Here is the thing, Joe Steel, the rapist in question has already had the opportunity to which you want the Supreme Court to rule he has a Constitutional right. He was presented with the evidence against him. That evidence was subjected to DNA testing. Rapist Osbourne DECLINED to submit the evidence to the very sort of intensive testing that may have cleared him---because he knew full well it would not clear him but rather indicate he was guilty. Now, rapist Osbourne wants the Court to fabricate a new Constitutional right for his benefit.

Lets review...

Rapist Osbourne had the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented at his trial.

He declined that opportunity.


No, Mr. Steel, its most definitely about this specific case because it was this specific case that was being reviewed. What you want the Justices to do is take an activist role and fabricate rights and intrude into the bailiwick of the Legislature so that your Leftist agenda can be served.
He does not now have some Constitutional right to go back and do what he previously declined to do.

[open sarcasm file]
Our leftist agenda will be well served as soon as Sotomayor takes the bench. Then we open the borders, socialize medicine, create costly social programs to line the pockets of the wealthy liberal leaders, become part of the one-world government take over big business and small until the state owns all the means of production, assuming there are any after we get through selling it for cash to Syria and North Korea, and dismantle all of our air defense systems. And that day is coming!

Oh, I forgot--confiscation of all personal property after an aggregate $500,000 allowance to the wealthiest people, and taking all of that money, going into disadvantaged areas and throwing the money at people.

Soon. Soon. Ahahahahahaha!!!! [close sarcasm file]

Okay, the decision by the Supreme Court is not grounds for impeachment, but it sure makes them look small and mean and petty and well, Conservative.

If a man is found not guilty of a crime, he cannot be placed in double jeopardy, but if new evidence against him surfaces for the same crime, he can most definitely be tried again. The same privilege the state has should accrue to a convicted man. That he did not challenge the evidence then should have no bearing on whether he can challenge it now. I see nothing in the constitution about not being able to continue to test evidence after conviction.

There was recently a case where a guy up for execution demanded a DNA test (this was in Texas) and got it, and the test proved that he was guilty, so he was executed about ten minutes later.

Thus, providing requested DNA testing causes no harm, as it can only prove or disprove or be insufficient to do either, and in all of those cases, the law knows what to do with the convict.

So denying it is not really the law, nor is providing it, and none of this will be found in the constitution, because unlike our founders' knowledge of AK-47's as shown in the second amendment, there is no evidence that they had any idea what DNA was, or fingerprints, for that matter.

So the decision is less about law than about "getting tough on crime" and other cliches of your choice on that subject. It's very inhumane, though, and denies the precept which we hope the law is at least partly based on, that "it's better to let ten guilty men go free, than put one innocent man to death."

Feel free to disagree with that compassionate statement.

Not exactly, Dax. Once the crime has been charged and the accused is acquited even new evidence is not in and off itself grounds to bring those charges. Bear in mind though, that this case does not involve new evidence. It involves the same old evidence, evidence that has already once been subjected to DNA testing. Evidence that the rapist had the opportunity to challenge with a more exacting test but declined to do.

This issue is not one of testing causing harm...its one of the SCOTUS not creating additional Constitutional rights. How can any possible reading of the Constitution arrive at the conclusion one has a Constitutional right to DNA testing? I readily concede that one has a right to confront the evidence presented against him in a trial. The rapist here was already provided that opportunity. That he failed to do so is not grounds to fabricate an expansive right for his benefit.

Nonsensical, Dax. I would agree you had a point if the State refused to allow DNA tsting at the trial. That is not the case here. The State allows such testing and in point of fact it was actually done in this case. Rapist Osbourne is not arguing for the right to test NA evidence, he is arguing for the right to go back and conduct tests that he already had the opportunity to conduct and declined to do so. The Constitution no more provides him the right to a "do over" on the basis of DNA testing than it provides him a right to a "do over" on the basis of a decision to not testify.

You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, Dax...Rapist Osbourne is not entitled to seek further DNA testing.

When you officially waive rights, that is binding. Sorry, you lose, thanks for playing.

Red, who were you answering, Law or Dax?

I don't know whether or not it's factual that



I'm sure of a couple of things, however. There is a great deal of difference between the strict interpretation on Constitutional Law and the people's perception of 'justice,' or fairness. The Rule of Law may not be 'fair' in people's eyes, but that's how our Judicial system works.

And I agree with Law when he says it's not the function of the Court to establish law.



States also follow the Rule of Law. It's what keeps consistency within the court system.

I think a lot of state prosecutors will take this ruling to mean that no person convicted of a crime can appeal the case based on new DNA evidence. In his very poorly worded (as presented here) of the majority opinion, Justice Roberts could allow that interpretation. However, I believe any good defense attorney would blast that out of the water.

Unless we go into Court Records, where I'm sure we'd find that the SCOTUS ruling was based on the single case presented to it, we don't know on what the case was based. We do know, based on what's been presented here, that the DNA results were inconclusive as regards the conviction of this one man in Alaska.

Perhaps the convicted rapist could provide another DNA sample and ask a lower appeals court to compare that to the inconclusive sample used in his trial. I don't know.