---
title: 'U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Constitutional Right to DNA Testing'
description: 'On November 3, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a non-capital case from Alaska in which the defendant asserts that the constitution requires the state…'
canonical: 'https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-constitutional-right-to-dna-testing'
section: news
date: '2008-11-04T19:23:20-05:00'
updated: '2025-03-14T14:25:37-04:00'
source: 'Death Penalty Information Center'
---

On November 3, the **US Supreme Court** agreed to hear a non-capital case from Alaska in which the defendant asserts that the constitution requires the state to allow DNA testing on evidence from his trial so that he can prove his **innocence**. In *District Attorney's Office v Osborne* (No 08-6), the Court will initially consider whether William Osborne may bring a civil rights claim (under 42 USC 1983) demonstrating that the state has violated his constitutional right to due process by refusing to turn over the evidence for testing. Osborne was convicted in 1994 of a sexual assault and the testing on evidence from the crime scene tended to point to his guilt. Today, however, more sophisticated testing is available that might exonerate Osborne.

The case is on appeal by the state of Alaska, which is challenging a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that Osborne was entitled to the testing partly because the state is required to turn over exculpatory evidence even after a defendant's trial. The state has argued that there needs to be finality in its courts' decisions, but the Ninth Circuit stated:

Although finality is undoubtedly an important consideration,  
it is not such an immovable force as to override the due  
process interests presently at stake. If Osborne already had in  
hand the exculpatory evidence he seeks and filed a habeas  
petition stating a valid claim for relief, there would be no  
question that his petition must be heard despite finality considerations.  
. . . Though no doubt eroding finality, such an exception “serves as ‘an additional safeguard against  
compelling an innocent man to suffer an unconstitutional loss  
of liberty,’ guaranteeing that the ends of justice will be served  
in full.”

(Osborne v. District Attorney's Office, No. 06-35875 (9th Cir. April 2, 2008) (internal citations omitted).

(See [SCOTUS.blog](https://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-grants-two-cases-2/), Nov. 3, 2008). See also [**Supreme Court**](/news-us-supreme-court?did=248&scid=38) and [**Innocence**.](/innocence-and-death-penalty?did=412&scid=6)