My reaction was at first the same, but the details of this specific case raise serious questions. The defendent was not denied DNA testing at trial; rather, his lawyer chose not to pursue it, feeling that it was possible that it would secure his conviction rather than his release. That casts this after-the-fact request in a new light. Clearly the defendent had a reasonable suspicion that his DNA might be present on the victim; why else choose not to test during the trial? Now, however, having thrown the dice once in hopes of an aquittal, he wants another chance to gamble, this time hoping that the DNA might not be present and thus might suggest a new conclusion. With all due respect to the value of DNA evidence, these are not the actions of an innocent man, and I wholly understand the prosecutors' reasons for opposing this specific request.

The issue before the court was not a matter of guilt or innocence, but a matter of a state's right to set and enforce their own law. While they ruled that prisoners have no federal constitutional right to DNA testing, it left open the door that Alaska could still choose to allow DNA testing on their own. I believe the decision belongs in the hands of the Alaskan legislature, not the Supreme Court.

I would encourage all interested in this case and in other similar cases to petition as hard as possible for those states to finally allow testing. It is in their own best interest and in the best interest of these prisoners and victims to do so. For every innocent man put in jail for rape, a real rapist remains on the loose. Rapes can be the hardest cases to defend...victims can often pressure themselves into pointing out the "perpetrator" in a lineup even if they are not 100% sure if it is the right person. Most innocent men convicted of rape were convicted without DNA evidence in cases based upon flawed testimony by the victim...this happens at an alarming rate. If DNA is available for testing post-conviction, I believe it should be used...but it should be up to the states to decide.

I don't know what to feel when I heard about the Supreme Courts decision. No matter how much I tell myself that these Justices are good people doing a difficult job, I cannot help the feeling in my gut that the Supreme Court Justices are betraying the ordinary citizens of this country and they are prostituting themselves at the feet of political ideology and legal convention. I cannot think of an issue that is easier to view as an iconic issue for the rights of American citizens than upholding the rights of all citizens to access evidence that may definitively prove their innocence, no matter when that evidence becomes available. This is particularly true when the evidence arises as the result of scientific advances that allow a greater degree of certainty
What is even worse is that the more right wing the justices were, the more they wished to restrict the right. Alito and one of the others (I don't remember which) stated that if a defendant chose not to access DNA for tactical reasons during a trial, then they should be denied the right to access it later no matter what the State laws said.
In this case they apparently want to put the rights of lawyers to play their games ahead of the basic right to liberty and due process.
I despair of these people. I really think we need to make it easier to remove them from office.

DNA evidence should be automatically available to any person that has his constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness jeopardized. Our justices should be ashamed. Even a child can see the flawed logic of this decision.

The Supreme Court made that decision? That is scary and wrong! The ability to prove one's innocence should be basic and fundamental to ant prisoner.

Bob

Sounds like the Court needs a shake up.Every avenue must be used in proofing or disproofing a persons guilt or innocence.

the U.S. Supreme Court, which has apparently decided that the finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted in the first place.

ONLY IN AMERICA..............what has the US come to...unreal....to think of your loved on convicted of a crime he didnt commit and the ultimate way to prove his innocense by way of DNA is now not acceptable....what are the innocent people to do now...what hope do they have?? That is the most absurd thing I ever heard...

I am really surprised this man can't get a DNA test. I understand it costs money, but what if this man is innoncent, and someone else is still out doing this because he got away with it? I could be wrong, but there is that what if, that makes me want that man to be able to get a DNA test, because if he's not guilty then not only let him be set free but also find the person that is , and should have been behind those bars years ago!!

Larry Ward is a real creep. He has little to redeem him. But it is very possible way beyond reasonable doubt, that his wife committed suicide. I believe he contributed to suicide but did not murder her.

I find it absolutely shocking that the Supreme Court doesn't seem to care about "justice"! I realize the convicted had access to a jury of his peers, but hey, had the jury been provided with conclusive DNA evidence exonerating the suspect then the jury would absolutely have reached a different conclusion. If technology allows us to go back in time and search for evidence to be used to "convict", then logically, it should also be available for use in overturning a guilty verdict. How dare they vote contrary to true "justice". (Still shaking my head.)

Read the decision everyone, Jamie included. He has not been denied.

Regardless of the facts in this particular case the frightening issue as I see it is that this Supreme Court decision serves as a precedent. In the future others who petition for DNA testing may be more easily denied the opportunity. Having served on a few juries over the years I am aware of the subjective bias and perspectives of some of my fellow jurors. DNA is an objective factor that is free of any bias. It should be readily available to anyone accused and charged with crimes where DNA evidence exists.

You're darn right that is wrong. Have you read just how many people have been in prison for years and a DNA test freed them because they were not guilty. I have always said that prosecutors do not care who is or who isn't guilty, they just want a "hot body" to present to the citizens in order to show them (the citizens) that they (the prosecutors) are doing a phenomenal job and please elect them the next time there is an election. I would prefer that the guilty person be prosecuted and not just someone the the prosecutor's office can "pin" it on. BB

It is appalling that our Judicial system has convicted hundreds of people and given life sentences or worse only to find they are innocent thru DNA. Any person who has been convicted of a crime and DNA was not used in the defence should have that option to prove their innocence at any time. DNA is proving to be more reliable than any other kind of evidence.
Prosecuters give me the feeling that they don't care who is guilty as long as they have a body sitting in jail. Most of all they don't want to admit they made a mistake.
There should be some kind of penalty ( other than political ) for prosecuters who put innocent people in jail. Maybe make it a crime to convict innocent people, after the fact. Our system has some major flaws when so many people are being found guilty and later found innocent. The lives that prosecuters totally destroy is beyond imagination and prosecuters should suffer some sort of consequences.
In the interest of justice prosecuters should be the first in line to offer DNA results to find any convicted felon the right to prove his innocence. But with past expirence with prosecuters this totally will not happen. They fight tooth and nail to keep whoever is in prison in prison. No matter what. And that is totally wrong.
With our system of justice a person is to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, this is not happening to the hundreds who are being found innocent at a later date.

It's not a game. There is no rolling the dice . . . there is simply doing whatever it takes to get at the right result when being wrong leads to the worst of consequences. How much it costs can't ever be a concern in a country where liberty is paramount - the higest court in the land can't alow the posibiltiy of the unjust depirvation of that liberty because the crime happened in the wrong state.

No interest, not the strict application of state law, not the prosecutor's zeal or electoral interest in winning the case, not the deisre of the people to have perceived safety, can supersede the interest of getting the factually correct result in a criminal case. The truth . . . remember the truth? The supopsed basis of the system?

Courts routinely rule "in the interest of justice." They do so becasue they understand that while the system will never be 100% perfect or equitable, individual mistakes can and should be rectified when the alternative, an innocent man in prison (potentially), is unthinkably wrong. To recognize the limitations of the system and to take action against them where possible does not weaken thet system that protects our freedoms . . . it ultimately strenghtens it.

Jamie, I listened to the brief discussion between you and Ron Kuby and Fred Graham regarding the “wise Latina” statements made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Both Mr. Kuby and Mr. Graham had it wrong and in a very telling way (two white guys). Kuby spoke of the overwhelming number of white males who have sat on the Supreme Court and suggested the same sort of racist ideology that put them on the court should be applied now. There are two kinds of people in these social debates, those who hate oppression and those who are not trying to end oppression but just want to trade places with their oppressors. It is as if they are saying, “Racism isn’t wrong we just chose the wrong race and gender to be oppressors.” Fortunately I don’t think that was what Judge Sotomayor meant. When you said you liked ex-Senator Howell Heflin’s style then Mr. Graham mentioned his admiration for Sen. Sam Irvin. Senator Irvin was a terrible racist and a segregationist of the worst ilk who opposed integration at every turn and even publicly opposed Brown v. Board. Mr. Graham can more easily overlook that fact while focusing only on Irvin’s good works because Mr. Graham isn’t a Latina, a Black man or anyone who was brutalized by our apartheid-like past. That is what Sotomayer meant, not that her race makes her genetically superior but that her circumstances can sensitize her in such a way that the ideology of the Sam Irvins of this world won’t slip past her with a wink and a nod.
(P.S. I am a white male ex-civil rights worker and a Christian minister now)

The motto is fast becoming "guilty until proven innocent." We know where we're going. The question is in whose handbasket.

It's time to lose the system of precedence. If it was wrong or severely lacking in the past, it's going to be the same in the future. Courts need to start upholding the intent of the law and what's good for the people instead of deciding what "is" is. Such a narrow view. We'd get smacked for thinking that way.

Once an inmate is exonerated, the prosecuting attorney needs to serve the remainder of his/her sentence. Let's see if that engenders a little more honesty. Even after people are freed as being truly innocent, prosecutors insist on their guilt. We put idiots in office!

The legal system keeps saying that it's the best system we have, but they refuse to make it better or more honest. Attorneys are allowed to lie in court about the other side, while everyone else is sworn to uphold the truth. Talk about stupid!

Does anyone know if Caylee Anthony has been layed to rest. Or is she stil in a box and the coroner's.

I've always found it ironic how defense attorneys have this terrible reputation for being willing to do anything to get their client off-that is their job, and if they don't do it with zealousness, they can be disbarred! But prosecutors, who are supposed to be concerned with justice, are often guilty of the most egregious behaviour-I don't know how many times I have seen them,(and judges), willing to let an innocent man rot in prison, rather than admit that they made a mistake. Too many times to count. In my opinion, it is the defense attorney who has the noble task of protecting our rights. Taking account, of course, that there are bad attorneys, bad doctors, and bad mechanics. Caveat emptor!

While DNA has been a good tool, to take the wind out of the sails of both the article above and of the innocence project; DNA has not lead to half the prison population being exonerated. As big of a blow it is to some, when a person is convicted the state no longer has to disprove each allegation of possible innocence, the convicted bears burden to then prove they are innocent. The states bear the cost of most post-conviction proceedings. States provide the mechanism for calling a conviction into question, while i disagree with state laws which prohibit access to DNA, I wont impose a mandate on their legislatures and courts. If such an absolute right was ordained by federal courts, it would lead to hundreds of fishing expeditions where those who are guilty have nothing to lose and simply ask for a test hoping for an error in the lab that may result in a good result for them. Let each state address the unique issues of the justice system in their own state.

OMG! How can the Supreme Court declare this action constituional? This is an outrage! It reminds me of the case is Texas where the State Supreme Court said that although evidence exonerated a man set to die, that the deadline for new evidence had passed. These people were ready to kill an innocent man on a technicality! Our justice system's only goal is to prosecute the GUILTY! If there is a simple test that can be done to ensure guilt, it should be done! DNA is that test! SHAME ON OUR SUPREME COURT!!!!! How do we go about impeaching any of them? They need to be accountable for the horrible decisions they hand down.

ive been watching the mike king trial,, and understand that he was convicted of murder,, a horible crime.... Now he's on the death penalty faze.. Im not in favor of the death penalty because,, I think this monster should rot in prison and think of what he did to this poor women.. I respect jurors's decions and judges also,, but being executed is the easy way out of this.. This man mr, king should spend the rest of his life in prison and think of what he has done to tis women and to his family..

I have been watching this trial from the beginning and now in the penalty phase feel this last ditch effort to save the life of Michael King is an unnecessary waste of tax dollars. I personally have suffered two head traumas, once at 17 and was in a coma and again recently and have had no thoughts of committing any crime much less a viscoius rape and murder such as Michael King has commtted. If Mr. King receives a life sentence as opposed to Death this could change the precedence in which the death penalty is implemented because thousands of Americans have suffered head trauma without committing murder. There is no excuse for this clearly premeditated rape and murder. The only acceptable penalty should be death.