Opinion ID: 213531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DNA Test

Text: Because further DNA testing could not exonerate Roberts, the district court denied his motion to conduct tests on the DNA swabs retrieved by the government. Roberts claims this was error, arguing “the outcome of this trial is unreliable” and further testing would have provided some “finality.” (Appellant’s Br. at 20.) We disagree. Individuals under a federal sentence of imprisonment may move for postconviction DNA testing under certain conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3600. While we recognize Roberts had not been sentenced prior to his motion to test the DNA, he was sentenced before the court denied it. Thus, we find the § 3600 analysis helpful given the - 20 - posture of this case. Under § 3600, upon written motion of the defendant, the court that enters a defendant’s judgment of conviction is to order DNA testing of specified evidence if ten prerequisites are met. See § 3600(a)(1)-(10). Most relevant to this appeal, the applicant is required to identify a theory of defense that would establish his “actual innocence,” and the applicant must show that “[t]he proposed DNA testing of the specific evidence may produce new material evidence that would . . . raise a reasonable probability that the applicant did not commit the offense.” § 3600(a)(6)&(8). We review de novo whether DNA testing would produce a “reasonable probability” that Roberts did not possess the gun. See United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572, 575 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court's “underlying fact findings are reviewed only for clear error.” Id. The district court determined “even a negative test result would not demonstrate that [trial counsel] was ineffective and that defendant should receive a new trial.” (R. Vol. 3 at 603.) A negative result “would have proved no more that the negative finding on fingerprints.” (Id.) And, in fact, defense counsel told the jury in closing argument there was no DNA connecting Roberts to the gun. The only result which would be different from the advantage Roberts had at trial would be the presence of another person’s DNA on the gun. Even that result, however, would fail to raise a reasonable probability Roberts did not throw the gun into the dumpster. “DNA testing alone does not always resolve a case. Where there is enough other incriminating evidence and an explanation for the DNA result, science alone cannot prove a prisoner innocent.” Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. - 21 - Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 2316 (2009). Eyewitness testimony established Roberts disposed of the gun; Pena and Thatcher testified they were certain they saw Roberts throw the gun into the dumpster. The gun was found on the top of the trash in the dumpster moments after Roberts was apprehended. Although Roberts claims he was frisked when he entered the club and no weapon was found, his own testimony established he had just returned from his car when the officers arrived. Given these facts, we cannot find the result of the trial was unreliable or that further testing would produce a “reasonable probability” Roberts did not possess the gun. AFFIRMED. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien