Document: 421 U.S. 482 95 S.Ct. 1748 44 L.Ed.2d 317 Peter J. PITCHESS, Sheriff of Los Angeles Countyv.Charles Edward DAVIS. No. 74—1128. May 19, 1975. [The balance this page intentionally left blank] PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Davis was convicted in 1967 the Superior Court County rape, kidnaping, and oral copulation; he sentenced to state prison. On direct appeal California courts, respondent argued, inter alia, that failure prosecutor his case turn over him an exculpatory laboratory report, despite request for all material reports, violated Fourteenth Amendment right a fair trial under our decision Brady v. Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215 (1963). The report stated scientific tests by police officials failed reveal presence sperm either on vaginal smear slides taken from victim after rape or clothing worn at time rape. State courts rejected contention appeal. 2 twice unsuccessfully pursued petitions habeas corpus filed 28 U.S.C. § 2254 United States District Central California. In 1972 third petition court proved more successful, ruled supply with denied Brady, supra. issued conditional writ which provided would issue, compelling petitioner release custody, unless moved retry within 60 days. This judgment affirmed Appeals Ninth Circuit.1 3 accordance terms writ, set court. forming basis respondent's claim turned him. discovery motion made advance trial, requested make available Although physical evidence had been prior it destroyed as matter routine sometime during six years between conviction became final issuance corpus. 4 then dismiss charges against grounds destruction constituted incurable suppression violation deprived any opportunity, present future, trial. After hearing motion, finding not willfully suppressed further have materially aided defense. 5 application prohibition Appeal. During pendency application, also seeking 'modify' its replace order granting absolute enjoining retrial pending charges. slides. temporarily enjoined retrial2 but deferred ruling motion. 6 Appeal Supreme applications writs without opinion. then, permitting proceed court, conducted own. held opinion precluded certain additional testing might possibly established perpetrator crime, since defect incurable, found could never receive Respondent's granted.3 Circuit affirmed, sought certiorari here judgment. 7 Habeas jurisdiction persons custody pursuant is conferred federal 2254. That statute requires exhaustion remedies precondition consideration petition: 8 '(b) An behalf person shall be granted appears applicant has exhausted State, there absence corrective process existence circumstances rendering such ineffective protect rights prisoner. 9 '(c) deemed meaning section, if law raise, procedure, question presented.' See, e.g., Nelson George, 399 224, 229, 90 1963, 1966, 26 578 (1970); Irvin Dowd, 359 394, 404—405, 79 825, 831—832, 900 (1959); Ex parte Royall, 117 241, 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886). 11 instant case, unavailability connection raised until pretrial charges.4 issue neither nor considered course first proceedings resulting And does contest that, should upon retrial, full appellate review will whatever contentions chooses raise concerning nonavailability now sought. 12 Under Picard Connor, 404 270, 92 509, 30 438 (1971), required prerequisite each presented habeas: 13 'We emphasize must fairly courts. If doctrine prevent 'unnecessary conflict equally bound guard secured Constitution,' supra, 251, (734) 740, sufficient merely through rule serve no purpose satisfied raising one another courts.' Id., 275 276, S.Ct., 512. 14 While recognizing requirement invoking relief, did preclude amend Court's original two reasons. 15 First, felt effort secure these circumstances. 16 Both well extraordinary whose use pre-trial normally limited 'questions impression general importance.' People Medina, Cal.3d 484, 491, 99 Cal.Rptr. 630, 634, 492 P.2d 686, 690 (1972) (en banc). denial constitute, cannot read as, adjudication merits presented. Inclusion asserted point error bar same points post-trial Ibid. 17 Hawk, 321 114, 116, 64 448, 449, 88 572 (1944), we exhaust where claims presented, normal channels were available. convicted. facts, remedies. 18 second reason advanced inapplicable new authorized Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 60(b)(6) relief order. It reasoned justified amending absolute. Rule 60(b) provides part: 19 'On are just, may relieve party legal representative . following reasons: (6) other justifying operation judgment.' 20 speak relief. requirement, U.S., 512, statutorily incorporated §§ 2254(b) (c), 81(a)(2) provides: 21 'These rules applicable admission citizenship, corpus, quo warranto, extent practice forth statutes ..' 22 Since codified, even apply situation alter statutory command. persuasive, therefore, correct reasoning exhaustion. We believe reasons previously incorrect treatment issue. 23 formed unconditional entitled based respect exhausted. Neither 60(b), 2254, together, permit maintain continuing supervision Cf. Stefanelli Minard, 342 117, 72 118, 96 138 (1951). 24 leave forma pauperis granted. reversed remanded directions vacate orders entered subsequent 25 so ordered. Reversed remanded. 27 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took part case. opinions unpublished. modification proceeding reported 388 F.Supp. 105 (1974) Appeals' affirmance 518 F.2d 141 (1974). relating later unavailable before us. view disposition occasion consider Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 669 facts. amended provided: 'IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: '1. Pitchess, County, California, whosoever Charles Davis, discharge insofar nature Case A220869 Angeles. '2. released discharged restraints imposed '3. Pursuant provisions 2251 hereafter stayed. '4. Any void. '5. retains purposes.' purposes stem lack diligence part. unlikely discovered preparations retrial.

Category: 0