High court to weigh in on right to DNA test

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — William Osborne says he’s a victim of mistaken identity and a DNA test would prove it. Alaska prosecutors say his rape and attempted murder convictions are as solid as can be, and would be pointless to revisit.

Osborne’s attorneys will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that DNA testing is not something states can choose to allow when they have doubts about a conviction, but a constitutional right.

They note that 232 prisoners around the country have been exonerated by such tests, and that Alaska is the only state that hasn’t even tried to use the ever-evolving technology to see if it might have gotten a conviction wrong.

“Most prosecutors, judges and states recognize that while DNA testing in these crimes may not always protect a conviction, it protects our system of justice by revealing the truth,” said Peter Neufeld, co-director of The Innocence Project. “Alaska is the exception.”

Neufeld’s group, which works to exonerate those who are wrongfully convicted, argues that the U.S. Constitution guarantees Osborne access to the DNA test when it says no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The state of Alaska argues that Osborne got a fair, error-free trial, and that he is trying to use nothing more than a claim of innocence to reopen a case in which there is ample evidence of his guilt.

Osborne, 36, was convicted of raping and trying to murder a woman in 1993. She identified him as one of her two attackers, he was incriminated by the other man and Osborne confessed in a detailed written statement in 2004.

Ken Rosenstein, the state’s lead lawyer for the case, said Osborne chose not to use options available to him if he had wanted to argue his innocence, including asking the governor for clemency.

“Osborne is not a very likely candidate for maintaining an innocent claim because he has confessed to his crime and he won’t declare his innocence under oath. There is otherwise no other reason to doubt the validity of his convictions,” he said.

Prosecutors point to Osborne’s own words.

“Instead of declaring his actual innocence, he has confessed, in graphic detail, to the precise crimes with which he was charged and convicted,” the state’s court brief says.