"Justices Allow Inmates to Sue for DNA Testing," by Adam Liptak in the New York Times.
The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for inmates to sue for access to DNA evidence that could prove their innocence.
The legal issue in the case was tightly focused and quite preliminary: Was Hank Skinner, a death row inmate in Texas, entitled to sue a prosecutor there under a federal civil rights law for refusing to allow testing of DNA evidence? By a 6-to-3 vote, the court said yes, rejecting a line of lower-court decisions that had said the only proper procedural route for such challenges was a petition for habeas corpus.
In her opinion for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized the narrowness of the ruling. Allowing Mr. Skinner to sue, she said, was not the same thing as saying he should win his suit.
Justice Ginsburg added that a 2009 decision, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, had severely limited the kinds of claims prisoners seeking DNA evidence can make. The Osborne decision, she wrote, “left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing state law denies him procedural due process.”
And:
In 2001, Texas enacted a law allowing post-conviction DNA testing in limited circumstances. State courts in Texas rejected Mr. Skinner’s requests under the law, saying he was at fault for not having sought testing earlier.
Mr. Skinner then sued in federal court under a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983, saying the Texas law violated his right to due process. That suit was rejected in the lower federal courts on the ground that the proper vehicle for a challenge was a petition for habeas corpus.
Section 1983 suits are often more attractive to prisoners than habeas petitions because Congress and the Supreme Court have placed significant barriers in the path of inmates seeking habeas corpus.
Justice Ginsburg wrote that a Section 1983 suit was available in cases where the relief sought by the inmate would not “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Since there was no telling whether the results of the tests Mr. Skinner sought would establish his guilt, clear him or be inconclusive, she wrote, the suit was proper.
But habeas petitions are appropriate, she wrote, where inmates seek “immediate or speedier release from confinement.”
"Supreme Court opens way for prisoners to try to gain access to DNA evidence," by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post.
There was no guarantee in the court's narrow ruling that Skinner, convicted in 1995, will ever gain access to all of the evidence recovered at the crime scene.
Texas is one of 48 states that allow at least some prisoners post-conviction access to DNA evidence, but their rules vary. More than 260 people have been exonerated after conviction through DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project, which investigates cases and represents inmates.
A divided Supreme Court decided in 2009 largely to leave the decision about testing up to Congress and state legislatures. It ruled that the convicted do not have a constitutional right to testing but left a narrow opening for those trying to prove that a state's laws governing access to DNA are inadequate.
Skinner's attorneys tested that opening by suing Gray County District Attorney Lynn Switzer, saying the decision to withhold DNA testing in his case violated his federal civil rights.
Monday's court majority said a federal court could consider that claim.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that court precedents allow civil rights challenges if the result would not "necessarily imply" the invalidity of their convictions.
"Success in his suit for DNA testing would not 'necessarily imply' the invalidity of his conviction," Ginsburg wrote of Skinner's suit. "While test results might prove exculpatory, that outcome is hardly inevitable. . . . Results might prove inconclusive, or they might further incriminate Skinner."
Ginsburg seemed to indicate it might be difficult for Skinner to ultimately prevail and win access to DNA evidence. The court's 2009 ruling "left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing state law denies him procedural due process," Ginsburg wrote.
"Court Rules For Death Row Inmate Seeking DNA Tests," by Nina Totenberg for NPR. The audio report is available at the link.
The U.S. Supreme Court has pried open the courthouse door a crack for prisoners who after their convictions seek access to evidence for DNA testing. By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that prisoners have a right to use federal civil rights law to get such material.
Texas leads the nation in the number of prisoners freed by DNA testing, with 41 DNA exonerations, but its state law imposes limits on such post-conviction testing. The Supreme Court's ruling on Monday allowed prisoners to challenge those limits in federal court.
And:
Defense attorneys saw the ruling as an important victory. "There have been for many years a couple of procedural dragons that stood in the way of prisoners trying to use the federal civil rights act to get DNA testing that could exonerate them," says Nina Morrison, a senior staff lawyer at the Innocence Project. Monday's ruling "slayed those dragons," she says.
In order to prevail now, says Morrison, Skinner will have to show that by barring DNA testing for any defendant who failed to ask for it at trial, the state is unreasonably erecting barriers to evidence that could prove innocence.
Outside Texas, such barriers have been tumbling down of late. Just last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated a provision in that state's law that barred post-conviction testing in cases where the defendant had confessed.
Nonetheless, many prosecutors were dismayed by Monday's Supreme Court ruling. Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, says that "in the real world, people in prison have a lot of time on their hands" and "they now have an entire new avenue" to bring legal challenges.
"Justices rule for death row inmate who wants DNA testing," by David Savage for the Los Angeles Times.
The 6-3 decision opens a narrow window for prisoners to sue and obtain DNA evidence that went untested at the time of their trials.
The Innocence Project in New York says 266 prisoners have been freed because of DNA evidence since 1989, including 17 inmates on death row. Though all states permit prisoners to obtain new tests of evidence under certain circumstances, prosecutors have often resisted.
"Supreme Court rules in favor of prisoners in DNA case," by Joan Biskupic in USA Today.
In Skinner's current appeal, lower federal courts ruled he could not assert a federal civil rights claim to obtain analysis of the remaining, untested items years after conviction.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the high court's opinion, which reversed that stance and made clear that prisoners may bring such a federal civil rights claim. Yet the court noted that state laws still curtail to varying degrees prisoner access to DNA evidence and their ability to bring a new claim of innocence.
Ginsburg stressed that a key Supreme Court ruling from 2009 "severely limited the federal action a state prisoner may bring for DNA testing" in the face of restrictive state laws regarding DNA evidence.
So while Monday's decision enhances prisoners' ability to assert a claim for DNA testing, the decision offers no guarantees an inmate would be allowed access to the evidence. DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 250 people in 34 states, according to the Innocence Project, which helps prisoners establish their innocence through DNA analysis.
Ginsburg noted that Texas officials have offered "several reasons why Skinner's complaint should fail for lack of merit" and that the court was not addressing those arguments Monday.
"There's Hope After Habeas for Inmates, Court Rules," by Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service.
"Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Death-Row Inmate Seeking DNA Evidence," by Ariane De Vogue at ABC News.
Earlier coverage of the Skinner case begins with the preceding post; next, Texas coverage.
Comments