• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Jefferson Defense: He Never Intended to Follow Through with Bribe | Main | Private Meeting Clears Path for Civil Rights Nominee »

June 18, 2009


John V. Siskopoulos, Esq.

In the DNA case the defendant should have brought this forth as a habeas proceeding-perhaps the result would have been different here. The funniest thing about this opinion is Justice Alito goes very much out of his way to discount DNA evidence. For every man that has been a subject of a paternity proceeding, I suggest you call Justice Alito as a witness on your behalf.

Mel Ellington

Re the age discrimination case, I agree with majority that it should be the employee’s burden of proving that “but for” the age discrimination he would have not been reassigned. As a 59 year old (non-lawyer/layman) unemployed person who is seeking employment, that might put me at a disadvantage in securing employment, but I think it’s fair and reasonable.
Re the DNA case, in my opinion it is essentially a matter of substantive due process. The SCT seems to be saying that the government’s procedural due process trumps the individual’s substantive due process. However, the government doesn’t stand to lose much here, whereas the individual stands to lose a great deal, and in some cases the life of the individual could be lost if denied a DNA test. Justice must be the touchstone in such serious life and death cases, and the SCT failed to do that.


Now that the supreme court conservative justices have denied convicts the right to DNA, it will only take having conservative majorities in state legislatures to repeal state laws that allow such testing. Why? Because it costs the states money to compensate the wrongly convicted. This supreme ruling is a big step backward for justice. The supreme court justices talked about fairly tried and convicted. Ronald Cotton was "fairly" tried and convicted. If there had been no posted conviction test, he would never have got out of jail. Many of those who have been exonerated by DNA in the past were apparently "fairly" tried and convicted even though they were innocent of the crimes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad