Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 297.0

136 

McDANIEL  v.  BROWN 

Per Curiam 

minted due process claim in the state courts.8  Recognizing 
that  his  Jackson  claim  cannot  prevail,  respondent  tries  to 
rewrite  his  federal  habeas petition.  His  attempt  comes  too 
late, however, and he cannot now start over. 

*

*

* 

We  have  stated  before  that  “DNA  testing  can  provide 
powerful new evidence unlike anything known before.” 
District  Attorney’s  Ofﬁce  for  Third  Judicial  Dist.  v.  Os­
borne,  557  U. S.  52,  62  (2009).  Given  the  persuasiveness 
of  such evidence  in the  eyes of  the jury,  it is  important that 
it be presented in a fair and reliable manner.  The State ac­
knowledges that Romero committed the prosecutor’s fallacy, 
Brief  for  Petitioners  54,  and  the  Mueller  Report  suggests 
that  Romero’s  testimony  may  have  been  inaccurate  regard­
ing the likelihood of a match with one of respondent’s broth­
ers.  Regardless, ample DNA and non-DNA evidence in the 
record  adduced  at  trial  supported  the  jury’s  guilty  verdict 
under  Jackson,  and  we  reject  respondent’s  last  minute  at­
tempt  to  recast  his  claim  under  Brathwaite.  The  Court  of 
Appeals did not consider, however, the ineffective-assistance 
claims  on  which  the  District  Court  also  granted  respondent 
habeas  relief.  Accordingly,  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  is  reversed,  and  the  case  is  remanded  for  further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

8 The  State  contends  the  claim  is  either  not  exhausted  or  procedurally 
defaulted.  The  State  has  objected  from  the  beginning  that  respondent 
did  not  raise  a  due  process  claim  regarding  the  reliability  of  the  DNA 
evidence in state court.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 182a–183a.  Respond­
ent  consistently  answered  the  State’s exhaustion  objection  by  arguing  he 
presented  his  Jackson  claim  in  the  Nevada  Supreme  Court.  See  App. 
1521–1526.  The  Ninth  Circuit  held  respondent  exhausted  his  insufﬁ­
ciency  claim.  525  F.  3d,  at  793.  The  court  had  no  occasion  to  consider 
whether respondent exhausted any due process claim other than his Jack­
son claim.