California Supreme Court denies death row inmate's request for DNA testing

[flashl]

The justices in a 5-2 decision say there is overwhelming evidence that Charles Keith Richardson took part in the slaying of an 11-year-old Tulare girl.

SAN FRANCISCO -- A death row inmate will not be allowed a DNA test to determine whether he left biological evidence at a murder scene because the results would have made no difference to the jury that condemned him, the California Supreme Court ruled 5 to 2 Thursday.

In a decision written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the state high court said that Charles Keith Richardson had failed to show that a DNA test, even one eliminating him as the source of hairs found where an 11-year-old Tulare County girl was murdered, "could raise a reasonable probability" of overturning his conviction and death sentence. In a companion case, the court also unanimously upheld Richardson's penalty.

The court's decision, which interpreted a state law granting DNA requests in defense innocence claims, is likely to deny inmates genetic testing when a trial judge determines there is other, strong evidence of guilt.

In the case before the court, the hairs Richardson wanted tested were the only physical evidence against him. Prosecutors said he admitted guilt to police, although he quickly retracted his statement. His lawyer said Richardson is mentally retarded.

LA Times

[BlooInBloo]

1. If it's so overwhelming, then they shouldn't be scared of a DNA test.

[EFerrari]

2. Bastard. n/t

[qazplm]

3. I like the military law standard much better

you just need some evidence, not reasonable probability.

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. me too

wayyyyy easier to frame people that way

[qazplm]

5. huh?

My post was that the military appeals courts say you simply need some evidence to order new testing, not a reasonable probability.

thus a BETTER standard for those convicted to get DNA testing, not a harder one.