Reply:
Discussion 1
The Right to a Jury Trial and Access to Evidence
The statements regarding the rulings in Duncan v. Louisiana and District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne do accurately capture what the Supreme Court decided. In the Duncan case, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in all criminal cases is essential to the success of the justice system and required that states honor all requests for jury trials by the Fourteenth Amendment (2009). The court’s ruling emphasized the importance of protecting all people, whether the victim or the accused, from the potential of bias within a trial. This is especially important in cases where the accused is facing more detrimental convictions as all individuals are to be afforded a fair legal process regardless of their alleged crimes. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruling in the Osborne case made it clear to the accused that they are required to follow the laws of their state and exhaust all possible options before filing petitions with the federal court thus exhibiting a limitation on due process (District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 2024).
Public policy should aim to balance these rights and the limitations resulting from the Osborne decision by establishing a framework for due process clauses that are identical nationwide. Therefore, regardless of the state, all people are allotted their right to due process and also allow for DNA testing that could be significant to a case even after conviction. Reforms could be vital in aiding in accomplishing the goal of achieving justice while upholding the rights of all involved.
The Right to Privacy and Its Evolution
Although Dobbs’s decisions solely address the right to abortion, it does threaten other court rulings. The majority opinion argued that a woman’s right to an abortion was not deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition and as a result is not protected by the due process clause (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2022). The majority opinion heavily relies on historical tradition for reviewing the rights of women, however, this same opinion can affect other due process rights. For example, same-sex marriage is one of many cases that Supreme Court Justice Thomas has openly suggested should be reconsidered (Stolberg, 2022). Amongst many others, Justice Thomas has shown that the same thought process utilized to overturn decisions made in Roe v. Wade may very well trickle down to other court rulings that established the right to privacy.
The shift in how the right to privacy is viewed can result in a multitude of implications for privacy rights. Law enforcement may be one of the greatest affected by this as many protections may no longer be in place, thus, allowing for practices that were once protected to occur. This can have a grave effect on communities that are marginalized and are already ridden with issues with the justice system.
References
District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009)
District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne. (2024). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-6Links to an external site.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (pp. 1–213). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdfLinks to an external site.
Stolberg, S. G. (2022, June 24). Thomas’s concurring opinion raises questions about what rights might be next. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html
Discussion 2
Duncan V. Louisiana
The statements about Duncan v. Louisiana and District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne are generally accurate but simplified. In Duncan, the Court emphasized that a jury trial is crucial for safeguarding against arbitrary judicial decisions. In Osborne, the Court held that there is no constitutional right to access DNA evidence post-conviction, mainly because the state’s established procedures were deemed adequate(Thompson, 2024, p. 2). However, the ruling in Osborne also underscores the Court’s caution in expanding procedural rights without clear constitutional grounding. The core reasoning reflects the Court’s deference to state guidelines and limits on expanding due process rights beyond established precedents.
Public policy should balance protecting the accused’s rights with ensuring judicial efficiency. Given the significance of DNA evidence in proving innocence, policy reforms should allow broader access under stringent guidelines to prevent misuse(National Institute of Justice, 2023). Such reforms could include federal standards for post-conviction DNA testing, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not unduly limited while maintaining the justice system’s integrity.
Roe V. Wade
The Dobbs decision primarily targets abortion but signals potential threats to other privacy rights. The majority opinion in Dobbs argues that the right to abortion is not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history (Supreme Court of the United States, 2022, p. 2). This rationale could be applied to challenge other privacy rights, such as contraception or same-sex marriage, stemmingfrom substantive due process interpretations. This shift in judicial philosophy suggests a more restrictive interpretation of rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, leaving other privacy-related decisions vulnerable to challenge.
After Dobbs, the view of privacy rights could shift, potentially limiting protections in criminal justice, especially regarding surveillance and data privacy. The decision could embolden challenges to established privacy precedents (Clayton et al., 2022, p.1). The result would be reduced expectations of privacy in various contexts, such as searches and using personal data in criminal investigations, thereby affecting the balance between state power and individual rights.
References
Clayton, E. W., Embí, P. J., & Malin, B. A. (2022). Dobbs and the future of health data privacy for patients and healthcare organizations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac155
National Institute of Justice. (2023, November 28). The Impact of False or Misleading Forensic Evidence on Wrongful Convictions. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions
Supreme Court of the United States. (2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (pp. 1–213). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Thompson, D. (2024). Post-Conviction Access to a State’s Forensic DNA Evidence for Post-Conviction Access to a State’s Forensic DNA Evidence for Probative Testing: Not a Freestanding Constitutional Right Probative Testing: Not a Freestanding Constitutional Right. Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, 6(2), 7. https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=tjlp
Reply to at least two (2) of your classmates’ posts and with a cite to an independent source (Don’t simply agree or disagree and cite to your original posting, the purpose is to create a true discussion). Replies must be posted by Sunday of the current week at 11:59pm [ET] and must be at least 150 words each.