Source
In a case decided 5-4, the Supreme Court decided against an Alaskan man convicted of raping a prostitute in 1996. William Osborne claims that a condom found at the scene of the crime would exonerate him. The State of Alaska said too bad. An appeals court last year said that he had a right to ask for the DNA from it to see if the evidence would lead to proving his innocence. Alaska went to the SCOTUS, and the Supreme Court also said too bad.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a dissenting opinion that the high court is blessing an arbitrary denial of evidence.
I say Jamás to Hamas!
11 months ago
3 comments:
It's difficult to understand the basis of that ruling.
If the man were facing the death penalty, wouldn't it be incumbent upon the state to prove his guilt before allowing the execution to go forth, and wouldn't the defendant have the right to produce exculpatory evidence to save his life?
This sounds like a ruling from a third world dictatorship, something Kim Jong Il would be proud of.
Seems to me that if something can exonerate a person based upon modern science and technology, we should do everything we can to fix it. We have too many people in prison now as it is.
Need to clear up the prisons for all of the Republicans the administration will round up under the DHS directive.
Yeah, it's a little ridiculous. I guess they wanted to leave it to the states to decide this one. But some things shouldn't be left up to the States, such as due process.
Post a Comment