On June 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne and held there is no due process violation in denying a convicted defendant's postconviction request for DNA testing when he claims it will exonerate him. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response." Continuing, he stated that "[t]he dilemma [of] how to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice" is a task relegated to the states to decide.
Massachusetts is one of only four states in the nation that has yet to enact a statute addressing postconviction access to forensic and scientific analysis of biological evidence. A bill, co-drafted by New England Law’s own, Professor David Siegel, and introduced to the Massachusetts’ House and Senate in January 2009 hopes to change this. The bill outlines the procedures and requirements of not only accessing postconviction DNA evidence, but also guidelines for the preservation biological material and evidence after conviction. Stay tuned to track the progress of this bill.
Massachusetts is one of only four states in the nation that has yet to enact a statute addressing postconviction access to forensic and scientific analysis of biological evidence. A bill, co-drafted by New England Law’s own, Professor David Siegel, and introduced to the Massachusetts’ House and Senate in January 2009 hopes to change this. The bill outlines the procedures and requirements of not only accessing postconviction DNA evidence, but also guidelines for the preservation biological material and evidence after conviction. Stay tuned to track the progress of this bill.