Alaska News

Our view: DNA testing

Does convicted Alaska rapist William Osborne have a federal constitutional right to run DNA tests on evidence that might exonerate him? The U.S. Supreme Court is tackling that question. The justices heard arguments in the case Monday.

Regardless of how the court rules, it is Alaska's shame that we are one of only six states that has no law allowing some kind of post-conviction DNA testing. Courts are being asked to fill this legal void, so that state prosecutors no longer have total control over this critical decision.

In Osborne's case, prosecutors steadfastly refuse to allow new DNA testing. They say justice was done. He was identified by the victim and implicated by his co-defendant. Prosecutors note that when he sought parole, he admitted to the crime.

Those aren't conclusive reasons to deny testing in this case.

Eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable. A friend of the court brief supporting Osborne's side of the case comes from prosecutors who note that "Often times (individuals exonerated by DNA) were positively identified by multiple eyewitnesses."

Co-defendants can have their own motives for falsely implicating others. And the Innocence Project has found more than 50 cases where DNA testing exonerated innocent people who had confessed.

Today's DNA tests are more sophisticated than the test used to convict Osborne in the early 1990s. That test showed Osborne was one among millions of African-American males whose DNA matched the sample found in the condom used by the rapist. Now DNA testing can essentially match samples to a specific individual. In many exonerations, DNA testing has identified the actual perpetrator, who had been free to commit further crimes.

ADVERTISEMENT

If Osborne's DNA is not in the condom, he probably was wrongfully convicted of rape. He might still be guilty of assault or kidnapping in the case.

Osborne is not the most sympathetic character ever to seek potential exoneration through new DNA testing. Released on parole after serving 14 years for the rape, he was convicted of robbery and is back behind bars. He may well be one of the many convicts who has sought DNA testing, only to see the test confirm their guilt.

But Osborne's case has highlighted on important gap in Alaska law. Post-conviction DNA testing is a powerful tool for ensuring that the justice system has convicted the right person. Alaska needs a system for deciding when a convicted person has good cause to seek new DNA tests. Since legislators haven't set up that system, it looks like the courts will have to do the job for them.

BOTTOM LINE: All but six states provide for some kind of post-conviction DNA testing where it might establish innocence. Alaska should too.

Still high

Hearing overdue on bill to check on gasoline price gouging

A bill to limit Alaska's persistently high gasoline prices will finally get the hearing it deserves in Juneau. Rep. Kurt Olson, chairman of the state House Labor and Commerce Committee, said Friday he plans to hold two days of hearings sometime in mid-March.

That's good news to Alaskans, who pay the highest gasoline prices in the country, despite having in-state refineries and zero state taxes.

Like a companion bill in the Senate, House Bill 68 would allow Alaska's refiners to charge up to 10 percent more for gasoline, diesel and fuels than refiners charge in Washington state. Refiners' prices above 10 percent would require justification to the state Department of Law.

Reports produced by both the House Judiciary Committee and the state Department of Law concluded that the high prices charged in Alaska were driven not by retail markup, but by what refiners charge at the wholesale level.

Both reports found fundamental weaknesses in Alaska's gasoline market. Alaskans were left to debate whether we just live with the higher prices or treat motor fuels as a public necessity and regulate what Tesoro and Flint Hills, the two refiners who make them, can charge.

We need to have the debate.

Rep. Pete Petersen, the bill's sponsor, argues that Alaska consumers are paying too much for motor fuels. He worries that the bill could get lost in the process if its first hearing, already postponed once in January, is delayed any longer.

He's got a fair worry.

Rep. Olson warns that regulation could have unintended consequences -- such as the closing of the Flint Hills refinery. But he's promised a fair hearing.

It's still not clear to Alaskans why our prices remain so high and what we should do about them. Let's find out.

BOTTOM LINE: Gasoline price bill deserves a hearing. Soon.

ADVERTISEMENT