DNA testing in criminal cases is becoming an extremely powerful tool which can be used to convict or acquit a suspect in a crime. Widely used in rape cases, DNA testing can show how many perpetrators were involved in a crime. DNA technicians are able to isolate separate profiles and determine the number of contributors. In one specific case in Alaska, the Supreme Court found denied convicted rapist, William Osborne, the right to post-conviction DNA testing.
Osborne is willing to pay for the testing, so it's obvious he believes the testing will prove his DNA will not be found on whatever evidence sample was found. In this case the evidence is a used condom. This case brings up two questions in my mind. First, why didn't Osborne get DNA testing during the trial? Second, will DNA testing prove his innocence, or simply that he wasn't the one wearing the condom?
Without full case data in front of me I can only make assumptions based on editorials and blog posts I've read. Comments from a San Fransisco Chronicle article say that DNA testing was done in the trial. However, the trial was about 15 years ago, and was not as sophisticated as today's technology. The defense opted to withdraw from further testing because they believed it would help convict their client. Now, 15 years later, it appears that they've changed their minds. I can understand that, because old DNA technology tended to result in many false inclusions.
The second question is will the testing prove Osborne's innocence? Vigilant Antis has an entry that shows Mr. Osborne isn't a first time offender. The rape allegedly involved more than one perpetrator. In this case, the DNA evidence sample is a used condom, worn by one of the perpetrators. Osborne cannot be eliminated as a suspect simply because he wasn't the individual wearing that condom. There's a chance he didn't leave DNA evidence behind. DNA evidence needs to be combined with all other forms of evidence to determine a finding.
In this case, Osborne is willing to pay for the DNA testing, so I see no reason for the court to deny him of it. If the court believes Osborne was the one wearing the condom during the rape, then DNA testing could exclude him from that.
Kenneth Brooks wrote a very informative post on the topic. He believes the courts have stripped Osborne of his inalienable rights. Read his post: Supreme Court DNA Testing decision is a concern.
This Washington Post article gives some good background information on the case, and Osborne.
