# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 31 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ And re Will ia m s Sr

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Ian W al la ce

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 7, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Au gu st 31 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In 20 10
, And re W il li am s Sr. pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of ro bb ery in th e fir st de gr ee an d on e co un t of arm ed cri m in al ac t i o n i n vi ol at io n of Mi ss ou ri la w. W il li am s’s gu il ty pl ea was pr ed ic at ed on DNA ev id en c e li nk in g hi m to a sk ul l cap le ft at th e ro bb ery. Afte r va rio us at te m pt s at po st -co nv ic ti on an d ha be as rel ie f in st at e

co ur t, W il li am s pu rp or t e d l y rece iv ed ne wly di sc ov ered do cu m en ts fro m anan on y

m ou s in di vi du al in th e St

. Lou is Co un ty Po li ce Dep art m en t (“ Dep art m en t” ).
On th ei r face
, th e do cu m en ts ap pe ar to be of fic ia l DNA r e p o rts an d in te rn al

co m m un ic at io ns b et ween na m ed in di vi du al s in th e Dep art m en t’s cri m e la bo rat or y

.

W il li am s fil ed a pr o se pe ti ti on fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us in fed eral di s t r i ct

co ur t un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

. He arg ue d th at th e ne wly di sc ov ered do cu m en ts sh ow

a co ns pi racy b y l a w e n f

o r c em en t to fab ric at e th e DNA ev id en ce li nk in g hi m to th e

ro bb ery. W il li am s m ov ed to co m pe l di sc ov ery of th e st at e’s DNA ev id en ce, twi ce
req ue st ed an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , an d su bm it te d th e do cu m en ts to th e di st ric t cou rt. The di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, de cl in ed to ru le on h i s r eq ue st s fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t al s o d e c l i ne d to ru le on whe th er W il li am s ha d pr op erl y

ex ha us te d hi s cl ai m in st at e co ur t. In st ead
, t h e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n to

co mp e l d i sc ov ery an d de ni ed hi s pe ti ti on on th e m eri ts be cau se it co nc lu de d th at W il li am s co ul d no t ov erco m e hi s gu il ty pl ea wit h “ un au th en ti cat ed ” do cu m en ts

. W e
gr an te d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y an d n ow re ve rs e an d re m an d.

Thi s Co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly he ld th at a di st ric t co ur t errs in refu si ng to co ns id er

a ha be as pe ti ti on er’s ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce m erel y be cau se th e ev id en ce ha s no t
y et be en au th en ti cat ed or ve rif ie d. See Ri le y v. Loc kh art , 72 6 F.2 d 42 1, 42 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at [an ] affi da vi t [fro m a tri al wit ne ss al le gi ng th e wit ne ss was fo rced to gi ve fal se te st im on y ag ai ns t th e pe ti ti on er] was no t

en ti tl ed to an y co ns id erat io n by th e co ur t be cau se it s ve raci ty an d au th en ti ci ty ha d no t b e e n e st ab li sh ed

. . . . W e ag ree wit h [th e pe ti ti on er] t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n gi vi ng th e aff

i d a v i t no co ns id erat io n wha ts oe ve r. An al le ga ti on th at a wit ne ss was fo rced to te st ify is a se rio us on e.”). Alt ho ug h AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 2)
, im po se s s t r i c t st an da rd s as to whe th er a st at e pr is on er m ay rece iv e an ev id en ti ary he ari ng in fed eral co ur t, ou r c o r e ho ld in g in Ri le y ha s no t be en ab ro ga te d by th es e
st an da rd s.

-2

-Here, W il li am s twi ce req ue st ed an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Ins te ad of an al y zi ng

whe th er W il li am s co ul d rece iv e su ch a he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s pe ti ti on b ecau se hi s ev id en ce is “ un au th en ti cat ed .” Thi s was erro r. On th e pr es en t r e c o r d
,
m or eo ve r, we can no t sa y th is erro r was ha rm le ss

. Se e Ri le y , 72 6 F.2 d at 42 3.
W il li am s’s al le ga ti on s are seri ou s, and th ere a re n o o bv io us faci al in fir m it ie s i n t he doc um ents W il li am s pr es en te d to su pp or t th os e al le ga ti on s. Acco rd ing ly
, be ca use the di st ric t co u r t di d no t fir st de ci de whe th er W il li am s was en ti tl ed to an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to au th en ti cat e hi s do cu m en ts , th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi s pe ti ti on

on th e m eri ts si m

pl y be cau se th e d oc um en ts are u na ut he nt ic at ed

.

To be cl ear, we h o l d o n l y th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s rat io na le fo r de nyin g th e
pe ti ti on was in ad eq ua te

. W e de cl in e to de ci de whe th er, un de r § 22 54 (e)( 2)
, W il li am s

m ay rece iv e th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng he se ek s. See W il li am s v. Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 42 0, 43 1– 45 (2 00 0) (s et ti ng ou t th e pr op er ap pl ic at io n of § 22 54 (e)( 2) ). W e al so de cl in e
to de ci de an y ot he r is su es rai se d by th e pa rti es

. As ne ces sa ry , th es e is su es are fo r th e di st ric t co ur t t o d eci de in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e o n re m an d.

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is rev ers ed
, an d we rem an d fo r pr oc eed in gs

co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

W il li am s’s m ot io n for leav e to ad d hi s in pu t to or al arg um en t, fil ed Ju ly 17
, 1 20 17 , is de ni ed as m oo t.

-3

-