New ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court... John Roberts???
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
United States
June 18, 2009 11:11am CST
The news story that I just heard on NPR was about DNA evidence that could prove the innocence of a person who claims he was wrongly charged and convicted with a crime is not allowed to prove and clear his conviction because the state of Alaska has the right to restrict the evidence finding and defense which means the court is not allowing people to have a defense to wrongful convictions.
Did you hear about this ruling and what do you think of the interpretation of the Constitution as John Roberts and his court rules our Country?
If a person is truly innocent do you think the Constitution specifically spells out that we do have the right to a defense against false accusations?
2 people like this
6 responses
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
20 Jun 09
What is the flaw as Taskr presents a straw man argument?
I would have to ask Taskr to explain if an innocent person was ever forced to plead guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence that could not be refuted for the lack of current technology?
No defense or not permitted a defense is a violation of our Constitutional rights, these plea bargains could all be brought into question and account, many were and are technically (according the Federal Constitution) in violation.
@DavidReedy (2378)
• United States
19 Jun 09
I suspect (and hope) many have beat me to the punch on this, but this is the ultimate miscarriage of justice! What stone age is Alask living in? My next step would be the press--get some activist-journalists to do the dna testing if possible and put it all over the newspapers and smear the politicians and administrators who stand in the way (of justice) !
@DavidReedy (2378)
• United States
24 Jun 09
Taskr--I confess to having missed some details of the story. But, let's say he's completely guilty, then wouldn't the DNA only completely substantiate that, or at worst come back non-conclusive? The point is, I don't like living in a police state. I could care less about this individual guy, if he's guilty he can rot. I'm just saying we should be legally entitled to call upon any evidence anytime, regardless of conviction or verdict.
DR...
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
20 Jun 09
First we should make sure we have the right person convicted and secondly we should deal with the consequences of incarceration and recidivism. I certainly don't want criminals permitted to roam our streets free from discipline. Punishment should be appropriate for the conditions and result of actions or behaviors that are criminal.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
20 Jun 09
There was no miscarriage of justice. HE CONFESSED. I don't know why people are so eager to ignore that. He also REFUSED to have the DNA tested during his trial because he was afraid it would further incriminate him. He's only trying this now because he's been convicted of ANOTHER crime since going on parole. There is no miscarriage of justice. The guy is guilty, plain and simple.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 Jun 09
All the ruling said was that state courts are the business of the state and the US Supreme Court isn't going to meddle where it has no jurisdiction.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Jun 09
Not if the case has no US Constitutional bearing. Read the ruling.
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
22 Jun 09
The Constitution clearly states that we the people have a right to a fair trial by jury if we so choose.
It clearly spells out that we have a right to a defense of charges.
Free speech is above all even religion! We have a right to choose if we want to believe in what ever religion or none at all and the freedom of speech does not preclude or give people the right to cause mayhem. Defamation and Lying are criminal and the States or Commonwealths have to tailor their laws so as not to infringe upon the individual rights of US citizens! Or U.S. Citizens however you wish to read that... 
I know I'm right and you know I'm right also because you wouldn't stand for being the victim of any crime repeatedly...
I know I'm right and you know I'm right also because you wouldn't stand for being the victim of any crime repeatedly...@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
20 Jun 09
Are you saying that the State Court has the right to supersede the Constitution of the Federal Government?
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Jun 09
This is the first I'd heard of this ruling and I don't agree with it one bit. The science of DNA is much more sophisticated today than it was a decade or so ago so if there's a way to prove someone's innocence or guilt it should be allowed. If the Constitution doesn't specifically spell it out it certainly should!
Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
18 Jun 09
Well you failed to link to any article describing the actual story here. Allow me to provide several details you left out.
1. He pled guilty.
2. His accomplice comfessed and rolled on him.
3. His victim identified him
4. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004
5. When asked if such evidence would indisputably prove his innocence he said it "would firmly establish his innocence or guilt."
6. Osborne's lawyer passed up advanced DNA testing at the time of his trial, fearing it could conclusively link him to the crime.
Now these are a lot of facts you left out, but the single most important fact is the HE PLED GUILTY.
When you enter a guilty plea, you forgo the right to appeal your conviction. Had he pled innocent and been found guilty I would 100% say he deserves the right to get this evidence considered. The man was guilty, he said it, his accomplice said it, and his victim said it. Case closed. Let this scumbag rot in prison instead of wasting time in our courts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527122,00.html
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
20 Jun 09
Okay Taskr I owe you a big thank you for bringing forth more of the information and also providing a link.
You have found this man guilty based on the information that you have researched and I would agree with you with exception to a point.
The point I'm looking at is that in the home invasion what are the details surrounding that accusation and pending conviction? I'm thinking why would this man Osbourne behave in such a way? I'm curious to know the motive of the crime.
His pleading guilty to the Parole board was a farce as I've described above.
Also including the words innocent or guilt might be a required phrase or he was instructed to use that wording I see no harm in that particular wording. Just saying the word guilt does not make a person guilty.
I would also want to know the truth and the DNA test would cost a lot less that the time wasted already on this issue now would it not?
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Jun 09
I didn't see where it said he had pled guilty but that he had admitted his guilt at a parole hearing. If that's the case, I've heard of people "confessing" to crimes they had always said they hadn't committed if it gave them a better chance of parole. The article you linked says this:
Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are the only states without DNA testing laws. In some other states, the laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess.
Annie
@CatsandDogs (13963)
• United States
18 Jun 09
OMG! That's awful!! And NOT right!! How dare anybody in the judicial system take away a persons right to a fair trial and not include the evidence of the case that would exonerate him!! How can anybody do this and sleep at night?!?! What is this crap? Convict anybody just so they say they did and let the REAL criminal go free? Where the hell is the justice in that??
1 person likes this
