Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of Juneal Dale Pratt’s motion for additional DNA testing under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act. The court held that the statutory requirements for retesting were met, including that newer testing techniques could produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence and that the State had the burden to account for the biological evidence in its custody. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ determination that the district court erred, while directing the State to file an updated inventory of the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State waived any challenge to the finding that the requested testing was effectively unavailable at the time of trial by failing to cross-appeal.
- Whether the biological material satisfied the Nebraska DNA Testing Act's physical-integrity requirement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4120(5).
- Whether the requested retesting might produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to Pratt's wrongful-conviction claim.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Pratt's successive motion for DNA testing.
Holdings
- The State waived any challenge to the determination that the requested testing was effectively unavailable at the time of trial because it did not cross-appeal that issue.
- The physical-integrity prong of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4120(5) was satisfied because storage and handling that might have added extraneous DNA did not establish that the original DNA relevant to the crime had been materially impaired, substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered.
- The State bears the burden to produce evidence concerning whether biological evidence in its custody still exists and has been preserved in a manner satisfying the Act.
- Retesting satisfied the third prong of § 29-4120(5) because newer techniques might identify semen from another male and produce evidence bearing on Pratt's guilt or culpability.
Key quotations
“It cannot be the inmate’s burden to demonstrate how the evidence was retained by the State while that evidence was in the State’s custody.” (468)
“The physical integrity prong of the Act clearly was not drafted to prevent discovery of relevant exculpatory DNA evidence simply because the evidence was not stored or handled in a manner comporting with current scientific knowledge and standards.” (472)
“If DNA testing may produce evidence upon which Pratt could argue reasonable doubt about whether he was the rapist, by definition, such evidence may have a bearing upon his guilt or culpability.” (473)
Factual background
Pratt was convicted based largely on eyewitness identifications and circumstantial evidence concerning the rape and sodomy of two sisters. DNA testing of stains on one victim's shirt in 2005 excluded Pratt as at least one male contributor, but the testing could not determine whether the DNA came from semen or epithelial cells and could not produce a complete profile. Pratt's later motion relied on expert evidence that newer techniques could distinguish semen from epithelial cells and might produce more informative profiles capable of providing exculpatory evidence.
Procedural history
Pratt was convicted in 1975 of sodomy, forcible rape, and two counts of robbery, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. After earlier DNA testing in 2005, he unsuccessfully sought to vacate his convictions or obtain a new trial. In 2011, he sought retesting using newer techniques. The district court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for reasons different from those stated below.
Remand instructions
The State shall file an inventory indicating the continued existence and location of the biological materials in question. If the biological evidence no longer exists, it cannot be tested.