"In an appalling 5-to-4 ruling on Thursday, the Supreme court's conservative majority tossed aside compelling due process claims, the demands of justice and a considered decision by a lower federal appeals court to deny the right of prisoners to obtain post-conviction DNA testing that might prove their innocence. ... Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted the 'unparalleled ability' to prove guilt or innocence using DNA evidence. But he treated that breakthrough more as an irritant than an oppotunity. ... As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, 'There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and rthere are many reasons to provide it.' ... We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration's decision to side with Alaska in this case", my emphasis, Editorial at the NYT, 19 June 1009, link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/oinion/19fri1.html.
I opposed JR elevation to Supremes believing him a spoiled, unscrupulous child of privilege. This is the "Supremes" worst decision since Kelo. If proof of actual innocence isn't enough, what is JR? A writ from the Master himself? What did JR learn at Harvard Law School: to play word games. I hope on judgment day you are sent to Dante's Ninth Circle of Hell. JR and Alito making this decision, did not surprise me. That Thomas and Scalia exhibited such contempt for facts is shocking. I see the issue this way: In substance, SUBSTANCE, remember the law respects substance over form, Osborne moved for a new trial based on new evidence, an improved DNA test. Osborne offered to pay for the test with his own money. Alaska says no deal. If I were a Federal District Court judge hearing a habeas corpus case, I would release Osborne. Why? The best evidence rule, Clifton v. US, 11 L ed 957, 960 (1846), "The meaning of the rule is, ... no evidence shall be admitted, which, from the nature of the case, supposes still greater evidence behind in the party's possession or power". My presumption: Kenneth Rosenstein, Alaska Assistant Attorney General will not submit Osborne's DNA to a jury because it's already been tested and would exonerate him. What's JR's problem? Osborne be a "niggah" and ain't got no rights. JR, you disgust me to elevate "due process" whatever that means over substance. To call the trial "fair" begs the question. The Supremes here are just playing word games.