District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne

2009-06-18

Headline: Court rejects a freestanding federal constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, leaving states and legislatures to set access rules and affecting prisoners seeking new DNA tests.

Holding: The Court held that the Constitution does not create a freestanding right to postconviction DNA testing and that Alaska’s postconviction procedures are not constitutionally inadequate, reversing the Ninth Circuit.

Real World Impact:

Leaves DNA access rules to state laws and federal statute, not a new federal right.
Limits use of §1983 to obtain postconviction DNA testing in federal court.
Encourages prisoners to use state postconviction procedures or habeas discovery.

Topics: DNA testing after conviction, access to evidence, state criminal procedures, prisoners' rights

Summary

Background

A man convicted years earlier of a violent rape and assault in Alaska sought modern DNA testing of physical evidence (a condom and pubic hairs) that older tests had only partially analyzed. He sued state officials in federal court under a civil-rights law (42 U.S.C. §1983) asking permission to run newer DNA tests he would pay for because Alaska courts had denied him relief under state postconviction rules.

Reasoning

The high court considered whether the Constitution itself creates a broad right to this kind of postconviction DNA access. The Court declined to recognize a freestanding federal substantive due process right. It said convicted prisoners have only a limited postconviction interest and that Alaska’s existing statutory and court-created procedures were not plainly inadequate. The majority emphasized that most States and Congress are already making rules, and that creating a national constitutional rule would short-circuit those legislative responses.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves the details of DNA access to state laws and federal statute rather than creating a new nationwide constitutional right. Prisoners seeking new testing will generally rely on state postconviction processes or habeas discovery rather than a direct federal constitutional claim. The decision also signals that broad policy choices about preserving and testing evidence remain for legislatures and state courts.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued Alaska had denied an effective procedure and that refusing the test was arbitrary; a concurrence stressed the habeas route and raised tactical-waiver concerns about tests declined at trial.