U.S. Supreme Court Defers to the States on Handling of DNA Evidence

The U.S. Supreme Court just issued a fascinating decision on post-conviction DNA evidence.  In District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, the plaintiff, who had been convicted of a brutal crime in Alaska 15 years ago, filed a section 1983 lawsuit against the DA's office seeking the release of DNA evidence that he claimed would prove his innocence.  The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, rejected the lawsuit.  The first two paragraphs of Roberts' opinion succinctly set forth the Court's reasoning:

DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.  It has the potential to significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police investigative practices. The Federal Government and the States have recognized this, and have developed special approaches to ensure that this evidentiary tool can be effectively incorporated into established criminal procedure—usually but not always through legislation.

 Against this prompt and considered response, the respondent . . . proposes a different approach: the recognition of a freestanding and far-reaching constitutional right of access to this new type of evidence. The nature of what he seeks is confirmed by his decision to file this lawsuit in federal court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, not within the state criminal justice system.  This approach would take the development of rules and procedures in this area out of the hands of legislatures and state courts shaping policy in a focused manner and turn it over to federal courts applying the broad parameters of the Due Process Clause.  There is no reason to constitutionalize the issue in this way.  Because the decision below would do just that, we reverse.