Blogs and Stories
Did Obama Wimp Out on a Rape Case?
Getty Images
The president who was once a champion of defendant's right to DNA evidence as a senator in Illinois has now let his Justice Department oppose that right at the Supreme Court. What happened?
This week at the Supreme Court, the Obama administration took a position that both surprised and dismayed the president’s supporters in the criminal-justice and civil-rights communities. The Department of Justice’s action was “pretty disappointing,” says David C. Fathi of the civil-rights organization Human Rights Watch. "It isn't consistent with Obama's history of fighting for more access to DNA testing."
At issue in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne is whether the US Constitution allows state governments to withhold potentially exonerating DNA evidence from defendants who have duly exhausted all appeals. The defendant, William Osborne, was convicted of a rape and kidnapping in Alaska in 1993. At that time, primitive DNA tests on a degraded semen sample narrowed the field of possible perpetrators to 16 percent of black men, including Osborne.
The administration's position isn't consistent with Obama's history of fighting for more access to DNA testing.
The state concedes that modern DNA testing would establish conclusively whether Osborne is guilty or innocent, and Osborne's attorneys at the Innocence Project offered to pay for the $1,000 test. Yet Alaska has refused to turn over the semen sample, on the grounds that Osborne’s trial produced more than sufficient proof that he committed the crime. “If there was other doubtful evidence,” Ken Rosenstein, the state’s lead attorney on the case, told the Anchorage Daily News, “things might be different."
Alaska is one of six states that provide no statutory right to post-conviction DNA testing. Osborne’s lawyers hoped to establish a constitutional right to that testing. But, surprisingly, the new administration backed the state of Alaska.
While Obama was a state senator in Illinois, the Chicago Tribune and a Northwestern University journalism class uncovered serious deficiencies in the way the state was prosecuting death-penalty cases. Eventually, 18 death-row inmates were exonerated in Illinois, prompting Gov. George Ryan to declare a moratorium on executions.
Obama co-sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature that ensured access to potentially exonerating DNA evidence. When he ran for president, his website touted a 1999 article in which Obama called for more widespread access to DNA testing.
Asked about the apparent contradiction between those actions and the DOJ’s position on Osborne, Department of Justice spokesman Matthew J. Miller said in a written statement, “The president has supported legislation giving access to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate circumstances, and to date 44 states and the federal government have enacted DNA testing statutes. The solicitor general’s position in the case does nothing to draw into question the validity of, and the great need for, DNA testing statutes.”
But it does stop well short of endorsing a federal right to such tests. Yet if being able to prove one's innocence is as important as Obama has said it is, why shouldn't the citizens of Alaska (or any of the other five states with similar laws) be guaranteed the same access to testing as the citizens of Illinois?
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Dogs in a Deadly Crossfire
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
Does Wal-Mart Make You Skinny?
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
Obama's Demented Drug Policy
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
The State's compelling interest in keeping convicted innocent people locked up must be preserved.
NOT!
This is very disappointing.
What is going on in Obama's Justice Dept.?
We expected better of Eric Holder and Company. It is still early, and many of Obama's appointees are still not in place, but early signs on controversial litigation positions have not been particularly encouraging.
How about some serious reporting, beyond individual daily headlines?
This is very, very disappointing.
DNA since it's been proven beyond any doubt what-so-ever access should be allowed to ANYONE!
Way too many people are convicted wrongly, and even ONE person convicted wrongly is way too much!
He needs to keep his word!
He's showing his true colors now.
Is it too early to start making "Don't Blame Me--I Voted for Ron Paul/Bob Barr?"
Yes, this is extremely disappointing to know that the President of the United States doesn't care enough to weigh in on the side of DNA testing for ALL PERSONS.
The author neglects to mention several salient details about Mr. Osborne's case which make it extremely difficult (in my opinion, at least) to mount such a larger defense for prisoners rights -- namely, he confessed to the kidnapping and rape before a parole board, which released him after serving 14 years on a 26 year sentence. His original lawyer refused a more detailed DNA analysis at the time because she was afraid it would provide unchallengeable proof of his guilt. And while a 15% genetic commonality amongst all blacks in North Carolina (the state with the largest percentage of blacks) would certainly implicate injustice, the fact that Alaska remains in the top 5 of states with the smallest percentage of blacks makes for an extremely weak argument.
And to top it all off, Mr. Osborne is now in prison serving out a sentence for a home invasion he committed after being paroled for the rape conviction, and how must serve out the remaining 12 years on the rape conviction as well.
Perhaps what actually stirred the "withering cowardice" of the Obama administration is the fact that allowing such a weak case on the part of the defendant to go forward also negatively impacts the victim -- even if the victim earns her living "on her back." Or perhaps it was this argument offered by Osborne's own lawyer that took the wind out the DOJ sails: "This... is the very first case litigated to our knowledge anywhere in the country where the prosecutor concedes that a DNA test result could possibly be absolutely slam-dunk dispositive of innocence, but doesn't consent to it."
Obama simply doesn't want to be called "soft on crime." This has everything to do with him wanting to maintain power. Politicians are not interested in the preservation of justice.
This may just have been too weak a case to use. Lighten up folks and give Obama some room and air. He can't do it all in a few weeks.
It's been 30 days and Obama doesn't have everything fixed that it took Bush 8 years to screw up.
Gee, you would think he'd be done by now. RIGHT?
The real reason is you can wear gloves, not leave any hair, and not jack off at the scene of the crime and CSI wont have any DNA evidence.
Therefore if you make every case dependent on DNA or its an acquittal, you let murderers go free. I for one don't support the death penalty. I like exile. Old school style, on one of the Aleutian Islands in the Bering sea.
There's a difference between supporting legislation to change the law (as Obama did) with concluding the old law is unconstitutional. To confuse the two issues is to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between two of our branches of government.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.