Attorney General Eric Holder, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) came out against the Supreme Court’s ruling today that DNA testing is not a constitutional right for people who try to prove their innocence after they were convicted.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Alaska was not obligated to make DNA testing available to William G. Osborne, who was convicted of rape. Alaska, Alabama, Massachusetts and Oklahoma are the only states that do not have laws that clearly allow convicts some access to DNA testing, according to the New York Times. The newspaper’s story is here.

Holder said the Supreme Court did not rule in support of “good policy” and the decision wasn’t necessarily a “wise” one.

“DNA testing helps ensure that justice is done,” Holder said in a statement. “For that reason, this administration believes that defendants should be permitted access to DNA evidence in a range of circumstances … Today’s decision reaffirmed the power of such practices, and I hope that in light of today’s decision all levels of government will follow the federal government’s lead by working to expand access to DNA evidence.”

Leahy also expressed his disappointment in the Supreme Court decision. He said the high court’s move causes “unnecessary hurdles” for convicts trying to prove their innocence.

“We should make every effort to promote DNA testing in our criminal justice system — whether before or after trial — in order to help ensure that only the guilty are convicted, never the innocent, and that the guilty do not walk free to commit more crimes,” Leahy said in a statement.

The House passed an amendment to the fiscal 2010 Commerce, Justice and science subcommittee spending bill today that added $5 million to the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which would now have a $151 budget to solve backlogged rape cases. Nadler, who offered the amendment, said Congress recognized the need for DNA testing by approving the measure.

“DNA evidence in particular has already become widely accepted in law enforcement as a reliable method of extracting unambiguous information,” Nadler said in a statement.

Ex-U.S. District Judge U. W. Clemon urged Attorney General Eric Holder to look into the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegleman, The Associated Press reported this evening.

Clemon wrote in a letter to Holder that the case brought by Alabama U.S. Attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin was the “most unfounded criminal case” the former judge ever presided over, according to The AP. Siegelman was sentenced in June 2006 to seven years in federal prison on corruption charges, but is out on bond pending an appeal.

The ex-judge from Alabama said he did not have direct knowledge of the former governor’s conviction and prosecution in a corruption case, but has been critical of a failed effort to prosecute Siegelman for mail fraud, The AP said.

Martin told AP that Clemon’s letter was “inappropriate.”

Federal prosecutors are calling for a 20 year sentence for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, according to a letter from the prosecutors and obtained by The Associated Press.

Siegelman was sentenced in June 2006 to seven years in federal prison on corruption charges, but is out on bond pending an appeal. We previously reported that he wants the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review an earlier decision by a smaller three-judge panel that let his conviction stand.

Alabama U.S. Attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin brought bribery and mail fraud charges against Siegelman in 2005, but the AP reported that Canary has since excused herself from the case. Members of Congress and 44 former U.S. Attorneys have questioned the conviction, which many critics have claimed is the politically-motivated work of then-Bush aide Karl Rove among other Republican officials.

“It’s evident that this team of prosecutors are biased and hell-bent to uphold this conviction and try to punish me as much as they can,“ Siegelman told AP about this latest move.

The Justice Department would not comment on the letter, AP said.

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is lobbying the Justice Department to intercede in his controversial case as he appeals his 2006 conviction on corruption charges, The Huffington Post reported last week.

Siegelman, a Democrat who is out on bond pending his appeal, wants the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review an earlier decision by a smaller three-judge panel that let his conviction stand. Alabama U.S. Attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin brought bribery and mail fraud charges against Siegelman in 2005, and he was sentenced in 2006 to seven years in a federal prison. Members of Congress and 44 former U.S. Attorneys have questioned the conviction, which many critics have claimed is the politically-motivated work of then-Bush aide Karl Rove among other Republican officials.

“If we get a rehearing then we have a few months to pursue options with the Department of Justice,” Siegelman told the Huffington Post in an interview. “If we don’t, then I’m going to be re-sentenced to prison by the same judge and prosecutors which I say, parenthetically with an exclamation point, is probably the most bizarre twist yet. I’d be still fighting the same right-wing [Karl] Rove-anointed and Bush-appointed prosecutors even with [Barack] Obama and [Eric] Holder in charge.”

Main Justice, however, seems uninclined to intercede. CQ’s Keith Perine reported on April 9 that Holder didn’t plan any AG-level review. The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility is already reviewing the Siegelman case.

“Because Mr. Siegelman has requested the full 11th Circuit Appeals Court to review the recent ruling by the three-judge panel, the Department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media,” said DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney. “The decision whether to hold an en banc hearing is the court’s, not DOJ’s.”

The Locust Fork News Journal, an Alabama news blog, reported in March that Siegelman needs five of the 12 judges on the 11th Circuit to agree to review his appeal. The blog reported:

 Siegelman said 11 of the 12 judges decide whether a full court hearing is justified. He said three of the judges have recused themselves in this case, including Republican Bush appointee William Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama. That leaves 8 judges to make the decision. Three of those have already voted to uphold the conviction, so he says it will require five of five votes to order a new hearing.

In April, 75 former state Attorneys General wrote Holder asking him to review the Siegelman case. Read the letter here.

Also, professor Bennett L. Gershman, author of the book, “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on behalf of Siegelman, The Huffington Post reported.

“I have never encountered another prosecution in which it appears so clearly that the prosecutors were zealously bent on pursuing an individual, rather than on a crime,” reads the note, obtained by the Huffington Post. “As an example of bad faith prosecution, the Siegelman case may be without parallel … There is no better example of the corrosive effect on the reputation of the Department of Justice… than the prosecution of Don Siegelman.”