Does Failure to Disclose DNA Test Results Constitute Manifest Injustice?

State vs. Bryson, filed June 24, 2008

On September 23, 2005, Appellant, Rafael Bryson, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Prior to pleading guilty, the prosecution notified the Appellant that the police had recovered a gun from the roof of a building that Appellant had run past when police were pursuing him; and that, according to forensic testing, the bullet casings found near the victim's body showed that the casings were fired by the gun retrieved on the rooftop; that the gun could not be eliminated as the gun that fired the three bullets removed from the victim's body; and that, according to forensic testing, gun-shot residue was found on the right sleeve of the shirt Appellant was allegedly wearing at the time of the shooting. After receiving this information, Appellant pleaded guilty.

In July 2005, State had requested and received a continuance to allow for forensic testing of additional evidence collected from under the victim's fingernails and Appellant's clothing. This information was apparently not received by the prosecutor's office prior to entry of Appellant's guilty plea.

In March 2006, Appellant filed notice of appeal. The appellate court stayed the proceedings and remanded the case to district court for postconviction proceedings. In district court, Appellant filed a postconviction motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea.

The day before the hearing was scheduled on Appellant's postconviction motion, the prosecution received reports from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension detailing additional forensic test results. The reports indicated that the Appellant's DNA was not found under the victim's fingernails and that no blood was found on the stained shirt allegedly worn by Appellant. This report was dated August 17, 2005, more than a month before Appellant pleaded guilty.

The Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the postconviction court for determination of whether the State's failure to disclose these BCA reports constituted a manifest injustice, i.e. whether it prevented the Appellant from entering an accurate, voluntary and intelligent plea. Also at play is the prosecutor's obligation to disclose all exculpatory material within his "possession and control."

Stay tuned.