District Attorney's Office v. Osborne

Case Date: 06/18/2009

District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence of those convicted of crimes. The case concerned the conviction of William G. Osborne on charges related to the rape and beating of a prostitute. The prostitute had been beaten with an axe handle, shot in the head, and left in an Alaskan snowbank. Osborne was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Alaska prosecutors do not dispute that advanced DNA testing could potentially prove Osborne's innocence beyond any doubt, but refused to allow him to do this testing despite a decade old request.[1] Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, joined. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Part II. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and in which Justice Souter joined as to Part I. Justice Souter filed a separate dissenting opinion. Former FBI Director William S. Sessions was among those who sought to have the evidence revealed, arguing the Justice Department should intervene and demand testing since the department’s very name implies "justice." He wrote "Why should our criminal justice system be afraid?"[1][2] Some consider the decision to be a rebuke of the Innocence Project, which offered to fund Osborne's DNA testing and exonerated 240 prisoners as of the date of the decision.[2]