The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), held that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment, emphasizing the necessary protections it affords the accused. However, in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), the Court held that an accused does not have a due process right under the United States Constitution to obtain evidence to conduct DNA testing to prove actual innocence.
a. In your own words, explain whether the above statements about the rulings in Duncan and Osborne fully and accurately capture what the Supreme Court decided. Consider the core reasoning behind these rulings in your explanation.
b. Given that the Due Process Clause is intended to protect the rights of the accused, how should public policy address the balance between these rights and the limitations imposed by the Osborne decision? Should policy reforms be considered to ensure greater access to evidence like DNA testing, and if so, how?
- The Right to Privacy and Its Evolution
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), held that the Due Process Clause includes an inherent "right to privacy" of which affords women the right to choose to have an abortion. This reasoning followed in a long line of cases addressing the fundamental right to privacy. The Supreme Court recently overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 US __ (2022), and held that the right to an abortion is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause.
a. Discuss whether the Dobbs decision only applies to abortion issues, or if it also threatens other court rulings that established the fundamental right to privacy. Include examples from the majority opinion to support your view.
b. Considering the potential shift in how the right to privacy is viewed after Dobbs, what could be the implications for privacy rights in criminal justice?
Full Answer Section
- Policy Considerations:
The Osborne decision has raised concerns about the potential for wrongful convictions and the need for reforms to ensure greater access to DNA testing. While the Court has not established a constitutional right to DNA testing, public policy can play a significant role in addressing this issue.
Possible policy reforms to ensure greater access to DNA testing could include:
- Expanding statutory rights: States can enact legislation that grants individuals the right to DNA testing in certain circumstances, such as when there is a reasonable probability that it could exonerate the accused.
- Providing funding for DNA testing: Governments can allocate funds to support DNA testing in criminal cases, particularly for indigent defendants.
- Improving the process for requesting DNA testing: States can streamline the process for requesting DNA testing, making it easier for individuals to access this evidence.
- The Right to Privacy and Dobbs
- Implications of Dobbs:
The Dobbs decision has the potential to threaten other court rulings that established the fundamental right to privacy. In the majority opinion, the Court explicitly stated that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions, and therefore is not protected by the Due Process Clause. This reasoning could be applied to other privacy-related rights, such as the right to contraception, same-sex marriage, or the right to intimate relationships.
For example, the Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a right to privacy in the use of contraceptives, could be revisited in light of Dobbs. The Court's reasoning in Griswold relied on a broader concept of privacy that was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, similar to the reasoning in Roe. If the Court adopts a more restrictive view of privacy, it could potentially undermine other privacy-related rights.
- Implications for Criminal Justice:
The potential shift in how the right to privacy is viewed after Dobbs could have significant implications for privacy rights in criminal justice. For example, the Court's decision in Katz v. United States, which established a right to privacy against unreasonable government searches and seizures, could be re-examined. If the Court adopts a narrower view of privacy, it could lead to greater government intrusion into individuals' lives, including in the context of criminal investigations.
Sample Answer
1. The Right to a Jury Trial and DNA Testing
a. Analysis of Duncan and Osborne:
The statements accurately capture the core holdings of Duncan and Osborne. In Duncan, the Court held that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right incorporated to the States through the 14th Amendment. This decision was based on the belief that a jury trial provides essential protections for the accused, such as the right to be judged by their peers and the ability to present a defense.
In Osborne, however, the Court ruled that an accused does not have a constitutional right to obtain DNA evidence for testing. The Court reasoned that while the Due Process Clause protects the accused from unfair trials, it does not guarantee access to all potentially exculpatory evidence. The Court emphasized that the decision to grant access to DNA testing is a matter of state law and policy.