Legal News

Supreme Court Expands Right to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

By Nathan Koppel

DNA evidence promises to become an even bigger part of criminal cases following a Supreme Court ruling on Monday that gives prisoners the right to file post-conviction civil suits seeing access to DNA evidence that was not tested at the time of trials.

The 6-3 ruling in Skinner v. Switzer, penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, attracted a dissent from Thomas, Kennedy and Alito, which raised concerns that the majority ruling would give inmates a second “bite at the apple.” Here are articles from the LA Times and Washington Post on the ruling.

The case involves Texas inmate Hank Skinner (pictured), who last March came within hours of being executed for allegedly murdering his girlfriend and her two sons in 1993.

Skinner filed a last-minute suit, claiming the local district attorney, Lynn Switzer, violated his constitutional rights by denying him the right to conduct DNA testing of items found near the murder victims — evidence that had not been tested prior to trial and that would, Skinner claimed, prove his innocence.

Prosecutors claimed it was too late for Skinner to seek testing of evidence available at the time of trial, the LA Times reports. State and federal courts have likewise denied Skinner’s right to seek DNA evidence.

But the Supreme Court sided with Skinner. “A post-conviction claim for DNA testing is properly pursued” in a civil-rights suit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “Success in the suit gains for the prisoner only access to the DNA evidence, which may prove exculpatory, inculpatory or inconclusive.”

Texas is one of 47 states that allow some prisoners post-conviction access to DNA evidence, but the state rules vary widely, the Post reports.

Robert Owen, a University of Texas law professor who represented Skinner, said in a statement: “We look forward to making our case in federal court that Texas’s inexplicable refusal to grant Mr. Skinner access to evidence for DNA testing is fundamentally unfair and cannot stand.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 07, 2011 (boomark / email).