F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Janua ry 6 , 201 0 JO HN LEY ACTING CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 10 80 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 37 6- CV-KD-M DEWAYNE S. CUNNINGH AM, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us DISTRIC T ATTO RNEY’ S OFFIC E FOR ESCAM BIA COUNTY, Defen da nt , STEPHEN M. BILLY, TOW N OF FLOMATON, A Mu ni ci pa l Co rp or at io n, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, T ROY KING, CHIEF OF POLICE, MI CHAEL LAMBERT, CIRC UIT COURT CLERK, JAMES TAYLOR, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 6, 2 01 0)Befo re BLACK an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , andRESTANI, Ju dg e. * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Dewayne S. Cu nn in gh am is anAlab am a p ris on er s erv in g ali fe s en te nc e aft er h av in g b een co nv ic te d i n 1 99 6 o f rap e in th e fi rs t d eg ree. A d ecad e aft er h e was co nv ic te d, ei gh t years af te r hi s co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l atth e en d o f th e d ire ct ap pe al pro ces s, an d fo ll owi ng m or e th anha lf ado zen sep arat e at ta ck s o n h is co nv ic ti on in st at e an d fe de ral co urt, Cu nn in gh am fil eda 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 la wsu it . This laws ui t, b ro ug hton Cu nn in gh am ’s beh al f by the W is co ns in In no cen ce Pr ojec t, s eek s an ord er re qu iri ng Alab am a au th or it ie s t o s en d c ert ai n ev id en ce t o afor en si c labo rat ory of C un ni ng ha m ’s cho ic e fo r DNA tes ti ng . He ho pe s tha t the res ul ts wil l s ho w th athe is in no cen t. The di stric t co urt d is m is se d C un ni ng ha m ’s § 1 98 3 c om pl ai ntforfai lu re t o st at e a cl ai m

as t o t ho se de fen da nt s wh o h adno t fi le d a n a ns wer an d g ran te d jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs forth os e d efen da nt s wh o h adfil edanan swe r. Thi s i s Cu nn in gh am ’s app eal fro m th atjud gm en t.

I. Fac ts The ev id en ce p res en te d a t the 19 96 tri al inwhi ch Cunn in gh am was

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e of the United States Court of International * Trade , sitti ngby

designation. 2co nv ic te d o f rap e p ro vi de s cr it ic al co nt ex t t o h is co nt en ti on th athe is factua ll y

in no cen t an d a ffec ts th e lo ad -b eari ng cap aci ty of th atco nt en ti on as ave hi cl e fo r th e le ga l fr ei gh t h e wou ldhave itcarry . The ev id en ce, wh ic h we wi ll setou t i n de ta il , est ab li sh es be y on d ash ad ow o f a d oubtth atCu nn in gh am su ffer s fr om se rio us m en ta l p ro bl em s t ha t re su lt edinhi s b ei ng co nf in edin in st itut io ns for m uc h o f hi s l ife an d t ha t caus edhi m to en ga ge in so m e g ro ss ly inapp ro pr ia te be ha vi or . His s ex ua l as saul t o f a wo m anwhi le he was c on fin edin a m en ta l in st itut io n i n 1 98 6 d idno t re su ltin pro se cu ti on , bu t wh athe was a ccu se d o f do in g to an ot he r wom anin 19 95 whi le ou ts id e a m en ta l i ns ti tu ti on res ul te d i n ach arg e of rap e in th e fi rs t d eg ree. To tha t ch arg e Cu nn in gh am pl ead edno t g ui lty

an d n otgu il ty by

reas on of in sa ni ty. As a re su ltof h is du al pl ea, the tri al was b ifu rcat ed . Duri ng th e fi rs t st ag e th e jury hear d e vi de nc e o n t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r Cu nn in gh am ha d co m m it te d t he rap e an d re tu rn eda ve rd ic t fi nd in g t ha t h e h ad . Then , at the sec on d st ag e o f th e tr ia l, ev id en ce ab ou t Cu nn in gh am ’s ext en si ve hi st ory of m en ta l h eal th pr ob le m s was pre se nt edin ord er fo r th e jury to d et erm in e h is m en ta l s ta te at t he ti m e o f th e rap e. Afte r he ari ng th atev id en ce, the jury returne d asec on d v erd ic t reject in g C un ni ng ha m ’s pl ea o f no t g ui lt y by reaso n o f in sa ni ty. W e wil l s etou t th e fac ts m or e o r le ss in th e o rd er the y actua ll y oc cu rred . 3A. Cunnin gh am’s Ps yc hi at ri c Hi st or y

In 1 98 3, wh enhe was t hi rte en , Cun ni ng ha m was h os pi ta li zedfortwo m on th s i n M es a Vis taHos pi ta l, a m en ta l h eal th in st itut io n i n S anDieg o, af te r he ha d, ac co rd in g t o alat er re po rt, “ ex po se d h im se lf, a ndwas t al ki ng ab ou t cu tt in g of f hi s p en is .” (R2 :2 10 ). W hi le th ere, h e was di ag no se d a s h av in g c hr on ic un di ffer en ti at edsch iz op hr en ia(id .), whi ch in vo lv ed“ si gn ifi can t ep is od es of a br eak do wn i n h is th in ki ng pro ces se s” an d wh ic h p rev en te d “ th in k[ in g] ina lo gi cal rat io na l m an ne r.” (R1 2: 75 2) . An in di vi du al with tha t d ia gn os is ha s a “ th in ki ng an d e m ot io na l s ta te [th at ] do es no t co rres po ndto real it y ,” an d h e o fte n d oe s “ no t reac t t o v ari ou s l ife cir cu m st an ces as ano rm al pe rs on wou ldreac t.” (I d.) Afte r Cu nn in gh am

was d is ch arg edfro m

Mes a Vis taHos pi ta l, h e was tra ns ferr edto Mac Laren Hall , ano th er fac il it y , to awai t p la cem en t. (R2 :2 11 ). Whi le th ere C un ni ng ha m en ga ge d i n s om e b iz arre be ha vi or , des cri be d i n t he reco rd s as fol lo ws: “ [H]e rem ov edhi s cl othi ng , uri na te d o n t he flo or , pu t h is fin ge r whi ch was c on ta m in at edwith u rin e in to hi s m ou th . He in se rte d t he same fin ge r in to hi s anus , th ento okitou t an d p utitin hi s m ou th .” (Id . at 2 11 ). Dr. Teren ce W. Cam

pb el l, a fo ren si c p sycho lo gi stwho tes ti fie d o n C un ni ng ha m ’s be ha lf a t the tri al , lat er n ot edinhi s re po rt t ha t s om eo ne who en ga ge s i n t ha t s ort of be ha vi or“ qu it e o bv io us ly is a v ery di sturbe d i nd iv idua l.” (I d.) Dr. Ca m pb el l 4te st ifi edth atbi zarr e b eh av io r of th attype is ve ry

rare an d t ha t h e co ul d re m em be r ha vi ng ob se rv edon ly thre e o r fo urep is od es li ke itinhi s en ti re ca reeran d tho se were b y “ ex ceed in gl y

di sturbe d, v ery ps y ch ot ic in m at es ” m os t o f who m were i n a pe ni te nt ia ry . (R1 2: 75 4) . Dur in g t he same m on th as tha t b iz arre in ci de nt , ho sp it al pe rs on ne l at Mac Laren Hall als o h adto res tra in Cu nn in gh am be cau se of h is “ lo ss of b eh av io ral co nt ro l.” (R 2: 21 1) . Cun ni ng ha m m ad e itso di ffi cu ltforst aff t o app ly the res tra in ts , ho wev er, tha t h is arm was b ro ke n i n t he st ru gg le . (Id.) Late r th atsame y ear, Cu nn in gh am was a dm it te d t o C am ari ll o S ta te Hos pi ta l in Cal ifo rn iaat t he ag e o f fo urte en , an d h e rem ai ne d t he re u nt il he was e ig ht een 1 orni ne te eny ears ol d. (See i d. at21 1– 13 ). Reco rd s fr om th atin st itut io n i nd ic at e 2 th atby age fo urte enCu nn in gh am ha d s uf fere d agra ndm al sei zu re an d h adbe en di ag no se d a s h av in g an i di op athi c se iz ur e d is or de r. (Id . at 2 11 ). Laterth aty ear on e d oc to r atCam ari ll o S ta te Hos pi ta l d ia gn os edCu nn in gh am , who was t he n

The report of one doc tor at Camarillo S tate Hospital indicate s that at some time 1 previously

Cunningham had bee n admitted to the hospital in the Chil dren’ s Progr am for e ight months. (I d. at 212). Acc ordingto that report, Cunningham’s tre atingphy sician duringthe earlier period of confine ment had diagnosed him with chronic sc hizophrenia. (I d.) The available menta l health re cords a re unc lear about the exact date that Cunningham 2 was discha

rg ed fr om Camarillo State Hospital. Howeve r, he must have been a resident ther e until at least J une 13, 1988 bec ause hospital re cords f or that date indicate that hehad a se izure in the hospital. (I d. at 213). 5fif

te eny ears ol d, wi th “ Sch iz op hr en ia , Und iff eren ti at ed .” (Id . at 2 12 ). Acco rd in g to th atdo ct or ’s ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on , Cun ni ng ha m ha d “ a h is to ry

of s ho rt p eri od s of ps y ch ot ic de co m

pe ns at io n i n wh ic h h e h ears vo ic es an d b eh av es in anirr at io na l m an ne r. Thi s i s i nt ers pe rs edwith e pi so de s o f ve ry go odbe ha vi oran d ahi gh lev el of pe rfo rm an ce.” (I d. at21 1– 12 ). The re po rt f urth er n ot edth atCu nn in gh am se em edto do well whi le m ed ic at edbu t tha t h e rep orte d h eari ng vo ic es at n ig ht whe n h e was no t t ak in g h is m ed ic at io n. (Id . at 2 12 ). Dr. Cam pb el l t es ti fie d t ha t the se rep orts fro m Cu nn in gh am ’s earl y ho sp it al iz at io ns est ab li sh th at“ he ex pe rie nc edau di to ry ha ll uc in at io ns pro vo ki ng irr at io na l b eh av io r.” (Id .) Altho ug h C un ni ng ha m ’s ps y ch ot ic be ha vi orco ul d b e effe ct iv el y

co nt ro ll edwith m ed ic at io n a t tha t t im e, Dr. Cam pb el l n ot edth at witho ut“ in st itut io na l i nf lu en ces , m en ta ll y

il l p eo pl e canin du lg e th ei r own im pu ls iv en es s an d p oo r jud gm en t i n the co m m un it y in a m an ne r th atlea ds to se rio us pro bl em s.” (I d.) Acc or di ng to hi m , Cun ni ng ha m “res po nd edinjus t thi s m an ne r.” (Id .) Ano th er p sychi atris t wh o e va lu at edCu nn in gh am du rin g h is len gt hy sta y

at Cam ari ll o S ta te Hos pi ta l d is ag reedwith t he earl ie r sc hi zo ph ren iadi ag no si s fo r a nu m be r of reas on s, o ne of wh ic h was th athe fou ndCu nn in gh am ’s st ory ab ou t ha ll uc in at io ns “ no t v ery co nv in ci ng .” (Id .) Thatps y ch ia tri stno ne th el es s 6di ag no se d C un ni ng ha m as p sycho ti c (“ Atypic al Psycho si s” ) an d a s h av in g a

“ Co nduc t Di so rd er, Un de rs oc ia li zed , Agg res si ve .” (Id .) Cunn in gh am was ju st un de r si xt een y ears ol d a t the ti m e o f th atev al ua ti on . As Dr. Cam pb el l l at er n ot ed attri al , all of t he ps y ch ia tri st s wh o t reat edCu nn in gh am at t hi s s ta ge of h is li fe ag reedth athe was p sycho ti c, al th ou gh th ere was so m e d is ag reem en t o n t he sp eci fic type o f ps y ch os is . (R1 2: 76 5– 66 ). In19 86 , when Cu nn in gh am was s ev en te eny ears ol d a ndst il l in st itut io na li zedat C am ari ll o S ta te Hos pi ta l, h e se xu al ly ass au lt eda fem al e m us ic th erap is t wh o was in te rn in g a t the in st itut io n. (R 2: 21 3) . He ph y si cal ly atta ck ed th e in te rn , for cedhe r to th e g ro un d, an d ri pp edop enth e fro ntof h er b lo us e so he co ul d fo nd le he r br eas ts . (Id.) Duri ng th e st ru gg le , Cun ni ng ham to ldth e in te rn th athe ha d akn ife in hi s b ackpo ck etan d wo ul d k il l h er i f sh e d idno t s ub m itto hi m . (Id.) The i nt ernesc ap edon ly after h er s cream s b ro ug htan ot he r m anto th e area , cau si ng Cu nn in gh am to run away . (Id .) Altho ug h C un ni ng ha m ev en tu al ly ackno wled ge d h is in vo lv em en t i n t he att ack , he e xp la in edhi s b eh av io r by cl ai m in g t ha t h e an d afri en d h adtak enso m e “ aci d” earl ie r, whi ch cau se d h im to ha ll uc in at e th atvo ic es were t el li ng hi m th atth e in te rnwas am an ne qu in th atha d st ol enhi s m ot he r’s cl ot hi ng . (Id .) The s tru gg le , Cun ni ng ha m ex pl ai ne d, was m erel y hi s at te m ptto ge t the clo th in g b ack . (Id .) Cunn in gh am ’s st ory di d n ot 7ex pl ai n wh y he ha d fe ltitne ces sa ry

to fon dl e th e b reas t o f th e “ m an ne qu in ,” orto th reat enitwith akn ife . Dr. Defran ci sc o, the Sta te ’s ps y ch ia tri st , no te d a t tria l tha t th e fac t tha t Cu nn in gh am ranwhen he he ardso m eo ne co m in g i nd ic at ed“ he ha d so m e co ns ci ou sn es s o f wha t h e was do in g” when he ass au lt edth e in te rn . (R1 3: 84 7– 48 ). Dr. Cam pb el l’s re po rt c on cl ud edth atth is in ci de nt“ es tabl is he s t ha t M r. Cu nn in gh am

ha s a h is to ry

of s ex ua l as saul ti ve ne ss ” th atin vo lv es “ps y ch ot ic de co m pe ns at io n.” (R2 :2 13 ). In h is word s, “ [t]o b el ab or th e o bv io us , [th is ] is in di cat iv e o f a s eri ou sl y

di sturbe d i nd iv idua l.” (I d.) Dr. Ca m pb el l fu rth er n ot ed th atus in g l at er d ia gn os ti c cri te ria , Cun ni ng ha m ’s con di ti on at t he ti m e h e se xu al ly as saul te d the y ou ng in te rn“ wou ldhave be endi ag no se d a s a S ub st an ce-I nduc ed Ps y ch ot ic Dis or de r.” (Id .) Whe n h e was sev en te enor e ig ht een y ears ol d, Cu nn in gh am “ was de cl areda co ns erv at or ” o f th e St at e o f Cal ifo rn ia“ th ro ug h t he di ag no si s o f be in g g rav el y m en ta ll y il l o r di sabl ed .” (R2 :2 21 ). By th e ti m e h e was ni ne te eny ears ol d, Cu nn in gh am

ha d b een adm it te d t o F oo th il l Ho sp it al , ano th er Ca li fo rn iam en ta l he al th in st itut io n. (Se e id . at 2 13 ). Two p sychi atris ts at t ha t fa ci li ty eval ua te d Cu nn in gh am ’s leg al co m pe te nc y an d re sp on si bi li ty. (Id .) They dia gn os edhi m with “ ch ro ni c sc hi zo ph ren ia ” th atwas c on tro ll edat t he ti m e b y an“ am pl e d os e o f 8ps y ch ot ro pi c m ed ic at io n, b utun ti l re cen tl y [he ] was ag it at ed , vi ol en t an d unpr ed ic tabl e.” (Id . at 2 13 –1 4) . Tho se two ps y ch ia tri st s co nc lu de d t ha t Cu nn in gh am

was n otco m

pe te ntto care forhi s o wn b as ic ne ed s, an d h e was in cap ab le or u nwi ll in g t o a ccep t v ol un ta ry tre at m en t “ be cau se of h is ch ro ni c ps y ch os is , po orjud gm en t, an d l ackof u nd ers ta nd in g” as we ll as h is be li ef tha t

“ no th in g [wa s] wron g wi th hi m se lf.” (Id . at 2 14 ). Some m on th s af te r be in g adm it te d t o F oo th il l Ho sp it al , Cun ni ng ha m was d is ch arg edfro m

th atin st itut io n. He was pre sc rib edm ed ic at io ns in cl ud in g Di la nt in forsei zure d is or de rs an d Hal do l an d Li th iu m

to pre ve nthi m

fro m go in g b ackin to a ps y ch ot ic co nd it io n. (Id .; R1 2: 77 3– 74 ). Afte r be in g d is ch arg edfro m Fo ot hi ll Hos pi ta l atth e ag e o f ni ne te en , Cu nn in gh am

li ve d o n the st reet s an d h op pe d fr ei gh t trai ns fro m st at e to st at e an d pl ace t o p la ce. (R2 :2 14 , 22 2) . He dre w Sup pl em en ta l Se cu rit y Inc om e b en efi ts (SSI ) of ab ou t $ 72 0 p er m on th , whi ch were ap pa ren tl y sen t t o am ai li ng ad dr es s h e m ai nt ai ne d i n C al ifo rn ia . (Id.) W hi le on th e ro ad(orrai ls ) Cu nn in gh am st ay edat va rio us cri si s ce nt ers in Utah , W y om in g, an d F lo rid a. (Id .) His cri m in al hi st ory du rin g t ha t p eri odin cl ud es anars on ch arg e an d apo ss es si on of c oc ai ne forsal e ch arg e in Mi am i, as well as n um ero us m is de m ean or s i nc lu di ng in de cen t ex po su re. (Id .) 9Bet weenth e ag es of n in et een an d twen ty-on e, Cu nn in gh am was ho sp it al iz edin anOkl ah om a p sychi atric faci li ty “ an d p os si bl y ot he r fac il it ie s.” (R2 :2 14 ). At ag e twe nt y -o ne , he was adm it te d t o J ack so n M em or ia l Ho sp it al in Mi am i af te r th reat en in g t o h arm

hi m se lf a ndov erd os in g o n Di la nt in , an a nt ise iz ur e m ed ic at io n, tha t h e h adho ard edun ti l h e am as se d ado se th atwas l arg e en ou gh to be po te nt ia ll y

fat al . (Id .; R1 2: 77 5) . At ag e twe nty -two Cu nn in gh am was a ga in adm it te d t o J ack so n M em or ia l Hos pi ta l as a res ul t o f a s oc ia l wo rk er’s rep ort tha t Cu nn in gh am was d ep res se d an d h adbe encu tt in g h is wris ts with a n a lu m in um can , inhi s wo rd s, “ to tak e th e pa in away

fro m [hi s] hea rt.” (R2 :2 14 ). The h os pi ta l re co rd s fr om th atadm is si on no te th atCu nn in gh am

ha d ahi st ory

of f ou r pr ev io us su ic id e atte m pt s an d was

“ [p ]osi ti ve forpe rs ecu to ry de lu si on s.” (Id . at 2 14 –1 5) . The rec or ds als o i nd ic at e

3 th athe was “ po si ti ve form ari juan a u se si nc e ag e fo urte en ; l as t u se d t hr ee d ay s ag o.” (R1 2: 77 6– 77 ). On Au gu st21 , 19 92 , Cun ni ng ha m was a dm it te d t o t he Mi am i h os pi ta l a th irdti m e b ecau se he ha d i nt en ti on al ly cuthi s wri stwith api ece o f br ok engl as s. (R2 :2 15 ). He was p utin to fou r-p oi ntres tra in ts “ fo r pr ot ect io n o f se lf a ndot he rs .” The report of Dr . Robert Def ranc isco, a c linical psycholog ist who testified for the State 3 at Cunningha

m’s trial, indicates that Cunningham “ha d numerous . . . suicide attempts, over 20, by takingpills, superficially slashing his wrists as well.” (R2:222).

10(Id .) Duri ng th is th irdst ay at J ack so n M em or ia l Ho sp it al , Cun ni ng ha m was sp it ti ng , ban gi ng hi s h eadwith the wris t re st rai nt s, an d was “ ve rb al ly abu si ve , ho st il e, [an d] un co op erat iv e, st at in g ‘I wanty outo hu rt m e.’” (Id .) B. The Ra pe On Au gu st20 , 19 95 —the da y th atAli ci a Nic ol e Bro wn was at ta ck ed —Cu nn in gh am

reca ll s g et ti ng off

th e tr ai n i n F lo m at on , Alab am a at ap pr ox im at el y

11 :1 5 a .m . (Id. at22 6) . Accor di ng to Bro wn’s t es ti m on y at t ria l, sh e h adgo ne to th e p arkth atm orni ng to go jog gi ng . (R1 1: 60 0) . W hi le th ere, s he was grabb edby her at ta ck er, wh o h el d akn ife to he r st om ach an d d em an de d t ha t sh e g o i nt o t he woo ds with h im . (R:1 2: 60 1– 02 ). The m anto ldBro wn “ th athe jus t wan te d t o m ak e lo ve to [he r] andth atwas a ll an d a s l on g a s [s he ] di d wh athe sa id. . . [s he ] wou ldbe ok ay .” (Id . at 6 02 ). Bro wn b eg ge d h er at ta ck er n otto hu rt h er an d t o l ethe r go . (Id.) In a n effo rt t o s ta ll hi m , sh e th enco nv in cedth e m anto si t d own an d t al k t o h er. (Id .) Bro wn b eg anask in g t he m anqu es ti on s co nc ern in g h is na m e an d wh ere h e was fro m . (Id . at 6 02 –0 3) . After h e res po nd edth athi s n am e was “ W il li am ” an d t ha t

“ he was n otfro m

aro un d t he re,” s he pro ceed edto tel l h er at ta ck er h er o wn n am e an d d es cri be ho w sh e h adjus t g radua te d fr om co ll eg e an d h adrece nt ly starte d te ach in g. (Id . at 6 03 ). Altho ug h B ro wn co ul d t el l h er at ta ck er was be co m in g 11im

pa ti en t, s he was abl e to pe rs ua de hi m to setdo wn h is kn ife . (Id.) Sh e ev en su cces sf ul ly con vi nc edhi m

to ge t up andlay the kn ife do wn fu rth er away from whe re the two were s it ti ng on th e g ro un d. (Id .) Whe n h er at ta ck er re al iz edth atBro wn s ti ll di d n otwantto go with h im , he gr ab be d h er arm s an d s ta rte d p ul li ng he r to ward s t he woo ds . (Id . at 6 04 ). Bro wn m an ag edto bre aklo os e fro m hi m at t ha t p oi ntan d t rie d t o ru n a way . (Id .) Howev er, the m anev en tu al ly caug htup to Bro wn an d p ul le d h er b ackto th e gr ou nd . (Id.) Bro wn was th enab le to co nv in ce h er at ta ck er t o wal k wi th he r to th e p res s b ox areaof t he pa rkwher e sh e th ou gh t s om eo ne m ig htsee th em be cau se itwas c lo se r to th e ro ad . (Id. at60 4– 05 ). As the y walk ed , Bro wn as ke d t he m anif he was h av in g alo t o f pr ob le m s o r if he di d n otreal iz e wha t h e was do in g. (Id . at 60 5) . W he n h e to ldhe r he want edto m ak e lo ve to he r an d t ha t h e h ada co nd om , sh e p an ic ke d. (Id .) Bro wn m an ag edto esc ap e fro m hi m y etag ai n, b utth e m an ev en tu al ly grab be d h er p on yta il an d t ack le d h er fro m be hi nd . (Id. at60 5– 06 ) Ang eredby her re pe at edatt em pt s t o e sc ap e, th e m anto ldBro wn tha t h e wou ldki ll he r if sh e tr ie d t o g etaway

ag ai n. (Id . at 6 06 ). He th enpu ll eddo wn Br own ’s sh orts , pu t o n aco nd om , andpi nn eddo wn h er arm s wh il e h e rap edhe r. (Id . at 60 6– 07 ). Fo ll owi ng th e b ru ta l at ta ck , Bro wn trie d t o avo idfurth er h arm by ask in g h er 12rap is t wh ensh e wou ldbe ab le to see hi m ag ai n. (Id . at 6 08 ). Aftera br ie f di sc us si on , Bro wn p uthe r cl ot he s o n andwalk edba ckto ward s t he tra cksh e b een jog gi ng on , go t i n h er tru ck , anddro ve di rect ly to the Flo m at on Po li ce Dep artm en t. (Id . at 6 08 –0 9) . Whe n s he arri ve d a t the po li ce s ta ti on , Bro wn t ol d a di sp at ch er an d Off

ic er J eff J oyner t ha t s he ha d b een rap edan d d es cri be d h er at ta ck er as weari ng bl ackpa nt s bu t n o s hi rt, a ndas h av in g d irt y bl on de ha ir. 4 (R1 :1 34 ; R: 12 :6 15 ). C. The Arre st an d Id enti fy in g E vi denc e Offi cer J oyner i m

m ed ia te ly head edto ward s t he pa rkto in ve st ig at e. (R1 1: 49 6) . On h is way

th ere, J oyner s aw Cu nn in gh am , who was s hi rtl es s, weari ng bl ue swea t p an ts , andcarry in g aba ck pa ck , walk in g t owa rd s t own alo ng th e h ig hwa y

ad jacen t t o the park . (Id . at 5 22 ; R1 :1 23 –2 4) . Jo yne r st op pe d a nd as ke d C un ni ng ha m

if h e h adsee n a nyth in g u nu su al at t he pa rkor h adtak enpa rt i n an y co nf ro nt at io ns th atm orni ng . (R1 1: 49 8) . After C un ni ng ha m res po nd edin th e ne ga ti ve , Jo yne r as ke d h im to waitby the si de of t he roa d. (Id .) At th atpo in t, Jo yne r le ft C un ni ng ha m

an d d ro ve th ro ug h the pa rkforsev eral min ut es to lo okfor At a suppre ssion hearing befor e trial, B rown de scribed he r attac ker a s wea ring“blac k 4 pants,” but testified that she thought “they wer e cor duroy .” (R1:134). At trial, howe ver, O ffice r J oy ner te stified that when B rown c ame to the police station on the day of the ra pe, she sa id that her attacker

had bee n wea

ring“blac k jeans.” (R11:495).

13ot he r po te nt ia l s us pe ct s. (Id . at 4 99 , 53 0– 31 ). Notsee in g anyon e in th e p ark ,

Jo yne r returne d t o wh ere C un ni ng ham was s ti ll wait in g o n the si de of t he hi gh way an d t oo k h im

in to cu st ody , exp la in in g t ha t h e fi t the de sc rip ti on of asu sp ect Jo yne r was lo ok in g fo r. (Id .) Jo yne r fri sk edCu nn in gh am be fo re p la ci ng hi m

in th e p ol ic e car , bu t fo un d o nl y a pa ck of c ig aret te s an d ali gh te r th atCu nn in gh am ha d i n h is ha nd s. (Id . at 5 35 ). Offi cer J oyner t he n t oo k C un ni ng ha m ba ckto th e p ol ic e st at io n a ndlef t h im in th e b ack se atof t he po li ce ca r whi le he wentin si de to tal k t o B ro wn. (Id . at 50 1– 02 ). Jo yne r to ldBro wn t ha t h e h ada su sp ectincu st od y an d a sk edhe r to co m e o ut si de to see if s he co ul d i de nt ify the m anas h er at ta ck er. (Id . at 5 02 Bro wn wal ke d o ut si de of t he po li ce s ta ti on an d i de nt ifi edCu nn in gh am , who was se at edin th e b ack se aton th e driv er’s s id e o f th e p ol ic e carwith t he win do ws ro ll edup , as t he m anwho ha d rape d h er. (R1 :1 28 ; R1 1: 50 2, 5 44 ). 5 Ch ie f of Po li ce Lacy W il ke rs on th ento okBro wn t o M cMi ll anHos pi ta l, whe re a s ex ua l as saul t ex am in at io n was pe rfo rm ed . (R3 :4 39 –4 6; R1 1: 42 4) . W il li am H. Jo ne s, a fo ren si c b io lo gi stforth e Alabam a Dep art m en t o f Fo ren si c There was c onflictingtestimony as to how fa

r B rown wa s standing f

rom the police c ar 5 at the time she identified Cunningham. At the suppre ssion hearingbefor e trial, B rown a gree d that she wa s standing a

bout twelve fe et awa

y from the c ar. ( R1:135). At trial, howeve r, Off icer J oy ner e stimated that Br own was only approximately

four to six fee t from the ca r whe n she identified Cunningha

m. (R11:540). 14Sci en ces , lat er t es ti fie d a t Cu nn in gh am ’s tri al th atth e te st s h e co nduc te d o n

Bro wn’s rape ki t p ro du ced“ no ev id en ce tha t ei th er i nc lu de d o r ex cl ud ed [Cu nn in gh am ] as be in g m or e th ana su sp ectin th is cas e.” (R1 2: 63 9) . No se m in al flu idwas fo un d dur in g B ro wn’s s ex ua l as saul t ex am in at io n, wh ic h was co ns is te nt with h er t es ti m on y

th athe r at ta ck er wo re a co nd om . (Id .) Mea nwh il e, Offi cer J oyner p la cedCu nn in gh am un de r arre stan d b oo ke d hi m . (R1 1: 50 3) . Jo yne r th enpro ceed edto go th ro ug h C un ni ng ha m ’s bel on gi ng s. Acco rd in g t o J oyner, h e fo un d s om ewh ere o n C un ni ng ha m ’s per so n awall etwith anun op en edco nd om

in si de of i t. (Id . at 5 61 –6 2) . Am on g t he co nt en ts th at Jo yne r di sc ov eredin th e b ackpa ckco nf is cat edfro m

Cu nn in gh am

was apa ir o f bl ackjeans an d m or e uno pe ne d c on do m s. (R1 :1 24 –2 5) . Afte r he fin is he d b oo ki ng Cu nn in gh am , Offic er J oyner l eftth e p ol ic e st at io n t o l oo k fo r m or e ev id en ce. (R1 1: 56 3) . Alo ng th e si de of t he hi gh way whe re h e h adtak enCu nn in gh am in to cu st od y , Jo yne r fo un d akn ife lying on th e gr ou nd . (Id. at56 6) . Becau se Bro wn h adto ldhi m th atth e rap e to okpl ace o n t he si de of t he co nc es si on st an d a t the pa rk , Jo yne r al so wentto th atareaof t he pa rkto in ve st ig at e. (Id . at 5 06 –0 7) . In tha t s po t, h e fo un d an o pe ne d c on do m wrap pe r (Id . at 5 08 ), whi ch was t he same bran d a s t he co nd om s fo un d i n C un ni ng ha m ’s wall etan d b ackpa ck(id . at 5 08 –0 9; R1 :1 25 ). 15D. The Tri al

Cu nn in gh am

was i nd ic te d fo r rap e in th e fi rs t d eg ree ( R1 :4 4– 45 ), an d h e pl ead edno t g ui lt y

an d n otgu il ty by

reas on of i ns an it y . (R9 :1 6) . He eve ntua ll y adm it te d t ha t h e rem em

be redsee in g B ro wn atth e p arkon th e m orni ng of h er at ta ck , bu t h e d en ie d o r was am ne si c reg ard in g B ro wn’s rape . (R2 :2 27 ). He cl ai m edto ha ve be ensm ok in g m ari juan a an d n otto ha ve tak enhi s m ed ic at io n fo r ab ou t thr ee m on th s atth e ti m e o f th e rap e. (Id .) Befo re tria l Cu nn in gh am ’s att orne y m ov edto supp res s C un ni ng ha m ’s wall etan d i ts co nt en ts , th e co nt en ts of h is ba ck pa ck , andth e v ic ti m ’s pre -tr ia l sh ow- up id en ti fic at io n. (R 1: 16 5; R2 :2 30 ; R3 :4 63 ). After a supp res si on he ari ng , th e st at e co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s B ro wn’s i de nt ifi cat io n, wh ic h t he co urt d et erm in edwas n ot“un du ly sug ge st iv e o r pr ejud ic ia l.” (R 3: 44 9) . The co urt di d g ran t Cu nn in gh am ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s t he co nt en ts of h is ba ck pa ck , in cl ud in g t he bl ackjeans an d c on do m s fo un d t he rei n, b ecau se Offic er J oyner d id no t s earc h i t i nc id en t t o C un ni ng ha m ’s arres t an d l at er s earc he d i t wi th ou t a warra ntas p artof a n u nl awfu l i nv en to ry sea rch . (R1 :1 31 ; R3 :4 62 ). Becaus e Jo yne r te st ifi edth athe reco ve redth e wal le t fr om so m ewh ere o n C un ni ng ha m ’s pe rs on rathe r th anfro m

in si de th e b ackpa ck , ho wev er, the co urt d et erm in edth atit an d t he co nd om

fou ndin si de of i t wer e ad m is si bl e ev id en ce re co ve redth ro ug h a 16pe rm is si bl e in ve nt ory sea rch . (R3 :4 63 ; R1 1: 46 1– 63 ). Dur in g t he fir stph as e o f Cu nn in gh am ’s tri al to de te rm in e h is gu il t, the St at e’s ev id en ce i nc lu de d t he op en edco nd om wrap pe r fo un d a t the cri m e sc en e b y Offi cer J oyner andth e u no pe ne d c on do m fou ndin Cu nn in gh am ’s wall etwhenhe was arre st ed , bo th of wh ic h wer e th e sa m e b ran d. (R 11 :5 08 –0 9) . The St at e al so in tro du cedas e vi de nc e th e kni fe tha t J oyner fo un d o n t he gro un d wh ere h e h ad in it ia ll y tak enCu nn in gh am

in to cu st od y . (Id . at 5 10 ). Howev er, n o fi ng erp rin ts were fo un d o n e it he r th e co nd om wrap pe r or

th e kni fe. (Id . at 4 01 , 40 4) . Bec au se Bro wn’s i de nt ifi cat io n o f Cu nn in gh am as h er at ta ck er atth e p ol ic e st at io n was als o a n i nt eg ral pa rt o f th e St at e’s cas e, he r de sc rip ti on of h er at ta ck er to th e p ol ic e an d h er s ub se qu en t i de nt ifi cat io n o f Cu nn in gh am were b ot h m ajor po in ts of c on te nt io n a t tria l. Acco rd in g t o Off ic er J oyner’s t es ti m on y , Bro wn in it ia ll y de sc rib edhe r at ta ck er as be in g t al l an d s ki nn y , sh irt le ss with b la ckjeans an d wh it e sn eak ers , hav in g b lo nd is h- br own ha ir t ha t was “ ki ndof p ou ffedou t,” an d h ol di ng a pa ckof c ig aret te s i n h is ha nd . (Id. at49 5) . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, ho wev er, Bro wn ad m it te d t ha t atth e supp res si onhe ari ng sh e d es cri be d h er at ta ck er as no t b ei ng tal l an d o nl y a co up le of i nc he s t al le r th anhe rs el f (s he is on ly fiv e fo otfou r in ch es tal l). (R 12 :6 16 ). Acco rd in g t o the de fen se , th atdi sc rep an cy was im po rta ntbe cau se Cu nn in gh am is actua ll y

si x fe ettal l. (Do c. 56 at 7 ). 17Bro wn al so de sc rib edhe r at ta ck er as be in g abo utth irt y or t hi rty-fiv e y ears ol d, whi le Cu nn in gh am

was o nl y twen ty-si x a t the ti m e o f th e at ta ck . (R1 2: 61 7 & Doc . 56 at 7 ). Fu rth erm or e, al th ou gh Bro wn s aw he r at ta ck er wi th ou t a s hi rt, s he adm it te d o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n t ha t s he di d n otno ti ce an y sca rs on hi s b od y . (R1 2: 61 7) . Cun ni ng ha m ha s a n ot ic eab le sca r on hi s l eftsh ou ld er. (Do c. 56 at 7 ). Fi na ll y , th e o nl y

th in g t ha t Br own no ti cedab ou t h er at ta ck er’s t eet h was th atth ey were a yell owi sh co lo r (R1 2: 61 9– 20 ), whi le Cu nn in gh am was m is si ng anup pe r ey e to ot h a ndha d a no th er b ro ke n t oo th . (Do c. 56 at 7 ). Cu nn in gh am ’s att orne y

als o a tt em

pt edto un de rm in e Bro wn’s i de nt ifi cat io n by call in g Dr. Tere nc e W. Cam pb el l, a fo ren si c p sycho lo gi st , to tes ti fy at t ria l. Cam pb el l t es ti fie d t ha t the “ em ot io na l turm oi l” th atBro wn was ex pe rie nc in g a t th e ti m e sh e id en ti fie d C un ni ng ha m m ad e itun li ke ly tha t s he was “ cap ab le of m ak in g an a ccu rat e eyewitn es s i de nt ifi cat io n.” (R1 2: 65 9– 60 ). He als o t es ti fie d th atth e m an ne r inwhi ch Offic er J oyner c on du ct edth e sh ow- up id en ti fic at io n was su gg es ti ve . For e xa m

pl e, Cam pb el l s ta te d t ha t d at a “ de m on strat es th ata on epe rs on sh ow up, h av in g avi ct im lo okat o ne in di vi du al an d o ne in di vi du al on ly . . . pro fo un dl y

in crea se s t he pro babi li ty of m is ta ke n i de nt ifi cat io ns co m pa redto ot he r pr oc edur es .” (Id . at 6 64 ). Becaus e Bro wn o nl y ob se rv edCunn in gh am

in th e ba ck se atof t he po li ce ca r, m or eo ve r, Cam pb el l n ot edth atsh e was de pr iv edof t he 18op po rtu ni ty to u se he ig htor v oi ce— bo th “ de fin in g c ha ract eri st ic (s )” fo r id en ti fic at io n p ur

po se s— inde te rm in in g wh ethe r Cu nn in gh am was h er at ta ck er. (Id . at 6 66 & 6 68 ). Des pi te th es e at te m

pt s t o u nd erm in e Bro wn’s i de nt ifi cat io n, h owe ve r, sh e di d i de nt ify Cun ni ng ha m as h er rapi stat t ria l. (R1 1: 60 0) . Poi nt in g t o wh ere Cu nn in gh am

was s it ti ng in th e co urtro om , Bro wn t ol d t he jury th athe was the m an who ha d rape d h er i n t he pa rk . (Id.) Cu nn in gh am ’s att orne y

eli ci te d t es ti m on y

ab ou t i nf orm at io n t ha t Offi cer Jo yne r rec ei ve d a fte r Cu nn in gh am ’s arres t. Si x d ay s af te r Bro wn’s as saul t, a wom ancam e to th e Fl om at onPo li ce Dep art m en t t o v ol un te er i nf orm at io n reg ard in g atra ns ie ntm aninhi s l at e th irt ie s s he ha d s een in th e are a o f th e p arkon th e m orni ng of B ro wn’s at ta ck . (R1 1: 58 6– 87 ; R1 2: 64 7) . Jo yne r adm it te d o n cro ss -ex am in at io n tha t h e n ev er i nv es ti ga te d t ha t l ead . (R:1 1: 58 7– 88 ). W it h t hi s an d o th er ev id en ce h av in g b een pre se nt ed , th e cas e was pu t t o t he jury, whi ch fou ndCu nn in gh am gu il ty of rap e in th e fi rs t d eg ree. (R 12 :7 36 ). The cas e th enpro ceed edto th e se co ndph as e o f tr ia l co nc ern in g C un ni ng ha m ’s affi rm at iv e d efen se of n otgu il ty by reas onof s ev ere m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect . Dr. Cam pb el l ag ai n t es ti fie d o n C un ni ng ha m ’s beh al f. Bas edon a rev ie w of Cu nn in gh am ’s ext en si ve m en ta l h eal th hi st ory an d a n i nt erv ie w with h im in jail , 19Dr. Cam

pb el l s umm ari zedhi s co nc lu si on s attri al : Fi rs t o f al l, i t’s cl ear a ndev id en t tha t M r. Cu nn in gh am su ffer s fr om

a lo ng st an di ng m en ta l i ll ne ss of p sycho ti c p orti on s [s ic ]. The o ns etof th atm en ta l i ll ne ss da te s b ack , at l eas t, t o wh enMr. Cu nn in gh am was fo urte eny ears of a ge . Mor eo ve r, whe n M r. Cu nn in gh am ex pe rie nc es a p sycho ti c ep is od e h is be ha vi or canbe co m e p art ic ul arl y

bi zarr e. Mr. Cu nn in gh am ’s ps y ch ol og ic al st ab il it y is furth er u nd erm in e[d ] by his hi st ory of asei zu re d is or de r orby his hi st ory of e pi le ps y . Whe n M r. Cu nn in gh am

tak es ap pr op ria te m ed ic at io n a s i t i s p res cri be d fo r hi m he ap pe ars ab le to m an ag e fu nc ti on in g a t l eas t ata bo rd erl in e le ve l o f ad jus ti ng inth e co m

m un it y ; wi th ou t t ak in g app ro pr ia te m ed ic at io ns ho wev er, h is be ha vi orcande co m pe ns at e in to ps y ch ot ic ep is od es at al m os t an yti m e. (Id . at 7 81 –8 2) . Whe n a sk edto sh edso m e li gh t o n “ wha t h ap pe ne d i n t hi s ca se to ex pl ai n [Cu nn in gh am ’s] m en ta l s ta te at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se ,” Dr. Cam pb el l n ot edth at Cu nn in gh am

ha d re po rte d s m ok in g abo utfiv e joi nt s o f m ari juan a o n t he da y

of t he of fen se . (Id. at78 2) . Accor di ng to Cam pb el l, Cu nn in gh am ’s hi st ory est ab li sh ed th athi s u se of m ari

juan a co ul d h av e p ro vo ke d aps y ch ot ic ep is od e. (Id . at 78 2– 83 ). Cam

pb el l, the refo re, co nc lu de d t ha t the re was a “ hi gh , hi gh li ke li ho odof Mr. Cu nn in gh am

havi ng reac te d t o asubs tanc e-i nduc edps y ch ot ic di so rd er atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se .” (Id . at 7 83 ). Dr. Cam pb el l fo un d s up po rt f

orhi s co nc lu si onin th e d et ai ls of t he cri m e. Fo r ex am pl e, Cam pb el l p oi nt edou t tha t Br own ’s rap is t u se d aco nd om , whi ch

20su gg es ts a pr em ed it at edatt em ptto av oi d d et ect io n t hr ou gh DNA tes ti ng . (Id.) Howev er, the rap is t the n l eftth e co nd om wrap pe r atth e cri m e sc en e, whi ch di d no t m ak e an y

sen se to Cam

pb el l. (Id . at 7 83 ). Cam

pb el l al so no te d t ha t i f Cu nn in gh am

was ra ti on al ly con cern edab ou t av oi di ng ap pr eh en si on , he h adam pl e ti m e to try andesc ap e aft er Offi cer J oyner i ni ti al ly sto pp edto qu es ti on hi m on th e si de of t he hi gh way . (Id. at78 3– 84 , 78 6) . Ins te ad , Cun ni ng ha m wait edby the ro ad“ du rin g t he fif

te enin te rv en in g m in ut es ” as Jo yne r dr ov e th ro ug h t he pa rkto lo okforot he r po te nt ia l s us pe ct s, wh ic h i nd ic at edth atCu nn in gh am was n ota rat io na l, l og ic al m an . (Id. at78 6– 87 ). Dr. Cam pb el l s ta te d t ha t Br ownha d d on e “ ev erythi ng rig ht ” as a vi ct im by at te m pt in g t o h um an iz e h ers el f to th e rap is t. (Id . at 7 84 ). He to ldth e jury tha t

“ [w]hatMs . Bro wn d id , if the rap is t i n t hi s ca se was n orm al an d i nt actan d n ot ps y ch ot ic , sh ou ldha ve work ed[be ]caus e sh e m ad e h ers el f hu m an .” (Id .) Howev er, wh ena rap is t i s p sycho ti c, itdo es no t m at te r ho w effec ti ve th e v ic ti m ’s effo rts are t o e nl is t the sym pa th y of h er at ta ck er. (Id . at 7 85 ). As fo r Cu nn in gh am

cla im in g t ha t h e h adno reco ll ect io n o f rap in g B ro wn, Dr. Cam pb el l ex pl ai ne d t ha t h is hi st ory of e pi le ps y

co ul d e xp la in th e la ckof m em ory . Cam

pb el l’s re po rt s ta te d t ha t i t was anest ab li sh edfactth atCunn in gh am su ffer edfro m

a se iz ur e d is or de r. (R2 :2 13 ). If Cu nn in gh am ha d asei zu re s ho rtl y 21aft er the rap e, Cam pb el l t es ti fie d t ha t i t co ul d h av e wip edou t h is m em ory of wh at ha d h ap pe ne d ju stbe fo re the sei zu re. (R1 2: 78 5; R1 3: 80 5– 06 ). Cam pb el l al so te st ifi edth atCu nn in gh am ’s do cu m en te d h is to ry of asei zure d is or de r co m bi ne d with h is ha vi ng st op pe d t ak in g h is Dil an ti n a ndha vi ng sm ok edm ari juan a ear li er th atda y “pr of ou nd ly inc reas es th e p ro babi li ty of hi m ha vi ng ex pe rie nc edan ep il ep ti c se iz ur e sh ortl y

aft er the rap e o ccu rred , po ss ib ly sho rtl y aft er h e was arre st ed .” (R1 3: 80 6) . Whe n a sk edho w itwas p os si bl e fo r hi m to di st in gu is h b etweenth e eff ect s of Cu nn in gh am ’s m ari

juan a u se an d t he effe ct s o f hi s p sycho ti c d is or de r, Dr. Cam pb el l an swe red : Tha t we kno w by vi rtu e o f hi st ory th atth is is a m anwith alo ng do cu m en te d h is to ry

of p sycho ti c d is or de rs . There fo re, h e was no t jus t s im pl y so m eo ne who se jud gm en t was im pa ire d m erel y

be cau se he was h ig h o n m ari

juan a, no . He is anin di vi du al with alo ng hi st ory of m en ta l i ll ne ss an d wh o h as pre vi ou sl y ex pe rie nc edps y ch ot ic ep is od es as ares ul t o f subs ta nc e ab us e, sm ok in g m ari juan a; th ereb y , acco un ti ng forhi s g ro ss ly inapp ro pr ia te be ha vi or . . . , forhi s ge ne ral ly irrat io na l ac ti on s i n t he form of asubs tanc e-i nduc ed ps y ch ot ic di so rd er wh ic h i s fo rm al ly recog ni zedby the de fin it iv e refe ren ce fo r di ag no si ng m en ta l d is or de rs . (R1 2: 78 7) . Bas edon th os e co nc lu si on s, Dr. Ca m pb el l t es ti fie d t ha t i t was hi s o pi ni on th atCu nn in gh am

was s uf feri ng fro m

a “ subs tanc e-i nduc edps y ch ot ic di so rd er wi th

22ha ll uc in at io n” at t he ti m e o f Bro wn’s as saul t. (Id . at 7 88 , R13 :8 01 ). Thattype o f

di so rd er i s as so ci at edwith m ark edan xi ety , dep ers on al iz at io n, an d s ub se qu en t am ne si a. (R1 3: 80 2) . The d ep ers on al iz at io n a ndps y ch ot ic st at e wou ldin te rfer e with t he ab il it y

to co nf orm on e’s co nduc t t o t he law. (Id .) Altho ug h C am pb el l ackno wled ge d t ha t a c an nabi s- in du cedps y ch ot ic di so rd er i s ex tre m el y rare , he no te d t ha t Cu nn in gh am ’s “ps y ch ia tri c h is to ry is als o v ery rare .” (Id . at 8 17 ). Thu s, Cam

pb el l co nc lu de d t ha t Cu nn in gh am “was so su ffer in g fr om

su ch a m en ta l di se as e th athe was n otab le to un de rs ta ndth e g ro ss in ap pr op ria te ne ss of h is be ha vi orat t he ti m e th athe co m m it te d t ho se act io ns .” (Id . at 8 07 ). Dr. Ro be rt De fran ci sc o, a c li ni cal ps y ch ol og is t an d b oa rd -certi fie d fo ren si c ex am in er i n p sycho lo gy, test ifi edforth e St at e. (Id . at 8 24 –2 5) . Bas edona rev ie w of C un ni ng ha m ’s m ed ic al reco rd s an d ath ree- ho urin te rv ie w with h im , Defra nc is co co nc lu de d t ha t “ al th ou gh [Cu nn in gh am ] was su ffer in g fr om a m ajor m en ta l i ll ne ss he co ul d d iff eren ti at e ri gh t fr om

wron g i n t hi s p art ic ul ar i ns ta nc e.” (Id . at 8 30 –3 1) . If Cu nn in gh am rap edBro wn, the refo re, Defra nc is co was o f th e op in io n t ha t h e was leg al ly resp on si bl e fo r hi s co nduc t. (Id . at 8 29 –3 0) . Dr. Defran ci sc o fi rs t n ot edth atCu nn in gh am reca ll edge tt in g o ff the tra in in Fl om at on an d s eei ng sev eral pe op le as h e wal ke d t owa rdto wn. “ He rem em be red th e v ic ti m , andhe als o s aw two ot he r pe op le walk in g t ha t wer e n otne ar the vi ct im 23bu t o n t he tra ckas we ll .” (Id . at 8 31 –3 2) . In fa ct , Cun ni ng ha m ha d a“ vi vi d reco ll ect io n o f th os e ev en ts as we ll as [ a] viv idreco ll ect io n o f ev en ts of t he pri or th ree wee ks .” (R2 :2 26 ). Then Cu nn in gh am cla im edto go “bl an k fr om th atpo in t on , andth enhe rem em

be rs th e p ol ic e p ic ki ng hi m up an d a sk in g h im

qu es ti on s ab ou t the in ci de nt .” (R1 3: 83 2) . Defran ci sc o fo un d t ha t s ort o f “ se le ct iv e am ne si a” h ig hl y

un us ua l an d t es ti fie d t ha t i t ap pe aredto be “ ve ry sel f-s erv in g” be cau se th ere was “ no ev id en ce tha t h e h adlap se s o f co ns ci ou sn es s wh ere h e wen t in to a st at e o f a fu gu e whe reb y he di dn ’t rem em

be r wha t h e was do in g.” (Id . at 83 1, 8 53 , 87 2) . Accor di ng to Defran ci sc o, “ [o ]ne o f th e m os t co m m on cri m in al de fen se s t ha t I h av e ru n a cro ss is th e in di vi du al to say he d id n’t re m em be r co m m it ti ng th e cri m e.” (Id . at 8 31 ). Giv enall th e d et ai ls th atCu nn in gh am co ul d rem em be r ot he r th anth os e o f th e cri m e it se lf, Def ran ci sc o c on cl ud edth athe was fak in g a m

ne si a. (Id . at 8 31 –3 2) . Altho ug h Dr. Def

ran ci sc o a ckno wled ge d t ha t Cu nn in gh am “ m ay ve ry well ha ve sei zu re d is or de rs ,” he di d n otbe li ev e th atha d b een de fin it iv el y est ab li sh ed . (Id . at 8 69 ; s ee al so id . at 8 55 , 86 9– 71 ). Ther e was no in di cat io n i n h is m ed ic al reco rd s t ha t Cu nn in gh am ha d l ap se s wh ere h e d idno t kno w whathe was d oi ng , an d h is hi st ory

at C am ari ll o S ta te Hos pi ta l s ug ge st edps y ch om ot orep il ep sy, whi ch m ig htreas on ab ly exp la in a lo ss of m em ory if t he pe rio d o f am

ne si a was gre at er 24th anCu nn in gh am cla im ed . (Id. at85 5, 8 58 , 86 1) . Mor eo ve r, Defran ci sc o te st ifi edth athe di d n otun de rs ta ndho w a pe rs on who ha d asei zu re wo ul d h av e rem em be redto walkhu ndred s o f y ard s b ackth ro ug h t he pa rkto pi ckup a kn ife th athe ha d l eftbe hi nddu rin g h is cri m e. (Id . at 8 35 –3 6) . (The kni fe was no t fo un d b y th e co nc es si on st an d wh ere t he rap e to okpl ace b utalo ng th e si de of t he hi gh way wher e Cu nn in gh am

was t ak enin to cu st ody . See p ag e 1 5, ab ov e.) Dr. Defran ci sc o a ls o d is ag reedwith Dr. Ca m pb el l’s d ia gn os is th at Cu nn in gh am

was s uf feri ng fro m

a subs ta nc e-i nduc edps y ch ot ic di so rd er atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . (Id. at87 5– 76 ). Defran ci sc o n ot edth atitis “ ve ry un us ua l fo r can nabi s t o m ak e a p ers on ps y ch ot ic .” (Id . at 8 33 ). Furth erm or e, Defra nc is co te st ifi edth atto be act iv el y ps y ch ot ic , on e m

us t b e h av in g h al lu ci na ti on s an d de lu si on s. (Id .) If Cu nn in gh am ha d b een in a subs ta nc e-i nduc edps y ch ot ic st at e, Defra nc is co co nc lu de d t ha t h e wou ldha ve sh own tra ces of t ha t wh enOffic er Jo yne r st op pe d t o que st io n h im —Cu nn in gh am

wou ldhave be enst ag ge rin g, sl urrin g h is sp eech , daz ed , or s ti ll act iv el y ha ll uc in at in g. (Id . at 8 34 ). In Defra nc is co ’s word s: “ Youjus t d on ’t hal lu ci na te forten m in ut es or f ift een m in ut es ; u su al ly it’s fo r se ve ral ho ur s, s ev eral da y s.” (I d.) Acco rd in g t o Dr. Def

ran ci sc o, the de ta il s o f th e o ffen se actua ll y su gg es t tha t Cu nn in gh am

was n otps y ch ot ic at t he ti m e Bro wn was sex ua ll y ass au lt ed . 25Defra nc is co tes ti fie d t ha t a p sycho ti c p ers on do es no t re as on well an d “ itsee m s t o

co nt rai nd ic at e th athe wou ldwear a co nd om or h e wou lddra g ape rs onoff in th e woo ds .” (Id . at 8 37 ). If Cu nn in gh am were d eran ge d a t the ti m e o f th e at ta ck , Defra nc is co reas on ed , he wo ul d n otha ve be enco nc ern edab ou t wh atwas happ en in g a ro un d h im . (Id.) Defran ci sc o s ug ge st edth atCu nn in gh am m ig htha ve us eda co nd om

to av oi d l eav in g s em enev id en ce, b utwhen pre ss edby defen se co un se l as to whethe r su ch be ha vi orwas c on si st en t wi th Cu nn in gh am ’s fai lu re t o fle e th e sc en e, Defra nc is co retreat edfro m th atsu gg es ti on an d s pe cu la te d t ha t Cu nn in gh am

m ig hthave us eda co nd om si m pl y in ord er t o a vo iddi se as e. (Id . at 85 2– 53 ). Defran ci sc o d is m is se d t he no ti on th atCu nn in gh am ’s fai lu re t o fl ee the pa rkaft er the rap e p ro ve d t ha t h e was in a ps y ch ot ic st at e. (Id . at 8 39 ). Whi le on e in te rp ret at io n o f th atco nduc t m ig htbe th atCu nn in gh am was p sycho ti c atth at ti m e, an ot he r in te rp ret at io n was si m pl y th atCu nn in gh am

kn ew he ha d c omm it te d a h ei no us cri m e an d tho ug htitbe steit he r to de ny it o r cl ai m am ne si a. (Id .) Cu nn in gh am

co ul d, the refo re, h av e st ay edat t he cri m e sc en e fo r fi fte enm in ut es be cau se he want edto m ak e up ali e an d u se hi s ex te ns iv e h is to ry of m en ta l i ll ne ss as a de fen se . (Id. at85 0– 51 ). Defran ci sc o c on cl ud edth athe was “ in cl in edto be li ev e th atalt ho ug h [C un ni ng ha m is ] gr av el y

il l an d a lt ho ug h i n fa cthe ha s a di ag no si s b y

hi st ory of p sycho si s, tha t p sycho si s h adno th in g t o d o wi th th is

26pa rti cu la r cri m e.” (Id . at 8 41 ).

Afte r he ari ng th e ex pe rt t es ti m on y fro m bo thsi de s, the jury returne d a se co ndve rd ic t fi nd in g C un ni ng ha m gu il ty of rap e, th ereb y

co nc lu di ng th athe ha d no t ca rri edhi s b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng hi s af firm at iv e d efen se of l eg al in sa ni ty. (Id . at90 0) . The cas e th enpro ceed edto sen te nc in g, atwhi ch ti m e Cu nn in gh am ’s at to rn ey reque st edth atth e st at e co urt ju dg e “ co ns id er s om e m it ig at in g fa ct or s.” (Id . at 9 10 ). Am on g tho se fact or s was th e fac t tha t Cu nn in gh am was s uf feri ng fro m a se ve re m en ta l i ll ne ss an d “ was no t o n h is m ed ic at io n a t the ti m e o f th e of fen se .” (Id . at 9 11 ). His att orne y ask edth e co urt t o c on si de r Dr. Cam pb el l’s op in io n t ha t Cu nn in gh am “ di d n otap pr eci at e th e wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s co nduc t” in de te rm in in g a n app ro pr ia te sen te nc e. (Id . at 9 11 ). Bec au se of C un ni ng ha m ’s m en ta l i ll ne ss , hi s at to rn ey arg ue d t ha t h e n eed edreh ab il it at io n, an d a sk edth e co urt t o c on si de r th e p os si bi li ty of im po si ng a sp li t s en te nc e. (Id . at 9 14 ). Altho ug h t he st at e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t Cu nn in gh am was “ a tr oubl edan d di sturbe d m an ,” itde te rm in edth athe po se d ada ng er b ot h t o s oc ie ty andhi m se lf. (Id . at 9 17 ). As a re su lt , th e co urt s en te nc edhi m to li fe i n p ris on . (Id . at 9 18 ). II . The Sta te a nd Fede ra l Po st co nv ic tio n Pro ceed in gs Cun ni ng ha m

ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on to th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al 27App eal s, m ak in g fi ve arg um en ts : (1 ) th atth e jury im pr op erl y di sr eg ard ed ev id en ce tha t h e was su ffer in g fr om a se ve re m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectat t he ti m e of th e o ffen se ; (2 ) th atth e tr ia l co urt erredby refus in g t o s up pr es s B ro wn’s s ho wup id en ti fic at io n; (3) th atth e co urt erredby fail in g t o s up pr es s h is wall etan d i ts co nt en ts ; (4 ) th atth e co urt erredby notem pa ne li ng sep arat e juri es to try the two ph as es of h is bi fu rcat edtri al ; an d (5 ) th atth e co urt erredby notpe rm it ti ng hi s ex pe rt t o b e p res en t i n t he co urtro om du rin g the supp res si on he ari ng . (R1 4; App el la nt ’s Bri ef i n Al a. Ct . Cri m . App . at i –i i). Th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s re

jecte d e ach of C un ni ng ha m ’s arg um en ts an d a ffi rm edhi s co nv ic ti on . See C un ni ng ha m

v. St at e, 72 7 S o. 2 d 1 78 (Ala . Cri m . App . 19 97 ). (See R 14 ; Mem or an du m

Opi ni on of Al a. Ct . Cri m . App .). The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt de ni edhi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f certi or ari . See Ex pa rte Cu nn in gh am , 73 3 S o. 2 d 49 3 (Al a. 19 98 ). On M arch 26 , 19 99 , Cun ni ng ha m fil edhi s fi rs t p et it io n fo r habe as co rp us in fed eral co urt, as se rti ng th atth e st at e co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s Bro wn’s s ho w-up i de nt ifi cat io n. (R 16 :Tab 1: Pet it io n a t 7 ). He lat er fi le d a m ot io n t o v ol un taril y

di sm is s t ha t p et it io n wi th ou t p reju di ce, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d o n Au gu st27 , 19 99 . See Cu nn in gh am v. Ho lt , No. 9 9- 03 25 -RV-C (S.D. Ala. Au g. 2 7, 1 99 9) . (Id.: Ju dg m en t at1). 28On Dec em be r 20 , 19 99 , Cun ni ng ha m fil eda pe ti ti onin st at e co urt u nd er Alab am a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2, co ll at eral ly atta ck in g h is co nv ic ti on ba se d o n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. (R1 5: Tab 4: at1– 10 ). The s ta te co urt di sm is se d t ha t p et it io n b ecau se “ [t]he is su es rai se d b y th e d efen da ntwere ra is edor co ul d h av e b eenrai se d o n app eal pu rs ua ntto Ru le 32 .2 o f th e Alaba m a Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e an d t he pe ti ti on di sc lo se s n o n ewly dis co ve redm at eri al or f act whi chwou ldrequi re tha t the co nv ic ti on be va cat ed .” See C un ni ng ha m v. St at e, No. CC -9 5- 43 9 (C ir. C t. o f Esc am bi a Co un ty Feb. 4 , 20 00 ). (Id . at Tab 4: Feb . 20 00 Cir cu itCt. Ord er). Itdo es no t ap pe ar tha t Cu nn in gh am ap pe al edth e di sm is sa l o f th atpe ti ti on . Cu nn in gh am

fil eda se co ndfed eral habe as pe ti ti on on May 24, 2 00 0. (R 16 : Tab 2: R&R a t 1 4) . He clai m edbo th th atth e u se of t he sh ow- up id en ti fic at io n pr oc edur e was so pre

jud ic ia l tha t i t d ep riv edhi m of afai r tr ia l an d t ha t h e was de ni edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. (R1 6: Tab 2: Pet it io n a t 7 –8 ). On J anua ry 2, 2 00 1, wh il e th atsec on d h ab eas pe ti ti on was s ti ll pe nd in g, Cu nn in gh am fil eda th irdon e; itcha ll en ge d t he sh ow- up id en ti fic at io n o f hi m by Brown . (Id.: Tab 4: Pet it io n a t 7 ). The di stric t co urt co ns ol id at edth e Ma y 20 00 an d J anua ry

20 01 pe ti ti on s. See C un ni ng ha m

v. Ho lt , Nos . CA 00 -0 47 1- BH-C & CA 01 -0 00 4- BH-C (S .D. 29Ala. Au g. 6 , 20 01 ). (Id .: Re p. & Rec. at1– 2) . The co urt d et erm in edth atitwas

pr oc edur al ly barre d fr om reac hi ng th e m eri ts of the in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m

be cau se Cu nn in gh am

ha d ra is edth e sa m e is su e in hi s R ul e 3 2 pe ti ti on , bu t h e h adfai le d t o app eal th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s d is m is sa l o f th atpe ti ti on . (Id . at 1 1 & n.3 ). The co urt al so de te rm in edth atth e actua l i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on to th e p ro cedur al de fau ltdo ctrin e d idno t ap pl y de sp it e Cu nn in gh am ’s con te nt io n th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e o rd ered“ DNA tes ti ng on cert ai n i de nt ifi ed ev id en ce.” (Id . at 1 4 n .5). Acc or di ng to th e d is tri ctco urt, al l Cu nn in gh am ha d 6 do ne was “ m ak e th e b ro adco nc lu so ry arg um en t tha t s uc h t es ti ng m ay ex cu lp at e hi m ,” an d t ha t was in su ffi ci en t b ecau se ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce d idno t ex is t atth e ti m e. (Id .) The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er fo un d t ha t “ [s ]uchDNA tes ti ng . . . is ne it he r warra nt edno r wou lditbe li ke ly to ex cu lp at e [Cu nn in gh am ] si nc e th ere was ne ve r an y di rectDNA evi de nc e u se d i n p ro se cu ti ng hi m at t ria l.” (Id .) The di stric t co urt al so reject edCu nn in gh am ’s cla im rel at in g t o B ro wn’s id en ti fic at io n b ecau se itwas a dju di cat edon th e m eri ts in st at e co urt an d We have no wa

y of dete rmining f

or ourse lves prec isely

what evide nce Cunningham 6 wanted te sted in connec tion with his fede ral ha beas pe tition because the rec ord submitted by the parties is incomplete. This Court instructed the parties to submit copies of a ll of the rec ords in the state a nd fede ral proc eeding s relatingto Cunningham’s c onviction. After se arc hing its rec ords, howeve r, the State wa s appar ently unable to locate and obtain a number of doc uments from Cunning ham’s postconviction proc eeding s. One of those missing documents is the one the district court cited in re fer ence to the “ce rtain identified e vidence ” upon which Cunningham wanted D NA testingperf ormed. (I d. at 14 n.5).

30Cu nn in gh am co ul d n otsat is fy

eit he r of th e 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ) ex cep ti on s. (Id . 7 at16 –1 7) . Acco rd in gl y , bo th th e Ma y 20 00 an d J anua ry

20 01 pe ti ti on s wer e de ni edby the di stric t co urt. (Id .: Au g. 2 00 1 Ord er at2). Cu nn in gh am ’s reque st fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y was l at er d en ie d b ot h b y th e d is tri ctco urt an d b y th is Co urt. (Id .: Se pt . 20 01 Dis t. Ct . Orde r at2 & 11 thCir . Orde r). On Oct ob er 2 3, 2 00 3, Cu nn in gh am fil eda se co ndRu le 32 pe ti ti on in st at e co urt, cl ai m in g t ha t h e was actua ll y in no cen t. (R1 5: Tab 4: 20 03 Ru le 32 Pet it io n) . Altho ug h C un ni ng ha m

co nt en de d i n the pe ti ti on “ th atif a ll th e fac ts of t he cas e ha d b een kn own to th e jury the re [was ] a st ro ng pre su m pt io n t ha t the jury wou ld no t h av e co nv ic te d [h im ] of th e cri m e,” h e n ev er s pe ci fie d wh atad di ti on al fact s h e was refe rri ng to an d h e n ev er m en ti on edor r eque st edDNA tes ti ng . (Id. at14 ). Tha t p et it io n was als o d is m is se d b ecau se th e is su es Cu nn in gh am rai se d wer e o r co ul d h av e b eenrai se d o n d ire ctap pe al an d h is pe ti ti on fai le d t o d is cl os e an y ne wly di sc ov eredfact s re qu iri ng th athi s co nv ic ti on be va cat ed . See Cunn in gh am v. St at e, No. CC 95 -4 39 .60 (Ci r. Ct . of Es cam bi a Co un ty, Apr . 29 , 20 04 ). (Id .: Apr . 20 04 Cir cu itCt. Ord er). Cu nn in gh am ’s app eal of t ha t d eci si on was Cunningham filed another habea s petition on J anuar y 25, 2001, raisingthe identical 7 issue of the pre

judicial eff

ect of the show-up identific ation. (See R16:Tab 3: Petition at 7). That petition was dismissed as duplicative by the district court in F ebrua ry 2001. See Cunning ham v. Holt, No. 01-0075-CB -M (S.D. Ala. F eb. 21, 2001). ( I d.: Order) 31di sm is se d fo r fai lu re t o fi le a br ie f. (Id .: Au g. 2 00 4 Al a. Cri m . App . Orde r).

Cu nn in gh am

fil edhi s fi fth an d fi na l fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on on Sep te m be r 20 , 20 04 , all eg in g h is actua l i nn oc en ce. (R1 6: Tab 5: Pet it io n Ad de ndum ). Agai n, Cu nn in gh am

su m m ari ly con te nd edth at“ th e ev id en ce an d fa ct s p ro ve [d ] th athe [was ] no t g ui lt y

of t he cri m e,” b uthe ne ithe r m en ti on edany bi ol og ic al ev id en ce supp orti ng hi s p os it io n n orreque st edDNA tes ti ng . (Id .) The d is tri ctco urt co ns tru edth e p et it io n a s b ei ng su cces si ve an d d is m is se d i t fo r la ckof juris di ct io n. See C un ni ng ha m

v. Fe rrel l, No . 04 -0 60 7- W S-C (S .D. Ala. May 6, 20 05 ). (Id .: Rep . & Rec.) . II I. Thi s L aw su it In20 04 th e Wisco ns inInn oc en ce Pr ojec t, fro m whi ch Cu nn in gh am

ha d pr ev io us ly requ es te d l eg al ass is ta nc e, be ga n c on ta ct in g Al ab am a au th or it ie s in cl ud in g t he Flo m at on Po li ce Dep art m en t, the Cir cu itCo urt o f Esc am bi a Co un ty, an d t he Alab am a Dep art m en t o f Fo ren si c Sci en ces on Cu nn in gh am ’s beh al f to de te rm in e whe th er the bi ol og ic al ev id en ce co ll ect edin co nn ect io n wi th hi s ca se ha d b een pre se rv ed . The Wisc on si n In no cen ce Pr ojec t wan te d t o c on du ctSTR (s ho rt t an de m

rep eat ) DNA andm it oc ho nd ria l DNA te st in g o n t he co nd om wrap pe r fo un d i n t he pa rkan d o n p ub ic ha irs an d fi ng ern ai l s crap in gs th atwere reco ve redfro m

Bro wn dur in g the sex ua l as saul t ex am in at io n. Al th ou gh va rio us 32au th or it ie s h av e co nf irmed th atth e co nd om

wrap pe r an d p ub ic ha irs rem ai n av ai labl e, th e In no cen ce Pr ojec t h as be enun ab le to de te rm in e whe th er o th er bi ol og ic al ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng th e fi ng ern ai l s crap in gs , st il l ex is ts or wh ere i t m ig htbe lo cat ed . Nor h as th e In no cen ce Pr ojec t b eenab le to ge t ac ces s t o the 8 bi ol og ic al ev id en ce fo r DNA tes ti ng . Each o f th e au th or it ie s wh o h as cu st od y of th e ev id en ce ei th er re fu se d t o re le as e itwitho uta co urt o rd er o r fai le d t o re sp on d to th e reque st s t ha t i t d o s o. On Cu nn in gh am ’s beh al f, th e Wisco ns in Inn oc en ce Pr ojec t fi le d t hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 l aws ui t o n J un e 2 2, 2 00 6, s eek in g a cces s t o the bi ol og ic al ev id en ce to pe rfo rm

DNA tes ti ng . The d efen dant s n am edin th e su itare t he Att orne y Gen eral of Al ab am a, th e Dis tri ctAtt orne y of Es cam bi a Co un ty, th e Ch ie f of

th e Fl om at on Po li ce Dep art m en t, the Townof F lo m at on , andth e Cl erkof t he Esca m bi a Co un ty Circu itCo urt. Acco rd in g t o t he co m pl ai nt , “ [t]he re was no DNA ana lysis co nduc te d o n e it he r th e co nd om wrap pe r lo cat edat t he cri m e sc en e

Investig ators collec ted fing erna il scraping s from B rown a s part of the standard se x ual 8 assault examination. However , the Chief of the Flomaton Police De partment wa s unable to locate the entirety

of the ra pe kit from B rown’s e x amination and reported to the Innocenc e Project that he be lieved the kit had be en turne d over to the D istrict Attorney ’s Off ice. Cunningham’s complaint alleg es “[o]n i nformation and be lief, [that] the fing erna il scraping s wer e likely

included in [the] sex crimes kit” that was turne d over to the D istrict Attorney . (Doc . 56 at 20). While the evidenc e in the re cord shows that Brown broke loose f rom the ra

pist twice and they strug g led, it does not indicate that she e ver sc ratc hed the r apist or provide a ny particula r rea son to believe that the f inge rnail scr aping s contain any biologica l evidencefrom the r apist. 33orth e p ub ic ha ir a ndha ir f rag m en ts co ll ect eddu rin g M s. Br own ’s sex ua l as saul t ex am in at io n.” (Doc . 56 at 1 7) . The co m pl ai ntfurth er al le ge s tha t DNA te ch no lo gy at th e ti m e o f Cunn in gh am ’s tri al “ was no t as po werfu l as itis to da y ” an d t ha t u si ng cu rren t t ech no lo gy: DNA pro fil es canbe de ve lo pe d fr om min is cu le qu an ti ti es of bi ol og ic al m at eri al , in cl ud in g t he sk in an d/ orsal iv a cel ls Ms . Bro wn’s as sa il an t m ay

have lef t o n t he co nd om

wrap pe r in th e pr oc es s o f op en in g t he co nd om durin g h is st ru gg le with M s. Br own , orsk in or o th er ce ll s t ran sf erre d fr om

th e atta ck er t o M s. Br own ’s fin ge rn ai ls . Furt he r, m it oc ho ndria l DNA te st in g i s n ow p os si bl e th at wou ldall ow a c om

paris on of t he pubi c h ai r an d h ai r frag m en ts lo cat edinMs . Bro wn’s p ub ic ha ir wi th kn ownsamples fro m bo th Mr. Cu nn in gh am

an d M s. Br own . (Id . at 1 7– 18 ); b utsee n.8 , supr a. The co m pl ai ntcla im s t ha t the de fen da nt s’ refu sa l t o g ran t Cu nn in gh am acce ss to whathe be li ev es to be ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce tha t co ul d l eadto a co nc lu si on of i nn oc en ce v io la te s h is : (1 ) pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s ri gh t; (2) subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s ri gh t; (3) Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o m ak e a free st an di ng cla im

of a ctua l i nn oc en ce; (4) rig htof a cces s t o t he co urts an d e qu al pr ot ect io n o f th e la ws; an d (5 ) ri gh t t o app ly for cl em en cy or apard on . The re li ef

9 Cunningham’s complaint also included a n additional claim alleg ing that the defe ndants’ 9 ref usal to relea se the e vidence violates his Six th Amendment rights to confrontation and compulsory

proce ss. Be causeCunningham has not challeng ed the district cour t’s dismiss al of that claim in his brief to this Court, however , he has w aived the issue on a ppeal. SeeUnited States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). 34so ug htis anord er re qu iri ng th e d efen da nt s b ot h t o d el iv er the reque st edev id en ce

to a fo ren si cs lab of h is ch oi ce fo r te st in g, wh ic h C un ni ng ha m ha s o ffer edto pa y fo r, an d t o c om

pare an y reco ve redDNA pro fil es to th os e in th e Co m bi ne d DNA In de x S y st em

(CODIS) d at ab an k fo r po te nt ia l m at ch es . The de fen da nt s m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s C un ni ng ha m ’s co m pl ai nt , arg ui ng th athe ha d n otest ab li sh edth atth e d en ia l o f po st co nv ic ti on acce ss to ev id en ce fo r pu rp os es of DNA t es ti ng de pr iv es hi m of afed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . The d is tri ctco urt ag reed . It co nc lu de d t ha t Cu nn in gh am ha d fai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m

ag ai ns t an y

de fen dantup on whi ch rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d an d, the refo re, d is m is se d h is co m pl ai nt . As to th e d efen da nt s wh o fi le d ans wers be fo re m ov in g fo r di sm is sa l, the co urt g ran te d ju dg m en t o n t he pl ead in gs . The co urt fi rs t d et erm in edth atCu nn in gh am ha d fa il edto est ab li sh th athe ha s a p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s ri gh t o f po st co nv ic ti on acce ss to th e ev id en ce u nd er Brad y v. Ma ry land , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) . It r eject edth atcla im be cau se “ th e ev id en ce [h e] seek s was av ai labl e to hi m pri orto tri al , th ere i s n o al le ga ti on th athe di d n otrece iv e a fai r tr ia l, an d h e can no t s ho w at t hi s p oi ntth at th e ev id en ce h e se ek s wo ul d re su ltin a di ffer en t o ut co m e.” Seco nd , th e co urt d is m is se d C un ni ng ha m ’s cla im th athe ha s a p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s ri gh t t o t he ev id en ce u nd er Ma th ews v. Eld rid ge , 42 4 U.S. 3 19 , 96 S. 35Ct . 89 3 (1 97 6) . The co urt h el d tha t M athe ws d idno t ap pl y be cau se Cu nn in gh am di d n otret ai n a“ co nt in ui ng li be rty int eres t” aft er b ei ng co nv ic te d a ndsen te nc ed gi ve n t ha t “ he was n otsen te nc edto de ath fo r th e rap e.” Thi rd , th e co urt d et erm in edth atCu nn in gh am ’s rel ianc e o n Herrerav. Co ll in s, 5 06 U.S. 39 0, 1 13 S. Ct. 8 53 (19 93 ), to est ab li sh hi s ri gh t t o ra is e a free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m was m is pl aced . The co urt re as on edth at“ th e po te nt ia l fo r a fre e-s ta nd in g c on st itut io na l cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce ap pe ars to be on ly avai labl e in a cap it al cas e.” Fo urth , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Cu nn in gh am ha d fa il edto st at e a va li d c la im

ba se d o n h is rig htof a cces s t o the co urts be cau se he co ul d n otsat is fy th e actua l i nju ry

requi rem en t. Fi na ll y , th e co urt d is m is se d C un ni ng ha m ’s cla im ba se d o n h is rig htto ap pl y fo r cl em en cy

or apa rd on . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “be cau se th ere i s n o subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s ri gh t o f acc es s t o e vi de nc e to pre se ntcla im s i n e xe cu ti ve cl em en cy pro ceed in gs or o th erwi se , su ch a ri gh t ca nn otbe th e b as is foranact io n un de r § 1 98 3.” (Doc . 58 at 2 5 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). Inth is ap pe al Cu nn in gh am co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby hol di ng th athe do es no t h av e a co ns ti tu ti on al rig htof p os tc on vi ct io n a cces s t o t he bi ol og ic al ev id en ce fo r pu rp os es of DNA t es ti ng . W e wit hh el d o urde ci si on in 36th is ap pe al to awai t the Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inanAlas kacas e in vo lv in g a

si m il ar § 19 83 cla im

forDNA tes ti ng . In Di stric t At to rn ey ’s Offic e fo r th e Thi rd Ju di ci al Dis tri ctv. Os bo rn e, __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 30 8 (2 00 9) , th e Supr em e Co urt re co gn iz eda li m it edli be rty int eres t i n p os tc on vi ct io n a cces s t o DNA ev id en ce, b utithe ldth atAlas ka ’s st at e-l aw pr oc edur es were ad equa te to sat is fy du e p ro ces s. Aft er the Co urt i ss ue d i ts de ci si on , we ask edth e p art ie s fo r supp le m en ta l b rie fin g t o a dd res s Os bo rn e’s im pa cton th is ap pe al . In re sp on se , Cu nn in gh am

co nc ed edth athi s B rady , subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s, Herr era- ba se d actua l i nn oc en ce, an d c le m en cy -rel at edcla im s d idno t s urvi ve th e Osb orne de ci si on . W e ag ree wi th th os e co nc es si on s. See Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 19 –2 3. Wha t i s l eftaft er Os bo rn e, acc or di ng to Cu nn in gh am , are two cl ai m s: hi s pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s ch al le ng e to th e ad equa cy of Al ab am a’s st at e-l aw pr oc edur es forpo st co nv ic ti on rel ie f, un de r th e fund am en ta l fa irn es s s ta nd ard di sc us se d i n t ha t d eci si on ; an d h is acce ss to co urts cla im , whi chlar ge ly ove rlaps with t he du e p ro ces s cl ai m . The St at e ag rees with C un ni ng ha m th atOsb orne pr ov id es th e ru le of d eci si on forth is cas e.
IV. Gen era l Le ga l St an da rd W e rev ie w de n ov o ju dg m en t o n t he pl ead in gs an d o n m ot io ns to di sm is s. 37Hil l v . Whi te , 32 1 F .3d13 34 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); C anno n v . Cit y of W. Palm Bea ch , 25 0 F .3d12 99 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). “ Ju dg m en t o n t he pl ead in gs is pr op er wh enno is su es of m at eri al factex is t, an d t he m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law b as edon th e subs ta nc e o f th e p le ad in gs an d a ny jud ic ia ll y no ti cedfact s.” An dr x P ha rm ., Inc . v. Ela n C or p., 4 21 F.3d12 27 , 12 32 –3 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . W e acc ep t al l the fact s i n t he co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d vi ew th em

inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Can no n, 2 50 F.3d at13 01 . At the same tim e, ho wev er, we al so tak e jud ic ia l n ot ic e o f th e st at e an d fed eral co urt p ro ceed in gs in whi ch Cu nn in gh am was c on vi ct edor a tt ack edhi s co nv ic ti on . See Mo or e v . Est el le , 52 6 F .2d69 0, 6 94 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) (“ [W] e

1 0 1 1 ta ke jud ic ia l n ot ic e o f pr io r habe as pro ceed in gs bro ug htby thi s ap pe ll an t i n co nn ect io n wi th th e sa m e co nv ic ti on . This in cl ud es st at e p et it io ns , eve n wh enth e pr io r st at e cas e is no t m ad e a p artof t he reco rdon ap pe al . . . . ” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Sect io n 1 98 3 c reat es a cau se of a ct io n fo r an y on e subjec te d “ to th e The de fenda

nts origina lly

submitt ed two volumes of r ecor d excerpts from 1 0 Cunningham’s state cour

t trial. Those re cord e x cer pts were stricken by

order of an administrative pane l of this Court. That order is not binding on us a s a merits pane l. See 11th Cir. R. 27-1(g ). We had the pa rties submit to us a complete re cord of eac h of the re lated state and fe dera l proce eding s, to the ext ent that those re cords still ex ist, and we have conside red ever y thing they have submitted. See B onner v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc) 1 1 (adoptingas bindingprec edent in the Ele venth Circuit all decisions of the f ormer F ifth Circuit announce d prior to Octobe r 1, 1981). 38de pr iv at io n o f an y rig ht s, p riv il eg es , or i m

m un it ie s s ecu redby the Co ns ti tu ti on an d l aws ” b y

a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w. 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th is Co urt h as he ldth atcla im s s eek in g p os tc on vi ct io n a cces s t o e vi de nc e fo r DNA te st in g m ay

be bro ug htin a § 1 98 3 a ct io n. Br ad le y v. Pryor, 3 05 F.3d12 87 , 12 90 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ; cf

. Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 18 –1 9 (a ss um in g, wi th ou t d eci di ng , th at§ 1 98 3 i s a p ro pe r ve hi cl e fo r su ch cla im s) . V. Disc us si on A. The Li m ita tio ns of DNA Ev id ence in th is Cas e Cu nn in gh am ’s cas e d iff

ers in it s fa ct s fr om

two rece ntcas es in whi ch we affi rm eddi sm is sa l o f si m il ar § 19 83 act io ns see ki ng po st co nv ic ti on DNA te st in g. In B rad le y

v. Ki ng , 55 6 F .3d12 25 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), di sm is sa l was 1 2 ap pr op ria te be cau se tes ti ng ha d a lre ady be enpe rfo rm edon so m e o f th e p hysic al ev id en ce, an d t he st at e h adbe enun ab le to lo cat e th e ad di ti on al it em s B rad le y so ug htto tes t. Id . at 1 23 1. In Gray so n v . Kin g, 4 60 F.3d13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ),

Both of those case s were decide d befor e Osborne , and weconsidere d both liti g ants’ 1 2 proce dural due proce ss claims within the frame work of B rady v. Maryland and Mathews v. Eldridg e. B radle y

v. King , 556 F.3d 1225, 1230 ( 11th Cir. 2009); Gray son v. King , 460 F.3d 1328, 1336–42 (11th Cir. 2006). That is no long er the corr ect leg al standar d for e valuatinga postconviction DNA-a cce ss claim. See Osborne , 129 S. Ct . at 2320 (instead a pplying a “funda mental fa irness” standa

rd base d on Medina v. California , 505 U.S. 437, 112 S. C t. 2572 (1992)) . 39th e cl ai m an t h adbe enco nv ic te d o f cap it al m ur de r an d s en te nc edto de ath a fte r he an d aco -d efen da ntrap edan d k il le d a n e ld erl y wom andu rin g t he co ur se of a bu rg lary . Id. at13 30 –3 4. Th ere was no po ss ib il it y th atth e DNA tes ti ng he so ug ht co ul d h av e p ro ve d t ha t Gra y so n, wh o h adadm it te d h is in vo lv em en t i n t he bu rg lary , was i nn oc en t o f th e cap it al m ur de r. Id. at13 39 . Evenif DNA te st res ul ts di d e xc lu de Gray so n a s t he so ur ce o f th e b lo odan d s em enev id en ce, tha t wou ldha ve in di cat edon ly tha t an acco m pl ic e h adco m

m it te d t he actua l rape . Id. Inth is cas e, by con tra st , we can no t s ay th atth ere i s ab so lu te ly no p os si bi li ty th atDNA tes ti ng of the bi ol og ic al ev id en ce co ul d h el p C un ni ng ha m est ab li sh th at he was i nn oc en t o f th e rap e ch arg e. Altho ug h we s eri ou sl y do ub t, fo r rea so ns we wil l ex pl ai n m or e fu ll y

lat er, tha t the tes ti ng of a ny on e o f th e in di vi du al it em s t o whi chCu nn in gh am

see ks acce ss co ul d ra is e que st io ns ab ou t h is gu il t, i t i s th eo ret ic al ly pos si bl e th attes ti ng all of t he m m ig htdo so . For e xa m

pl e, if th e sa m e DNA pro fil e were f ou ndon th e co nd om

wrap pe r fro m

th e cri m e sc en e an d on eit he r th e p ub ic ha irs fro m Bro wn’s p ub ic co m

bi ng s o r inth e fi ng ern ai l sc rap in gs (if

an y ex is t), a ndth atDNA pro fil e d idno t m at ch hi s o wn, tha t wo ul d be ev id en ce tha t Cu nn in gh am is no t the rap is t. Oth er co m

bi na ti on s o f te stres ul ts are u nl ik el y to pro ve in no cen ce. If, fo r ex am pl e, DNA were reco ve redfro m th e p ub ic ha irs th atdi d n otm at ch 40Cu nn in gh am or B ro wn, tha t wo ul d n otpro ve hi s i nn oc en ce. The same is t ru e o f th e fi ng ern ai l s crap in gs , if the y st il l ex is t. A no n- m at chfro m th e h ai r sa m

pl es m ig htsi m

pl y in di cat e th atBro wn h adco ns en su al sex with s om eo ne els e n ear the ti m e o f he r at ta ck . A no n- m at ch fro m th e fi ng ern ai l s crap in gs mig htsi m pl y in di cat e th atsh e h adco nt act , sex ua l o r ot he rwis e, wit h s om eo ne els e. The s ta te tri al reco rddo es no t es tabl is h wh ethe r Bro wn was sex ua ll y act iv e inAug us t 1 99 5. Neit he r si de ask edhe r whe th er s he ha d s ex with ano th er p ers on inth e h ou rs le ad in g up t o t he rap e. W itho utev id en ce o n t ha t p oi nt , we can no t s ay th atDNA te st s o n e it he r th e p ub ic ha irs or f in ge rn ai l s crap in gs wou ldby the m se lv es es tabl is h t ha t Cu nn in gh am is in no cen t. Norco ul d e xc ul pa to ry

tes t re su lt s fr om

th e o pe ne d c on do m

wrap pe r al on e ev er i nd ic at e th atCu nn in gh am is in no cen t. Eve n i f DNA from so m eo ne ot he r th anCu nn in gh am

was o n t he wrap pe r, no th in g i n t he reco rdest ab li sh es th at ev eryone who ha nd le d t he co nd om wrap pe r to okpre cau ti on s t o e ns ur e th atth ei r DNA was n otlef

t o n i t b y acci de nt . W e kno w fora factth atth ey di d n ot . The reco rdsh ows th attwo witne ss es at C un ni ng ha m ’s tri al , Offic er J oyner a ndCh ie f of Po li ce Wilk ers on , whi le th ey were o n t he st an d c om

pl ie d wi th reque st s t o t ak e th e co nd om

wrap pe r ou t o f it s ev id en ti ary pa ck ag e so th atth ey co ul d i de nt ify it. Any D NA fou ndon th e co nd om wrap pe r co ul d b e fro m

an y of anu m be r of pe op le 41who ha nd le d i t af te r Cu nn in gh am ’s arres t, i nc lu di ng so m e who are u nkno wn. See Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 27 –2 8 (Al it o, J ., con cu rri ng ) (n ot in g the di ffi cu lt y , eve n with t he m os t ad va nc edSTR te ch no lo gy, of ex tra ct in g m ean in gf ul res ul ts fro m

“ m es sy” crim e sc en e sa m pl es th atha ve be enex po se d t o t he ele m en ts an d h an dl ed by inv es ti ga to rs ). Mo reo ve r, Offi cer J oyner fo un d t he co nd om wrap pe r on th e g ro un d a t the ci ty park . Alth ou gh th e fac t tha t i t was th e sa m e b ran d a s the co nd om s i n Cu nn in gh am ’s bac kp ackan d wal le t an d was fou ndne ar the co nc es si on st an d whe re Br own sai d t he rap e o ccu rredis cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt , th ere i s no way of kno win g fo r su re tha t i t i s t he wrap pe r le ft b y Bro wn’s rapi stin st eadof li tt er l eftby som eo ne els e. The p oi ntof t hi s d is cu ss io n i s t ha t the po ss ib il it y th at DNA tes ti ng co ul d h el p e st ab li sh th atCu nn in gh am is in no cen t i s n otgre at , and th atpo in t i s re in fo rcedby the am ou ntof t he ev id en ce i nd ic at in g t ha t Cu nn in gh am is infactgu il ty. Bro wn i de nt ifi edCu nn in gh am as h er rapi st . Alth ou gh he att em pt edto un de rm in e th e cre di bi li ty of th atid en ti fic at io n, t es ti m on y est ab li sh edth atBro wn id en ti fie d h im

on ly abo utfif

te enm in ut es aft er the las t t im e sh e h adsee n h er rapi st . Noton ly tha t, b utBro wn al so ha d a m pl e o pp ortu ni ty to v ie w her att ack er i n b ro ad da y li gh t, wh enhe co nf

ro nt edhe r wit h t he kn ife , when sh e st al le d b y ge tt in g h im 42to si t d own an d t al k t o h er, wh enhe pu ll edhe r to wardth e woo ds , when sh e

co nv in cedhi m

to walkwith h er t owa rda le ss sec lu de d a rea, wh enhe tac kl edhe r aft er s he bro ke lo os e an d ra n, wh enhe he ldhe r do wn, wh enhe pu t o n aco nd om an d rape d h er, an d wh ensh e tr ie d t o avo idfurth er h arm by talk in g t o h im aft erwar ds . Inth es e ci rcu m st an ces , Bro wn’s eyewitn es s i de nt ifi cat io n o f Cu nn in gh am

is po werfu l ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . See Ma ns on v. Br athwa it e, 43 2 U.S. 98 , 11 4, 9 7 S . Ct. 2 24 3, 2 25 3 (1 97 7) (se tt in g fo rth fact or s, i nc lu di ng th e witne ss ’s op po rtu ni ty to v ie w th e su sp ectan d t he ti m e th atelaps edbe twee n t he cri m e an d t he id en ti fic at io n, fo r co ns id erat io n i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r a s ug ge st iv e id en ti fic at io n was ne ve rth el es s re li ab le ) (ci ti ng Neil v. Bi gg ers , 40 9 U.S. 1 88 , 19 9– 20 0, 9 3 S . Ct. 3 75 , 38 2 (1 97 2) ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Burke , 73 8 F .2d 12 25 , 12 29 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (h ol di ng th ata su gg es ti ve id en ti fic at io n was no ne th el es s re li ab le wher e th e wit ne ss was i n t he de fen da nt ’s “pr es en ce l on g en ou gh forhe r to clo se ly obs erv e h im ,” “pa idatt en ti on to [hi m ] be cau se he was on e o f th e few cu st om ers in th e res taur an t,” a ndon ly “two m on th s el ap se d be twee n the fir stm eet in g a ndth e co nf ro nt at io n” ); O’Bri env. Wain wrig ht , 73 8 F.2 d 1 13 9, 1 14 1– 42 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (h ol di ng th atanim pe rm is si bl y

su gg es ti ve ph ot o l in eup d idno t t ai nta la te r id en ti fic at io n wh ere, “ [a]ltho ug h [t he vi ct im ] on ly ob se rv edth e b ur gl ar fo r a m atte r of sec on ds , [he ] ha d aclo se up vi ew . . . of th e 43bu rg lar’s face in a well -li gh te d ro om ” an d t he ti m e th atha d e laps edbe twee n t he

cri m e an d t he ph ot o l in eup was les s t ha n o ne da y ). And , Bro wn i de nt ifi ed Cu nn in gh am

as h er rapi sta se co ndti m e attri al . The re was als o s tro ng cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f Cunn in gh am ’s gu il t. Giv enBro wn’s t es ti m on y th athe r rap is t h el d h er atkn ife po in t, i t i s s ig ni fic an t tha t Offi cer J oyner fo un d akn ife lying on th e g ro un d i n t he ex actsp oton th e h ig hwa y whe re h e h adin it ia ll y

st op pe d C un ni ng ha m . Eve n t ho ug h t he co nt en ts of C un ni ng ham ’s bac kp ackwere s up pr es se d be fo re tria l, we s ho ul d c on si de r th atev id en ce i n e va lu at in g C un ni ng ha m ’s un de rlyin g p rem is e th athe is in no cen t. Cf. J oh ns on v. Si ng le tary , 93 8 F .2d11 66 , 11 84 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (en ba nc ) (n ot in g tha t “ th e Supr em e Co urt h as adm on is he d co urts to ap pl y

th e te stfor‘ actua l i nn oc en ce’ inli gh t o f al l p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce, in cl ud in g e vi de nc e th atwas a dm it te d (o r ex cl ud ed ) as a res ul t o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r” (e m

ph as is om it te d) (ci ti ng Kuh lm an n v . W il so n, 4 77 U.S. 43 6, 4 54 n.1 7, 10 6 S . Ct. 2 61 6, 2 62 7 n .17 (19 86 ))). The ba ck pa ckco nt ai ne d apa ir o f bl ack jean s, wh ic h i s i m

po rta ntgi ve n t ha t Br own de sc rib edhe r rap is t as weari ng bl ack pa nt s. Alt ho ug h t he re was so m e in co ns is te nc y in th e te st im on y

co nc ern in g Bro wn’s d es cri pt io n o f th e p an ts , th e ev id en ce n on ethe le ss in di cat es Cu nn in gh am ’s gu il t an d u nd erm in es hi s ar gu m en t tha t the facthe was wea rin g 44bl ue swea t p an ts when he was a rres te d s ho ws h e was no t the rap is t. At t he

supp res si on he ari ng , Bro wn s im pl y st at edth atsh e th ou gh t the “bl ackpant s” he r at ta ck er was weari ng “were co rdur oy.” Office r Jo yne r’s te st im on y at t ria l de sc rib edBro wn as ha vi ng to ldhi m th athe r at ta ck er was weari ng “bl ackjeans .” W e are no t co nv in cedth atth is in co ns is te nc y un de rm in es th e st ren gt h o f th e St at e’s cas e ag ai ns t Cu nn in gh am . Fi na ll y , th e ex te ns iv e ev id en ce co nc ern in g C un ni ng ha m ’s m en ta l h eal th hi st ory su gg es ts th athe was B ro wn’s at ta ck er. Tha t ev id en ce i nc lu de d t he fact th atCu nn in gh am

was m en ta ll y

di sturbe d abo utm at te rs of s ex . He was s o di sturbe d t ha t o ne ps y ch ol og is t, wh o h adbe enpra ct ic in g fo r ov er twen ty-fiv e y ears , tes ti fie d t ha t s om e o f th e b iz arre be ha vi or Cu nn in gh am

ha d e ng ag edin was so rare th athe co ul d re m em be r ha vi ng ob se rv edon ly thre e o r fo urep is od es li ke it , an d t ho se were b y

“ ex ceed in gl y

di sturbe d, v ery ps y ch ot ic in m at es ” m os t o f who m were i n ape ni te nt ia ry . (R1 2: 74 3, 7 54 ). Whi le in a m en ta l i ns ti tu ti on Cu nn in gh am

ha d a ls o p hysic al ly atta ck edan d fo nd le d t he bre as ts of afem al e in te rn , cla im in g l at er tha t h e th ou gh t s he was am anne qu in th atha d s to le n h is m ot he r’s cl ot he s. Cunn in gh am sai d t ha t h e h adtak endru gs on th e d ay th athe at ta ck edth atin te rn , justas h e la te r sa idth athe ha d s m ok edm ari juan a o n t he da y Bro wn was att ack ed . Andth atis no t the on ly sim il ari ty betweenCu nn in gh am ’s 45earl ie r se xu al ass au ltan d B ro wn’s rape . Whe n h e at ta ck edth e in te rn ,

Cu nn in gh am

to ldth e y ou ng wom anth athe ha d akn ife an d wo ul d k il l h er i f sh e di d n otsubm itto hi m . Sim il arl y , th e rap is t thr eat en edBro wn wi th a kn ife . The ev id en ce al so sh ows th atCu nn in gh am adm it te d t o a no th er p sycho lo gi st th athe reca ll edge tt in g o ff the tra in ne ar the pa rkon th e m orni ng of t he rap e an d rem em be redsee in g B ro wn t he re. The ps y ch ol og is t t es ti fie d tha t Cu nn in gh am

“ was ab le to supp ly m e a l otof d et ai ls to th is in ci de ntan d t he n h e b ecame am ne si c fo r th e k id nap andrap e.” (R1 3: 83 1) . The p sycho lo gi stdi d n otbe li ev e th e co nv en ie ntcla im

of a m ne si a, fi nd in g i t “ hi gh ly unu su al th atso m eo ne co ul d h av e se le ct iv e am

ne si a li ke th at ,” an d c on cl ud edth atCu nn in gh am was fa ki ng am

ne si a atth atpo in t. (Id . at 8 31 –3 2) . Cun ni ng ha m ’s adm is si on to be in g n ear t he cri m e sc en e atth e ti m e o f th e rap e, hi s ad m is si on to see in g t he vi ct im th ere b efo re s he was rap ed , andhi s s el f-s erv in g, s el ect iv e am ne si a ab ou t the actua l rape is st ro ng ev id en ce o f gu il t. Eve n s o, the re re m ai ns th e sl im po ss ib il ity

th atDNA tes ti ng m ig htrev eal ev id en ce s ug ge st in g t ha t Cu nn in gh am is in no cen t. Inth is res pe ctth e fac ts of t hi s cas e res em

bl e th os e in Osb orne , wher e th ere was a ch an ce, h owe ve r im pr ob ab le in th e li gh t o f ot he r ev id en ce, tha t the reque st edtes ti ng mig htpo in t t o s om eo ne els e as th e p erp etrat or . 46B. The O sb or ne Deci si on

Osb orne was c on vi ct edin Alas kast at e co urt o f ki dn ap pi ng , ass au lt , and se xu al ass au lt . Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 14 . He andanacco m pl ic e were c ha rg ed with p ic ki ng up a pr os ti tu te an d t he n, af te r sh e d em an de d p aym en t i n a dv an ce, rap in g a ndsev erel y

be at in g h er, an d l eav in g h er fo r de adin th e sn ow. Id . at 2 31 3. The vi ct im ’s id en ti fic at io n o f Osb orne was n otas s tro ng as B ro wn’s i de nt ifi cat io n of Cu nn in gh am

in th is cas e. The c rime in Os bo rn e h ap pe ne d i n t he ev en in g; th e vi ct im ha d s uf fere d ahe adin

jury; th e fi rs t t im e sh e p ic ke d o utOsb orne ’s ph ot o was sev eral da y s af

te r th e fac t, an d s he di d s o “ with s om e u nc ert ai nt y .” Id . at 23 12 –1 3. Th ere was , ho wev er, o th er ev id en ce o f Osb orne ’s gu il t. Id . His acco m pl ic e g av e a s ta te m en t t o p ol ic e im pl ic at in g b ot h Os bo rn e an d h im se lf, a nd ot he r wit ne ss es pl acedOsb orne with t he acco m pl ic e sh ortl y

be fo re the cri m e. Id . A bl ue co nd om

ap pa ren tl y

us edby the rap is t was fou ndat t he cri m e sc en e, al on g with s om e p ub ic ha irs . Id. The Sta te tes te d s em enfro m th e co nd om

us in g rel at iv el y im pr eci se DQ Alph a te st in g, wh ic h e xc lu de d t he vi ct im , Osb orne ’s code fen da nt , anda th irdsu sp ect , andm at ch edOsb orne bu t al so m at ch edab ou t 1 6% of th e b la ckm al e p op ul at io n. Id . The p ub ic ha irs ap pe aredsi m il ar t o Os bo rn e’s, bu t the y were n otsu it ab le forDQ Alph a te st in g. Id . at 2 31 3– 14 . A mor e p reci se RFLP-DNA t es t was av ai labl e atth e ti m e, bu t Os bo rn e’s at to rn ey , who pre se nt ed 47a m is ta ke n- id en ti ty defen se at tria l, m ad e a t act ic al de ci si on no t t o u se th attes t

be cau se sh e fea redit s re su ltwou ldin cu lp at e h im furth er. Id . at 2 31 4. Afte r hi s co nv ic ti on s wer e aff irmed on di rectap pe al , Osb orne so ug ht co ll at eral rev ie w un de r Ala sk a St at . § 1 2.7 2, Al as ka ’s gen eral po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f st atut e. He cla im edth atfurth er DNA tes ti ng of t he semen an d h ai rs , whi ch he no w reque st edun de r di sc ov ery ru le s, wo ul d p ro ve hi s i nn oc en ce. Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 30 8, J oi ntApp en di x a t 2 2. Th e Ala sk a Co urt o f App eal s h el d t ha t Osb orne co ul d n otob ta in di sc ov ery un de r th e st at e st atut e b ecau se th e te st in g h e so ug htha d b een av ai labl e attri al , so he fai le d t o m eetth e st atut e’s requi rem en t th atth e ev id en ce b e b ot h “ ne w” an d d il ig en tl y ob ta in ed . Osb orne v. St at e, 11 0 P.3 d 9 86 , 99 5 (Al as kaCt. Ap p. 2 00 5) . Howev er, the co urt al so he ldth atth e due pr oc es s cl au se of Al as ka ’s con st itut io n m ig htall ow a p et it io ne r cl ai m in g a ctua l in no cen ce t o o bt ai n p os tc on vi ct io n DNA te st in g e ve n i f he di d n otm eetth e requi rem en ts of t he st atut e. Id . For t ha t re as on , th e co urt re m an de d, d ire ct in g t he tri al co urt t o c on si de r th ree f act or s i n d eci di ng whet he r Osb orne ha d ast at e co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto DNA tes ti ng : (1 ) whe th er the co nv ic ti on res te d p rimaril y on ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n; (2) whet he r th ere was “ de m on st rab le do ub t” as t o t he id en ti fic at io n o f th e p erp etrat or ; an d (3 ) whe th er s ci en ti fic tes ti ng wou ldli ke ly be co nc lu si ve . Id. 48On re m an d, the tri al co urt re co ns id eredth e ev id en ce an d fo un d t ha t Os bo rn e

ha d fa il edto m eetan y

of t he th ree e le m en ts . Osb orne v. St at e, 16 3 P .3d97 3, 9 75 (Ala sk a Ct . App . 20 07 ). Becaus e o th er p hysic al ev id en ce l in ke d Os bo rn e to th e sc en e an d wi tn es se s p la cedhi m with t he ot he r pe rp etrat or , th e co nv ic ti on di d n ot res t “pr im ari ly” onth e v ic ti m ’s id en ti fic at io n a ndth ere was no “ se rio us do ub t” ab ou t tha t i de nt ifi cat io n. Id . at 9 78 . The co urt al so fou ndth atev enif t es ti ng rev eal edso m eo ne els e’s DNA it wo ul d n otbe co nc lu si ve pro of of i nn oc en ce, gi ve n t he “ ex te ns iv e” o th er ev id en ce ag ai ns t Os bo rn e an d t he po ss ib il ity th at be cau se th e co nd om

ha d b een di sc ov eredm or e th ana da y aft er the ass au lt , it m ig htha ve be enlef

t co in ci de nt al ly by

so m eo ne un co nn ect edto th e cri m e. Id . The Alas kaCo urt o f App eal s ag reedwith t he tri al co urt’s co nc lu si on s, an d affi rm edth e d en ia l o f Osb orne ’s pet it io n. Id . at 9 82 . Mea nwh il e, Osb orne ha d fi le d a§ 1 98 3 a ct io n i n fe de ral di st ric t co urt. Ass ert in g ava rie ty of co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s, h e as ke d t he co urt t o c om pe l the Anc ho rag e Dis tri ctAtt orne y ’s Offic e to all ow h im acce ss to th e se m enfro m th e co nd om an d t he ha irs , form it oc ho nd ria l an d S TR-DNA tes ti ng at h is own ex pe ns e. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Osb orne , ho ld in g t ha t un de r th e u ni qu e fac ts of t he cas e, he ha d a“ ve ry li m it edco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ” to DNA tes ti ng . Osb orne v. Di stric t At to rn ey ’s Offic e fo r Thi rdJu di ci al Dis t., 4 45 49F. Supp . 2d10 79 , 10 81 (D. Alas ka20 06 ). The co urt n ot edth atth e te st in g

Osb orne so ug htha d n otbe enav ai labl e attri al , th atitco ul d b e d on e atno co stto th e St at e, an d tha t the res ul t co ul d b e “ si gn ifi can t” to de te rm in in g g ui ltor in no cen ce i n p ro ceed in gs for po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Id. Th e Nin th Cir cu it affi rm ed . Osb orne v. Di st ric t Atto rn ey ’s Offic e fo r Thi rdJu di ci al Dis t., 5 21 F.3d 11 18 (9t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Reas on in g t ha t the pro se cu to ria l dut y un de r Bra dy v. Mary la ndto di sc lo se ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce ex te nd edto th e p os tc on vi ct io n c on te xt , th e Nin th Cir cu ithe ldth atdu e p ro ces s p ro hi bi te d t he Sta te fro m de nyin g Os bo rn e acce ss to bi ol og ic al ev id en ce fo r DNA tes ti ng . Id. at11 28 , 11 41 –4 2. Th e Supr em e Co urt g ran te d c ert io rari an d re ve rs ed . 12 9 S . Ct. at23 16 . The Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t Os bo rn e’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts ha d n otbe en vi ol at ed . It rejec te d Os bo rn e’s subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s ar gu m en t, re fu si ng to reco gn iz e a “ free st an di ng rig htto DNA evi de nc e” u nc on ne ct edto an y un de rlyin g li be rty int eres t. Id . at 2 32 3. Os bo rn e al so ass ert eda pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m , arg ui ng th atth e DNA tes ti ng was a“pr oc es s” he ne ed edto vi nd ic at e h is li be rty in te res t i n p ro vi ng hi s i nn oc en ce an d o bt ai ni ng va rio us form s o f po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Id. at23 19 . The Co urt re jecte d Os bo rn e’s at te m

ptto ass erta fed eral li be rty in te res t i n b rin gi ng an“ actua l i nn oc en ce” c la im un de r Herre ra v . Col li ns , 50 6 U.S. 39 0, 1 13 S. Ct. 8 53 (19 93 ). Ass um in g wi th ou t d eci di ng th atsu ch a Herre ra cl ai m 50ex is ts , th e Co urt n ot edth atth e cl ai m sh ou ldbe bro ug htin habe as , wher e fed eral ru le s al lo win g d is co ve ry

forgo odcau se wou ldsat is fy th e requi rem en ts of due pr oc es s. Id . at 2 32 1– 22 . It al so he ldth atOsb orne di d n otha ve a li be rty int eres t i n se ek in g p ard on or c omm

ut at io n, b ecau se no on e is en ti tl edto ex ecu ti ve cle m en cy as a m atte r of

Alas kalaw. Id . at 2 31 9. Ho wev er, the Co urt s ai d, wh ere s ta te law en ti tl es a pe ti ti on er t o h av e h is co nv ic ti on va cat edup ona su ffi ci en tl y st ro ng sh owi ng of a ctua l i nn oc en ce, a l ib erty in te res t i s cr eat edan d t he Sta te ’s pr oc edur es forvi nd ic at in g t ha t i nt eres t m us t s at is fy

du e p ro ces s. Id . Bec au se a cri m in al de fen da ntco nv ic te d a fte r a fai r tr ia l n o l on ge r en joy s t he pr es um pt io n o f in no cen ce, h is li be rty int eres t i s m or e li m it edan d t he Sta te ha s m or e fl ex ib il it y

inde ci di ng whatpro cedur es are n eces sary . Id. at23 20 . Po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f pr oc eed in gs do no t re qu ire th e fu ll ran ge of p ro cedur al rig ht s th atare av ai labl e attri al , andBrad y v. Ma ry la ndha s n o app li cat io n i n the po st co nv ic ti onco nt ex t. Id . at 2 31 9– 20 . The Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a S ta te ’s pr oc es s fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f is co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te un le ss it“ of fen ds so m e p rin ci pl e o f jus ti ce s o ro ot edin th e tr ad it io ns an d c on sc ie nc e o f ou r pe op le as to be ran ke d a s fu nd am en ta l,” o r “ tra ns gr es se s an y reco gn iz edpri nc ip le of fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s i n o pe rat io n.” Id. at23 20 (qu ot in g M ed in a v . Cal ifo rn ia , 50 5 U.S. 43 7, 4 46 , 44 8, 1 12 S. Ct. 2 57 2, 2 57 7– 78 (19 92 )). Fed eral co urts m ay no t 51in te rfer e u nl es s the Sta te ’s pro ces s i s “ fu nd am en ta ll y in ad equa te to vi nd ic at e th e subs ta nt iv e ri gh ts pro vi de d.” Id. 1 3 The Supr em e Co urt at te m pt edne it he r to de fin e ex act ly the lev el of p ro ces s requi redto sat is fy

th e fund am en ta l fa irn es s s tand ardno r to sp eci fy th e p ro ces s du e. See i d. (“ Whe n aSta te ch oo se s t o o fferhe lp to th os e se ek in g re li ef fro m co nv ic ti on s, due pro ces s d oe s n otdi ct at e th e ex actform su ch ass is ta nc e m

us t as su m e.” (ci ta ti on , bra ck et s, an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). In st ead , th e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the re was “no th in g i na de qu at e” ab ou t Al as ka ’s po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f pr oc edur es , eit he r in ge ne ral or s pe ci fic al ly w it h re ga rdto reque st s fo r acce ss to DNA evi de nc e. Id . In re ach in g t ha t co nc lu si on , th e Co urt p oi nt edto se ve ral fact or s: Alas ka ’s st atut e “pr ov id es a subs ta nt iv e ri gh t t o b e rel eas edon a su ffi ci en tl y

co m pe ll in g s ho win g o f ne w evi de nc e th atest ab li sh es in no cen ce”; “ [i]t ex em pt s s uc h c la im s fr om

ot he rwis e ap pl ic ab le ti m e li m it s” ; an d i t “pr ov id es for di sc ov ery in po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs .” Id . The Co urt n ot edat l eas t o ne st at e tri al co urt h adap pl ie d t he st atut e to granta reque stfor DNA tes ti ng . Id. (ci ti ng Pat te rs onv. St at e, No. A-8 81 4, 2 00 6 WL 57 37 97 , at * 4 (Al as kaCt. Ap p., Ma r. 8,

As Cunningham conce des, the c orre ct standar d for e valuatingthe State’s denia l of a 1 3 reque st for postconviction DNA te sting, ther efor e, is Medina’ s “fundamental fa irness” inquiry and not the Mathe ws v. Eldridg e bala ncingtest. See id. at 2332 n.3 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

5220 06 )). 1 4

The Supr em e Co urt d eci de d t ha t Al as ka ’s li m it at io ns on po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f cl ai m s—th atth e ev id en ce b e “ ne wly av ai labl e,” tha t i t h av e b een di li ge nt ly pu rs ue d, an d t ha t i t b e “ su ffi ci en tl y m at eri al ”—are “ no t i nc on si st en t wi th th e tra di ti on s an d c on sc ie nc e o f ou r pe op le or wi th an y reco gn iz edpri nc ip le of fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s.” Id . at 2 32 0– 21 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . In do in g s o, the Co urt co ns id eredth e fac t tha t tho se li m it at io ns were s im il ar t o t he on es im po se d b y ot he r St at es ’ DNA evi de nc e p ro cedur es an d b y fed eral law, th ereb y su gg es ti ng th atth e “ fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s” of aSta te ’s pro cedur e fo r po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f can be m eas ur edby com pa ris on to ot he r juri sd ic ti on s. See id . at 2 32 0. St atut es pro vi di ng forpo st co nv ic ti on DNA tes ti ng typic al ly pla ce a va rie ty of co ns tra in ts on acce ss to DNA evi de nc e, su chas r equi rin g ash owi ng of Patterson had be en convic ted in 1982 of sexual assault, assault, and kidnapping . In 1 4 2003 he filed a

new pe tition for postconviction relief a nd reque sted DNA te sting. Patterson, 2006 WL573797 at *1. The statetrial court initially grante d his request, but it turned out that the biologic al evidenc e fr om the rape had longsince be en destroyed. I d. Patterson then argued that the destruc tion of that evidenc e wa s “newevidenc e” e ntitli nghim to relief. I d. In aff irming the trial cour

t’s denial of his petition, the Alaska Court of Appea ls held that Patterson’s re quest failed on grounds of dilig ence and timeliness. I d. at *4. B eca use the DNA testinghe sought had been a vailable a s early

as 1997, whe n he had f

iled an ea rlier postconvic tion petition asserting other grounds for r elief, the evidenc e—or at least the fa ct of its destruction—could have bee n discovere d much ea

rlier. I d. It seemed unlikely that DNA would have exonerated him, give n that he wa s identified by

two victims who had spent seve ral hours w ith him. S ee Patter son v. State, 689 P.2d 146, 147 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). Eve n though Patter son never obtained the testing he soug ht, the case never theless demonstrate s Alaska c ourts’ re cognition that claims for DNA testingcould be br ought under the State’ s g ener al postconviction relief statute. 53m at eri al it y

or aswo rnst at em en t tha t the ap pl ic an t i s i nn oc en t. Id . at 2 31 7. So m e St at es requi re tha t the reque st edtes ti ng ha ve be entec hn ol og ic al ly una va il ab le at th e ti m e o f tr ia l; ot he rs de ny tes ti ng to ap pl ic an ts who ha d d ecl in editat t ria l fo r ta ct ic al reas on s. Id . (ci ti ng ex am pl es ). Osb orne cle arl y

im pl ie s, i f itdo es no t actua ll y ho ld , th atsu ch li m it at io ns are p erm is si bl e. The Supr em e Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d “ so m e unc ert ai nty in th e d et ai ls ” o f ho w cl ai m s fo r acc es s t o DNA m ig htfare un de r Ala sk a’s po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f pr oc edur es . Id. at23 21 . Howev er, i t re as on edth atth e St at e co ul d n otbe bl am ed fo r th is un cert ai nt y , bec au se Osb orne “ ha [d ] no t trie d t o u se th e p ro ces s p ro vi de d to hi m by the Sta te or a tt em

pt edto vi nd ic at e th e li be rty int eres t tha t i s n ow t he cen te rp ie ce o f hi s cl ai m .” Id . The Co urt n ot edth atOsb orne ha d n otso ug htfro m th e st at e co urts th e sa m e STR-DNA t es ti ng he was s eek in g i n h is fed eral laws ui t, an d t ha t Os bo rn e’s “ at te m ptto si de st ep st at e p ro ces s” pu t h im in a “ ve ry

awkward po si ti on ,” m ak in g i t “ di ffi cu lt ” fo r hi m to cri ti ci ze the st at e p ro ces s. Id . If Osb orne were t o m ak e su ch a reque stin st at e co urt n ow, “ he mig htwell ge t it ”—o r if no t, “ itm ay

be fora pe rfec tl y

ad equa te reas on , justas t he fed eral st atut e an d a ll st at e st atut es im

po se co nd it io ns an d l im it s o n a cces s t o DNA ev id en ce.” Id . Alth ou gh itdi d n otim po se a ge ne ral requi rem en t fo r ex haus ti onof s ta te -la w rem ed ie s, the Co urt n ev erthe le ss he ldth atitwas Os bo rn e’s bu rd ento de m on st rat e 54th e in ad equa cy of s ta te -la w pro cedur es forpo st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Id. Be cau se Alas ka ’s pro cedur es were ad equa te on th ei r fac e, an d Os bo rn e h adno t trie d t he m , he co ul d n otco m

pl ai n t ha t the y

m ig htno t wo rkin pra ct ic e. Id . C. The Pro cedu ra l Due Proc es s Cl ai m To s uc ceedon hi s due pro ces s cl ai m , Cun ni ng ha m m us t s ho w th at Alab am a’s pr oc edur e fo r co ns id eri ng a po st co nv ic ti on reque stforDNA tes ti ng is so in ad equa te th atitfai ls to sat is fy Osb orne ’s st an da rdof f

un da m en ta l fa irn es s. In th is cas e, as in Osb orne , th ere i s n o s ta tu te or c ou rt r ul e sp eci fic al ly pro vi di ng for po st co nv ic ti onDNA tes ti ng in no n- cap it al cas es . The l ackof aDNA-sp eci fic st atut e o r ru le is no t, i n i ts el f, a p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s o r ot he r co ns ti tu ti on al pr ob le m . If itwere, the Osb orne de ci si onwou ldhave co m e o utdi ffer en tl y . See id . at 2 32 0 (“ W e se e n othi ng in ad equa te ab ou t the pro cedur es Alas kaha s p ro vi de d to vi nd ic at e it s s ta te rig htto po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f in ge ne ral , andno th in g in ad equa te ab ou t h ow tho se pro cedur es ap pl y to th os e who see k a cces s t o DNA ev id en ce.”) . The Supr em e Co urt d idha ve so m ethi ng to say in Os bo rn e ab ou t Al ab am a’s pr oc edur es . After d es cri bi ng Alas kaas “ on e o f a h an df ul of S ta te s yet to en act le gi sl at io n s pe ci fic al ly addres si ng th e is su e o f ev id en ce re qu es te d fo r DNA te st in g,” th e Co urt s ta te d t ha t d idno t m ean th atacce ss to su ch ev id en ce i s 55un av ai labl e. Id . at 2 31 7. In st ead , itno te d wi th ap pr ov al th at“ Alas kaco urts are

ad dr es si ng ho w to ap pl y

ex is ti ng laws fordi sc ov ery an d p os tc on vi ct io n re li ef t o th is no ve l t ech no lo gy.” Id. The Co urt the n p oi nt edto Alab am a as an ot he r ex am pl e whe re “ [t]he same is t ru e.” Id . It ci te d F ag anv. St at e, 95 7 S o. 2 d 1 15 9 (Ala . Cri m . App . 20 07 ), in whi ch th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h ad reco gn iz edth at“ th e n eedfor po st co nv ic ti on DNA tes ti ng m ay be pre se nt edin a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on .” Fag an , 95 7 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 9; see als o Os bo rn e, 12 9 S . Ct. at23 26 n.2 (Ali to , J., co nc urrin g) (si m il arl y cit in g F ag anto sh ow t ha t Al ab am a h as

“ ad dr es se d t he is su e th ro ug h ju di ci al de ci si on s” ). By cit in g t he Fag ande ci si on in th atm an ne r, th e Co urt s ig na le d app ro va l o f Alaba m a co urts ’ effo rts to ap pl y ex is ti ng ge ne ral pro cedur es to th e p ro bl em . W it h t ha t s ig na l i n m in d, we m us t d eci de forAlab am a, as th e Supr em e Co urt d idforAlas ka , whethe r th e St at e’s ge ne ral pro cedur es forpo st co nv ic ti on rel ie f are co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te to sec ur e an y li m it edli be rty int eres t Cu nn in gh am

m ay have in see ki ng DNA evi de nc e th atmig htpro ve hi s i nn oc en ce. The Supr em e Co urt d idno t d efi ne a le ve l o f pr oc es s n eces sa ry to sat is fy th e fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s s ta nd ard , bu t i t d idfin d Al as ka ’s pro cedur es to be co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te . Id. at23 20 . Alab am a’s pr oc edur es pa ss m us te r if th ey co m pa re fa vo rab ly w it h Al as ka ’s. Osbo rn e it se lf i nv it es su ch a co m pa rat iv e 56ap pr oa ch , des cri bi ng ke y ele m en ts of Al as ka ’s pro ces s as bo th “ si m il ar” t o o th er st at e an d fe de ral st atut es an d a ls o “ no t i nc on si st en t” with fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s. Id . at 2 32 0– 21 . 1. W ha t Ala ba m a Pro vi des in No n-ca pi ta l Ca se s As Cu nn in gh am

po in ts ou t, n o Al ab am a co urt h as reco gn iz edan yth in g co m pa rab le to th e st at e-co ns ti tu ti on al “ sa fety va lv e” tha t the Alas kaCo urt o f App eal s s ug ge st edm ig htbe av ai labl e to cla im an ts ass ert in g a ctua l i nn oc en ce wh o fai l t o m eetth e requi rem en ts of t ha t s ta te ’s po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f st atut e. See Osb orne v. St at e, 11 0 P .3d98 6, 9 95 (Ala sk a Ct . App . 20 05 ) (p ro cedur al de fau lt s m ig htbe ex cu se d i f pe ti ti on er as se rti ng in no cen ce co ul d s ho w (1) co nv ic ti on res te d p rimaril y

oney ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n e vi de nc e; (2) th ere was de m on st rab le do ub t as to de fen dant ’s id en ti fic at io n; an d (3 ) sc ie nt ifi c te st in g wo ul d l ik el y be co nc lu si ve ). It i s m or e acc ur at e to say tha t n o Al ab am a co urt h as be enask edto de ci de if a s a m atte r of

Alab am a co ns ti tu ti on al law s uc h afai ls afe p ro cedur e ex is ts th ere, as itdo es in Alas ka . Inan y ev en t, the Supr em e Co urt d idno te th is alt ern at iv e p ro cedur al rou te to ob ta in in g e vi de nc e in Alas kawhi le reac hi ng it s co nc lu si on th atSta te ’s pro ces s was co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te . Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 21 . The Co urt d idno t su gg es t, h owe ve r, th atitwas e ss en ti al . In o ne pa rag rap h t he Co urt co ns id ered 57Alas ka ’s st atut e, fo un d “ no th in g i na de qu at e” ab ou t i t, an d c al le d i t “ no t

in co ns is te nt ” wit h fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s. Itth enst art eda ne w par ag rap h s ta ti ng

“ Andth ere i s m or e,” i n wh ic h i t d is cu ss edth e sa fety va lv e. Id . at 2 32 0– 21 . The im pl ic at io n i s t ha t the st at e-co ns ti tu ti on al saf ety va lv e p ro vi si on is he lp fu l (“ is m or e”), b utitis no t n eces sa ry to th e Co urt’s co nc lu si on th atAlas ka ’s pro cedur es sa ti sf y du e p ro ces s. On t he ir f ace, Al ab am a’s ge ne ral st atut ory pro vi si on s fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f are subs tant ia ll y

si m il ar t o Al as ka ’s. See g en eral ly A la . R. Cri m . P. 32 ; Alas kaSta t. § 12 .72 . Alab am a’s Ru le 32 .1(e ) al lo ws a c riminal de fen da ntto in st itut e a p ro ceed in g o n the gro un d t ha t “ [n ]ewly di sc ov eredm at eri al fact s ex is t” whi chrequi re v acat io n o f hi s co nv ic ti on , “be cau se . . . (5 ) [t ]he fac ts est ab li sh th at th e p et it io ne r is in no cen t. . . .” Thatis no t s ig ni fic an tl y di ffer en t fr om

th e si tu at io n in Alas ka , wher e a d efen da ntm ay see k p os tc on vi ct io n re li ef i f he cla im s “ th at th ere e xi st s ev id en ce o f m at eri al fact s, n otpre vi ou sl y pre se nt ed. . . th atrequi res va cat io n o f th e co nv ic ti on . . . . ” Alas kaSta t. § 12 .72 .01 0( 4) . Bo th Sta te s wai ve ot he rwis e ap pl ic ab le ti m e li m it s wh ena cl ai m is ba se d o n ne w evi de nc e th atco ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredearl ie r wit h re as on ab le di li ge nc e. Alab am a requi res th ata pe ti ti on be fil edwithi n s ix m on th s o f th e di sc ov ery of

th e n ew ev id en ce. Ala . R. Cri m . P. 32 .2(c ); s ee i d. 3 2.1 (e)( 1) (st at in g 58“ reas on ab le di li ge nc e” re qu ire m en t). Al as kaim po se s n o s pe ci fic ti m e li m iton ne w evi de nc e fi li ng s b utdo es requi re tha t the cla im be pre se nt edwith “ du e di li ge nc e.” Ala sk a St at . § 1 2.7 2.0 20 (b )(2 ). Bo th Sta te s i m po se li m it s o n wh at ki nd s o f “ ne w fact s” m ay be pre se nt edas aba si s fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. The ne w evi de nc e m

us t n otbe m erel y

cu m ul at iv e to whatwas p res en te d a t tria l; it m us t n otbe m erel y

im pe ach m en t ev id en ce; an d i t m us t es tabl is h i nn oc en ce. Ala . R. Cri m . P. 32 .1(e )(2 )– (5 ); Al as kaSta t. § 12 .72 .02 0( b) (2 )(B) –( D). Inon e res pe ct , Alab am a’s pr oc es s i s m or e p et it io ne r-fri en dl y th anAlas ka ’s is . Alab am a requi res on ly tha t i nn oc en ce b e sh ownby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t o o bt ai n ane w tri al , whi le Alas karequi res th atitbe sh own by clearan d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce. Co m pa re Al a. R. Cri m . P. 32 .3, wi th Alas kaSta t. § 12 .72 .02 0( b) (2 )(D). Bu t, the n, Al ab am a ap pl ie s t he m or e li m it edcri m in al di sc ov ery ru le s an d re qu ire s a t hr es ho ldsh owi ng of “ go odcau se ,” whi le Alas ka m ak es ful l ci vi l d is co ve ry av ai labl e. Co m

pa re Al a. R. Cri m . P. 32 .4 an d Ex pa rte Lan d, 7 75 So . 2d84 7, 8 52 (Ala . 20 00 ), with Al as kaR. Cri m . P. 35 .1(g ). The s ta te co urt p ro ceed in gs inOsb orne it se lf s ug ge st , th ou gh , th atin pra ct ic e Ala sk a’s co urts are n otany

m or e g en ero us in gra nt in g p os tc on vi ct io n d is co ve ry th an Alab am a’s are. Reque st s fo r po st co nv ic ti on di sc ov ery un de r Ru le 32 are ev al ua te d u nd er 59th e st an da rdart ic ul at edby the Alab am a Supr em e Co urt i n Lan d, wh ere i t h el d

th ata pe ti ti on er m

us t m ak e a thr es ho ldsh owi ng of “ go odcau se ” b efo re a t ria l co urt ca n e xe rci se it s i nh eren t au th or it y to ord er d is co ve ry

in po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs . 77 5 S o. 2 d a t 8 52 . The s ta te hi gh co urt caut io ne d t ha t

“po st co nv ic ti on di sc ov ery do es no t p ro vi de a pe ti ti on er wi th a ri gh t t o ‘fis h’ th ro ug h o ffi ci al fil es ,” an d tha t “ itis no t a d ev ic e fo r in ve st ig at in g p os si bl e cl ai m s, bu t a m ean s o f vi nd ic at in g a ctua l cl ai m s.” Id . (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti onm ark s om it te d) . Inth e n in e y ears si nc e Lan d, Al ab am a’s Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as is su edap pr ox im at el y

fou r do zen de ci si on s ad dr es si ng Ru le 32 di sc ov ery reque st s. Tho se de ci si on s i nd ic at e th atdi sc ov ery reque st s fa il if t he y are t oo bro ador un us ua ll y bu rd en so m e to th e St at e, if th ey do no t re la te to a vi ab le un de rlyin g cl ai m , or i f th ey

are n otcle ar an d s pe ci fic as t o wh atth ey an ti ci pa te th e reque st ed ev id en ce wi ll sh ow. Fo r ex am pl e, in Jac ks on v. St at e, th e tr ia l co urt h adgra nt eda de ath ro w in m at e swe ep in g a ndun li m it eddi sc ov ery th aten co m pa ss edno t o nl y

th e pr os ecu ti on ’s ent ire cas e fi le bu t al so reco rd s fr om m or e th antwen ty diff

eren t st at e an d l oc al law en fo rcem en t an d c orrect io na l ag en ci es . 91 0 S o. 2 d 7 97 , 80 0– 01 (Ala . Cri m . App . 20 05 ). Overru li ng th e St at e’s ob jecti on s, the cir cu it jud ge ha d re m ark ed : “ [W] e’re tal ki ng ab ou t . . . so m eo ne ’s li fe . . . th e st ak es are 60as hi gh as t he y cange t. Whatis wron g wi th let ti ng th em ha ve th e d is co ve ry ? If th ey are o n afis hi ng ex pe di ti on , th enth ey ’re no t g oi ng to be ab le to pro ve it an yway .” Id . at 8 01 (em

ph as is om it te d) . On a p et it io n fo r m an da m us , th e Co urt of Cri m in al App eal s ag reedwith t he Sta te th atm os t o f Ja ck so n’s d is co ve ry reque st s s ho ul d h av e b een de ni edbe cau se th ey were u nr el at edto hi s R

ul e 3 2 cl ai m s o r ev ento th e cas e atall , andth ey ap pe aredto be “ m erel y

anatt em ptto co nduc t a f

is hi ng ex pe di ti on .” Id . at 8 10 . Quo ti ng ex te ns iv el y fro m Land , th e co urt cr it ic iz edth e tr ia l ju dg e fo r fai li ng to ap pl y th e “ go odcau se ” st an dard . Id. at 80 1– 03 . Alab am a’s th res ho ldgo odcau se requi rem en t l im it in g p os tc on vi ct io n di sc ov ery do es no t m ak e itanou tl ie r am on g s ta te s, an d t ha t l im it at io n d oe s n ot ru n a fo ul of Os bo rn e’s fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s s ta nd ard . The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y

bo rro wedth e “ go odcau se ” st an da rdfro m hi gh -co urt d eci si on s i n th ree o th er s ta te s. Lan d, 7 75 So . 2dat 8 52 (ci ti ng cas es fro m Ill in oi s, Fl or id a, an d New Je rs ey ). Fed eral habe as rul es si m il arl y requi re a “ go odcau se ” th res ho ld sh owi ng fordi sc ov ery reque st s i n h ab eas pro ceed in gs , 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 R ul e 6 , Ru le s Go ve rn in g § 22 54 Cas es , andth e Supr em e Co urt h as st at edth atitsee s “ no du e p ro ces s p ro bl em ” with t he fed eral habe as st an da rd . Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at 23 21 –2 2. 61Altho ug h t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt h as no t yet co ns id ereda reque stfor

po st co nv ic ti onDNA tes ti ng , th ree d eci si on s fr om th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h av e. InDowd el l v . Sta te , 85 4 S o. 2 d 1 19 5 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 02 ), an in m at e co nv ic te d o f rap e fi le d aRu le 32 pe ti ti on reque st in g DNA te st in g i n o rd er to pro ve hi s i nn oc en ce. The co urt h el d t ha t h is cla im was b arre d a s u nt im el y un de r Ru le 32 .2(c ), be cau se th e te st in g h e so ug htha d b een av ai labl e fo r m or e th an te n years b efo re h e fi le d h is pe ti ti on , andhi s as se rti on th athe ha d o nl y rece nt ly le arn edab ou t DNA was no t cr ed ib le . Id. at11 97 –9 8. In Barb ou r v. St at e, 90 3 S o. 2d85 8 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 04 ), a ti m el y Ru le 32 reque stfor

DNA tes ti ng was de ni edon m at eri al it y

gro un ds . Becau se Barb ou r ha d o nl y be enco nv ic te d a s an acco m pl ic e to rap e, th e co urt h el d, a DNA res ul t tha t p oi nt edto so m eo ne els e as th e actua l rapi stwou ldno t b e rel ev an t. Id . at 8 67 . In Fa ga n v . Sta te , 95 7 S o. 2 d 11 59 (Ala . Cri m . App . 20 07 ), th e p et it io ne r bypas se d R ul e 3 2 a lt og ethe r an d fi le d a “ m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on DNA tes ti ng .” Becaus e Alabam a la w di d n ot reco gn iz e an y

su ch free st an di ng m ot io n, the Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h el d t ha t th e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f th e m ot io n was no napp eal ab le , anddi sm is se d t he ap pe al . Id . Cun ni ng ha m

qu ot es ex te ns iv el y

fro m co nc urren ces an d d is se nt s i n t he se th ree cas es th atco m

pl ai n o f th e la ckof s pe ci fic pro cedur es forpo st co nv ic ti on DNA te st in g i n Al ab am a an d t ha t u rg e th e le gi sl atur e to ad dr es s t he is su e. See Fa ga n, 6295 7 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 9 (B as ch ab , J., di ss en ti ng ); B arb ou r, 90 3 S o. 2 d a t 8 72 –7 3

(Bas ch ab , J., di ss en ti ng ); Do wde ll , 85 4 S o. 2 d a t 1 19 8– 12 03 (Sh aw, J., co nc urrin g in res ul t); id . at 1 20 3– 05 (Bas ch ab , J., di ss en ti ng ). Howev er, the m ajor it y ’s la ng ua ge in two of tho se cas es reco gn iz es th ata pr op erl y pre se nt edRu le 32 pe ti ti on canbe us edto see k DNA te st in g. Se e Fag an , 95 7 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 9 (“ [W] e ha ve reco gn iz edth atth e n eedforpo st co nv ic ti on DNA tes ti ng m ay be pre se nt edin a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on .”); Dowd el l, 8 54 So . 2dat 1 19 8 (“ HadDowd el l fi le d h is pe ti ti on withi n areas on ab le ti m e . . . we woul d h av e co ns id eredth e m eri ts of h is pe ti ti on .”). Not hi ng in th e th irdcas e co nt rad ic ts th at . See g en eral ly Barb ou r, 90 3 So . 2d85 8. Sev eral ad di ti on al ord ers an d d eci si on s m ak e cl ear tha t Ru le 32 di sc ov ery can be us edto ob ta inph y si cal ev id en ce fo r fo ren si c te st in g. In Apri l 2 00 9, d eat h ro w in m at e Tho m as Arth urfil eda Ru le 32 pe ti ti on an d p ers ua de d t he Jef fers on Co un ty Circu itCo urt t o o rd er DNA tes ti ng th atm ig htco rro bo rat e an ot he r in m at e’s el ev en th -h ou r co nf es si on to th e cri m e. In St al lwo rth v. St at e, CC-9 8- 1 5 The unde rlying f

acts a nd earlier proc edura l history of the c ase a

re summarized in 1 5 Arthur v. Allen, 452 F .3d 1234, 1238–43 (11th Cir. 2006), modified on re h’g , 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2006). Arthur’ s identification as the pe rpetrator had not bee n in much doubt at his trial, g iven that the victim’s wife had conf essed to hiringArthur to kill her husband. E ven so, the state trial cour

t ordere d the Alaba

ma Depa rtment of F orensic Scie nces to c onduct DNA te sting on items recove red f

rom the crime scene to determine whether Gilbert, the a

uthor of the purported c onfession, had be en pre sent. When test results came back show ing no match to Gilbert, the c ourt found that Ar thur had c olluded with him to “perpetra te a f raud” on the cour

t, 6311 2.6 0 (B al dwi n C ou nty Cir . Ct., Au g. 1 2, 2 00 8) , an i nm at e u se d R ul e 3 2 t o g et ne w tes ti ng of abl oo ds ta in th atha d b een fou ndonhi s jack et , inord er t o s up po rt hi s cl ai m th atth e b lo odha d b eenpl an te d b y po li ce. See Sta te v. St al lwo rth , 86 8 So . 2d11 28 , 11 36 –3 8 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 01 ) (s umm ari zi ng ba ck gr ou nd ). In Hin to n v . Sta te , CR-0 4- 09 40 , 20 06 W L 11 25 60 5, (Al a. Cri m . App ., Apr. 2 8, 20 06 ), anin m at e u se d R

ul e 3 2 t o o bt ai n d is co ve ry of b al li st ic s ev id en ce an d t o ha ve itret es te d b y

hi s o wn ex pe rts in ord er t o c ha ll en ge th e st at e’s tr ia l ev id en ce th atth e sa m e g un ha d b een us edin th ree d iff eren t cr im es . In Ex pa rte Perk in s, 92 0 S o. 2 d 5 99 (Ala . Cri m . App . 20 05 ), a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on er was grant ed di sc ov ery to pe rfo rm

ne w tes ti ng on bl oo d a ndfin ge rp rin t ev id en ce, i n o rd er t o supp ort h is cla im

th athi s co un se l h adbe enin effe ct iv e fo r no t re qu es ti ng su ch te st in g a t tria l. Ineach of t he se cas es , th e in it ia l Ru le 32 di sc ov ery reque stwas s up po rte d ei th er b y othe r ne w evi de nc e al read y in ha nd(th e p ur

po rte d c on fes si on inArth ur ), orby relat edco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s (e .g., i ne ffec ti ve co un se l i n P erk in s) . Becau se Ru le 32 pe ti ti on s u su al ly ass ertm ul ti pl e g ro un ds forrel ie f, th ere i s ap pa ren tl y no cas e in whi ch anAlab am a co urt h as gra nt eddi sc ov ery on a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on who se and denie d Arthur’ s petition. Final Orde r De nying Petitioner Thoma s D. Arthur’ s Amended Successive Rule 32 Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Arthur v. State, Case No. CC 87-577.62, at *9 (Jeffer son County

Cir. Ct., S ept. 1, 2009). 64so le ba si s was th atne w for en si c te st in g m ig htun co ve r ev id en ce o f in no cen ce.

Howev er, n ot hi ng in th e d eci si on s we h av e fo un d c om pe ls Cu nn in gh am ’s co nc lu si on th ata st an d- al on e cl ai m wou ldfai l as a m at te r of law atth e p le ad in g st ag e. 2. Cunn in gh am’s Co nten tio ns an d Arg uments Rec og ni zi ng th atth e Supr em e Co urt h as ap pr ov edAlas ka ’s pro cedur es , Cu nn in gh am

m ak es gre ateffo rts to di st in gu is h the m fro m Alab am a’s. He arg ue s th atAlab am a’s pr oc es s i s fa ci al ly ina de qu at e b ecau se , un li ke Alas ka ’s, it

“ cat eg or ic al ly” fore cl os es an y po ss ib il it y

of p os tc on vi ct io n a cces s t o DNA ev id en ce i n n on -cap it al cas es . It i s es se nt ia l t o C un ni ng ha m ’s arg um en t tha t thi s Co urt fi ndAlab am a’s pr oc es s i na de qu at e o n i ts face , no t ju stas i t m ig htap pl y to hi s p art ic ul ar ca se , bec au se on ly the n c anhi s fa il ur e to pro pe rly pu rs ue st at e-l aw rem ed ie s b e ex cu se d. Osb orne he ldth at , wher e st at e p ro cedur es for po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f were a de qu at e o n t he ir f ace, acla im an t co ul d n otch al le ng e th ei r ap pl ic at io n i n p ract ic e u nt il he ha d a ctua ll y tri edth em . 12 9 S . Ct. at23 21 . Tha t h ol di ng ap pl ie s ev enm or e st ro ng ly in thi s ca se th anitdi d i n Os bo rn e it se lf, whe re the re was so m e d is ag reem en t ab ou t h ow t ho ro ug hl y Osb orne ha d p ur su ed st at e-l aw rem ed ie s. See 12 9 S . Ct. at23 33 & n .5 (S te ve ns , J., di ss en ti ng ). Here, i t is un di sp ut edth atin ne it he r of hi s t wo p rev io us Ru le 32 pe ti ti on s d idCu nn in gh am

65ev er ra is e th e DNA is su e, no r di d h e o th erwi se aska st at e co urt t o o rd er t es ti ng .

In st ead , he m ad e a s eri es of o ut -o f-co urt re qu es ts to vario us auth or it ie s t o re le as e th e ev id en ce, an d t he y

refu se d t o d o s o wi th ou t a c ou rt o rd er. Cunn in gh am ’s co un se l ad m it te d a t o ral arg um en t tha t the y ne ve r so ug htanord er fro m a st at e co urt; he sai d t ha t, as he un de rs to odAlab am a la w, su ch a reque stwas p ro cedur al ly im po ss ib le . Inord er t o h av e a ch an ce o f pr ev ai li ng , th en , Cun ni ng ham m us t s ho w th at Alab am a’s pr oc edur es are s o i na de qu at e o n t he ir f ace tha t—un li ke Alas ka ’s—the y do no t s at is fy

Osb orne ’s requi rem en t o f fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s. Th is is a di ffi cu lt sh owi ng to m ak e. Even th e d is se nt ers in Osb orne di d n otdi sp ut e th e fac ia l ad equa cy of Al as ka ’s st atut e, bu t i ns te adfou ndfau ltwith h ow t he st at e co urts ha d ap pl ie d i t i n t ha t ca se . See i d. at23 32 (St ev en s, J ., join edby G in sb ur g, J ., Brey er, J., an d S ou te r, J., d is se nt in g) (ag reei ng th atth e st atut e was “ no t fa ci al ly defi ci en t” bu t que st io ni ng whet he r th e p ro cedur es were fu nd am en ta ll y fai r “ in th ei r op erat io n” ); i d. at23 43 (So ut er, J ., di ss en ti ng ) (d es cri bi ng Alas ka ’s pro ces s as

“ faci al ly reaso nabl e” b utfin di ng pro cedur al un fai rn es s i n i ts hand li ng of Osb orne ’s cas e). To s up po rt h is cla im

of f aci al in ad equa cy , Cun ni ng ha m m ak es two arg um en ts . He firs t p oi nt s t o Al ab am a’s rece nt ly enact edst atut e p ro vi di ng for 66po st co nv ic ti onDNA tes ti ng in cap it al cas es an d c on te nd s t ha t i t s om eh ow

pr oh ib it s t es ti ng in no n- cap it al cas es . See Ala . Acts 20 09 , No. 2 00 9- 76 8, § 1 (eff ect iv e Aug . 1, 2 00 9) , cod ifi edat Al a. Co de 19 75 § 1 5- 18 -2 00 . Thatst atut e al lo ws a c ap it al de fen da ntto bri ng a “ m ot io n fo r DNA tes ti ng ” b as edonactua l in no cen ce. Id . § 2 00 (a)– (b ). If th e m ot io n i s g ran te d a ndth e te stpro du ces an ex cu lp at ory

res ul t, the de fen da ntcanth enm ov e u nd er Al a. R. Cri m . P. 32 to ha ve hi s co nv ic ti on va cat ed . Id. § 20 0( h) (2 ). Becaus e itap pl ie s o nl y to cap it al 1 6 de fen da nt s, Cu nn in gh am arg ue s t ha t the ne w st atut e co ns ti tu te s a “ de li be rat e po li cy ch oi ce” b y

Alab am a to de ny evi de nc e fo r DNA tes ti ng in no n- cap it al cas es su ch as h is own . W e are no t p ers ua de d. Th e st atut e d oe s n otad dr es s n on -cap it al cas es at a ll , andno th in g i n i ts lan gu ag e su gg es ts an y leg is la ti ve in te ntto res tri ctor el im in at e ex is ti ng po ss ib il it ie s fo r no n- cap it al de fen da nt s t o s eekdi sc ov ery un de r Ru le 32 . The l eg is la tu re m ig htwell ha ve th ou gh t tha t d eat h p en al ty cases ha d a

The ne w statute imposes conditions that must be satisfied befor e ca pital defe ndants ca

n 1 6 obtain DNA testing . The c laimant must offer a “cle ar a nd specific ” stateme nt, under pe nalty of perjury , of how the te sting c an prove his factua l innocence . I d. § 200(e) (1). The identity of the perpe trator must have been a t issue at trial, such that an e x culpatory DNA r esult would demonstrate innoc ence . I d. § 200(e) (3). The evidenc e must have r emained in a secur e cha in of custody , id. § 200(f)( 1)(b) , and must be in a c ondition such that testing ca n produce “ac curate and re liable re sults.” I d. § 200(c) (1). Either the evidenc e itself or thetechnology for the te st must not have bee n available at trial. I d. § 200(e) (2)(b). The e videncemust not previously have been subje cted to any

kind of DNA te sting, or the new test must be ca pable of resolvingan issue which pre vious tests could not. I d. § 200(c) (2). The se re quirements ar e similar to limit ations imposed by

other DNA-testingstatutes mentioned favorably in Osborne. See 129 S. Ct . at 2317. 67m or e u rg en t cl ai m on it s at te nt io n a ndwarran te d m or e ex pl ic itan d s pe ci fic pr oc edur es , whi le lea vi ng th e p ro cedur e in no n- cap it al cas es to th e co urts to de ve lo p. Cu nn in gh am

als o c on te nd s t ha t i t i s i m po ss ib le to ob ta in DNA tes ti ng th ro ug h t he ex is ti ng di sc ov ery pr ov is io ns of Rul e 3 2, wh ic h i s Al ab am a’s ge ne ral po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f pr ov is io n. He ar gu es th ata reque stforDNA tes ti ng can no t su ccee d b ecau se Ru le 32 requi res th ata pe ti ti on er al read y ha ve ev id en ce o f in no cen ce b efo re h e canst at e a cl ai m an d o bt ai n d is co ve ry

of e vi de nc e fo r DNA te st in g t o s ho w hi s i nn oc en ce. Ru le 32 .1(e ) al lo ws a c on vi ctto “ in st itut e a pr oc eed in g” to sec ur e rel ie f “ on th e g ro un d t ha t . . . [n]ewly dis co ve redm at eri al fact s ex is t” whi ch requi re tha t the co nv ic ti on be va cat ed . Ala. R. Cri m . P. 32 .1(e ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Accor di ng to Cu nn in gh am , th e wor d “ ex is t” crea te s a C at ch -2 2 requi rem en t tha t h e m

us t al read y

ha ve ex cu lp at ory

tes t re su lt s (t he “ ne wly di sc ov eredm at eri al fact s” ) be fo re h e canst at e a cl ai m un de r Ru le 32 th atwou ld en ti tl e h im

to ev id en ce tha t wo ul d l eadto ex cu lp at ory tes t re su lt s. Th e St at e di sa gr ees an d a ss ur edus at o ral arg um en t tha t Ru le 32 ’s lan gu ag e m erel y st at es a pl ead in g re qu ire m en t u nd er wh ic h acla im an t ca n a ll eg e fac ts th atif t ru e wou ld en ti tl e h im

to rel ie f, an d t he n c anob ta in di sc ov ery to pro ve th os e fac ts .

68The on ly sup po rt i n c as e law for Cu nn in gh am ’s in te rp ret at io n o f Ru le 32 .1(e ) is Ju dg e Sh aw’s co nc urren ce i n t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s d eci si on in Dowd el l: [U]nde r ex is ti ng Alab am a cas el aw an d c ou rt rul es , Dowd el l i s s ub ject t o a tru e “ cat ch -2 2” . . . . [Dowd el l] cou ldno t h av e p os si bl y st at eda pr op er cl ai m un de r Ru le 32 .1(e ), be cau se he ha d n o DNA te stres ul ts up on whi ch to ba se su ch a cl ai m

forrel ie f. Yet h e al so co ul d n otdi sc ov er the ev id en ce he ne ed s, i .e., th e DNA tes t re su lt s, b ecau se witho utth os e res ul ts he co ul d no t s ta te a faci al ly val idcla im un de r Ru le 32 .1(e ). 85 4 S o. 2 d a t 1 20 0, 1 20 2 (S ha w, J., co nc urrin g i n re su lt ). Ju dg e Sh aw ba se d h is un de rs ta nd in g o f Ru le 32 .1(e ) onth e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt’s ad m on it io n i n Lan d t ha t p os tc on vi ct io n d is co ve ry “ is no t a de vi ce fo r in ve st ig at in g p os si bl e cl ai m s, b uta m ean s o f vi nd ic at in g a ctua l cl ai m s.” Id . at 1 20 1 (q uo ti ng Land , 77 5 S o. 2 d a t 8 52 (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ). Howev er, Lan d d oe s n otsupp ort Cu nn in gh am ’s Cat ch -2 2 arg um en t b ut in st eadreb ut s i t. Lan d, a d eat h- ro w in m at e, cl ai m edth athi s co un se l h adbe en in effe ct iv e fo r no t i nv es ti ga ti ng or p res en ti ng ev id en ce o f m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces at h is sen te nc in g, an d h e so ug htdi sc ov ery of hi s co rrec ti on al , ps y ch ia tri c, an d ju ve ni le reco rd s i n o rd er t o e st ab li sh th atsu ch m it ig at in g e vi de nc e wou ldha ve be enav ai labl e. 77 5 S o. 2 d a t 8 49 ; cf . Ala. R. Cri m . P. 32 .6(b ) (s et ti ng pl ead in g s ta nd ard s fo r a Ru le 32 cla im ass ert in g avi ol at io n o f co ns ti tu ti on al

69rig ht s) . The St at e o pp os eddi sc ov ery on th e g ro un d t ha t Lan d h adno t s ho wn tha t

th e d oc um en ts he so ug htactua ll y co nt ai ne d any suc h e vi de nc e. Id . at 8 53 . The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t he Sta te ’s arg um en t as “ witho utm eri t,” n ot in g th at“ [u ]nti l the do cu m en ts are ac tu al ly pro du ced , itis im po ss ib le to de te rm in e whe th er the y

co nt ai n e vi de nc e o f m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces .” Id . at 8 54 . In an y ev en t, s ix y ears aft er J ud ge Sh aw in te rp ret edLand ’s lan gu ag e as im po si ng a Cat ch -2 2 b arri er t o re qu es ts forDNA tes ti ng , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d t ha t the “ go odcau se ” st an da rdsi m pl y requi res a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on er t o pr es en t a “ faci al ly m eri to rio us ” cl ai m by alle gi ng fact s t ha t, i f pr ov en , wou ld en ti tl e h im

to rel ie f. Ex p art e Turne r, 2 So . 3d80 6, 8 12 (Ala . 20 08 ). Eve n b efo re the Turn er d eci si on cla rif ie d wh atLandm ean t, a m ajor it y of th e jud ge s o n t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s re jecte d J ud ge Sh aw’s in te rp ret at io n of it . See Do wde ll , 85 4 S o. 2 d a t 1 19 8 (“ HadDowd el l fi le d h is pe ti ti onwithi n a reas on ab le ti m e . . . we woul d h av e co ns id eredth e m eri ts of h is pe ti ti on . . . . ”). The im pl ic at io ns of t he m ajor it y ’s st at em en ts in Dowd el l, an d t he ex pl ic iteffe ctof th e St at e’s as se rti on no w, is th atth e “ ne wly di sc ov eredm at eri al fact ” who se ex is te nc e m

us t b e al le ge d a t the ti m e th e p et it io n i s fi le d i s t he av ai labi li ty of a ne w form of t es ti ng th atco ul d, g iv enth e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e, co nc lu si ve ly es tabl is h i nn oc en ce, n otth e actua l re su lt s o f th e y et -to -b e-p erfo rm edtes t. See als o 70Barb ou r, 90 3 S o. 2 d a t 8 67 n.6 (“ Barb ou r’s cl ai m is . . . th atsi gn ifi can t, re cen t te ch no lo gi cal de ve lo pm en ts wou ldex on erat e h im .”). Cu nn in gh am

is no t the on ly one who ha s m ad e th is arg um en t ag ai ns t a st at e’s ev id en ti ary di sc ov ery pr oc edur es . Osbo rn e m ad e th e sa m e Cat ch -2 2 arg um en t. The rel ev an t l an gu ag e in Alas ka ’s st atut e was subs ta nt ia ll y id en ti cal to th atin Ru le 32 .1(e ). See Al as kaSta t. § 12 .72 .01 0( 4) (a d efen da ntm ay see k re li ef if h e cl ai m s t ha t “ th ere e xi st s ev id en ce o f m at eri al fact s” requi rin g v acat io n o f hi s co nv ic ti on (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Osb orne , li ke Cu nn in gh am , com pl ai ne d t ha t the la ng ua ge of t he pro vi si on crea te d aCat ch -2 2, p ut ti ng hi m in th e im po ss ib le si tu at io n o f ne ed in g t o kno w whatth e te st s wo ul d s ho w bef or e h e co ul d h av e th em do ne . The St at e o f Ala sk a res po nd ed , as Al ab am a d oe s h ere, t ha t the st atut e 1 7 m erel y im po se d apl ead in g re qu ire m en t u nd er wh ic h acla im an t co ul d a ll eg e fac ts

See Tra nscript of Or al Argument at 35, Osborne , 129 S. Ct . 2308 (No. 08-6) : 1 7 J USTI CE SC AL IA: They have a proce dure f

or [state] habeas cor

pus which includes discovery , and all he ha s to do is come in and say , you know, I have be en wr ong fully

convicted; I am innocent; and I

want to discover

this evidence in order to e stablish it, s o that I can g et out of jail. MR. NEUFELD [for Osborne ]: That contra dicts the position they took in the—in the State court, Your

Honor. The y

specific ally

said in the State courts that it is not enough to simpl y asser t one’s innoce nce; that you actua lly have to have proof

s, fac ts that—that demonstrate your innocenc e bef

ore you g et to that discovery . It is a Catch-22 situation. (empha sis added). 71an d t he n o bt ai n d is co ve ry to pro ve th em . Osb orne ’s st at e-co urt ac ti onha d 1 8 fo un de redon gro un ds of t im el in es s an d d il ig en ce, n otbe cau se of a ny Catch -2 2. See Os bo rn e, 11 0 P .3dat 9 95 . Alth ou gh th e Nin th Cir cu itpi ck edup Osb orne ’s Cat ch -2 2 l in e, 52 1 F .3dat 1 12 9, the Supr em e Co urt d idno t fi nditpe rs ua si ve . Co ns is te ntwith t he Sta te ’s rep res en ta ti on to th is Co urt atora l ar gu m en t, an Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s m ajor it y ap pe ars to reco gn iz e th ata pr op erl y pr es en te d R

ul e 3 2 p et it io n m ay

be us edto see k d is co ve ry of p hysic al ev id en ce fo r DNA tes ti ng . See Do wde ll , 85 4 S o. 2 d a t 1 19 8. No th in g i n Al ab am a’s cas e la w on po st co nv ic ti on di sc ov ery ho ld s o th erwi se . Alth ou gh th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt h as no t yet di rect ly addres se d t hi s i ss ue , we tak e th e St at e atit s wo rd . Not on ly tha t, b utan y

un cert ai nt ie s ab ou t h ow Al ab am a co urts m ig htha nd le reque st s fo r DNA tes ti ng un de r Ru le 32 m us t b e res ol ve d a ga in stCu nn in gh am be cau se Osb orne pl aces th e b ur de n o n h im to de m on st rat e th atAlab am a’s pr oc edur es are in ad equa te . See 1 29 S. Ct. at23 21 . Andhe is th e o ne who fai le d t o g iv e th em a See id. at 64–65: 1 8 J USTI CE GI

NSBURG: B ut you—you ref err ed to the civil rules, a

nd in discovery , in criminal ca ses as in civil ca ses, it—ordinarily you have to pr ove that you have a basis for a

claim. L ike you don’t g et on the civil side discover y befor e you can pa ss the 12(b)( 6) threshold that you have stated a c laim. Are y ou g iving that up he re? Be cause he’s se ekingthe discover y but he hasn’t esta

blished that he has a

tenable c laim. MR. ROS ENSTEI

N [for the State]: J ustice Ginsburg , Mr. Osborne , by filing a n aff idavit that would acc ompany

his application, that would—I think that would operate to state a c laim. 72try. W e co nc lu de th atAlab am a’s pr oc edur es , li ke Alas ka ’s, are ad equa te onth ei r

face to sat is fy

fun da m en ta l fa irn es s u nd er the st an da rdsetby O sb orne . 3. W hy Cunni ng ha m ’s Rule 32 Petit io n Ma y Fa il W e em ph as iz e th atwe are n otsu gg es ti ng Cu nn in gh am wou ldbe su cces sf

ul in ob ta in in g t he ev id en ce h e se ek s i f he pre se nt edhi s cl ai m foritin a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on . Thatwou ldbe for th e st at e co urts to de ci de . Due p ro ces s re qu ire s o nl y th ata rem edy

be av ai labl e, no t tha t Cu nn in gh am su ccee d i n o bt ai ni ng it . Wha t the Supr em e Co urt s ai d o f Osb orne ap pl ie s equa ll y he re: “ If h e si m

pl y see ks th e DNA th ro ug h t he Sta te ’s di sc ov ery pr oc edur es , he m ig htwell ge t i t. If h e d oe s n ot , it m ay be for a pe rfec tl y

ad equa te reas on . . . . ” 12 9 S . Ct. at23 21 . If Cu nn in gh am were t o fi le a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on no w, he co ul d s at is fy Ru le 32 .6(b )’s requi rem en t o f a “ cl ear andsp eci fic ” st at em en t o f th e g ro un ds an d a n a ll eg edfactua l b as is for rel ie f. His reque stin th is laws ui t i s n arro wly fo cu se d o n t hr ee p ie ces of p hysic al ev id en ce, an d h e h as sp el le d o utpre ci se ly wha t h e b el ie ve s t he tes ti ng m ig ht pr ov e. Howev er, a re vi ew of Ru le 32 su gg es ts Cu nn in gh am wou ldface sev eral ot he r se rio us an d p os si bl y in su rm ou nt ab le pro cedur al hu rd le s. If a Ru le 32 .1(e ) pe ti ti on ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve redm at eri al fact s i s pr es en te d m or e th anon e y ear a fte r co nv ic ti on , itm us t b e fi le d wi th in si x m on th s of th e d is co ve ry

of t ho se fact s. Ala . R. Cri m . P. 32 .2(c ). Ass um in g t ha t the 73av ai labi li ty of a n ew fo rm of t es ti ng co ns ti tu te s a “ ne w fact ” withi n the m ean in g o f th e st atut e, Ru le 32 .2(c ) wou ldsee m to requi re tha t Cu nn in gh am ’s cla im ha ve be enbro ug htwithi n s ix m on th s o f whe ne ve r STR-DNA te st in g b ecame reas on ab ly avai labl e fo r th e p art ic ul ar u se he pro po se s. Whenex act ly tha t was is un cl ear, b utitwas c ert ai nl y m or e th anfiv e y ears ag o. Th e sp eci fic id ea o f te st in g th e p ub ic ha irs in th is cas e was bro ach edat l eas t as earl y as Au gu st20 04 , when th e Wisco ns inInn oc en ce Pr ojec t b eg anco nt act in g autho rit ie s t o re qu es t ac ces s t o th atev id en ce. Arg uabl y , th en , Cun ni ng ha m sh ou ldha ve fil eda Ru le 32 pe ti ti on to see k DNA te st in g o n t he ha irs no lat er than F eb ru ary 20 05 . 1 9 Ru le 32 .1(e )(1 ) al so requi res th atth e “ ne w fact s” ha d n oty etbe enkn own in ti m e to be in cl ud edinan y pre vi ou s co ll at eral pro ceed in g a ndco ul d n otha ve be en di sc ov eredby tha t t im e th ro ug h re as on ab le di li ge nc e. Cu nn in gh am fil edtwo pr ev io us Ru le 32 pe ti ti on s, i n Dec em be r 19 99 an d Oct ob er 2 00 3, an d i n n ei th er o f th os e d idhe reque stan y

form of DNA t es ti ng . If th e te st in g h e n ow s eek s wer e av ai labl e ateit he r of

th os e ti m es , itpro babl y

wou ldno t qua li fy

as “ ne w” in an y fu tu re Ru le 32 pe ti ti on .

The Wisconsin Innocenc e Projec t reque sted the condom wr apper for testingin 1 9 Dec ember

2004, so a Rule 32 petition seekingthat evidenc e should have been f iled by J une 2005. 74Alab am a co urts ha ve ap pl ie d the se requi rem en ts to de ny reli ef. See , e.g.,

Dowd el l, 8 54 So . 2dat 1 19 7– 98 (de nyin g R ul e 3 2 p et it io n a s u nt im el y wher e reque st edtes ti ng ha d b een av ai labl e fo r m or e th anten y ears , andpe ti ti on er’s cl ai m th athe ha d o nl y

rece nt ly learn edab ou t DNA was no t cr ed ib le ); M cHarr is v. St at e, 62 3 S o. 2 d 4 00 , 40 1 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 93 ) (d is m is si ng Ru le 32 pe ti ti on be cau se itfai le d t o a ll eg e itha d b een fil edwithi n s ix m on th s o f di sc ov ery of ne w witne ss st at em en t). Oth er s ta te s i m po se si m il ar t im el in es s an d d il ig en ce re qu ire m en ts on th e p res en ta ti on of n ew ev id en ce t o s up po rt p os tc on vi ct io n c la im s o f in no cen ce, an d t he Supr em e Co urt h as in di cat edth atsu ch li m it at io ns are “ no t i nc on si st en t” with fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s. See Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 32 0– 21 (ci ti ng ex am pl es ). The re i s an othe r requi rem en t. To qua li fy as a“ [n ]ewly

di sc ov eredm at eri al fact ” fo r pu rp os es of Rul e 3 2.1 (e), ev id en ce m us t n oton ly be “ ne w” in th e ch ro no lo gi cal sen se bu t i t m us t al so sat is fy

th e m at eri al it y

ele m en t o f th e de fin it io n. Itm

us t “ es tabl is h t ha t the pe ti ti on er i s i nn oc en t,” 3 2.1 (e)( 5) , andm us t do so to a su ffi ci en tl y

co m pe ll in g d eg ree t ha t the “ res ul t p ro babl y wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t” if t he ev id en ce h adbe enpre se nt edat t ria l. 3 2.1 (e)( 4) . In Ba rb ou r th e av ai labi li ty of ne w DNA tes ti ng di d n otco un t as a “ ne wly di sc ov eredfact ” ev enth ou gh th e p et it io n was ti m el y ; the reas on is th atDNA resu lt s wo ul d n ot ha ve be enpro ba ti ve of i nn oc en ce i n acas e whe re the pe ti ti on er h adbe en 75co nv ic te d o nl y as a n a cco m

pl ic e. 90 3 S o. 2 d a t 8 67 ; s ee al so McKi nn ey v. St at e, CR-0 7- 19 83 , 20 09 WL 14 97 09 3 (Al a. Cri m . App . May 29 , 20 09 ) (aff irming tri al co urt’s jud gm en t b as edon fin di ng th atbl oo d e vi de nc e so ug htby pet it io ne r fo r fo ren si c te st in g was no t “ ne wly di sc ov ered ” und er Ru le 32 .1(e ), be cau se res ul ts wou ldno t b e p ro ba ti ve wher e p et it io ne r ha d a dm it te d k il li ng th e v ic ti m bu t h ad cl ai m edsel f-d efen se ). InCu nn in gh am ’s cas e, th e St at e wou ldno do ub t ar gu e (as itha s i n thi s Co urt) th athe can no t s at is fy Ru le 32 .1(e )(5 ) be cau se th e te st in g h e reque st s wo ul d no t b e cap ab le of p ro vi di ng co m pe ll in g p ro of

of i nn oc en ce, g iv enth atth e co nd om wrap pe r ha s p ro babl y

no t b een ke ptina st eri le en vi ro nm en t, an d t ha t i t i s n otev en cert ai n t ha t the pubi c h ai rs reco ve redfro m th e v ic ti m

cam e fro m

th e rap is t. The res po ns e o f th e St at e to th e reque stforfin ge rn ai l s crap in gs m ay de pe ndon whe th er an y

st il l ex is t. Alab am a cas e la w off

ers no gu id an ce ab ou t wh ethe r a reque stforfor en si c te st in g wo ul d s at is fy

Ru le 32 .1(e )(5 )’s m at eri al it y requi rem en t i n asi tu at io n wh ere a co nc lu si ve ex cu lp at ory

res ul t i s t he or et ic al ly pos si bl e b utis im pr ob ab le gi ve n th e co nd it io n o f th e b io lo gi cal samples an d the ov eral l wei gh t o f ot he r ev id en ce o f gu il t. The Supr em e Co urt i n Os bo rn e d idno t co ns id er wh ethe r th e “ m at eri al it y ” requi rem en ts itge ne ral ly end or se s, 1 29 S. Ct. at23 20 –2 1, co ul d p ro pe rly be 76ap pl ie d t o re fu se tes ti ng insu ch cir cu m st an ces . Becau se no Alab am a co urt h as

ha d t he op po rtu ni ty to co ns id er Cu nn in gh am ’s cla im , we nee d n otde ci de whethe r su ch anap pl ic at io n o f Ru le 32 ’s m at eri al it y requi rem en t wo ul d v io la te du e pr oc es s i n h is cas e. Of co ur se , if Cu nn in gh am do es fil e a Ru le 32 pe ti ti onto ob ta in th e ev id en ce he see ks , itwil l b e fo r th e Alaba m a co urts to de ci de th atpe ti ti on an d h ow t he va rio us pro cedur al requi rem en ts ap pl y . W e h av e d es cri be d tho se requi rem en ts on ly to m ak e itcle ar tha t o urde ci si on to da y is no t p red ic at edon a pr ed ic ti onth at Cu nn in gh am

wil l s uc ceedin ob ta in in g the ev id en ce i n afutur e Ru le 32 pr oc eed in g. Th athe m ay no t d oe s n otaffec t o ur

de ci si on . Insu m m ary, Cu nn in gh am

ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t Al ab am a’s m ech an is m for po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f is in ad equa te on it s fa ce und er Os bo rn e’s fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s s ta nd ard , andhe can no t co m pl ai n abo utit s ap pl ic at io n t o t he fact s o f hi s cas e whe n h e h as no t at te m pt edto in vo ke it . See Os bo rn e, 12 9 S . Ct. at23 21 . The refo re, Cu nn in gh am ’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m fai ls . D. The Acce ss to Co urts Cla im Cu nn in gh am

als o a rg ue s t ha t p os tc on vi ct io n a cces s t o t he bi ol og ic al ev id en ce i s n eces sa ry

to vi nd ic at e h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig htof a cces s t o t he co urts , a cl ai m th atwas n otco ns id eredin Osb orne . “ It i s n ow es tabl is he d b ey on d ado ub t 77th atpri so ne rs ha ve a co ns ti tu ti on al rig htof a cces s t o t he co urts ” u nd er the Due

Pro ces s C laus e. Bo un ds v. Sm it h, 4 30 U.S. 81 7, 8 21 , 97 S. Ct. 1 49 1, 1 49 4 (1 97 7) . Tha t ac ces s m

us t b e “ ad equa te , effec ti ve , andm ean in gf ul .” Id . at 8 22 , 97 S. Ct. at 14 95 . In o rd er t o e st ab li sh a vi ol at io n o f th e ri gh t o f acc es s t o t he co urts , ho wev er, a p ris on er m

us t s ho w an a ctua l i nju ry . See Lewi s v . Cas ey , 51 8 U.S. 34 3, 3 49 , 11 6 S . Ct. 2 17 4, 2 17 9 (1 99 6) . Thatrequi rem en t d eri ve s fr om th e co ns ti tu ti on al do ctrin e o f st an di ng . Id.; see als o C hr is to ph er v . Harb ury , 53 6 U.S. 40 3, 4 15 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 17 9, 2 18 6– 87 (20 02 ) (rec og ni zi ng th atth e ri gh t o f acc es s t o th e co urts “ is an ci ll ary to th e u nd erl y in g c la im , witho utwhi ch a pl ai nt iff can no t ha ve su ffer edin

jury by be in g s hu t o utof c ou rt” ). The i nju ry requi rem en t re fle ct s th e fac t tha t “ th e v ery po in t o f rec og ni zi ng an y acce ss cla im

is to pro vi de so m e effe ct iv e v in di cat io n fo r a s ep arat e an d d is ti nc t ri gh t t o s eekjud ic ia l re li ef fo r so m e wro ng .” Ch ris to ph er, 5 36 U.S. at 4 14 –1 5, 1 22 S. Ct. at21 86 . The in jury requ ire m en t m ean s t ha t the pl ai nt iff m us t h av e anun de rlyin g cau se of a ct io n t he vi nd ic at io n o f whi ch is pre ve nt edby the de ni al of a cces s t o t he co urts . See i d. at41 5, 1 22 S. Ct. at21 87 (“ [T]he und erl y in g c au se of a ct io n . . . is anele m en t tha t m

us t b e d es cri be d i n t he co m pl ai nt , justas m

uc h a s al le ga ti on s m us t d es cri be th e o ffi ci al act s frus tra ti ng th e li ti ga ti on .”). The a ll eg at io ns ab ou t th e u nd erl y in g c au se of a ct io n m us t b e sp eci fic en ou gh to gi ve fai r no ti ce t o t he 78de fen da nt s an d m us t “ be de sc rib edwell en ou gh to ap pl y th e ‘no nf riv ol ou s’ tes t an d t o s ho w th atth e ‘argu ab le ’ na tu re o f th e u nd erl y in g c la im is m or e th anho pe .” Id . at 4 16 , 12 2 S . Ct. at21 87 . Cu nn in gh am

ori gi na ll y

id en ti fie d fo urpo ss ib le cau se s o f act io n t ha t h e al le ge d h e was un ab le to pu rs ue be cau se of t he de fen da nt s’ act io ns : (1 ) a cl ai m fo r a n ew tr ia l i n s ta te co urt b as edon ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce u nd er Al ab am a’s Ru le 32 ; (2 ) a cl ai m

un de r Herre ra v . Col li ns , 50 6 U.S. 3 90 , 11 3 S . Ct. 8 53 (19 93 ), th athe is in no cen t an d, the refo re, i s i m pr is on edin vi ol at io n o f du e p ro ces s; (3) a

“ ga te way ” cl ai m

un de r Sch lup v . Delo , 51 3 U.S. 2 98 , 11 5 S . Ct. 8 51 (19 95 ), th at wou ldall ow h im

to us e ev id en ce o f in no cen ce t o re vi ve ot he rwis e p ro cedur al ly ba rredco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s i n afed eral habe as act io n; an d (4 ) anap pl ic at io n fo r st at e cl em en cy

or p ard on . Bec au se th e Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t Herrerais no t a b as is for ob ta in in g DNA te st in g i n a§ 1 98 3 a ct io n, s ee Os bo rn e, 12 9 S . Ct. at23 21 –2 2, an d th is Co urt’s o wn p rece de ntdo es no t al lo w hab eas rel ie f on a free st an di ng in no cen ce cl ai m

inno n- cap it al cas es , see Jo rd anv. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 48 5 F .3d 13 51 , 13 56 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), Herrer a can no t s up po rt a n a cces s t o c ou rts cla im . Bec au se th ere i s n o c on st itut io na l ri gh t t o s ta te cle m en cy pro ceed in gs , see Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 19 , th atcan no t b e a b as is for anacce ss to co urts cla im 79ei th er. So , Cun ni ng ha m ’s sec on d a ndfou rth po si te d c au se s o f act io n wi ll no t

supp ort an acce ss to co urts cla im . The ot he r two po si te d c au se s o f act io n d o n otfare an y be tt er. The fir ston e of th em is th e cl ai m

th atth e as se rte d i na de qu acy of Alab am a’s pr oc edur es for po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f an d t he refu sa l o f th e au th or it ie s t o g iv e h im th e ev id en ce fo r te st in g h av e p rev en te d h im fro m see ki ng a ne w tri al in Alab am a st at e co urt. In ot he r wor ds , Alab am a’s Ru le 32 crea te s t he un de rlyin g c au se of a ct io n fo r a n ew tri al on th e b as is of n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce, an d t he Sta te is in te rfer in g wi th hi s ri gh t o f acc es s t o i ts co urts to ob ta in th atne w tri al by im pe di ng hi s ac ces s t o th e n eces sa ry

ev id en ce. As C un ni ng ha m reco gn iz es , hi s ar gu m en t h ere e ss en ti al ly m irr or s h is Osb orne -b as edpro cedur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m . Bec au se itdo es , th e St at e res po nd s t ha t s in ce Cu nn in gh am ha s n otpro pe rly in vo ke d Al ab am a’s pr oc edur es , he c an no t co m pl ai n t ha t Al ab am a h as de ni edhi m acce ss to it s co urts . See Lewi s, 5 18 U.S. at 3 51 , 11 6 S . Ct. at21 80 (li ti ga ntm us t de m on st rat e th atsh ortc om in gs in th e p ro ces s “ hi nd eredhi s ef fo rts ” to pu rs ue a le ga l cl ai m). Thi s ar gu m en t re fle ct s Os bo rn e’s ho ld in g t ha t wh ere ast at e’s pr oc edur es are fa ci al ly adequa te , a cla im an t ca nn otch al le ng e th ei r ap pl ic at io n t o hi s p art ic ul ar ca se on du e p ro ces s g ro un ds un ti l h e h as actua ll y att em pt edto us e th os e p ro cedur es . See 1 29 S. Ct. at23 21 . Becau se we have co nc lu de d t ha t 80Alab am a’s m ech an is m for po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f is co ns is te ntwith due pro ces s un de r Osb orne ’s fun da m en ta l fa irn es s s ta nd ard , itfol lo ws tha t i t d oe s n ot im pr op erl y in te rfer e with C un ni ng ha m ’s rig htof a cces s t o t he co urts . Fu rth erm or e, th e d efen da nt s’ ou t-o f-co urt re fu sa l t o re le as e ev id en ce fo r DNA te st in g i n n o way prev en ts Cu nn in gh am fro m ask in g ast at e co urt t o o rd er re le as e of th atev id en ce. Inreac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , we rei te rat e th atwe do no t i m pl y th at Cu nn in gh am

wil l u lt im at el y

su ccee d i n o bt ai ni ng acce ss to th e b io lo gi cal ev id en ce th ro ug h aRu le 32 pe ti ti on . For r eas on s we h av e al read y di sc us se d, a Rul e 3 2 pe ti ti on fro m

hi m wou ldface to ug h p ro cedur al hu rd le s. Whethe r Cunn in gh am co ul d c le ar tho se hu rd le s i s a que st io n we n eedno t d eci de . If, fo r ex am pl e, he is de ni eddi sc ov ery be cau se hi s re qu es t i s u nt im el y un de r Ru le 32 .2(c ), orif—ha vi ng al read y fil edtwo pre vi ou s p et it io ns th atne ve r reque st edDNA tes ti ng —h e can no t sa ti sf y th e su cces si ve pe ti ti on requi rem en ts in Ru le 32 .2(b ), itwil l b e h is own om is si on s an d n otth e act io ns of t he de fen da nt s t ha t fo recl os edhi s ab il it y to see k a ne w tri al inst at e co urt. Tha t i s n ota vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t o f acc es s t o t he co urts . Cu nn in gh am ’s on ly rem ai ni ng att em ptto sat is fy

th e actua l i nju ry requi rem en t b y

sh owi ng a po te nt ia ll y

vi ab le cau se of a ct io n i s h is ass ert io n t ha t b y refu si ng to tu rnov er the ev id en ce the de fen da nt s h av e p rev en te d h im fro m 81sh owi ng actua l i nn oc en ce as a “ ga te way ” cl ai m in a fed eral habe as act io n u nd er Sch lup, 5 13 U.S. 29 8, 1 15 S. Ct. 8 51 . Und er Sc hl up a sh owi ng of a ctua l in no cen ce “ do es no t b y

it se lf p ro vi de a ba si s o f rel ie f.” Id . at 3 15 , 11 5 S . Ct. at 86 1. In st ead , itis m erel y “ a g at eway th ro ug h wh ic h ahabe as pe ti ti on er m us t p as s to ha ve hi s o th erwi se [pr oc edur al ly] ba rredco ns ti tu ti on al cla im co ns id eredon th e m eri ts .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Und er Sc hl up , Cun ni ng ha m “ m ay ob ta in rev ie w of h is co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o nl y if h e fal ls withi n t he ‘ na rro w cla ss of c as es . . . im pl ic at in g afun dam en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.’” Id. at31 4– 15 , 11 5 S . Ct. at 86 1 (c it at io n o m it te d) . To do th at , he m us t es tabl is h t ha t h is co nv ic ti on was t he res ul t o f a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a ndbu t fo r th atco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, “ itis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atno reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve co nv ic te d h im in li gh t o f th e n ew ev id en ce.” Id . at 3 27 , 11 5 S . Ct. at86 7. One pro bl em

with C un ni ng ha m ’s rel ia nc e o n S ch lup a s anun de rlyin g b as is fo r anacce ss to co urts cla im is th athi s co m

pl ai ntfai ls to sp eci fy

an y co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s—vi ab le or o th erwi se —tha t h e co ul d ra is e in fed eral co urt i f he were ab le to ov erco m e th e p ro cedur al ob st acl es to fil in g ane w hab eas pe ti ti on . Cun ni ng ha m ’s as se rti on of a ctua l i nn oc en ce, b y it se lf, i s n oten ou gh . “ Cl ai m s o f actua l in no cen ce b as edon ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce h av e n ev er b een he ldto st at e a gr ou ndforfed eral habe as rel ie f ab se ntanin de pe nd en t co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n 82oc cu rri ng in th e u nd erl y in g s ta te cri m in al pro ceed in g.” Herrera , 50 6 U.S. at40 0,

11 3 S . Ct. at86 0; see Mi ze v . Hall , 53 2 F .3d11 84 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); Bro wnl ee v . Haley, 306 F.3d10 43 , 10 65 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). W e h av e al read y co nc lu de d t ha t Cu nn in gh am ha s s uf fere d n o v io la ti on of h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts in rel at io n t o h is att em

pt s t o s eekev id en ce fo r DNA tes ti ng . A Schl up cla im wou ld ne edto all eg e anarg uabl y vi ab le co ns ti tu ti on al cla im in de pe nd en t fr om

th e is su e of acce ss to DNA evi de nc e, an d C un ni ng ha m ha s n otdo ne so he re. Inord er t o sa ti sf y th e actua l i nju ry

requi rem en t fo r anacce ss to co urts cla im , Cun ni ng ha m ’s co m pl ai ntm us t d es cri be th e u nd erl y in g c au se of a ct io n i n s pe ci fic en ou gh term s t o gi ve th e d efen da nt s fa ir n ot ic e an d t o s at is fy “ th e ‘no nf

riv ol ou s’ tes t an d t o s ho w th atth e ‘argu ab le ’ na tu re o f th e u nd erl y in g c la im is m or e th anho pe .” See Ch ris to ph er, 5 36 U.S. at 4 16 , 12 2 S . Ct. at21 87 . The co m pl ai ntin th is cas e fai ls to id en ti fy

a si ng le co ns ti tu ti on al cla im th atco ul d b e rai se d i n c on jun ct io n wi th a Sch lup g at eway cl ai m

an d, the refo re, d oe s n otad equa te ly ple adanactua l i nju ry . Ano th er re as onwhy Cu nn in gh am ’s Sch lup the ory is no t an ad equa te ba si s fo r anacce ss to co urts cla im is th atth e st at e d efen dant s i n t hi s ca se have no t actua ll y do ne an yth in g t o b lo ckCu nn in gh am fro m bri ng in g aSch lup- ba se d fe de ral

83habe as pro ceed in g. They hav e si m pl y refu se d t o d o s om ethi ng th atm ig hthe lp 2 0 bo ls te r hi s ch an ces of s uc ces s i n afed eral habe as act io n, an d t he do ctrin e o f ri gh t of acce ss to th e co urts im

po se s n o s uc h dut y

on th em . Cf. Lewis , 51 8 U.S. at35 4, 11 6 S . Ct. at21 81 (di sc la im in g a ny sug ge st io n t ha t the st at e m us t en ab le a pr is on er “ to di sc ov er g rie va nc es , andto li ti ga te effe ct iv el y on ce i n c ou rt” ). In Ch ap pe ll v. Ri ch , 34 0 F .3d12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), th is Co urt fo un d n o v io la ti on of th e ri gh t o f acc es s t o t he co urts wher e d efen dant s h adco nc eal edev id en ce tha t m ig htha ve st ren gt he ne d p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s i n awron gf ul de ath s ui t, s in ce the y

ha d do ne no th in g t o p rev en t s uc h asu itfro m be in g fi le d. Id . at 1 28 3– 84 ; s ee al so Harv ey v. Ho ran , 27 8 F .3d37 0, 3 86 (4t h C ir. 2 00 2) (Kin g, J ., con cu rri ng in pa rt an d c on cu rri ng in th e jud gm en t) ( co nc lu di ng th atVirg in ia ’s refu sa l t o re le as e ev id en ce fo r DNA tes ti ng di d n otvi ol at e th e cl ai m an t’s ri gh t o f acc es s t o t he

This is not t o sug g est, of cour se, that Cunningha m would succe ed if he did bringone. 2 0 The proc edura l barrie rs he would f ace in fede ral ha

beas—e ven if he could state a cognizable constitutional claim—are mor e oner ous than those imposed by Alabama ’s Rule 32. Since Cunningham has alre ady

filed five f

eder al habe as petitions, he would nee d to meet the heightened bur den of showingclea r and c onvincingevidenc e of innoc ence befor e he c ould ge t through the g atewa

y . See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (B )(ii) (se tting higher standa rd for second or succe ssive petitions). Furthe rmore, suc h evidenc e would nee d to show not only that he wa s innocent but also that his conviction re sulted from “c onstitut ional err or.” I d.; see Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315–16, 115 S. Ct . at 861–62. As the Supreme Court has observe d, Schlup sets a “dema nding” standard that will be met only in “extraordinar

y” ca ses. House v. B ell, 547 U.S. 518, 538, 126 S. Ct . 2064, 2077 (2006). 84co urts , bec au se Lewis di d n otrequi re the Sta te “ to he lp [hi m ] bo ls te r an y su ch fu tu re” c la im s) . Und er Ch ris to ph er, co urts m us t ap pl y “ th e ‘no nf

riv ol ou s’ tes t” an d de te rm in e whe th er “ th e ‘argu ab le ’ na tu re o f th e u nd erl y in g c la im is m or e th an ho pe .” 53 6 U.S. at41 6, 1 22 S. Ct. at21 87 . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Cu nn in gh am ’s Sch lup c la im do es no t s at is fy

th e actua l i nju ry

requi rem en t, be cau se th ere i s o nl y

a “ ho pe ”—a ndno t a wel l-g ro un de d o ne —tha t the DNA te st in g h e se ek s co ul d p ro vi de su ffi ci en tl y st ro ng ev id en ce o f in no cen ce t o m eet th e d em an di ng Sch lup s ta nd ard . Bec au se no ne of C un ni ng ha m ’s fou r pr of fere d c au se s o f act io n m eet s t he actua l i nju ry

requi rem en t, h e can no t es tabl is h avi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t o f acc es s t o th e co urts . VI. Con cl us io n Cu nn in gh am

rece iv eda fai r tr ia l m or e th ana de cad e ag o. He h as alr eady ch al le ng edhi s co nv ic ti on on di rectap pe al an d c ol la te ral ly thro ug h two Ru le 32 pe ti ti on s i n s ta te co urt an d fi ve habe as pe ti ti on s i n fe de ral co urt. Nei th er o f hi s Ru le 32 pe ti ti on s re qu es te d a cces s t o b io lo gi cal ev id en ce fo r DNA tes ti ng . And on ly one of the fiv e fed eral habe as pe ti ti on s C un ni ng ha m fil edev enm en ti on ed DNA tes ti ng —m ak in g ju sta “br oa d c on cl us ory arg um en t tha t s uc h t es ti ng m ay 85ex cu lp at e h im .” (R1 6: Tab 4: Rep . & Rec. a t 1 4 n .5). No t h av in g a tt em pt edto in vo ke th e st at e p ro cedur es av ai labl e to hi m foracce ss to DNA evi de nc e, Cu nn in gh am

can no t s ay

th atth os e fac ia ll y

va li d p ro cedur es are s o i na de qu at e th at th ey “ of fen d[ ] so m e p rin ci pl e o f jus ti ce s o ro ot edin th e tr ad it io ns an d c on sc ie nc e of ou r pe op le as t o b e ran ke d a s fu nd am en ta l” or “ trans gr es s[ ] any reco gn iz ed pr in ci pl e o f fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s i n o pe rat io n.” Osb orne , 12 9 S . Ct. at23 20 (quo ta ti onm ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Nor can h e say th atth e d efen da nt s’ act io ns ha ve in te rfer edwith h is rig htof a cces s t o t he co urts . Cun ni ng ham ha s n ot , un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s ca se , est ab li sh edan y vi ol at io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t d is m is si ng hi s co m pl ai nt . AFFIRMED.

86