2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-13-2010 

# Thom a s T wi llie v . B r a d ley F oulk, et al P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3316

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Thom as T

wi ll ie v . B r a dley F oulk, e t al " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2071. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2071NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3316

___________ THO M AS LEE TW I LLI E, A ppel l ant v . DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY BRA DLEY H. FOU LK; ERI E POLI CE D EPARTM ENT;

D E T E C T IV E T H O M A S N E L S O N ; C H IE F S T E V E F R A N K L IN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( W . D . Pa. C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 00352) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr.

____________________________________ S u b m itte d P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 3 4 .1

D ece m ber1, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FU E N T E S A N D N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary13, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM T hom as T w i l l i e, a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or der of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ngT he compl ai ntt hatT w i l l i e pur s ued w as hi s s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntfi l ed on M ay 1 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 . 2 s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the def endant s i n hi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on, and an or der d e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n f

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. T w ill ie f iled a c o m p lain t ag a in st B ra d ley F o u lk , the D istric t A tto rn e yo f E rie C ount y , Penns y l vani a, D et ect i ve Thom as N el s on of the Eri e Pol i ce D epart m ent , and St eve Fr ankl i n, C hi ef of t he Eri e Pol i ce D epart m ent . T w i l l i e al l eged thathe mai l ed an 1 inf o rm al l ett er to D istri ct A tt o rne yF o u lk se ek ing ac ce ss to e v iden ce u sed sev en teen y ea rs ear l i eri n hi s fel onyr ape tr i al forpurpos es of D N A t es t i ng. T w i l l i e w as convi ct ed of r ape i n 1 9 8 7 . T wi l l i e a l l e g e d t h a tF o u l k r e p l i e d th a th e h a d n o r i g h tt o th e DNA e v i d e n c e . As a r es ul t , T w i l l i e fi l ed a mot i on i n s t at e courts eeki ng acc es s t o t he evi dence , buthe w as u n s u c c e s s f

u l a t th e tr ia l c o u rt le v e l a n d o n a p p e a l. T w ill ie f u rth e r a lleg e d th a t h e f

iled h is p re se n t co m p lain t in o rd e r to g a in a c c e ss to th e e v id e n c e a n d th a t itw a s o n lyin th e se p ro c e e d in g s th a t F o u lk re v e a led th a t th e ra p e k it had bee n des t r oy ed. T w i l l i e as s er t ed that , bydeny i ng hi m acc es s t o t he D N A evi dence , Foul k for ced hi m t o fi l e cos t l yand t i m e- cons um i ng m ot i ons i n s t at e and f eder al cour tand m ade i ti m pos s i bl e forhi m t o chal l enge the l egal i t yof hi s confi nement . T w i l l i e cl ai m ed thatFoul k act ed i n bad fa i t h and deni ed hi m hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . T w i l l i e furt her cl ai m ed thatD et ect i ve N el s on, act i ng underC hi ef Fr ankl i n’ s s upervi s i on, vi ol at ed hi s due p ro c e s s ri g h ts b yd e s tr o y in g th e e v id e n c e , w h ic h th e yk n e w w a s p o te n tia lly e x c u lp a to ry.T w i l l i e al s o as s ert ed thatt he def endant s di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m and thatN el s on 2 fal s el ys t at ed att he t i m e of the cr i m e thathe and hi s co- defe ndanthad conf es s ed, caus i ng the r ape c har ges t o be fi l ed aga i ns thi m and pr ecl udi ng a ful l r ange of t es t i ng of the e v id e n c e . T w illie a ls o b ro u g h t a s ta te c la im o f in te n tio n a l in f

lic tio n o f e m o tio n a l s tr e s s . T w ill ie d o e s n o t p u rsu e th e se c laim s in th is a p p e a l. 3 T w i l l i e soug ht com pen sat oryand pu nit i ve d am ages. 2 T he M agis t rat e Judg e recom m end ed thatthe D i stri ctC ou rtgrantthe d efen dan t s’ mo t i o n s f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n t . Th e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e e x p l a i n e d th a tTwi l l i e ’ s c l a i ms agai ns tFr ankl i n w er e bas ed on the i ncorr ectpr emi s e thatFr ankl i n had or der ed the des truct i on of the evi dence ati s s ue, not i ng thatFr ankl i n had att es t ed thathe had no i nvol vementi n T w i l l i e’ s pr os ecut i on orthe mai nt enanc e of the evi dence . Si m i l ar l y , t he M agi s tr at e J udge conc l uded thatN el s on di d notdes t r oythe evi dence , bas ed on the aff i davi tof D et ect i ve Patr i ck H ow e, w ho at t es t ed thatanotherdet ect i ve had de s t r oy ed the rap e k it . T h e M ag istrate Ju d g e a lso c o n clud ed that F o u lk w as e n ti tl ed to su m m ary j ud gm ent on T w i l l i e’s cl ai m t hat Fou l k d enied hi m access t o the D N A evidence b ecause the evi dence w as des t r oy ed l ong befor e Tw i l l i e’ s r eques t . T he M agi s t r at e J udge not ed thatFoul k m ayhave be en negl i genti n fai l i ng t o i nform T w i l l i e thatthe evi dence had b e e n d e s tr o y e d , b u tt h a ts u c h a f a i l u r e d i d n o tr i s e t o th e l e v e l o f a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the r epor tand r ecomm endat i on of the M agi s t r at e J udge w i th r es pectt o T w i l l i e’ s cl ai m s agai ns tFoul k and Fr ankl i n. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the M agis trat e Judg e’s recom m end at i on as t o T w i l l i e’s cl ai m s agai nstN el son b ecause T w i l l i e s ubm i t t ed w i t h hi s obj ect i ons t o t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tan af fi davi tfr omA ft ert he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued i t s opi ni on, the def endant s fi l ed a s uppl ement al 3 aff i davi tbyD et ect i ve H ow e att es t i ng t hathe had made an e r r ori n hi s ear l i eraff i davi tand thatN el s on had i n fac tauthor i zed the des t ruct i on of the r ape ki ti n 1993. 4 F o u lk , w h ic h s ta te d th a t F o u lk b e lie v e d th a t N e ls o n h a d d e s tr o y e d th e ra p e k it. C oncl udi ng t hatt her e w as a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherN el s on w as in v o lv e d in th e d e stru c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e , the D istric t C o u rt re c o m m itt e d th e m a tter to the M agi s tr at e J udge. 3 T h e M ag istrate Ju d g e the n rec o m m en d ed that the D istri ct C o u rtg ran t sum m ary ju d g m e n t f

o r N e ls o n o n o th e r g ro u n d s h e h a d ra is e d in h is s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . T h e M a g istra te J u d g e d e c id e d th a t a d a m a g e s a w a rd o n a c laim th a t p o ten tially excul pat oryevi dence w as i m pr oper l ydes t r oy ed i m pl i ci t l yques t i oned the val i di t yof T w illie ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d w a s b a rr e d b yH e c k v . H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ). A l t ernat i vel y , t he M agi s t r at e J udge conc l uded thatT w i l l i e’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om the des truct i on of evi dence w er e barr ed bythe doctr i ne of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t y . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n . T w ill ie u n su c c e ss f u lly m o v e d f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , a n d th is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . W e nee d notr es ol ve the di ffi cul tques t i on of w hetherT w i l l i e’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om the des truct i on of evi dence ar e barr ed byH eck, 512 U . S. 477, beca us e, even a s s um i ng thattheyar e nots o barr ed, t her e has been no due pr oces s vi ol at i on i n t hi s cas e. T he U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt re c e n tlya d d re ss e d a sta te p riso n e r’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to p o st- co n v ict ion ac ce ss to e v iden ce fo r pu rpo ses o f D N A test ing . In D istri ct A tt o rne y ’s5

O ffi ce v. O s bor ne, 129 S. C t . 2308 ( 2009) , the Supr eme C our ts t at ed thata cr i m i nal defe ndantpr oved gui l t yaft era fa i rt r i al does nothave the s ame l i ber t yi nt er es t s as a fr ee m an and thata s t at e has m or e fl exi bi l i t yi n deci di ng pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ocedur es . I d. at2320. T he pr i s oneri n O s bor ne had nottr i ed t o obt ai n i n s t at e courtthe D N A t es t i ng he s oughtvi a hi s fede r al l aw s ui t , and the Supr eme C our ts t at ed thathe thus coul d not c o m p la in th a t th e p ro c e d u re s , w h ic h w e re a d e q u a te o n th e irf a c e , d id n o t w o rk in p ra c tic e . I d. at2321. T he Supr eme C our tal s o r ej ect ed the pr i s oner ’ s ar gum entthathe had a s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s r i g h tt o t h e s t a t e ’ s e v i d e n c e s o th a th e c o u l d a p p l yn e w DNAt es t i ng t echnol ogyt hatm i ghtpr ove hi m i nnocent . I d. at2322. T he Supr eme C our tnot ed th a t es tab lish in g su c h a rig h t w o u ld f o rc e th e C o u rt to a c t as p o licy m a k e rs, re q u irin g it t o deci de r el at ed i s s ues s uch as t he obl i gat i on t o pr es erve for ens i c evi dence thatm i ghtl at er be t es t ed. I d. at2323. T w i l l i e ar gues i n hi s br i ef thathi s pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s have be en vi ol at ed an d asse rt s tha t th e p ri n ciples o f B rad yv . M ary land , 3 7 3 U . S . 8 3 (19 6 3 ), w h ich re q u ir e di s cl os ur e of mat er i al excul pat or yevi dence t o a def endantbefor e tr i al , appl yher e. T he Supr eme C our t , how ever , r ej ect ed s uch a c oncl us i on i n O s borne. O s borne, 129 S. C t . at 2319- 20. T w i l l i e does notchal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i t yof Penns y l vani a’ s r equi r ement s for o b tai n ing p o st- co n v ict ion D N A test ing u n d er 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat . § 9 5 4 3 . 1 (c)(3). R athe r, h e c o n ten d s th a t th e sta te c o u rts f a iled to c o n sid e r, as re q u ire d b yth e sta tu te, w h e th e r h isT he s t atut e r equi r es an appl i cantt o: 4 ( c) pr es enta pr i m a fa ci e ca s e demonstr at i ng thatthe:

( i ) i dent i t yof ort he part i ci pat i on i n t he cr i m e bythe perpetr at orw as ati s s ue i n the pr ocee di ngs t hatr es ul t ed i n t he appl i cant ’ s convi ct i on and s ent enci ng; and

(i i ) D N A t est i ng of the speci fi c evidence, as sum i ng excu l patoryres ult s, w oul d es t abl i s h: ( A ) t he appl i cant ’ s actual i nnocenc e of the off ens e forw hi ch the a p p lic a n t w a s c o n v ic te d [ .] 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat . § 9 5 4 3 . 1 (c)(3). 6 “ p a rticip a tio n ” in th e c rim e w a s a t issu e a t trial. A ss u m in g th is a rg u m e n t is p ro p e rly 4 b e f o r e u s , i ti s wi t h o u tme r i t . T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s th a t , i n a f

f i r mi n g th e d e n i a l o f

DNA tes tin g , the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt sta ted th a t T w ill ie d id n o t sh o w th a t h is id e n tity w a s a t issu e a t trial a n d th a t h is d e f e n se a t trial w a s th a t th e v ictim h a d c o n se n ted to sexual i nter cou rs e. M oreove r, t he S up eri or C ou rtexp l ai ned that Tw i l l i e did not r ai se dur i ng tr i al a def

ens e of mi s t aken i dent i t y“ordenythe fa ctthathe had a s exual encount er w ith the v ict im . ” 4 /4/05 P a. S u p erior C o u rtD ec isi o n at 6. T h u s, co n tr aryto T w il li e’s ar gum ent , t he Super i orC our tdi d addr es s hi s part i ci pat i on i n t he cr i m e. T o th e e x ten t T w ill ie c laim s a v io latio n o f h is s u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts, it f o llo w s f ro m O sb o rn e th a t, i f

th e re is n o su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to a c c e ss sta te evi dence forpurpos es of pos t - convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng, ther e i s no vi ol at i on of s ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w h e re a p riso n e r se e k s a c c e ss to sta te e v id e n c e f o r p u rp o se s o f

p o stconvi ct i on D N A t es t i ng and l earns t hatthe evi dence has been de s t r oy ed. W e thus concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforA ppel l eesB ase d o n o u r co n clus ion that A p p ell ee s N elso n an d F ran k li n are en ti tl ed to su m m ary 5 j udgm entfort hes e r eas ons , w e nee d notaddr es s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons thatt he doctr i ne of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t yappl i es and thatFr ankl i n w as noti nvol ved i n t he m ainten an ce o f th e e v iden ce at i ssu e. Itis al so u n n ec essa ryto ad d ress T w il li e’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e A p p e lle e s f a ile d to s e rv e h im th e a f f id a v its f ile d in D is tr ic t C o u rt . B eca us e Tw i l l i e does nothave a vi abl e due pr oces s cl ai m , w e r ej ectT w i l l i e’ s ar gum ent thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r efus i ng t o al l ow hi m t o conductdi s coveryr egar di ng t he c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th e d e stru c tio n o f

e v id e n c e o r to e x p lo re w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e w a s in fac tdes tr oy ed. 7 N el son an d F rankl i n, al beiton differ ent gr ou nd s. S ee T se v. V entana M edical S y st em s, I nc. , 297 F. 3d 210, 224 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( not i ng appel l at e courtm ayaff i r m a dec i s i on on a g rou n d o ther tha n that reli ed o n b ythe d istri ct co u rt ). 5 W e al s o agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatA ppel l ee Foul k’ s deni al of T w i l l i e ’ s r e q u e s tf

o ra c c e s s t o t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o tv i o l a t e h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s . F i n a l l y, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng T w i l l i e’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the or der s of the D i s t r i ctC our t . A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e s uppl ement al appendi x, w hi ch maybe cons t rued as a mot i on t o expand the r ecor d, i s deni ed.