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...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.