In the case of District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. William G. Osborne (2008), William Osborne, who was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault in 1993, sought access to biological evidence (a condom and hairs) from his trial for DNA testing with methods not available at the time of his trial. He argued that he had a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to access this evidence to prove his innocence post-conviction. However, The U.S Supreme Court ruled against him in a 5-4 decision stating that there is no constitutional right guaranteeing state prisoners access to biological evidence used in their conviction for advanced DNA testing after they have been found guilty.

In the dissenting opinion for District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. William G. Osborne (2008), Justice Stevens argued that denying a prisoner access to DNA evidence that could potentially prove his innocence is fundamentally unfair and violates due process rights under the Constitution. He emphasized that modern DNA testing methods provide an unprecedented level of reliability and accuracy in criminal cases, which can be crucial in preventing wrongful convictions or exonerating those already wrongfully convicted. Furthermore, he pointed out that there was no compelling reason given by the state to deny Osborne access to such evidence; concerns about frivolous claims or overwhelming courts with requests were unfounded as other states have managed these issues without problem through reasonable regulations and procedures.