Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Constitutional right of access to DNA testing

• Never mind the fact that it's an article about a particular court case but is not in fact titled as such, nor does it actually say what the name of the case is (which is Harvey v. Horan). Never mind the fact that it misinterprets and overstates what the legal principle of that case actually was (it's just an application of the right of access to exculpatory evidence under due process, not DNA testing per se). What is important is that the case wasn't even significant enough to rate publication in a case reporter. What is really important is that it was overruled a little over a year later. I'm certainly a strong supporter of legal articles, but the case stands for nothing, so cleanup and renaming isn't worth it by a long shot. --Postdlf 7:24 25 June 2004 (UTC)
• Sounds like it deserves to be covered in some form or fashion, but I don't know enough to say exactly how. Everyking 15:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The due process article should eventually explain the right of the accused to exculpatory evidence, and any article on DNA testing should mention its use as evidence in criminal trials, but that's it. This article is just flat out wrong in its interpretation of the (there unnamed) case and its failure to note that it had been overruled, and the author had inserted links to it (since deleted by me) in numerous articles that baldy claimed that the Constitution now guaranteed the specific right of DNA testing to all felons, which is patently ridiculous for a number of reasons. The case itself, as I mentioned, is in no way notable, not merely because it was overruled. It was also unpublished, which means that it was determined by the court itself to be lacking in precedential value, suitable only to dispose of the particular case at hand. Unpublished opinions are not included in any printed case reporter (though electronic databases such as Lexis include it), nor is it proper for any subsequent court opinion or legal document to cite them. Postdlf 17:08 25 June 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I should note that I'm the author of this article, so I'm biased. Nevertheless, when I originally read Postdlf's rationale for deletion here, I was inclined to agree and vote for deletion. However, I decided to first re-read the Washington Post article and do some more research on the topic, and I came to the conclusion that this article should be kept. Details of the case were also publicized in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Associated Press, and a National District Attorneys Association website. Even though it was unpublished, the decision, "attracted wide attention among prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, because it was the first time that a Federal court had specifically defined a defendant's rights regarding DNA testing." [1] But, more importantly, even though the three-judge panel of Fourth Circuit overturned the decision in January 2002, when the full Fourth Circuit convened, Judge Luttig and Fourth Circuit Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III issued concurring opinions supporting inmates' access to post-conviction DNA testing in an en banc reconsideration [2] (the opinions are non-binding since a new Virginia law gave Harvey access to DNA testing). Furthermore, an 11th Circuit ruling contradicted the 4th Circuit's ruling, leading some to speculate that the Supreme Court might eventually get involved [3]. Additionally, the case was cited in testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary committees, which led to the passage of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, a piece of legislation which included provisions for "a federal post-conviction DNA testing regimen". I'd like to correct all inaccuracies in the current version of the article and re-write it completely, including the recent developments and new information. Acegikmo1 19:37, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the use of DNA testing to prove evidence after conviction is a valid topic, but I don't think that it necessarily deserves its own article. The information could best be incorporated into DNA testing, a new section in due process on the right to exculpatory evidence, and habeas corpus (which is currently a woefully incomplete article). There should also be an article on post-conviction petitions generally, which most if not all states have (and of which habeas petitions are the federal version).

That being said, you have conviced me that the case itself is notable enough to have its own article, given the media coverage you noted and the fact that the 4th Circuit did address the case on two occasions.

However, it absolutely needs to be moved to "Harvey v. Horan". Not only should all articles about cases be titled the name of the case, but the title at current is misleading at best and false at worst. Much of the development in this area, as your comments above state as well, has been through legislation, not through constitutional recognition. Harvey and the 11th Circuit case that contradicted it were actually decided more on statutory issues involving habeas petitions and section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (the Supreme Court denied cert. from the 11th Circuit case in 2003, btw, so they weren't interested in hearing it; apparently cert. wasn't filed in Harvey.

Even as a constitutional right, the post-conviction right of access to evidence for DNA testing would not be a per se rule as you had characterized it—in some places, you even stated simply all "felons" would have the right. The proper case would obviously have to be one in which forensic evidence was material to the conviction and so one in which DNA testing could perhaps conclusively prove innocence or guilt. Obviously, the proof in many felonies doesn't hinge upon such evidence (such as white collar crimes), and even in many rape cases, there still might be other overwhelming evidence against the defendant that would obviate the need for testing, such as a substantial number of unimpeachable witnesses, video, a confession, etc.

I also read the concurrences you mentioned above, which were not actually in an en banc reconsideration, but rather in a unanimous decision by the court to deny such a rehearing. Judge Luttig, in his concurrence to the denial, though emphasizing the uniqueness and the importance of DNA testing in proving conclusive guilt or innocence, still wrote that "this is not at all to say that post-conviction access to evidence for further testing in light of scientific advance is (or ought to be) constitutionally required or permitted as a matter of course or even frequently." Harvey v. Horan, 285 F.3d 298, 306 (4th Cir. 2002). Wilkinson also supported the use of DNA testing, but thought that it was purely up to the legislature to provide for it, not the courts. "I repeat my hope that inmates such as Harvey will receive DNA testing. And I repeat my faith that the American system will provide it to them." Id. at 301.

If you can salvage the current article through renaming it to focus on the case and improve the precision of the legal explanations in light of the above comments and information, I will alter my vote to keep. If this is an issue in general that you are interested in, I fully encourage you to expand due process and habeas corpus to cover the right to post-conviction challenges generally and how DNA testing does figure into that. --Postdlf 22:38 26 June 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I started work last week and I've been trying to go through my watchlist over the last few days to get updated. I appreciate your response and concur that the article should be moved to Harvey v. Horan. I will re-write it in the next day or two, incorporating the new information while trying to remove inaccuracies and improve precision, and then I'll rename it. As a side note, I am amused that this is one of the longest VfD discussions I've seen, yet only three people have yet contributed to it. In any case, thank for your valuable input and encouragement. Acegikmo1 14:49, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)