Court to decide on convict's right to test DNA
Court Alerts
The Supreme Court expressed skepticism Monday about giving a convict the broad constitutional right to test DNA evidence, which for 232 people has meant exoneration years after they were found guilty.
At issue is the case of William Osborne, who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago. He won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt, says Osborne, who has admitted his guilt in a bid for parole.
But several justices said something more should be required, including a sworn declaration of innocence that would hold out the prospect of additional punishment for lying under oath.
One condition, Justice David Souter said, is that an "individual claiming the right to test claims that he is actually innocent."
People who waived DNA testing at the time of their trial also might not be able to test it later, some justices suggested.
The Obama administration, backing Alaska prosecutors, urged the court to reject the ruling of the federal appeals court in San Francisco in favor of Osborne.
Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was too broad and would erase the requirement in the federal DNA testing law that a person must assert his innocence under penalty of perjury before getting access to the evidence.
Osborne has never made that claim and in fact admitted his guilt as part of his parole proceedings, Katyal said.
Related listings
-
Court refuses to take case on coach's team prayer
Court Alerts 03/02/2009The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a high school football coach who wants to bow his head and kneel during prayers led by his players despite a school district policy prohibiting it. In an order Monday, the justices are ending Marcus Borde...
-
Media urge unsealing of juror data in Bonds trial
Court Alerts 02/27/2009Media companies urged a federal judge Thursday to allow access to the completed questionnaires from potential jurors in Barry Bonds' perjury trial.U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered last week that the answers provided on the forms, which are i...
-
NY court: Helmsley fortune goes to more than dogs
Court Alerts 02/26/2009Real estate baroness Leona Helmsley's multibillion-dollar fortune can go to more than just the dogs. In a ruling announced Wednesday, a New York judge says trustees managing Helmsley's estate can distribute her funds to a broad range of charities.Hel...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.