urged his lawyer to request it but the lawyer refused.
Today Osborne is represented by the The Innocence Project, a collection of non-profit organizations devoted to proving the innocence of the wrongfully convicted through the use of DNA evidence. The Innocence Project has offered to cover the roughly $2000 it would cost to perform modern DNA testing on the sample, and the prosecution has agreed that the testing would conclusively determine the identity of the rapist and put all doubts to rest. Therefore common sense, not to mention basic human decency, would dictate that the district attorney’s office should provide Osborne’s legal team with a sample of the evidence so that the matter can be settled once and for all.
The only problem is that the state has not only refused to release the evidence, but has done everything in its power to deny access and prevent any further testing from taking place. In March of 2009 the case was argued before the United States Supreme Court. Astonishingly, in a decision handed down on June 18th, the court ruled 5 to 4 in favour of the district attorney’s office, asserting that there is no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to a State’s evidence for DNA testing.
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito and (Uncle) Thomas, all voted in favour of the decision, with the final opinion of the court invoking the concept of finality as the rationale for this blatant attempt at burying the truth. I can understand why one would want to establish some threshold after which a given legal dispute is deemed to be settled and no longer subject to appeal. But if used to block good-faith attempts to uncover the truth, what is finality other than a form of judicial dogma?
One must also ask, what is the district attorney in Alaska so afraid of? By their own admission the testing will reveal one of two things. Either Osborne is the true culprit and the original verdict was correct all along, or it may reveal that Osborne has been unjustly incarcerated while the true perpetrator has lived free and unimpeded from committing subsequent crimes for the past 15 years - a time frame that becomes larger and more grotesque with every effort by the state to prevent the truth from coming out. While it is certainly not ideal, the latter outcome would be invaluable as it would allow an innocent man to clear his name, and allow prosecutors and law enforcement to commence the search for the actual rapist.
One can only conclude that personal pride and institutional reputation are guiding the actions of the prosecutors in this case, which is tragic given the potentially dire consequences of the state's intransigence. Ironically William Osborne was released on parole in 2006, therefore any efforts to perform DNA testing since that date have been put forth with the sole intention of clearing Osborne's name. Surely this fact has only served to heighten the state's fears that they may have prosecuted the wrong man after all. This state of affairs strikes me as no less than a crime unto itself, with the district attorney playing the role of the villain and the supreme court acting as the accomplice.
Interestingly, at least three of the concurring justices are no strangers to blocking the search for the truth in the interest of procedural conformity. Kennedy, Scalia and (Uncle) Thomas all sat on the court that voted to stop the Florida recount in the infamous 2000 presidential election, a decision that was tantamount to appointing George W. Bush to the presidency against the likely will of the electorate. So it really shouldn’t come as a surprise that these men would be comfortable with the possibility that an innocent man served 13 years behind bars and could spend the rest of his life haunted by the social stigma that goes along with being a convicted rapist.
According to The Innocence Project, over 240 people have been exonerated through DNA evidence in the United States alone. Seventeen of those were death row inmates, who were waiting to be executed at the time of their exoneration. That’s 17 innocent human beings, who would have been killed were it not for the diligent and selfless efforts of a handful of noble lawyers and law students. And with prosecutors and a supreme court like this one, it’s easy to see why.
AlexsJenkins
The hypocrisy of the right continues. Isn't this a case of activist judges, which they hate when it comes to abortion? Anything to do with the justice system, however, and the philosophy becomes lock them up forever or kill them. If these potentially innocent people looked more like their sons and daughters I doubt they would be as cold. Which is what makes (Uncle) Thomas so fucking sick..
Who stands to lose if the truth were revealed?
the innocence project has popped up in various law schools around canada as well, including one i helped found @ windsor which will hopefully be up and running soon. the biggest problem with the IP is establishing some sort of screening system, because of the massive amounts of applications from people in prison... with some first hand knowledge on the subject, its really disturbing how easily people can fall through the cracks of the system, and end up wrongly behind bars.