Powered by TypePad

« That Would be A Heck Of A Father's Day Gift | Main | What He Said, What He Meant »

June 20, 2009



Increasingly, I find newspaper coverage of decisions is not based on a careful reading of the opinions but rather an emphasis on which outcome the "make a difference"(MAD) journo thought would be most correct.

So--in MAD journalism, a black man was denied the best available DNA testing--and that's what this case is about, TM..everything else is simply extraneous.

Jack is Back!

Alaska? Well, isn't it obvious that Sarah had something to do with this? I'll wait until Sully discovers that the defense should have taken Trig's DNA while they were at it.


Dam it not everything is in the Constitution, some things must be handled by the legislature. That is what the court said. I happen to think they are right.


Jack is Back,

Yesterday on Local Talk Radio, Sarah's Lieutenant Governor, Republican Sean Parnell, did an interview, wherein he confirmed that currently the way State Law is written, that any Ethic's Complaints against either the Governor or Lieutenant Governor must be defended/fought by their own out of pocket funds, not by any Government moneys at all, yet that whoever is bringing the charges can be funded by any outside organization and does not have to reveal the source or amount of their own funding. He was on, trying to publicize a way to change the Law, to something like loser pays for frivolous lawsuits, etc, and was adamant is stating that in particular this Ethic's Lawsuit practice, unlike with any previous Alaskan Governor, was currently being used as a tool to try to economically punish or destroy her. We know that currently she is 14 for 14 in winning these things, but the host mentioned something quickly which was glossed over and I believe it was that 75 Ethics Complaints may ultimately be in the pipeline against her. I had not seen or heard that before and don't want to confirm something I haven't had a good look at, so I'll call in on Monday and try to track that down. It is bad enough she's had to spend over $50,000 to go 14 for 14 at this point.


It's an outrage. In federal court and in most states there's rule 11 or a local variation on it which allows the winner to sue the plaintiff AND lawyer for the other side for bringing a frivolous action or advancing a frivolous motion.

Perhaps she can devise some civil rights or other creative complaint and bundle all these plaintiffs together as defendants, and insist in discovery on the right to ascertain who's paying for this.

Maybe even citizens could d o this claiming its a round about way to deprive them of the services of their elected governor.


Those ethics charges you say are in the pipeline for the Governor of the State of Alaska makes me yearn for "loser pays" legislation. And I hope you know that I mean the loser would pay Sarah's expenses.


Add another zero to that,Daddy,75 complaints
that's quite a mouthful, than again how did we end up with 14.


Whew! What liars the NYTimes editors are. And what a loser Matt Y is.


Which program was that Daddy, Rydell, Burke,
Fagan, or some one else


The Interview with Sarah's Lt Governor Sean Parnell was in hour 3 of the Dan Fagan Radio Show for Friday. The Link to that Podcast of hour 3 is easily locatable here.">http://www.kfqd.com/podcast_info">here. The interviewer is not Fagan but a guest host and a second guy, both liberal's, who do not do a very good job. They are more interested in some ongoing gay ordinance kerfluffle, but at about the 31 minute mark is about a 4-5 minute discussion by Parnell about these Ethic's Complaint's. I've listened 3 times and can't tell if when the host mentions a further 75 complaints in the pipeline if thats true or not, which is why I need to verify on Monday before publicizing it as fact. The unfortunate thing is that it wouldn't surprise me if it was factual.


A stellar example of a man sits imprisoned by the Chimpy/'Cuda regime and the only thing that can save hime is some justice tempered by Latina Wisdom™.



Typepad keeps eating my posts so I won't do any links. If you go to the ADN homepage and enter in the search-page Sarah Palin Ethics Comp[aints, you will find 2 stories of recent interest. 1 is about a Blogger group starting a Palin Ethics Complaint Defense Fund.
The second is 3 stories on a local Republican introducing Legislation that would prevent the publication of any of these anti-Sarah Ethics Complaints until they have been reviewed by a board and determined to have some legitimacy. The Legislators already have that system. Only the Governor and Lt Governor have nos such protection, and he is trying to get that passed asap.

These is my 3rd effort at trying to repost this info. Sorry if they suddenly all pop up.

And you are right. It was $500,000. Not $50,000. My mistake.

Joan Minor

Re: "Here’s a beaut of a decision from the increasingly brutal and inhumane conservative-dominated Supreme Court."

After eight years of this crap, I still find myself amazed as well as repulsed at Democrats, the left, and liberals. What poison fuels their hateful thoughts and rhetoric?


No, I figured it had to come from the mind of someone like Fagan, that was the villain in Oliver Twist no, right daddy, I didn't know about this blogger complaint defense fund, that's separate from the defense fund, but I did know about Robert Lynn's efforts.


I figure that little project is what the A.D. News is yammering on about, to retire that half a mill debt,in the LUN

Jay Stevens

What does the presumed guilt of Osborne have anything to do with his right to ask for a DNA test? Do you only extend due process to the innocent? And how do you determine innocence or guilt with absolute certainty without DNA testing? Especially if DNA testing is the only reliable method, scientifically speaking, for linking physical evidence to a suspect? (According to a National Academy of Sciences study, anyway.)

Given that in a disturbingly large percentage of convictions overturned by DNA testing prosecutors tried to block those tests, you'd think the right to DNA testing would serve as a balance to the arbitrary caprices of the state.


"The right to DNA testing"?

That constitution is getting pretty darn bulky.

If nothing else the people who brought this case might as well have been working for the other side.


Dear Jay, you made TM's point yet again. The record in this case is that his atty deliberately refused to allow a more comprehensive test because she velieved her client guilty, she believed that test would prove it, and without that test she would argue ambiguity in the eyewitness account.

It was only afterward that Osborne asked to be tested and at that point the SCOTUS indicated whether or not the state was obligated to provide him this test post conviction (and post his refusing a more accurate test than he had taken) was a matter for the state.
It doesn't rule out automatically any right to access to DNA testing--it just suggests that when you ask for it first out of time post conviction, the state has a right to determine whether it chooses to grant it or not.



Well I am glad that the New York Times is now so interested in determining an individuals innocence. That is why we have been reading all their front page stories about that "confused, disorganized, and unable to answer questions" fired AmeriCorps Inspector General.

Rick Ballard


Now, Clarice, don't get ruffled by the nerf brains. After all, this fellow is only echoing Matthew Yglesias who, I believe, has a degree from Harvard?. I also believe it's a PhBbbbt or somesuch, like Josh Whatshisname. Surely these highly credentialed morons deserve a more sympathetic kick in the ass, with the intent of shaking their brains loose hearing.


I don't know what these clowns got their degrees in. My son got his from Harvard in biochemistry and he's the smartest person I ever knew.

hit and run

I also believe it's a PhBbbbt or somesuch

Well, I just phbbbbtttt'd all over my keyboard.

Ralph L

Why didn't the prosecution try the better DNA test?


I don't know. TM's recitation of facts from the opinion indicates the crime occurred 16 years ago and perhaps then the two tests--the less determinative one he took and the more accurate one he refused--were the only two then available to Alaskan defendants.

Jim Miller

Tom - Looks like you found another "two newspapers in one" example for Taranto.

As uneven as the reporting at the New York Times often is, I still wish that the columnists and editorial writers would read their own newspaper from time to time.

Original MikeS

Scooter Libby was convicted of lying when he said he didn't remember what he remembered or what he had forgotten during a conversation he had some months earlier with Tim Russert.

The court didn't allow a memory expert to testify in this trial.


Gosh, Matt Y is a ignoramus about law, isn't he? That exercepted piece of his is soo rife with biases wrongheadedness he almost deserves an award. The law might be an a** from time to time, but Matty, well, day in day out, eh?


I have found that Yglesias has been ignorant
about a great many things, particularly his forte, which is supposed to be history, from more than a few exchanges around this time last year; when he entertained the noxious vapors of Nicolson Baker's "Human Smoke" and Pat Buchanan' previous effusion.
He was one of those nattering on about a 2.5 trillion dollar budget for Iraq, but a 3.5 trillion dollar budget he is silent on;
I guess that's a byproduct of Dalton School
and Harvard.

Rick Ballard

I suppose we should differentiate between the velcro and loafer grads and those capable of actually solving differential equations. Economics presents a snag in that respect though. Some of 'em can solve differential equations but zippers and shoe strings are still beyond their ken.


Yes, you do have to differentiate..I know a number of perfectly smart grads from there..not so many in literature or social sciences to be sure..


Yes, you do have to differentiate.

And integrate too! Differential equations require it.



*watch the flying ashtray, Dr*


dads are key to making us human at LUN


Hmm, just a few weeks ago we learned that cooking is what makes us human. So I guess Dad at the grill covers all the bases.

Bryan C

It's disappointing that the NYT can't bother to accurately present the facts. I'm sure there are far more sympathetic cases than Osborne.

That said, comprehensive routine DNA testing (or re-testing) is probably inevitable for lots of reasons, some of them good. We might as well get on with making the technology affordable, accurate, and fast enough for widespread use.


You may well be right, Bryan,but that doesn't suggest the SCOTUS should decide what tests each state must use and how many bites at the DNA apple and when a defendant should get, which is what this case was about.


I know we should hold the paid media to a higher standard - after all they do say they are the professionals. However, I have the same problem with bloggers.

The great thing about the internet is you can go to the source and check whether the bloggers rhetoric matches the article.

Trust is easy if your are comfortable with a blogger, but verify is important.

Jay Stevens

It doesn't rule out automatically any right to access to DNA testing--it just suggests that when you ask for it first out of time post conviction, the state has a right to determine whether it chooses to grant it or not.

Why? I see no compelling interesting for the state. There's not even any financial cost: Osborne offered to pay for the test.

And back to my point: all are entitled to due process, even if they're icky or had poor defense counsel. If DNA testing is the only reliable forensic science, it seems that the state shouldn't have any choice over whether or not to deny the test. If the accused has the right to confront those bringing testimony against him, it follows he should have the right to confront the material evidence even after the conviction.

I don't understand why anybody would be against this. There's no reason to deny access to DNA to a convict, other than the arbitrary moods of locally elected officials.

Or all here ready to affirm that the state is completely incapable of erring, or worse?


In this case, I think a good analogy would be a defendant who opted not to testify in his own defense at the trial, and then after he was convicted comes back and demands a new trial and the right to testify this time. And then after losing that trial, come back and demand new witnesses. Etc., etc.

The more exact test was available at the time of his trial. If this was a new test, that would be different.


Every trial involves a substantial expenditure of state resources and puts the victims/witnesses and state to great inconvenience which is why in every country in the world there is a rule in essence saying all good things come to an end here--

Imagine how the convicted prisoners could create havoc in any system if there were no rules as to when and how certain defenses had to be raised and when defendants were held responsible for their litigation choices.

The comments to this entry are closed.