October Term 2008 · Docket 08-6

Does the Constitution require states to provide postconviction access to DNA evidence?

A convicted man seeks DNA testing to prove innocence. The state denies a constitutional right to that access.

Official caption
District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Katyal argued the Ninth Circuit created a novel right. He stated Osborne does not defend that rationale. He claimed Osborne mints a new liberty interest.

    Mr. Neufeld stated a DNA test could prove innocence. He argued the test is undisputed in its potential. He emphasized the importance of actual innocence.

    Mr. Rosenstein noted Alaska recognizes DNA evidence importance. He stated the state provides pretrial access. He highlighted postconviction procedures for retesting.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether the Constitution grants prisoners a right to access DNA evidence after conviction. The state argues no such right exists. The prisoner claims a liberty interest in this access.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 2, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The state wants the Court to reject the new constitutional right. It seeks to limit DNA access to state procedures.

The prisoner wants the Court to recognize a liberty interest. He seeks access to DNA testing to prove innocence.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The state argues the Ninth Circuit created a novel right. It claims no constitutional entitlement exists for postconviction DNA access.

The prisoner argues a liberty interest exists. He claims access to clemency procedures requires DNA evidence access.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the claim seeks proof of innocence. He questioned if the evidence might hurt the prisoner.

Justice Ginsburg asked when the current DNA technology became available. She sought the timeline for the requested testing.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of postconviction rights. It determines whether prisoners can access new DNA evidence. The outcome shapes state procedures for retesting biological material.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON