SCOTUSblog writes Court rejects DNA access claim.
"Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an individual whose criminal conviction has become final does not have a constitutional right to gain access to evidence so that it can be subjected to DNA testing to try to prove innocence. This was one of four final rulings the Court issued Thursday, leaving ten remaining. The next release of opinions is expected on Monday."
As I understand it, the court is saying that it's up to the states and legislature to determine the rules for DNA evidence requirements and access, there isn't a constitutional right. There are interesting details in the issue:
"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 New York Times has more on it. including details about the case and the current state of DNA laws: "Only four states — Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma — do not have laws in place specifically dealing with postconviction DNA testing, and Alabama recently enacted one limited to death row inmates that will become effective soon."
No comments:
Post a Comment