district
attorney
office
third
judicial
district
et
al
osborne
argued
march
decided
june
respondent
osborne
convicted
sexual
assault
crimes
state
years
later
filed
suit
claiming
due
process
right
access
evidence
used
order
subject
dna
testing
expense
federal
district
first
dismissed
claim
heck
humphrey
holding
osborne
must
proceed
habeas
sought
set
stage
attack
conviction
ninth
circuit
reversed
concluding
proper
vehicle
osborne
claims
remand
district
granted
osborne
summary
judgment
concluding
limited
constitutional
right
new
testing
unique
specific
facts
presented
testing
unavailable
trial
accomplished
almost
cost
state
results
likely
material
ninth
circuit
affirmed
relying
prosecutorial
duty
disclose
exculpatory
evidence
brady
maryland
held
assuming
osborne
claims
pursued
using
constitutional
right
obtain
postconviction
access
state
evidence
dna
testing
pp
dna
testing
unparalleled
ability
exonerate
wrongly
convicted
identify
guilty
availability
new
dna
testing
technologies
however
mean
every
criminal
conviction
even
every
criminal
conviction
involving
biological
evidence
suddenly
doubt
task
establishing
rules
harness
dna
power
prove
innocence
without
unnecessarily
overthrowing
established
criminal
justice
system
belongs
primarily
legislature
see
washington
glucksberg
federal
government
already
enacted
statutes
dealing
specifically
access
evidence
dna
testing
laws
recognize
value
dna
testing
also
need
conditions
accessing
state
evidence
alaska
one
handful
yet
enact
specific
dna
testing
legislation
alaska
courts
addressing
apply
existing
discovery
postconviction
relief
laws
novel
technology
pp
assumes
without
deciding
ninth
circuit
correct
heck
bar
osborne
claim
claim
rejected
without
resolving
proper
application
heck
pp
ninth
circuit
erred
finding
due
process
violation
pp
osborne
liberty
interest
pursuing
postconviction
relief
granted
state
ninth
circuit
erred
extending
brady
right
pretrial
disclosure
postconviction
context
osborne
already
found
guilty
therefore
limited
liberty
interest
postconviction
relief
see
herrera
collins
instead
brady
inquiry
question
whether
consideration
osborne
claim
within
framework
state
postconviction
relief
procedures
offends
fundamental
principle
justice
transgresses
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
operation
medina
california
federal
courts
may
upset
state
postconviction
relief
procedures
fundamentally
inadequate
vindicate
substantive
rights
provided
nothing
inadequate
alaska
postconviction
relief
procedures
general
methods
applying
procedures
persons
seeking
access
evidence
dna
testing
state
provides
substantive
right
released
sufficiently
compelling
showing
new
evidence
establishes
innocence
also
provides
discovery
postconviction
proceedings
judicial
decision
specified
discovery
available
seeking
access
evidence
dna
testing
procedures
similar
provided
federal
law
laws
satisfy
due
process
true
osborne
reliance
claimed
federal
right
released
upon
proof
actual
innocence
even
assuming
right
exists
decided
decide
due
process
problem
given
procedures
available
access
evidence
dna
testing
pp
ii
rejects
osborne
invitation
recognize
freestanding
substantive
due
process
right
dna
evidence
untethered
liberty
interests
hopes
vindicate
circumstances
case
right
generally
reluctant
expand
concept
substantive
due
process
guideposts
responsible
decisionmaking
unchartered
area
scarce
collins
harker
heights
long
history
right
access
state
evidence
dna
testing
might
prove
innocence
mere
novelty
claim
reason
enough
doubt
due
process
sustains
reno
flores
moreover
suddenly
constitutionalize
area
prompt
considered
legislative
response
congress
shift
federal
judiciary
responsibility
devising
rules
governing
dna
access
creating
new
constitutional
code
procedures
answer
myriad
questions
arise
reason
suppose
federal
courts
answers
questions
better
state
courts
legislatures
good
reason
suspect
opposite
see
collins
supra
pp
reversed
remanded
roberts
delivered
opinion
scalia
kennedy
thomas
alito
joined
alito
filed
concurring
opinion
kennedy
joined
thomas
joined
part
ii
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
joined
souter
joined
part
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
district
attorney
office
third
judicial
district
et
petitioners
william
osborne
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
chief
justice
roberts
delivered
opinion
dna
testing
unparalleled
ability
exonerate
wrongly
convicted
identify
guilty
potential
significantly
improve
criminal
justice
system
police
investigative
practices
federal
government
recognized
developed
special
approaches
ensure
evidentiary
tool
effectively
incorporated
established
criminal
procedure
usually
always
legislation
prompt
considered
response
respondent
william
osborne
proposes
different
approach
recognition
freestanding
constitutional
right
access
new
type
evidence
nature
seeks
confirmed
decision
file
lawsuit
federal
within
state
criminal
justice
system
approach
take
development
rules
procedures
area
hands
legislatures
state
courts
shaping
policy
focused
manner
turn
federal
courts
applying
broad
parameters
due
process
clause
reason
constitutionalize
issue
way
decision
reverse
lawsuit
arose
violent
crime
committed
years
ago
resulted
long
string
litigation
state
federal
courts
evening
march
two
men
driving
anchorage
alaska
solicited
sex
female
prostitute
agreed
perform
fellatio
men
got
car
three
spent
time
looking
place
stop
ended
deserted
area
near
earthquake
park
demanded
payment
advance
two
men
pulled
gun
forced
perform
fellatio
driver
passenger
penetrated
vaginally
using
blue
condom
brought
passenger
ordered
car
told
lie
snow
fearing
life
refused
two
men
choked
beat
gun
tried
flee
passenger
beat
wooden
axe
handle
shot
head
lay
ground
kicked
snow
top
left
dead
case
osborne
state
alaska
app
osborne
ii
app
die
bullet
grazed
head
two
men
left
found
way
back
road
flagged
passing
car
take
home
ultimately
received
medical
care
spoke
police
scene
crime
police
recovered
spent
shell
casing
axe
handle
clothing
stained
blood
blue
condom
jackson
state
etc
alaska
app
pet
cert
six
days
later
two
military
police
officers
fort
richardson
pulled
dexter
jackson
flashing
headlights
another
vehicle
car
discovered
gun
matched
shell
casing
well
several
items
carrying
night
attack
car
also
matched
description
given
police
jackson
admitted
driver
rape
assault
told
police
william
osborne
passenger
osborne
state
alaska
app
osborne
evidence
also
implicated
osborne
picked
photograph
uncertainty
trial
identified
osborne
attacker
witnesses
testified
shortly
crime
osborne
called
jackson
arcade
driven
axe
handle
similar
one
scene
crime
found
osborne
room
military
base
lived
state
also
performed
dq
alpha
testing
sperm
found
blue
condom
dq
alpha
testing
relatively
inexact
form
dna
testing
clear
wrongly
accused
individuals
generally
narrow
perpetrator
less
population
see
dept
justice
national
future
dna
evidence
future
forensic
dna
testing
ncj
hereinafter
future
forensic
dna
testing
dept
justice
national
future
dna
evidence
postconviction
dna
testing
recommendations
handling
requests
ncj
hereinafter
postconviction
dna
testing
semen
found
condom
genotype
matched
blood
sample
taken
osborne
ones
jackson
third
suspect
named
james
hunter
osborne
black
approximately
black
individuals
genotype
app
words
testing
ruled
jackson
hunter
possible
sources
semen
also
ruled
black
individuals
state
also
examined
pubic
hairs
found
scene
crime
susceptible
dq
alpha
testing
state
witnesses
attested
similar
osborne
app
pet
cert
osborne
jackson
convicted
alaska
jury
kidnaping
assault
sexual
assault
acquitted
additional
count
sexual
assault
attempted
murder
finding
survived
trial
judge
sentenced
osborne
years
prison
suspended
conviction
sentence
affirmed
appeal
osborne
sought
postconviction
relief
alaska
state
claimed
asked
attorney
sidney
billingslea
seek
discriminating
rflp
dna
testing
trial
argued
constitutionally
ineffective
billingslea
testified
investigation
concluded
testing
harm
good
planned
mount
defense
mistaken
identity
thought
imprecision
dq
alpha
test
gave
good
numbers
mistaken
identity
identification
case
victim
dark
bad
eyesight
osborne
believed
osborne
guilty
advanced
dna
test
served
prove
osborne
committed
alleged
crimes
ibid
alaska
appeals
concluded
billingslea
decision
strategic
rejected
osborne
claim
proceeding
osborne
also
sought
dna
testing
billingslea
failed
perform
relying
alaska
postconviction
statute
alaska
stat
state
federal
constitutions
two
decisions
alaska
appeals
concluded
osborne
right
rflp
test
according
apparently
apply
dna
testing
available
osborne
found
basis
precedents
recognizing
federal
constitutional
right
dna
evidence
remand
findings
alaska
appeals
concluded
osborne
claim
state
constitutional
right
either
evidence
guilt
strong
rflp
testing
likely
conclusive
osborne
ii
two
three
judges
wrote
separately
say
osborne
show
fact
innocent
unconscionable
punish
might
violate
alaska
constitution
mannheimer
concurring
relied
heavily
fact
osborne
confessed
crimes
application
parole
crime
lie
majority
opinion
citing
alaska
stat
statement
osborne
acknowledged
forcing
sex
gunpoint
well
beating
covering
snow
repeated
confession
parole
board
despite
acceptance
responsibility
board
grant
discretionary
parole
app
pet
cert
released
mandatory
parole
since
rearrested
another
offense
state
petitioned
revoke
parole
brief
petitioners
meanwhile
osborne
also
active
federal
suing
state
officials
claimed
due
process
clause
constitutional
provisions
gave
constitutional
right
access
dna
evidence
known
str
testing
expense
app
form
testing
discriminating
dq
alpha
rflp
methods
available
time
osborne
district
first
dismissed
claim
heck
humphrey
holding
inescapable
osborne
sought
set
stage
attack
conviction
therefore
must
proceed
writ
habeas
corpus
app
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
concluding
proper
vehicle
osborne
claims
express
ing
opinion
whether
osborne
ha
deprived
federally
protected
right
summary
judgment
remand
district
concluded
exist
unique
specific
facts
presented
limited
constitutional
right
testing
sought
supp
relied
several
factors
testing
osborne
sought
unavailable
trial
testing
accomplished
almost
cost
state
results
likely
material
therefore
granted
summary
judgment
favor
osborne
appeals
affirmed
relying
prosecutorial
duty
disclose
exculpatory
evidence
recognized
pennsylvania
ritchie
brady
maryland
acknowledging
precedents
involved
right
disclosure
concluded
due
process
clause
also
extends
government
duty
disclose
defendant
right
access
proceedings
although
osborne
trial
appeals
noted
potentially
viable
state
constitutional
claim
actual
innocence
relied
assumption
similar
claim
arose
federal
constitution
cf
herrera
collins
held
potential
claims
extended
state
brady
obligations
postconviction
context
declined
decide
details
showing
must
made
access
evidence
found
osborne
case
disclosure
strong
facts
herever
bar
crosses
acknowledging
osborne
prior
confessions
certainly
relevant
concluded
necessarily
trum
right
obtain
access
evidence
light
emerging
reality
wrongful
convictions
based
false
confessions
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
osborne
claims
pursued
using
whether
right
due
process
clause
obtain
postconviction
access
state
evidence
dna
testing
pet
cert
reverse
latter
ground
ii
modern
dna
testing
provide
powerful
new
evidence
unlike
anything
known
since
first
use
criminal
investigations
several
major
advances
dna
technology
culminating
str
technology
often
possible
determine
whether
biological
tissue
matches
suspect
near
certainty
course
many
criminal
trials
proceed
without
forensic
scientific
testing
technology
comparable
dna
testing
matching
tissues
evidence
issue
postconviction
dna
testing
future
forensic
dna
testing
dna
testing
exonerated
wrongly
convicted
people
confirmed
convictions
many
others
time
dna
testing
alone
always
resolve
case
enough
incriminating
evidence
explanation
dna
result
science
alone
prove
prisoner
innocent
see
house
bell
availability
technologies
available
trial
mean
every
criminal
conviction
even
every
criminal
conviction
involving
biological
evidence
suddenly
doubt
dilemma
harness
dna
power
prove
innocence
without
unnecessarily
overthrowing
established
system
criminal
justice
task
belongs
primarily
legislature
currently
engaged
serious
thoughtful
examinations
washington
glucksberg
ensure
fair
effective
use
testing
within
existing
criminal
justice
framework
already
enacted
statutes
dealing
specifically
access
dna
evidence
see
generally
brief
state
california
et
al
amici
curiae
garrett
claiming
innocence
rev
surveying
state
statutes
see
also
act
improve
preservation
accessibility
biological
evidence
mississippi
enacted
march
act
provide
dna
testing
certain
inmates
purposes
determining
whether
may
wrongfully
convicted
south
dakota
enacted
march
state
alaska
considering
joining
see
act
relating
dna
testing
sess
proposed
legislation
similar
enacted
federal
government
also
passed
innocence
protection
act
stat
codified
part
allows
federal
prisoners
move
dna
testing
certain
specified
conditions
act
also
grants
money
enact
comparable
statutes
stat
note
following
consequence
served
model
state
legislation
oral
argument
osborne
agreed
federal
statute
model
handle
issue
tr
oral
arg
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
defending
constitutionality
innocence
protection
act
laws
recognize
value
dna
evidence
also
need
certain
conditions
access
state
evidence
requirement
demonstrating
materiality
common
one
federal
statute
example
requires
sworn
statement
applicant
innocent
requirement
replicated
several
state
statutes
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
stat
rev
stat
ann
code
ann
supp
also
impose
range
diligence
requirements
several
require
requested
testing
technologically
impossible
trial
garrett
supra
others
deny
testing
declined
testing
trial
tactical
reasons
utah
code
ann
alaska
one
handful
yet
enact
legislation
specifically
addressing
issue
evidence
requested
dna
testing
mean
evidence
unavailable
seeking
prove
innocence
instead
alaska
courts
addressing
apply
existing
laws
discovery
postconviction
relief
novel
technology
see
osborne
patterson
state
wl
alaska
mar
true
respect
statutes
fagan
state
crim
app
cf
mass
rule
crim
proc
first
access
evidence
available
alaska
law
seek
subject
newly
available
dna
testing
prove
actually
innocent
state
general
postconviction
relief
statute
prisoner
may
challenge
conviction
exists
evidence
material
facts
previously
presented
heard
requires
vacation
conviction
sentence
interest
justice
alaska
stat
claim
exempt
otherwise
applicable
time
limits
newly
discovered
evidence
pursued
due
diligence
establishes
clear
convincing
evidence
applicant
innocent
parties
agree
provisions
defendant
entitled
relief
defendant
presents
newly
discovered
evidence
establishes
clear
convincing
evidence
defendant
innocent
osborne
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
claim
brought
state
law
permits
general
discovery
see
alaska
rule
crim
proc
alaska
courts
explained
procedures
available
request
dna
evidence
newly
available
testing
establish
actual
innocence
see
patterson
supra
patterson
brought
dna
analysis
request
part
previous
application
postconviction
relief
able
request
production
evidence
addition
statutory
procedure
alaska
appeals
invoked
widely
accepted
test
govern
additional
rights
dna
access
state
constitution
osborne
ii
drawing
experience
dna
evidence
state
courts
around
country
appeals
explained
reluctant
hold
alaska
law
offers
remedy
defendants
prove
factual
innocence
osborne
see
citing
decisions
state
courts
prepared
hold
however
defendant
seeks
dna
testing
must
show
conviction
rested
primarily
eyewitness
identification
evidence
demonstrable
doubt
concerning
defendant
identification
perpetrator
scientific
testing
likely
conclusive
issue
thus
alaska
courts
suggested
even
get
discovery
state
criminal
rules
available
safety
valve
state
constitution
background
federal
appeals
ordered
state
turn
dna
evidence
possession
starting
point
analyzing
osborne
constitutional
claims
iii
parties
dispute
whether
osborne
invoked
proper
federal
statute
bringing
claim
sued
federal
civil
rights
statute
gives
cause
action
challenge
state
deprivation
rights
secured
constitution
state
insists
osborne
claim
must
brought
allows
prisoner
seek
writ
habeas
corpus
ground
custody
violation
constitution
osborne
claim
falls
within
literal
terms
also
recognized
must
read
harmony
habeas
statute
see
preiser
rodriguez
heck
stripped
essence
state
says
osborne
action
nothing
request
evidence
support
hypothetical
claim
actually
innocent
hypothetical
claim
sounds
core
habeas
corpus
brief
petitioners
osborne
responds
claim
sound
habeas
although
invalidating
conviction
course
ultimate
goal
giving
evidence
seeks
necessarily
imply
invalidity
confinement
brief
respondent
prevails
receive
access
dna
even
dna
testing
exonerates
conviction
automatically
invalidated
must
bring
entirely
separate
suit
petition
clemency
invalidate
conviction
proved
innocent
state
might
also
release
initiative
avoiding
need
pursue
habeas
osborne
also
invokes
recent
decision
wilkinson
dotson
held
prisoners
sought
new
hearings
parole
eligibility
suitability
need
proceed
habeas
acknowledged
two
plaintiffs
hope
suits
help
bring
earlier
release
concluded
suit
accomplish
without
proceedings
neither
prisoner
claim
necessarily
spell
speedier
release
neither
ay
core
habeas
corpus
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
every
appeals
consider
question
since
dotson
decided
access
dna
evidence
similarly
necessarily
spell
speedier
release
sought
see
savory
lyons
mckithen
brown
hand
state
argues
dotson
distinguishable
challenged
procedures
case
affect
ultimate
exercise
discretion
parole
board
brief
petitioners
also
maintains
dotson
set
forth
exclusive
test
whether
prisoner
may
proceed
brief
petitioners
granted
certiorari
question
resolution
osborne
claims
require
us
resolve
difficult
issue
accordingly
assume
without
deciding
appeals
correct
heck
bar
osborne
claim
even
assumption
wrong
find
due
process
violation
iv
state
shall
deprive
person
life
liberty
property
without
due
process
law
amdt
accord
amdt
clause
imposes
procedural
limitations
state
power
take
away
protected
entitlements
see
jones
flowers
osborne
argues
access
state
evidence
process
needed
vindicate
right
prove
innocent
get
jail
process
end
necessary
premise
argument
entitlement
precedents
call
liberty
interest
prove
innocence
even
fair
trial
proved
otherwise
must
first
examine
asserted
liberty
interest
determine
process
due
see
board
regents
state
colleges
roth
olim
wakinekona
identifying
potential
liberty
interest
osborne
first
attempts
rely
governor
constitutional
authority
grant
pardons
commutations
reprieves
alaska
art
iii
claim
readily
disposed
held
noncapital
defendants
liberty
interest
traditional
state
executive
clemency
particular
claimant
entitled
matter
state
law
connecticut
bd
pardons
dumschat
osborne
therefore
challenge
constitutionality
procedures
available
vindicate
interest
state
clemency
osborne
however
liberty
interest
demonstrating
innocence
new
evidence
state
law
explained
alaska
law
provides
use
newly
discovered
evidence
establis
clear
convincing
evidence
innocent
may
obtain
vacation
conviction
sentence
interest
justice
alaska
stat
right
circumstances
beget
yet
rights
procedures
essential
realization
parent
right
dumschat
supra
see
also
wolff
mcdonnell
appeals
went
far
however
concluding
due
process
clause
requires
certain
familiar
preconviction
trial
rights
extended
protect
osborne
postconviction
liberty
interest
identifying
osborne
possible
liberty
interests
concluded
state
obligation
comply
principles
brady
maryland
case
held
due
process
requires
prosecutor
disclose
material
exculpatory
evidence
defendant
trial
appeals
acknowledged
nothing
precedents
suggested
disclosure
obligation
continued
defendant
convicted
case
closed
relied
prior
ninth
circuit
precedent
applying
brady
right
citing
thomas
goldsmith
osborne
claim
brady
controls
case
brief
respondent
good
reason
criminal
defendant
proved
guilty
fair
trial
liberty
interests
free
man
trial
defendant
presumed
innocent
may
demand
government
prove
case
beyond
reasonable
doubt
nce
defendant
afforded
fair
trial
convicted
offense
charged
presumption
innocence
disappears
herrera
collins
given
valid
conviction
criminal
defendant
constitutionally
deprived
liberty
dumschat
supra
internal
quotation
marks
alterations
omitted
state
accordingly
flexibility
deciding
procedures
needed
context
postconviction
relief
hen
state
chooses
offer
help
seeking
relief
convictions
due
process
dictat
exact
form
assistance
must
assume
pennsylvania
finley
osborne
right
due
process
parallel
trial
right
rather
must
analyzed
light
fact
already
found
guilty
fair
trial
limited
interest
postconviction
relief
brady
wrong
framework
instead
question
whether
consideration
osborne
claim
within
framework
state
procedures
postconviction
relief
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
transgresses
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
operation
medina
california
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
herrera
supra
applying
medina
postconviction
relief
actual
innocence
finley
supra
postconviction
relief
procedures
constitutional
compor
fundamental
fairness
federal
courts
may
upset
state
postconviction
relief
procedures
fundamentally
inadequate
vindicate
substantive
rights
provided
see
nothing
inadequate
procedures
alaska
provided
vindicate
state
right
postconviction
relief
general
nothing
inadequate
procedures
apply
seek
access
dna
evidence
alaska
provides
substantive
right
released
sufficiently
compelling
showing
new
evidence
establishes
innocence
exempts
claims
otherwise
applicable
time
limits
state
provides
discovery
postconviction
proceedings
judicial
decision
specified
discovery
procedure
available
seeking
access
dna
evidence
patterson
wl
procedures
without
limits
evidence
must
indeed
newly
available
qualify
alaska
statute
must
diligently
pursued
must
also
sufficiently
material
procedures
similar
provided
dna
evidence
federal
law
law
see
inconsistent
traditions
conscience
people
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
medina
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
alaska
courts
occasion
conclusively
decide
question
alaska
appeals
suggested
state
constitution
provides
additional
right
access
dna
expressing
reluctan
ce
hold
alaska
law
offers
remedy
belatedly
seek
dna
testing
invoking
test
used
state
courts
indicated
appropriate
case
state
constitution
may
provide
failsafe
even
satisfy
statutory
requirements
general
postconviction
procedures
osborne
degree
uncertainty
details
alaska
newly
developing
procedures
obtaining
postconviction
access
dna
hardly
fault
state
osborne
brought
action
without
ever
using
procedures
filing
state
federal
habeas
claim
relying
actual
innocence
words
tried
use
process
provided
state
attempted
vindicate
liberty
interest
centerpiece
claim
osborne
request
dna
testing
state
sought
rflp
testing
available
trial
str
testing
seeks
state
relied
fact
denying
testing
alaska
law
osborne
supra
dna
testing
osborne
proposes
perform
evidence
existed
time
osborne
trial
osborne
ii
mannheimer
concurring
dna
testing
osborne
proposes
yield
evidence
purposes
alaska
stat
available
time
osborne
trial
attempt
sidestep
state
process
new
federal
lawsuit
puts
osborne
awkward
position
simply
seeks
dna
state
discovery
procedures
might
well
get
may
perfectly
adequate
reason
federal
statute
state
statutes
impose
conditions
limits
access
dna
evidence
difficult
criticize
state
procedures
osborne
invoked
say
osborne
must
exhaust
remedies
see
patsy
board
regents
osborne
burden
demonstrate
inadequacy
procedures
available
state
postconviction
relief
cf
medina
supra
procedures
adequate
face
without
trying
osborne
hardly
complain
work
practice
fallback
osborne
also
obliquely
relies
asserted
federal
constitutional
right
released
upon
proof
actual
innocence
whether
federal
right
exists
open
question
struggled
years
cases
assuming
arguendo
exists
also
noting
difficult
questions
right
pose
high
standard
claimant
meet
house
herrera
see
also
concurring
scalia
concurring
friendly
innocence
irrelevant
collateral
attack
criminal
judgments
chi
rev
case
assume
without
deciding
claim
exists
even
due
process
problem
osborne
dispute
federal
actual
innocence
claim
opposed
dna
access
claim
brought
habeas
brief
respondent
habeas
claim
viable
federal
procedural
rules
permit
discovery
good
cause
rule
bracy
gramley
state
law
osborne
show
available
discovery
facially
inadequate
show
arbitrarily
denied
appeals
relied
procedural
due
process
osborne
seeks
defend
judgment
basis
substantive
due
process
well
asks
recognize
freestanding
right
dna
evidence
untethered
liberty
interests
hopes
vindicate
reject
invitation
conclude
circumstances
case
substantive
due
process
right
general
matter
always
reluctant
expand
concept
substantive
due
process
guideposts
responsible
decisionmaking
unchartered
area
scarce
collins
harker
heights
osborne
seeks
access
state
evidence
apply
new
technology
might
prove
innocent
long
history
right
mere
novelty
claim
reason
enough
doubt
due
process
sustains
reno
flores
reasons
doubt
elected
governments
actively
confronting
challenges
dna
technology
poses
criminal
justice
systems
traditional
notions
finality
well
opportunities
affords
suddenly
constitutionalize
area
looks
prompt
considered
legislative
response
first
dna
testing
statutes
passed
act
ch
laws
codified
crim
proc
law
ann
west
act
may
pub
act
laws
codified
comp
ch
west
past
decade
federal
government
followed
suit
reflecting
increased
availability
dna
testing
noted
alaska
considering
legislation
see
supra
extending
constitutional
protection
asserted
right
liberty
interest
great
extent
place
matter
outside
arena
public
debate
legislative
action
must
therefore
exercise
utmost
care
whenever
asked
break
new
ground
field
glucksberg
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
udicial
imposition
categorical
remedy
might
pretermit
responsible
solutions
considered
congress
state
legislatures
murray
giarratano
kennedy
concurring
judgment
extended
substantive
due
process
area
cast
statutes
constitutional
doubt
forced
take
issue
dna
access
reluctant
enlist
federal
judiciary
creating
new
constitutional
code
rules
handling
establishing
freestanding
right
access
dna
evidence
testing
force
us
act
policymakers
rulemaking
authority
cover
right
access
myriad
issues
soon
decide
constitutional
obligation
preserve
forensic
evidence
might
later
tested
cf
arizona
youngblood
long
different
different
types
evidence
state
also
obligation
gather
evidence
first
place
much
doubt
miscellany
minor
directives
see
harvey
horan
wilkinson
concurring
denial
rehearing
case
evidence
already
gathered
preserved
extend
substantive
due
process
area
questions
us
short
order
hard
imagine
tools
federal
courts
use
answer
end
day
reason
suppose
answers
questions
better
state
courts
legislatures
good
reason
suspect
opposite
see
collins
supra
glucksberg
supra
dna
evidence
undoubtedly
lead
changes
criminal
justice
system
done
already
question
whether
change
primarily
made
legislative
revision
judicial
interpretation
existing
system
whether
federal
judiciary
must
leap
ahead
revising
even
discarding
system
creating
new
constitutional
right
taking
responsibility
refining
federal
courts
presume
state
criminal
procedures
inadequate
deal
technological
change
criminal
justice
system
historically
accommodated
new
types
evidence
means
carrying
society
interest
convicting
guilty
respecting
individual
rights
system
like
human
endeavor
perfect
dna
evidence
shows
basis
osborne
approach
assuming
dna
shown
procedures
flawless
dna
evidence
must
treated
categorically
outside
process
rather
within
precisely
suit
seeks
contention
reject
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
district
attorney
office
third
judicial
district
et
petitioners
william
osborne
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
alito
justice
kennedy
joins
justice
thomas
joins
part
ii
concurring
respondent
convicted
brutal
sexual
assault
trial
defense
declined
dna
testing
done
semen
sample
found
scene
crime
defense
counsel
explained
decision
made
based
fear
testing
provide
evidence
respondent
guilt
conviction
unsuccessful
attempt
obtain
parole
respondent
confessed
detail
crime
respondent
claims
federal
constitutional
right
test
sample
go
directly
federal
obtain
relief
without
giving
alaska
courts
full
opportunity
consider
claim
agree
resolution
respondent
constitutional
claim
view
claim
also
fails
two
independent
reasons
beyond
given
majority
first
state
prisoner
asserting
federal
constitutional
right
perform
testing
must
file
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
action
respondent
thus
must
exhaust
state
remedies
see
second
even
though
respondent
exhaust
state
remedies
claim
may
rejected
merits
see
defendant
declines
opportunity
perform
dna
testing
trial
tactical
reasons
constitutional
right
perform
testing
conviction
prior
opinions
illustrate
sometimes
difficult
draw
line
claims
properly
brought
habeas
may
brought
see
preiser
rodriguez
heck
humphrey
wilkinson
dotson
think
case
falls
habeas
side
line
long
recognized
principles
federalism
comity
stake
state
prisoners
attempt
use
federal
courts
attack
final
convictions
see
darr
burford
braden
judicial
circuit
preiser
supra
rose
lundy
rhines
weber
accordingly
held
unseemly
dual
system
government
federal
district
upset
state
conviction
without
opportunity
state
courts
correct
constitutional
violation
lundy
supra
quoting
darr
supra
congress
subsequently
codified
lundy
exhaustion
requirement
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
also
long
recognized
need
impose
sharp
limits
state
prisoners
efforts
bypass
state
courts
discovery
requests
see
wainwright
sykes
keeney
williams
taylor
example
held
concerns
finality
comity
judicial
economy
channeling
resolution
claims
appropriate
forum
require
state
prisoner
show
asking
federal
habeas
hold
evidentiary
hearing
keeney
supra
result
reduces
opportunities
part
defense
lawyers
sykes
supra
reduces
friction
results
federal
habeas
either
factual
legal
conclusions
reached
system
keeney
supra
quoting
sumner
mata
brackets
omitted
congress
subsequently
codified
keeney
rule
aedpa
rules
set
forth
cases
codified
aedpa
mean
little
state
prisoners
simply
evade
artful
pleading
example
take
common
ground
state
prisoner
claim
brady
maryland
must
brought
habeas
claim
proved
invalidate
judgment
conviction
sentence
thus
lawfulness
inmate
confinement
see
heck
supra
respondent
view
see
reason
brady
claimant
bypass
state
courts
file
claim
federal
contending
due
process
right
search
state
files
exculpatory
evidence
allowing
maneuver
violate
principles
embodied
lundy
keeney
aedpa
although
respondent
recharacterized
claim
effort
escape
requirement
proceeding
habeas
complaint
squarely
alleged
state
deprived
access
exculpatory
evidence
violation
brady
supra
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
app
allegedly
exculpatory
evidence
brady
defines
evidence
favorable
accused
material
either
guilt
punishment
definition
undermine
respondent
guilt
punishment
allegations
true
claims
brought
habeas
see
heck
supra
respondent
avoid
result
attempting
bring
claim
see
dotson
supra
kennedy
dissenting
answer
say
respondent
simply
wants
use
discovery
tool
lay
foundation
future
state
postconviction
application
state
clemency
petition
request
relief
means
prosecutorial
consent
see
brief
respondent
tactics
implicate
precisely
federalism
comity
concerns
motivated
decisions
congress
impose
exhaustion
requirements
discovery
limits
federal
habeas
proceedings
petitioner
evade
habeas
statute
exhaustion
requirements
way
see
reason
state
prisoner
asserting
ordinary
brady
claim
state
prisoner
claims
prosecution
failed
turn
exculpatory
evidence
prior
trial
follow
course
respondent
seeks
accurately
described
complaint
discovery
evidence
material
bearing
conviction
claim
falls
within
core
habeas
preiser
supra
recognition
constitutional
right
postconviction
scientific
testing
evidence
possession
prosecution
represent
expansion
brady
broadening
discovery
rights
available
habeas
petitioners
see
rule
never
previously
held
state
prisoner
may
seek
discovery
means
action
take
step
hold
respondent
claim
like
brady
claims
brought
habeas
ii
principles
federalism
comity
finality
ones
stake
state
cases
like
one
contrary
dna
evidence
creates
special
opportunities
risks
burdens
implicate
important
state
interests
given
interests
especially
light
rapidly
evolving
nature
dna
testing
technology
area
explored
workings
normal
democratic
processes
laboratories
atkins
supra
rehnquist
dissenting
notes
dna
testing
often
produces
highly
reliable
results
see
ante
indeed
short
tandem
repeat
str
dna
tests
certain
circumstances
establish
virtual
certainty
whether
given
individual
commit
particular
crime
harvey
horan
luttig
respecting
denial
rehearing
en
banc
potential
virtual
certainty
justice
stevens
argues
state
welcome
respondent
offer
perform
modern
dna
testing
expense
state
dna
evidence
test
either
confirm
respondent
guilt
case
state
lost
nothing
exonerate
case
state
valid
interest
detaining
see
post
alas
far
simple
first
dna
testing
even
performed
modern
str
technology
even
performed
perfect
accordance
protocols
often
fails
provide
absolute
proof
anything
post
stevens
dissenting
one
scholar
observed
orensic
dna
testing
rarely
occurs
idyllic
conditions
crime
scene
dna
samples
come
single
source
obtained
immaculate
conditions
messy
assortments
multiple
unknown
persons
often
collected
difficult
conditions
samples
poor
quality
due
exposure
heat
light
moisture
degrading
elements
minimal
insufficient
quantity
especially
investigators
push
dna
testing
limits
seek
profiles
cells
retrieved
cigarette
butts
envelopes
soda
cans
importantly
forensic
samples
often
constitute
mixture
multiple
persons
clear
whose
profile
whose
even
many
profiles
sample
factors
make
dna
testing
forensic
context
far
subjective
simply
reporting
test
results
murphy
art
science
dna
layperson
guide
subjectivity
inherent
forensic
dna
typing
emory
footnotes
omitted
see
also
michaelis
flanders
wulff
litigator
guide
dna
hereinafter
michaelis
noting
even
str
analyses
plagued
issues
suboptimal
samples
equipment
malfunctions
human
error
type
forensic
dna
test
harvey
horan
king
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
noting
first
str
dna
test
performed
virginia
postconviction
dna
access
statute
inconclusive
concerns
apply
particular
force
sample
minuscule
may
contain
three
persons
dna
may
degraded
significantly
hours
took
police
recover
second
state
important
interests
maintaining
integrity
evidence
risks
associated
evidence
contamination
increase
every
time
someone
attempts
extract
new
dna
sample
according
professor
john
butler
said
written
canonical
text
forensic
dna
typing
murphy
supra
extraction
process
probably
dna
sample
susceptible
contamination
laboratory
time
forensic
dna
analysis
process
butler
forensic
dna
typing
ed
indeed
modern
dna
testing
technology
powerful
actually
increases
risks
associated
mishandling
evidence
str
tests
example
sensitive
detect
dna
transferred
person
towel
wipes
face
towel
subsequently
wipes
face
face
murder
weapon
later
wielded
use
str
technology
blame
murder
see
michaelis
thompson
ford
doom
raymer
krane
evaluating
forensic
dna
evidence
essential
elements
competent
defense
review
part
champion
may
pp
test
sensitive
enough
pick
trace
amounts
dna
able
detect
even
slightest
unintentional
mishandling
evidence
see
michaelis
cautioning
mishandling
evidence
two
research
groups
already
demonstrated
ability
obtain
str
profiles
fingerprints
paper
evidence
objects
say
nothing
intentional
scandals
surfaced
recent
years
see
murphy
new
forensics
criminal
justice
false
certainty
second
generation
scientific
evidence
rev
collecting
examples
gives
short
shrift
risks
suggest
anyone
including
respondent
twice
confessed
crime
never
recanted
passed
opportunity
dna
testing
trial
given
constitutional
right
rummage
state
locker
third
even
every
test
guaranteed
provide
conclusive
answer
even
one
ever
contaminated
dna
sample
still
justify
disregarding
costs
associated
regime
proposed
respondent
notes
recognizing
prisoner
freestanding
right
access
state
dna
evidence
raise
numerous
policy
questions
least
whether
extent
state
constitutionally
obligated
collect
preserve
evidence
see
ante
policy
problems
end
even
without
creation
imposition
regime
state
crime
labs
already
responsible
maintaining
controlling
hundreds
thousands
new
dna
samples
every
year
example
year
state
north
carolina
processed
dna
samples
approximately
cases
state
virginia
processed
twice
many
see
office
state
budget
management
cost
study
dna
testing
analysis
directed
session
law
section
pp
mar
hereinafter
north
carolina
study
http
internet
materials
visited
june
available
clerk
case
file
see
also
noting
state
iowa
processed
dna
samples
cases
year
case
often
entails
many
separate
dna
samples
see
wisconsin
criminal
justice
study
commission
position
paper
decreasing
turnaround
time
dna
testing
hereinafter
wisconsin
study
http
average
case
consists
samples
data
four
years
date
dramatically
underestimate
current
caseloads
expand
average
annual
rate
around
see
wisconsin
dept
justice
review
state
crime
lab
resources
dna
analysis
http
resources
required
process
analyze
hundreds
thousands
samples
created
severe
backlogs
state
crime
labs
across
country
example
state
wisconsin
reports
receives
roughly
dna
samples
per
year
labs
process
wisconsin
study
similarly
state
north
carolina
reports
unusual
state
crime
lab
several
thousand
samples
waiting
outsourced
due
federal
procedures
state
grant
unique
north
carolina
national
issue
north
carolina
study
procedures
state
labs
use
handle
hundreds
thousands
dna
samples
provide
fertile
ground
litigation
example
commonwealth
duarte
mass
app
defendant
argued
use
thermometer
may
overdue
standardization
check
rendered
dna
analysis
unreliable
inadmissible
trial
raping
girl
rejected
argument
held
status
thermometer
went
weight
evidence
admissibility
ultimately
upheld
duarte
conviction
reviewing
testimony
deputy
director
laboratory
commonwealth
used
dna
tests
see
ibid
case
nevertheless
illustrates
detail
laboratory
operation
matter
minute
exempt
potential
point
defense
attorney
question
dna
evidence
michaelis
see
also
discussing
policy
implications
duarte
point
recounting
burdens
postconviction
dna
testing
imposes
federal
government
denigrate
importance
testing
instead
point
requests
postconviction
dna
testing
cost
free
federal
government
substantial
interest
implementation
rules
regulate
testing
way
harnesses
unique
power
dna
testing
also
respecting
important
governmental
interests
noted
federal
government
moved
expeditiously
enact
rules
attempt
perform
role
holds
unwise
wielding
blunt
instrument
due
process
interfere
prematurely
efforts
see
reason
intervention
present
case
criminal
defendant
tactical
purposes
passes
opportunity
dna
testing
trial
defendant
judgment
constitutional
right
demand
perform
dna
testing
conviction
recognition
right
allow
defendants
play
games
criminal
justice
system
guilty
defendant
forgo
dna
testing
trial
fear
results
confirm
guilt
hope
evidence
insufficient
persuade
jury
find
guilty
conviction
nothing
lose
defendant
demand
dna
testing
hope
happy
accident
example
degradation
contamination
evidence
provide
basis
seeking
postconviction
relief
denying
opportunity
attempt
game
criminal
justice
system
shock
conscience
ample
evidence
case
respondent
attempted
game
system
trial
respondent
lawyer
made
explicit
tactical
decision
forgo
rflp
testing
favor
dq
alpha
testing
forgone
accurate
dna
testing
respondent
reasons
seeking
suspect
true
str
testing
respondent
seeks
even
advanced
rflp
testing
declined
counsel
decline
rflp
testing
thought
good
enough
declined
thought
good
osborne
alaska
app
defendant
allowed
take
gambler
risk
complain
cards
fall
wrong
way
osborne
state
alaska
app
osborne
ii
mannheimer
concurring
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
justice
stevens
contends
respondent
bound
attorney
tactical
decision
notes
respondent
testified
state
postconviction
proceeding
strongly
objected
attorney
strategy
see
post
attorney
however
memory
objection
state
find
respondent
testimony
reason
assume
respondent
telling
truth
particularly
since
claims
lied
parole
hearing
twice
confessed
crimes
convicted
event
even
assuming
sake
argument
respondent
object
trial
attorney
strategy
principle
except
carefully
defined
circumstances
criminal
defendant
bound
attorney
tactical
decisions
unless
attorney
provided
constitutionally
ineffective
assistance
see
vermont
brillon
slip
state
postconviction
rejected
respondent
claim
osborne
supra
respondent
challenge
holding
must
therefore
proceed
assumption
attorney
decision
reasonable
state
prisoner
wants
challenge
state
refusal
permit
postconviction
dna
testing
prisoner
proceed
habeas
statute
duly
accounts
interests
federalism
comity
finality
considering
merits
claim
state
weighty
interests
summarily
dismissed
conscience
shocking
post
stevens
dissenting
observations
join
opinion
district
attorney
office
third
judicial
district
et
petitioners
william
osborne
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
stevens
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
justice
souter
joins
part
dissenting
state
alaska
possesses
physical
evidence
tested
conclusively
establish
whether
respondent
william
osborne
committed
rape
attempted
murder
justice
served
conviction
sentence
osborne
needlessly
spent
decades
behind
bars
true
culprit
brought
justice
dna
test
osborne
seeks
simple
one
cost
modest
results
uniquely
precise
yet
reasons
state
unable
unwilling
articulate
refuses
allow
osborne
test
evidence
expense
thereby
ascertain
truth
two
equally
problematic
grounds
today
blesses
state
arbitrary
denial
evidence
osborne
seeks
first
acknowledging
osborne
may
due
process
right
access
evidence
alaska
postconviction
procedures
concludes
osborne
yet
availed
possible
avenues
relief
state
legal
factual
matter
conclusion
highly
suspect
troubling
still
based
fundamental
mischaracterization
right
liberty
osborne
seeks
vindicate
refuses
acknowledge
circumstances
case
right
access
evidence
grounded
due
process
clause
convinced
osborne
constitutional
right
access
evidence
wishes
test
facts
case
made
sufficient
showing
entitlement
evidence
affirm
decision
appeals
fourteenth
amendment
provides
state
shall
deprive
person
life
liberty
property
without
due
process
law
cases
frequently
recognized
protected
liberty
interests
may
arise
constitution
reason
guarantees
implicit
word
may
arise
expectation
interest
created
state
laws
policies
wilkinson
austin
osborne
contends
possesses
right
access
dna
evidence
arising
sources
osborne
first
anchors
due
process
right
alaska
stat
provision
person
convicted
sentenced
crime
may
institute
proceeding
relief
person
claims
exists
evidence
material
facts
previously
presented
heard
requires
vacation
conviction
sentence
interest
justice
osborne
asserts
exculpatory
dna
test
results
obtained
using
short
tandem
repeat
str
mitochondrial
mtdna
analysis
qualify
newly
discovered
evidence
entitling
relief
state
statute
problem
newly
discovered
evidence
wishes
present
generated
unless
first
able
access
state
evidence
something
without
state
consent
order
although
obligation
provide
mechanisms
postconviction
relief
choose
procedures
employ
must
comport
demands
due
process
clause
see
evitts
lucey
providing
litigants
fair
opportunity
assert
rights
osborne
contends
denying
opportunity
access
physical
evidence
state
denied
meaningful
access
state
postconviction
relief
thereby
violating
right
due
process
although
majority
readily
agrees
osborne
protected
liberty
interest
demonstrating
innocence
new
evidence
alaska
stat
see
ante
rejects
ninth
circuit
conclusion
osborne
constitutionally
entitled
access
state
evidence
concludes
adequacy
process
afforded
osborne
must
assessed
standard
set
forth
medina
california
standard
alaska
procedures
bringing
claim
found
violate
due
process
unless
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
operation
ante
quoting
medina
conducting
cursory
review
relevant
statutory
text
concludes
alaska
procedures
constitutional
face
agree
statute
facially
deficient
state
courts
application
raises
serious
questions
whether
state
procedures
fundamentally
unfair
operation
initial
matter
clear
alaskan
courts
ordinarily
permit
litigants
utilize
state
postconviction
statute
obtain
new
evidence
form
dna
tests
majority
assumes
discovery
possible
based
single
unpublished
nonprecedential
decision
alaska
appeals
see
ante
citing
patterson
state
mar
state
concedes
litigant
yet
obtained
evidence
testing
even
greater
concern
manner
state
courts
applied
facts
case
determining
osborne
entitled
relief
postconviction
statute
alaska
appeals
concluded
dna
testing
osborne
wished
obtain
qualify
newly
discovered
available
time
trial
see
osborne
state
osborne
arguments
state
trial
briefs
alaska
appeals
however
osborne
plainly
requested
str
dna
testing
form
dna
testing
yet
use
time
trial
see
app
see
also
state
appellate
conclusion
requested
testing
available
time
trial
therefore
clearly
given
facts
majority
assertion
osborne
attempt
ed
sidestep
state
process
failing
use
process
provided
state
unwarranted
ante
holds
true
respect
majority
suggestion
alaska
constitution
might
provide
additional
protections
osborne
beyond
afforded
afforded
osborne
state
postconviction
proceedings
alaska
appeals
held
possibility
even
evidence
meet
requirements
state
constitution
might
offer
relief
defendant
able
make
certain
threshold
showings
see
osborne
remand
decision
however
state
trial
denied
osborne
relief
ground
failed
show
conviction
rested
primarily
eyewitness
identification
demonstrable
doubt
concerning
identity
perpetrator
scientific
testing
like
conclusive
issue
osborne
state
alaska
app
osborne
ii
first
two
reasons
reduce
evaluation
strength
prosecution
original
case
consideration
carries
little
weight
balanced
evidence
powerfully
dispositive
exculpatory
dna
test
final
reason
offered
state
testing
conclusive
issue
osborne
guilt
innocence
surely
relevant
factor
deciding
whether
release
evidence
dna
testing
nevertheless
state
conclusion
testing
conclusive
case
indefensible
evidenced
state
recent
concession
point
see
also
detailing
facts
case
permit
inference
exonerating
test
result
less
conclusive
osborne
made
full
use
available
state
procedures
efforts
secure
access
evidence
dna
testing
might
avail
postconviction
relief
afforded
state
alaska
rebuffed
every
turn
manner
alaska
courts
applied
state
law
case
leaves
grave
doubt
adequacy
procedural
protections
afforded
litigants
alaska
stat
provides
strong
reason
doubt
majority
flippant
assertion
osborne
simply
see
dna
state
discovery
procedures
might
well
get
ante
however
even
correct
assumption
osborne
might
given
evidence
seeks
present
claim
state
second
time
need
ii
wholly
apart
interest
obtaining
postconviction
relief
alaska
stat
osborne
asserts
right
access
state
evidence
derives
due
process
clause
whether
framed
substantive
liberty
interest
protected
procedural
due
process
right
evidence
made
available
testing
substantive
due
process
right
free
arbitrary
government
action
see
harvey
horan
luttig
respecting
denial
rehearing
en
banc
result
record
us
osborne
established
entitlement
test
state
evidence
liberty
protected
due
process
clause
creation
bill
rights
indeed
nation
long
recognized
liberty
safeguarded
constitution
far
deeper
roots
see
declaration
independence
holding
men
endowed
creator
certain
unalienable
rights
among
life
liberty
pursuit
happiness
see
also
meachum
fano
stevens
dissenting
elemental
liberties
protected
due
process
clause
interest
free
physical
detention
one
government
hamdi
rumsfeld
plurality
opinion
see
foucha
louisiana
freedom
bodily
restraint
always
core
liberty
protected
due
process
clause
although
valid
criminal
conviction
justifies
punitive
detention
entirely
eliminate
liberty
interests
convicted
persons
prisoner
rights
may
diminished
needs
exigencies
institutional
environment
iron
curtain
drawn
constitution
prisons
country
wolff
mcdonnell
shaw
murphy
ncarceration
divest
prisoners
constitutional
protections
cases
recognized
protected
interests
variety
postconviction
contexts
extending
substantive
constitutional
protections
state
prisoners
premise
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
requires
respect
certain
fundamental
liberties
postconviction
context
see
thornburgh
abbott
right
free
speech
turner
safley
right
marry
cruz
beto
per
curiam
right
free
exercise
religion
lee
washington
per
curiam
right
free
racial
discrimination
johnson
avery
right
petition
government
redress
grievances
therefore
far
late
day
question
basic
proposition
convicted
persons
osborne
retain
constitutionally
protected
measure
interest
liberty
including
fundamental
liberty
freedom
physical
restraint
recognition
right
draws
strength
fact
federal
government
passed
statutes
providing
access
evidence
dna
testing
additional
including
alaska
provide
similar
access
rules
alone
see
brief
state
california
et
al
amici
curiae
ante
legislative
developments
consistent
recent
trends
legal
ethics
recognizing
prosecutors
obliged
disclose
forms
exculpatory
evidence
come
possession
following
conviction
see
aba
model
rules
professional
conduct
see
also
imbler
pachtman
fter
conviction
prosecutor
also
bound
ethics
office
inform
appropriate
authority
information
casts
doubt
upon
correctness
conviction
fact
nearly
recognized
postconviction
right
dna
evidence
makes
less
appropriate
recognize
limited
federal
right
evidence
cases
litigants
unfairly
barred
obtaining
relief
state
insofar
process
osborne
seeks
surely
entitled
less
full
panoply
rights
due
criminal
defendant
prior
conviction
see
morrissey
brewer
mean
however
pretrial
due
process
cases
relevance
postconviction
context
brady
maryland
held
state
violates
due
process
suppresses
evidence
favorable
accused
material
either
guilt
punishment
irrespective
good
faith
bad
faith
prosecution
although
brady
directly
provide
postconviction
right
evidence
concerns
fundamental
fairness
motivated
decision
case
equally
present
convicted
persons
osborne
seek
access
dispositive
dna
evidence
following
conviction
recent
scientific
advances
dna
analysis
made
literally
possible
confirm
guilt
innocence
beyond
question
whatsoever
least
categories
cases
harvey
luttig
recognizes
today
powerful
new
evidence
modern
dna
testing
provide
unlike
anything
known
ante
discussing
important
forensic
developments
opinion
harvey
judge
luttig
explained
although
one
contend
fairness
constitutional
sense
requires
right
access
right
disclosure
anything
approaching
scope
required
cases
government
holds
forensic
evidence
testing
concededly
prove
beyond
doubt
defendant
commit
crime
convicted
principle
elemental
fairness
dictates
production
potentially
exculpatory
evidence
dictates
production
infinitely
narrower
category
evidence
recognition
systemic
interests
fairness
ultimate
truth
ibid
observing
dna
evidence
case
probative
osborne
guilt
innocence
exceeds
materiality
standard
governs
disclosure
evidence
brady
ninth
circuit
granted
osborne
request
access
state
evidence
see
appeals
recognized
osborne
possesses
narrow
right
postconviction
access
biological
evidence
dna
testing
evidence
used
secure
conviction
dna
testing
conducted
using
methods
unavailable
time
trial
far
precise
methods
available
methods
capable
conclusively
determining
whether
osborne
source
genetic
material
testing
conducted
without
cost
prejudice
state
evidence
material
available
forms
relief
conclusion
merit
reversal
right
osborne
seeks
vindicate
framed
purely
substantive
proper
result
less
clear
touchstone
due
process
protection
individual
arbitrary
action
government
meachum
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
wolff
county
sacramento
lewis
government
action
lacking
justification
properly
characterized
arbitrary
conscience
shocking
constitutional
sense
collins
harker
heights
violates
due
process
clause
view
state
refusal
provide
osborne
access
evidence
dna
testing
qualifies
arbitrary
throughout
course
state
federal
litigation
state
failed
provide
concrete
reason
denying
osborne
dna
testing
seeks
none
apparent
osborne
offered
pay
tests
cost
factor
state
concedes
reason
doubt
testing
provide
conclusive
confirmation
osborne
guilt
revelation
courts
state
refused
provide
explanation
refusal
permit
testing
evidence
see
brief
respondent
explanation
best
unclear
insofar
state
articulated
reason
appears
generalized
interest
protecting
finality
judgment
conviction
possible
future
attacks
see
brief
petitioners
long
recognized
interest
securing
finality
judgments
see
duncan
walker
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
mccleskey
zant
finality
value
trumps
state
overriding
interest
ensuring
justice
done
courts
secured
citizens
indeed
absolute
proof
innocence
readily
hand
state
shrink
possibility
error
may
occurred
rather
system
justice
strengthened
recogniz
ing
need
imperative
safety
valve
rare
instances
objective
proof
convicted
actually
commit
offense
later
becomes
available
progress
science
harvey
luttig
dna
evidence
led
extraordinary
series
exonerations
cases
trial
evidence
weak
also
cases
convicted
parties
confessed
guilt
trial
evidence
appeared
examples
provided
amici
power
dna
testing
serve
convince
fact
conviction
sufficient
justify
state
refusal
perform
test
conclusively
establish
innocence
guilt
conclusion
draws
strength
powerful
state
interests
offset
state
purported
interest
finality
per
se
person
convicted
crime
commit
true
culprit
escapes
punishment
dna
testing
may
lead
identification
see
brief
current
former
prosecutors
amici
curiae
noting
exonerations
dna
testing
identified
actual
offender
crime
victims
law
enforcement
profession
society
large
share
strong
interest
identifying
apprehending
actual
perpetrators
vicious
crimes
rape
attempted
murder
gave
rise
case
arbitrariness
state
conduct
highlighted
comparison
private
interests
denies
seems
obvious
wrongly
convicted
person
produce
proof
actual
innocence
state
interest
sufficient
justify
continued
punitive
detention
proof
readily
obtained
without
imposing
significant
burden
state
refusal
provide
access
evidence
wholly
unjustified
sum
individual
interest
physical
liberty
one
constitutional
significance
interest
vindicated
providing
postconviction
access
dna
evidence
state
interest
ensuring
punishes
true
perpetrator
crime
case
state
suggested
countervailing
interest
justifies
refusal
allow
osborne
test
evidence
possession
provided
nonarbitrary
explanation
conduct
consequently
left
conclude
state
failure
provide
osborne
access
evidence
constitutes
arbitrary
action
offends
basic
principles
due
process
basis
affirm
judgment
ninth
circuit
iii
majority
denies
osborne
possesses
cognizable
substantive
due
process
right
circumstances
case
offers
two
meager
reasons
decision
first
citing
general
reluctance
concept
substantive
due
process
ante
quoting
collins
observes
long
history
postconviction
access
dna
mere
novelty
claim
asserts
reason
enough
doubt
substantive
due
process
sustains
ante
quoting
reno
flores
flaw
framing
course
courts
historically
granted
convicted
persons
access
physical
evidence
str
mtdna
testing
discussed
courts
recognized
residual
substantive
interest
physical
liberty
freedom
arbitrary
government
action
osborne
interest
liberties
justifies
appeals
decision
grant
access
state
evidence
purposes
previously
unavailable
dna
testing
majority
also
asserts
recognition
limited
federal
right
access
dna
evidence
ill
advised
short
circuit
looks
prompt
considered
legislative
response
federal
government
issue
access
dna
evidence
decision
majority
warns
embroil
myriad
policy
questions
best
left
branches
government
ante
majority
arguments
respect
bear
close
resemblance
manner
approached
right
counsel
indigent
defendants
decision
powell
alabama
state
law
alone
governed
manner
counsel
appointed
indigent
defendants
efforts
impose
minimum
federal
standard
right
counsel
state
courts
routinely
met
refrain
face
widely
varying
state
procedures
refused
impose
dictates
process
onto
invalid
procedure
reaching
standard
brief
current
former
prosecutors
amici
curiae
quoting
bute
illinois
last
recognized
sixth
amendment
right
counsel
indigent
criminal
defendants
gideon
wainwright
decision
impede
ability
tailor
appointment
processes
local
needs
unnecessarily
interfere
sovereignty
however
ensure
criminal
defendants
provided
counsel
constitutionally
way
decision
recognize
limited
right
postconviction
access
dna
testing
prevent
creating
procedures
litigants
request
obtain
access
merely
ensure
manner
nonarbitrary
true
recent
advances
dna
technology
led
nationwide
reexamination
state
federal
postconviction
procedures
authorizing
use
dna
testing
highly
unlikely
affirming
judgment
appeals
significantly
affect
use
dna
testing
already
developed
statutes
procedures
dealing
dna
evidence
require
yet
done
postpone
enactment
appropriate
indeed
holding
policy
judgments
underlying
legislation
rest
sound
constitutional
foundation
constructive
iv
osborne
demonstrated
constitutionally
protected
right
due
process
state
alaska
thus
far
vindicated
empowered
obliged
safeguard
record
us
reason
deny
access
evidence
many
reasons
provide
least
fundamental
concern
ensuring
justice
done
case
affirm
judgment
appeals
respectfully
dissent
refusal
district
attorney
office
third
judicial
district
et
petitioners
william
osborne
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
souter
dissenting
respectfully
dissent
ground
alaska
failed
provide
effective
procedure
required
fourteenth
amendment
vindicating
liberty
interest
demonstrating
innocence
state
law
recognizes
therefore
join
part
justice
stevens
dissenting
opinion
decide
osborne
broad
claim
fourteenth
amendment
guarantee
due
process
requires
recognition
time
substantive
right
access
biological
evidence
dna
analysis
comparison
reserve
judgment
issue
simply
need
reach
general
level
alaska
deny
right
postconviction
testing
prove
innocence
event
osborne
claim
resolved
resort
procedural
due
process
requirement
effective
way
vindicate
liberty
interest
already
recognized
state
law
see
evitts
lucey
choice
decide
case
procedural
ground
therefore
taken
either
expressing
skepticism
new
substantive
right
test
cognizable
circumstances
implying
agreement
necessarily
premature
judicial
branch
decide
whether
general
right
recognized
denying
correct
notes
claim
right
dna
testing
novel
one
reflects
relative
novelty
testing
dna
event
sufficient
reason
alone
reject
right
asserted
see
reno
flores
concurring
tradition
course
one
serious
consideration
judging
whether
challenged
rule
practice
failure
provide
new
one
seen
violating
guarantee
substantive
due
process
arbitrary
falling
wholly
outside
realm
reasonable
governmental
action
see
poe
ullman
harlan
dissenting
recognize
value
lessons
continuity
past
justice
harlan
pointed
society
finds
reasons
modify
traditional
practices
accumulation
new
empirical
knowledge
turn
yesterday
reasonable
range
government
options
due
process
anomaly
time
determining
right
moment
decide
whether
substantive
due
process
requires
recognition
individual
right
unsanctioned
tradition
invalidation
traditional
law
certainly
agree
beginning
wisdom
go
slow
substantive
due
process
expresses
conception
liberty
protects
freedom
arbitrary
government
action
restraints
lacking
reasonable
justification
substantive
due
process
claim
requires
attention
two
closely
related
elements
call
great
care
part
crucial
first
clear
whose
understanding
taken
touchstone
arbitrary
outside
sphere
reasonable
judgment
essential
recognize
much
time
society
needs
order
work
given
issue
makes
sense
ask
whether
law
practice
subject
beyond
pale
reasonable
choice
subject
struck
violating
due
process
goes
without
saying
conception
reasonable
looks
prevailing
understanding
broad
society
individual
notions
judge
may
entertain
alone
applying
national
constitution
society
reference
nation
specific
issues
widely
shared
understandings
within
national
society
change
interests
claimed
rubric
liberty
evolve
recognition
see
griswold
connecticut
personal
privacy
lawrence
texas
sexual
intimacy
see
also
washington
glucksberg
souter
concurring
judgment
recast
light
experience
accumulated
knowledge
compare
roe
wade
planned
parenthood
southeastern
casey
joint
opinion
kennedy
souter
changes
societal
understanding
fundamental
reasonableness
government
actions
work
much
way
individuals
reconsider
issues
fundamental
belief
change
inherited
views
fast
person
labeled
refusing
endorse
new
moral
claim
without
time
work
intellectually
emotionally
attachment
familiar
limits
experience
affect
capacity
individual
see
potential
legitimacy
moral
position
broader
society
needs
chance
take
part
dialectic
public
political
back
forth
new
liberty
claim
makes
sense
declare
unsympathetic
state
national
laws
arbitrary
point
unconstitutional
time
required
matter
judgment
depending
issue
involved
need
time
pass
entertains
substantive
due
process
claim
subject
merely
requirement
judicial
restraint
general
approach
doctrinal
demand
satisfied
allegedly
lagging
legal
regime
held
lie
beyond
discretion
reasonable
political
judgment
despite
agreement
importance
timing
though
think
doctrinal
requirement
necessarily
stands
way
substantive
due
process
consideration
postconviction
right
dna
testing
even
right
freestanding
given
pace
dna
testing
come
recognized
potentially
dispositive
many
cases
biological
evidence
obvious
argument
considering
dna
testing
general
level
subject
wholly
intransigent
legal
systems
substantive
due
process
review
prematurely
said
issue
us
alaska
flatly
deny
access
evidence
dna
testing
postconviction
cases
another
case
judgment
appropriate
timing
might
also
necessary
issues
substantive
due
process
specific
level
state
conditions
exercising
right
test
several
limitations
potentially
implicated
including
need
claimant
show
test
results
material
potentially
showing
innocence
requirement
testing
sought
capable
producing
new
evidence
available
trial
although
assume
avoiding
prematurity
much
doctrinal
consideration
assessing
conditions
affecting
substantive
right
substantive
right
subject
general
need
resolve
timing
issue
might
raised
challenges
details
osborne
objection
content
state
terms
conditions
also
adequacy
alaska
official
machinery
applying
reason
defer
consideration
due
process
claim
given
conditions
alaska
placed
right
recognizes
due
process
guarantee
requires
state
provide
effective
procedure
proving
entitlement
relief
scheme
evitts
state
failed
issue
osborne
entitled
relief
alaska
presented
good
reasons
even
terms
denying
osborne
access
evidence
seeks
inexplicable
failure
state
provide
effective
procedure
enough
show
need
remedy
relief
case
justice
stevens
deals
failure
part
dissent
join
emphasize
two
points
effect
alaska
argues
finding
right
relief
federal
action
procedure
state
provides
reasonable
adequate
vindicate
liberty
interest
testing
evidence
state
chosen
first
considered
state
position
thought
alaska
two
strongest
points
osborne
state
litigation
failed
request
access
purpose
variety
postconviction
testing
done
time
trial
thus
sought
new
evidence
petition
failed
aver
actual
innocence
thus
failed
place
oath
behind
assertion
evidence
sought
material
postconviction
claim
denying
relief
circumstances
argument
ran
indicate
inadequacy
state
procedure
justify
resort
providing
due
process
yet
record
shows
osborne
denied
access
evidence
even
though
satisfied
conditions
requirement
claim
testing
method
available
trial
osborne
appellate
brief
specifically
mentioned
intent
conduct
short
tandem
repeat
str
analysis
app
state
points
pleading
brief
evidence
osborne
ever
changed
request
state
reliance
osborne
alleged
failure
claim
factual
innocence
equally
untenable
question
conviction
imprisonment
admitted
guilt
oath
condition
becoming
eligible
parole
record
us
makes
equally
apparent
claims
innocence
oath
affidavit
filed
support
request
evidence
contained
statement
always
maintained
innocence
followed
explanation
admission
guilt
necessary
gimmick
obtain
parole
since
state
persists
maintaining
osborne
entitled
test
evidence
apparently
mere
makeweight
state
claim
entitled
relief
failed
claim
innocence
seriously
unequivocally
first
time
state
produced
reasons
opposing
osborne
request
collapse
upon
inspection
arguing
ninth
circuit
state
maintained
dna
evidence
osborne
sought
material
argued
test
excluding
osborne
source
semen
blue
condom
found
near
bloody
snow
spent
shell
casing
secluded
area
victim
raped
one
man
establish
factually
innocent
even
undermine
confidence
verdict
reply
appellant
see
also
argument
patently
untenable
state
concedes
favorable
test
conclusively
establish
osborne
innocence
reply
brief
opposition
standing
alone
inadequacy
state
reasons
denying
osborne
access
dna
evidence
seeks
make
due
process
taken
whole
record
convinces
alaska
created
entitlement
access
dna
evidence
conditions
facially
reasonable
state
demonstrated
combination
inattentiveness
intransigence
applying
conditions
add
procedural
unfairness
violates
due
process
clause
footnotes
rflp
testing
unlike
dq
alpha
testing
high
degree
discrimination
although
sometimes
ineffective
small
samples
postconviction
dna
testing
future
forensic
dna
testing
billingslea
testified
memory
osborne
making
request
said
osborne
alaska
app
clear
whether
alaska
appeals
correct
osborne
sought
forms
dna
testing
available
trial
compare
osborne
supra
resolved
case
basis
str
testing
extremely
discriminating
used
small
samples
rapidly
becoming
standard
future
forensic
dna
testing
osborne
also
sought
subject
pubic
hairs
mitochondrial
dna
testing
secondary
testing
method
often
used
sample
subjected
tests
see
postconviction
dna
testing
argues
arguments
support
access
condom
str
testing
support
access
hairs
mitochondrial
testing
well
brief
respondent
treat
claim
accordingly
dissent
asserts
position
resembles
justice
harlan
dissent
miranda
arizona
post
opinion
stevens
miranda
devised
rules
safeguard
constitutional
right
already
recognized
indeed
underlying
requirement
issue
case
confessions
voluntary
roots
going
back
centuries
dickerson
contrast
asserted
right
access
dna
evidence
unrooted
history
tradition
thrust
federal
judiciary
area
previously
left
state
courts
legislatures
footnotes
case
quite
different
dotson
case
two
state
prisoners
filed
actions
challenging
constitutionality
ohio
parole
procedures
seeking
new
parole
hearing
may
may
result
release
prescription
composition
hearing
panel
specification
procedures
followed
scalia
concurring
regardless
whether
remedies
fall
outside
authority
federal
habeas
judges
compare
kennedy
dissenting
question
relief
respondent
seeks
case
exculpatory
evidence
tends
prove
innocence
lies
within
core
habeas
corpus
preiser
rodriguez
plus
district
columbia
federal
government
recently
enacted
dna
testing
statutes
see
rev
stat
ann
west
ark
code
ann
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
rev
stat
ann
stat
del
code
tit
code
supp
stat
code
ann
supp
haw
rev
stat
cum
supp
idaho
code
lexis
comp
west
ind
code
ann
west
iowa
code
stat
ann
rev
stat
ann
lexis
supp
la
code
crim
proc
art
west
supp
rev
stat
tit
supp
md
crim
proc
code
ann
lexis
comp
laws
ann
west
supp
stat
mo
rev
stat
cum
supp
mont
code
ann
neb
rev
stat
rev
stat
rev
stat
ann
stat
ann
west
supp
stat
ann
supp
crim
proc
law
ann
west
stat
ann
lexis
cent
code
ann
lexis
ohio
rev
code
ann
lexis
supp
rev
stat
cons
stat
laws
supp
code
ann
supp
code
ann
tex
code
crim
proc
arts
vernon
supp
utah
code
ann
lexis
supp
stat
tit
supp
code
ann
lexis
rev
code
code
ann
lexis
supp
stat
wyo
stat
ann
pace
legislative
response
fast
two
enacted
statutes
case
sub
judice
governor
south
dakota
signed
dna
access
law
march
see
governor
mississippi
signed
dna
access
law
march
see
statutes
alabama
alaska
massachusetts
oklahoma
least
three
addressed
issue
judicial
decisions
see
fagan
state
crim
app
osborne
state
alaska
app
osborne
commonwealth
donald
mass
app
relies
evidence
justice
stevens
accuses
resembl
ing
justice
harlan
position
miranda
arizona
see
post
quoting
dissenting
opinion
think
worse
things
sharing
justice
harlan
judgment
rapid
departure
existing
constitutional
standards
may
frustrat
lasting
legislative
efforts
state
noted
respondent
trial
counsel
osborne
statement
commit
therefore
avoid
possibility
obtaining
dna
test
results
might
confirmed
osborne
culpability
osborne
given
reasonableness
trial
counsel
judgment
state
held
respondent
protestations
whether
made
irrelevant
adopting
rules
regarding
postconviction
dna
testing
federal
state
governments
may
choose
alter
traditional
authority
defense
counsel
respect
dna
testing
example
federal
statute
provides
prisoner
declination
dna
testing
trial
bars
request
postconviction
testing
prisoner
knowingly
voluntarily
waived
right
proceeding
occurring
enactment
federal
statute
alaska
specifically
decided
retain
general
rule
regarding
authority
defense
counsel
see
osborne
supra
citing
simeon
state
alaska
app
justice
stevens
quite
wrong
suggest
application
familiar
principle
present
context
somehow
lessens
prosecution
burden
prove
defendant
guilt
post
citing
sandstrom
montana
winship
respondent
challenging
sufficiency
state
evidence
trial
rather
claims
right
obtain
evidence
may
useful
variety
postconviction
proceedings
principle
prosecution
must
prove
case
beyond
reasonable
doubt
principle
defendant
obligation
prove
innocence
implicated
way
issues
case
footnotes
assumes
arguendo
osborne
claim
properly
brought
rather
application
writ
habeas
corpus
shall
state
agree
ninth
circuit
endorsement
judge
luttig
analysis
issue
see
citing
harvey
horan
opinion
respecting
denial
rehearing
en
banc
see
also
mckithen
brown
agreeing
claim
seeking
postconviction
access
evidence
dna
testing
may
properly
brought
suit
savory
lyons
bradley
pryor
ordinarily
claims
must
brought
within
one
year
conviction
becomes
final
however
may
hear
otherwise
untimely
claim
based
newly
discovered
evidence
applicant
establishes
due
diligence
presenting
claim
sets
facts
supported
evidence
admissible
known
within
two
years
entry
judgment
conviction
claim
relates
conviction
cumulative
evidence
presented
trial
impeachment
evidence
establishes
clear
convincing
evidence
applicant
innocent
osborne
contends
assess
validity
state
procedures
test
set
forth
mathews
eldridge
rather
exacting
test
adopted
medina
california
view
need
decide
standard
governs
state
denial
access
evidence
osborne
seeks
violates
due
process
either
standard
see
harvey
luttig
state
explained
oral
argument
testing
ordered
patterson
case
time
access
granted
relevant
evidence
destroyed
see
tr
oral
arg
majority
avoids
confronting
serious
flaw
state
decision
treating
mistaken
characterization
nature
osborne
request
binding
see
ante
see
ante
conceding
clear
whether
state
erred
reaching
conclusion
see
harvey
luttig
claimed
right
access
evidence
partakes
procedural
substantive
due
process
claim
line
demarcation
faint
justice
alito
provides
detailed
discussion
dangers
laboratory
contamination
evidence
tampering
may
reduce
reliability
dna
evidence
type
physical
forensic
evidence
ante
concurring
opinion
form
testing
error
proof
every
case
degree
dna
evidence
become
foundational
tool
law
enforcement
prosecution
indicative
general
reliability
probative
power
testing
fact
errors
may
occur
testing
process
ground
refusing
testing
altogether
evidence
banned
trial
less
postconviction
proceedings
important
still
fact
state
concedes
reason
doubt
str
mtdna
testing
yielded
exculpatory
results
case
osborne
innocence
established
concurring
opinion
justice
alito
suggests
reasons
might
motivate
resist
access
evidence
including
concerns
dna
testing
backlogs
manipulation
defendants
see
ante
reasons
offered
state
alaska
grounds
decision
case
compelling
state
resource
constraints
might
justify
delays
testing
postconviction
dna
evidence
justify
outright
ban
access
evidence
justice
alito
concern
guilty
defendants
play
games
criminal
justice
system
regard
timing
requests
dna
evidence
speculative
gravely
concerning
ante
bears
remembering
criminal
defendants
obligation
prove
innocence
trial
rather
state
bears
burden
proving
guilt
see
sandstrom
montana
winship
obligation
conduct
pretrial
dna
testing
defendant
bound
decision
forgo
testing
trial
particularly
case
choice
made
counsel
defendant
strong
objection
see
osborne
justice
alito
suggests
reason
doubt
whether
osborne
asked
counsel
perform
dna
testing
prior
trial
ante
fact
disputed
state
courts
however
although
osborne
trial
counsel
averred
present
memory
osborne
desire
specific
discriminatory
test
dna
done
also
averred
willing
accept
disagreed
see
generally
brief
current
former
prosecutors
amici
curiae
brief
jeanette
popp
et
al
amici
curiae
see
also
brief
individuals
exonerated
postconviction
dna
testing
amici
curiae
see
also
garrett
judging
innocence
colum
rev
documenting
cases
dna
evidence
exonerated
convicted
person
reviewing
courts
commented
exoneree
likely
guilt
cases
described
evidence
supporting
conviction
overwhelming
majority
position
also
resembles
taken
justice
harlan
dissent
miranda
arizona
faulted
ironic
untimeliness
noted
decision
came
time
scholars
politicians
law
enforcement
officials
beginning
engage
massive
reexamination
criminal
law
enforcement
procedures
scale
never
witnessed
predicted
practical
effect
decision
handicap
seriously
sound
efforts
yet
time
vindicated
decision
miranda
refusal
grant
osborne
access
critical
dna
evidence
rests
practical
judgment
remarkably
similar
justice
harlan
find
majority
judgment
today
profoundly
incorrect
miranda
minority
yesterday
several
voiced
concern
recognition
limited
federal
right
access
dna
evidence
might
call
question
reasonable
limits
placed
access
federal
state
statutes
see
brief
amicus
curiae
brief
state
california
et
al
amici
curiae
example
federal
law
several
state
statutes
impose
requirement
applicant
seeking
postconviction
dna
testing
execute
affidavit
attesting
innocence
request
performed
see
stat
affirming
judgment
ninth
circuit
cast
doubt
constitutionality
requirement
however
since
osborne
never
asked
execute
affidavit
precondition
obtaining
access
state
evidence
similarly
affirmance
call
question
legitimacy
reasonable
conditions
may
place
access
dna
testing
alaska
requirement
test
results
capable
yielding
clear
answer
respect
guilt
innocence
ue
process
flexible
morrissey
brewer
manner
provided
may
reasonably
vary
state
state
case
case
long
limitations
placed
litigant
access
evidence
remain
procedurally
fair
nonarbitrary
comport
demands
due
process
footnotes
mutatis
mutandis
true
notions
life
property
subject
due
process
guarantee
makes
sense
approach
questions
governed
requirement
allow
time
adequate
societal
legislative
consideration
substantive
liberty
interests
receive
general
level
judge
luttig
pointed
hermetic
line
substantive
procedural
due
process
analysis
harvey
horan
case
one
argue
back
forth
better
characterization
various
state
conditions
one
alaska
argue
state
process
vindicating
right
test
however
inadequate
defines
limit
right
recognizes
consequence
definition
liberty
interest
recognized
state
calls
process
vindication
beyond
state
provides
position
correct
individual
errors
alaska
appeals
alaska
officials
serve
mechanism
review
specific
unfavorable
determinations