NO. 08-6 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________________ DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND ADRIENNE BACHMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY Petitioners, v. WILLIAM G. OSBORNE, Respondent, ____________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ____________________ BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT ____________________ STEVEN R. SHAPIRO WALTER DELLINGER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES IRVING L. GORNSTEIN UNION FOUNDATION (Counsel of Record) 125 Broad Street SHANNON M. PAZUR New York, NY 10004 KATHRYN E. TARBERT (212) 549-2500 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 383-5300 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOHN W. WHITEHEAD BARBARA E. BERGMAN DOUGLAS R. MCKUSICK CO-CHAIR, NACDL AMICUS THE RUTHERFORD COMMITTEE INSTITUTE School of Law, P.O. Box 7482 MSC11-6070 Charlottesville, VA 22906 1 University of New (434) 978-3888 Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 4 I. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PRO- HIBITS THE CONTINUED DETEN- TION OF A PERSON WHO CONCLU- SIVELY ESTABLISHES HIS INNO- CENCE THROUGH A DNA TEST................ 4 A. A Person Convicted Of An Of- fense Has A Powerful Liberty In- terest In Securing His Release Based On New Evidence That Conclusively Establishes His In- nocence ................................................. 5 B. The Court Has Assumed That A Person Can State A Constitu- tional Claim Based On Actual Innocence ............................................. 7 C. When New DNA Conclusively Establishes A Person’s Inno- cence, His Continued Detention Violates Due Process ......................... 10 II. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ES- TABLISHES A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DNA EVIDENCE TO PROVE AN AC- TUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM....................... 13 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page A. The Due Process Principles Un- derlying Brady Guarantee A Right Of Access To DNA Evi- dence................................................... 14 B. Petitioners’ Proposed Conditions On Access Are Impermissible............ 18 CONCLUSION........................................................ 21 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).............................................. 11 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).......................................passim California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).......................................15, 16 Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997)................................ 9 Cornell v. Nix, 119 F.3d 1329 (8th Cir. 1997).............................. 9 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)............................................ 12 Davi v. Class, 609 N.W.2d 107 (S.D. 2000) .............................. 17 Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).............................................. 12 Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967).............................................. 17 Harvey v. Horan, 285 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2002).......................passim Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)...................................... 7, 8, 9 Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975).......................................12, 18 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006).............................................. 8 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).............................................. 5 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986).............................................. 7 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).......................................15, 17 Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976).............................................. 6 Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992).......................................12, 18 Panetti v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 2842 (2007).......................................... 6 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987).............................................. 20 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)............................................ 12 Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).............................................. 8 Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960).............................................. 5 United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).........................................14, 15 United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002)............................................ 18 Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980).............................................. 6 Warney v. City of Rochester, 536 F. Supp. 2d 285 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ............... 15 Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).............................................. 6 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 3600(g).................................................. 12 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) OTHER AUTHORITIES Brandon L. Garrett, Claiming Innocence, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 1629 (2008).......................................................10, 11, 12 Innocence Project, Facts of Post- Conviction DNA Exonerations, at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Content/351.php .....................................16, 17, 19 Seth F. Kreimer & David Rudovsky, Double Helix, Double Bind: Factual Innocence and Postconviction DNA Testing, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 547 (2002).......................................................11, 16, 19 BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT The American Civil Liberties Union, Rutherford Institute, and National Association of Criminal De- fense Lawyers respectfully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of the respondent.1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amici have a substantial interest in the resolu- tion of the questions presented in this case. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, nonprofit, non-partisan organization with more than 500,000 members dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Constitution. The ACLU has appeared before this Court in numerous cases involving the scope of the Constitution’s protection for persons convicted of criminal offenses. The Rutherford Institute is an international civil liberties and human rights organization headquar- tered in Charlottesville, Virginia. Founded in 1982 by its President, John W. Whitehead, the Institute specializes in providing legal representation without 1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, counsel for amici curiae state that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person or entity other than amici curiae, its members, or its counsel has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or sub- mission of this brief. The parties have filed with the Clerk of the Court blanket letters of consent to briefs of amicus curiae. 2 charge to individuals whose civil liberties are threat- ened or violated. The Institute also strives to edu- cate the public about constitutional and human rights issues. During its 26-year history, attorneys affiliated with the Institute have represented nu- merous parties in state and federal courts, as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Rutherford In- stitute has also filed amicus curiae briefs in cases concerning the criminal justice system and its effects on the rights of those accused with criminal offenses. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is a non-profit organization with direct national membership of more than 11,000 at- torneys, with an additional 28,000 affiliate members in every state. Founded in 1958, NACDL is the only professional bar association that represents public and private criminal defense lawyers at the national level. The American Bar Association recognizes NACDL as an affiliated organization with full repre- sentation in the ABA House of Delegates. NACDL’s mission is to ensure justice and due process for the accused; to foster the integrity, independence, and expertise of the criminal defense profession; and to promote the proper and fair administration of crimi- nal justice. In keeping with that stated mission, NACDL frequently files briefs before this Court in cases concerning the constitutional safeguards in the criminal justice system. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT If the Constitution’s protection of individual lib- erty means anything, it must mean that a state can- not continue to detain someone who conclusively proves through a DNA test that he is innocent of the 3 crime that is the basis for his incarceration. A jury’s determination of guilt rests on the evidence that was before it. That jury determination cannot, and does not, extinguish a person’s fundamental liberty inter- est in securing his release based on new evidence that conclusively proves his innocence. This Court has twice assumed that a person who can make an extraordinarily high showing of his ac- tual innocence states a constitutional claim. When a person can conclusively prove his innocence, that high threshold is satisfied. And whether or not other forms of evidence could satisfy that standard, mod- ern DNA evidence unquestionably can. When a person conclusively establishes his inno-