Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
C.A.A.F. has DNA on its conference agenda.
In a post-conviction access to DNA evidence case:
The district court found that Bradley had a constitutionally protected
interest in his life but that the due process protection of that
interest was diminished by his conviction.
United States v. King, No. 07-12073, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2056 (11th Cir. 3 February 2009).
A plaintiff seeking post-conviction access to DNA evidence in a ยง 1983 action must show that denial of such access "deprived him of a federally protected right." Grayson [v. King, 460 F.3d 1328,] 1336 [(11th Cir. 2006)]. Grayson failed to demonstrate a constitutional right under Brady
because the evidence he sought was available prior to trial, he
received a fair trial, and there was no reasonable probability that the
result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence
been disclosed to him at trial. Grayson, 460 F.3d at 1339-40. Furthermore, Grayson failed to establish a due process right under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Assuming that Grayson had a liberty interest under the due process clause,
this interest was outweighed by (1) the slight probable value of
obtaining DNA access (because the results of a DNA test relating to a
rape would not exculpate Grayson of the capital murder during a
burglary and the non-biological evidence against him was overwhelming)
and (2) the government's strong interest in the finality of a duly
adjudicated judgment. Grayson, 460 F.3d at 1341-42.
because the evidence he sought was available prior to trial, he
received a fair trial, and there was no reasonable probability that the
result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence
been disclosed to him at trial. Grayson, 460 F.3d at 1339-40. Furthermore, Grayson failed to establish a due process right under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Assuming that Grayson had a liberty interest under the due process clause,
this interest was outweighed by (1) the slight probable value of
obtaining DNA access (because the results of a DNA test relating to a
rape would not exculpate Grayson of the capital murder during a
burglary and the non-biological evidence against him was overwhelming)
and (2) the government's strong interest in the finality of a duly
adjudicated judgment. Grayson, 460 F.3d at 1341-42.