11-2610-cv Newton v. City of New York

1

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1 FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2

3 4

AugustTerm,20125 6

(Argued:October3,2012 Decided:February26,2015)7 8

DocketNo.112610cv9 10

_____________________________________ 11 12

ALANNEWTON,13 14

PlaintiffAppellant,15 16 v.17 18

CITYOFNEWYORK,19 20

DefendantAppellee.*21 22

_____________________________________ 23 24 Before: 25 26

LYNCH,LOHIER,andDRONEY,CircuitJudges.27 28

* TheClerkofCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptiontoconformwiththeabove.

2

AppealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe1 SouthernDistrictofNewYorkgrantingthedefendantsmotiontosetasideajury2 verdictforplaintiffAlanNewton,whospentovertwentyyearsinprisonforrape,3 robbery,andassaultbeforehewasexoneratedbyDNAevidence. Thejury4 foundthattheCityofNewYorkhaddeniedNewtonhisconstitutionalrightsto5 dueprocessandaccesstothecourtswhenitfailedtoproducetherapekitthat6 eventuallyexoneratedhim. Ingrantingthepostverdictmotion,theDistrict7 CourtreliedonourdecisioninMcKithenv.Brown,626F.3d143(2dCir.2010). 8 Weconcludethat(1)McKithendoesnotforecloseNewtonsdueprocessclaim;9 (2)Section440.10(1)(g)oftheNewYorkCriminalProcedureLaw,whichpermits10 acourttovacateaconvictionbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidence,gaveNewton11 alibertyinterestindemonstratinghisinnocencewithnewevidence;and12 (3)substantialevidencesupportedthejurysfindingthattheCityactedwith13 recklessnessordeliberateindifferencetowardNewtonsconstitutionalrights. 14 VACATEDandREMANDEDwithinstructionstoreinstatethejuryverdictwith15 respecttoNewtonsFourteenthAmendmentclaimandtoreconsiderNewtons16 FirstAmendmentclaiminlightofthisopinion.17 18

JOHNFRANCISSCHUTTY,III,LawOfficeof19 JohnF.Schutty,P.C.,NewYork,NY;David20 T.Goldberg,Donahue&Goldberg,LLP,21 NewYork,NY;EricJ.Hecker,CutiHecker22 WangLLP,NewYork,NY,for23 PlaintiffAppellant.24

25 DRAKEA.COLLEY,EdwardF.X.Hart,26 ArthurG.Larkin,forMichaelA.Cardozo,27 CorporationCounselfortheCityofNew28 York,NewYork,NY,for29 DefendantAppellee. 30

31 JamesW.Quinn,KarinS.Portlock,Devin32 M.Cain,Weil,Gotshal&MangesLLP,New33 York,NY;KeithA.Findley,Innocence34 Network,UniversityofWisconsinLaw35

3

School,Madison,WI,foramicuscuriaeThe1 InnocenceNetwork.2

3 AndrewH.Schapiro,MollyA.Karlin,4 QuinnEmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP,5 NewYork,NY,foramicicuriae6 EvidenceManagementProfessionalsBruce7 Adams,KoleneDean,RonK.Peterson,John8 SanAgustin,JohnVasquez.9

10 LOHIER,CircuitJudge:11 Nearlythirtyyearsago,AlanNewtonwaswronglyconvictedofacrimehe12 didntcommit. Heservedovertwentyyearsinprison. Hadhebeengiven13 accesstoexoneratingDNAevidencethattheCityofNewYorklongmisplaced14 andmishandled,Newtonverylikelywouldhavebeenafreemanyearsearlier. 15 Newtonandhisattorneysprocuredhisfreedom,andaNewYorkStatecourt16 vacatedhisconviction,onlyaftercountlesseffortstoaccessthatevidencefinally17 cametofruitionin2006. Oncefreed,NewtonsuedtheCityandvariousofficials18 intheNewYorkCityPoliceDepartment(NYPD),claimingthattheCitys19 evidencemanagementsystemwasinadequateandhaddeprivedhimofhisrights20 todueprocessandaccesstothecourtsinviolationoftheFourteenthandFirst21 Amendments,respectively. Newtonprevailedinafederaljurytrialinthe22 UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonthese23 constitutionalclaimsagainsttheCity,buttheDistrictCourtsetasidetheverdict24 basedonourdecisioninMcKithenv.Brown,626F.3d143(2dCir.2010).25

4

Weconsidertwoprimaryissuesonappeal. First,doesNewYorklaw1 provideaconvictedprisoneralibertyinterestindemonstratinghisinnocence2 withnewlyavailableDNAevidence? Second,ifso,doestheDueProcessClause3 oftheFourteenthAmendmententitlesuchaprisonertoreasonableprocedures4 thatpermithimtovindicatethatlibertyinterest? McKithenanswersneitherof5 thesequestions;DistrictAttorneysOfficefortheThirdJudicialDistrictv.6 Osborne,557U.S.52(2009),requiresthatweanswerbothintheaffirmative. We7 thereforevacateandremandwithinstructionstoreinstatethejuryverdictwith8 respecttoNewtonsFourteenthAmendmentclaimandtoreconsiderNewtons9 FirstAmendmentclaiminlightofthisopinion.10

BACKGROUND11 A. AlanNewtonsConviction12

OnJune23,1984,awoman,V.J.,wasassaulted,raped,androbbedafter13 leavingaconveniencestoreintheBronx. V.J.lostherlefteyeandsufferedfour14 brokenribs. Shedescribedherattackertoapolicedetectiveasablackmalewho15 identifiedhimselfasWillie,approximatelyfivefeet,nineinchestall,from16 twentyfivetotwentysevenyearsold,withamoustacheandshort,neatafro. 17 TheNYPDcollectedarapekitfromV.J.thatcontainedpubicandheadhair,three18 cottonswabs,andfourmicroscopeslides. Basedonphotoarraysandlateran19 inpersonlineup,V.J.identifiedNewtonasherassailant. Astoreclerk,too,20 identifiedNewtonfromaphotoarrayandalineup. 21

5

InMay1985aBronxCountyjuryconvictedNewtonofrape,robbery,and1 assaultbasedoneyewitnesstestimony,includingthestoreclerksandV.J.s2 identificationofNewtonasherattacker. Newtonwassentencedtoconcurrent3 prisontermsofeightandonethirdtotwentyfiveyearsforeachoftherapeand4 robberychargesandaconsecutivetermoffivetofifteenyearsfortheassault. 5 TherapekitwasnottestedforDNAevidencepriortoNewtonstrial.16 B. AttemptstoObtainDNATestingandExoneration7 In1988Newtonmovedforanorderauthorizinganexperttoinspectthe8 rapekitandconductforensicteststopermithimtomovetosetasidehisverdict9 pursuanttoNewYorkCriminalProcedureLawSection440.10.210

1Atthetime,onlylimitedserologicaltestingwasavailable. 2Atallrelevanttimes,Section440.10providedasfollows:

Atanytimeaftertheentryofajudgment,thecourtinwhichitwasenteredmay,uponmotionofthedefendant,vacatesuchjudgmentuponthegroundthat...[n]ewevidencehasbeendiscoveredsincetheentryofajudgmentbaseduponaverdictofguiltyaftertrial,whichcouldnothavebeenproducedbythedefendantatthetrialevenwithduediligenceonhispartandwhichisofsuchcharacterastocreateaprobabilitythathadsuchevidencebeenreceivedatthetrialtheverdictwouldhavebeenmorefavorabletothedefendant;providedthatamotionbaseduponsuchgroundmustbemadewithduediligenceafterthediscoveryofsuchallegednewevidence....

N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.10(1)(g)(McKinney2012);N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.10(1)(g)(McKinney1970).

6

TheNewYorkStateSupremeCourtgrantedNewtonsmotionandorderedthe1 BronxCountyDistrictAttorneytoarrangetodelivertheDNAsampletothe2 CitysOfficeoftheChiefMedicalExaminer,whereNewtonsexpertcould3 supervisetesting. TheDistrictAttorneysOfficeretrievedtherapekitfromthe4 NYPDsPropertyClerkDivision(PCD)anddeliveredittotheOfficeofthe5 ChiefMedicalExaminer,whichreportedthatthesamplecontainednotestable6 spermatozoa. 7

Sixyearslater,in1994,theNewYorkStatelegislatureenactedNewYork8 CriminalProcedureLawSection440.30(1a),whichpermitsadefendanttoseek9 testingofDNAevidenceinordertovacatehisconvictionasfollows:10

[W]here the defendantsmotion requests the performance of a11 forensicDNA test on specified evidence, andupon the courts12 determination that any evidence containing deoxyribonucleic13 acid(DNA)wassecured inconnectionwiththetrialresulting14 inthejudgment,thecourtshallgranttheapplicationforforensic15 DNA testing of such evidenceupon itsdetermination that if a16 DNAtesthadbeenconductedonsuchevidence,andiftheresults17 hadbeen admitted in the trial resulting in the judgment, there18 existsareasonableprobabilitythattheverdictwouldhavebeen19 morefavorabletothedefendant.20

N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.30(1a)(McKinney1994). ShortlyafterSection21 440.30(1a)wasenacted,NewtonfiledaprosemotioninStatecourtseekingDNA22 testingoftherapekitonthegroundthattechnologicaladvancessince1988had23 enabledscientiststotestsamplestheyhadpreviouslydeemeduntestable. In24 opposingthemotion,theDistrictAttorneysOfficerespondedthatitsextensive25

7

investigationhadrevealedthatthephysicalevidencewasneverreturnedafterthe1 1988analysisandthattherapekitcouldnotbefoundattheDistrictAttorneys2 Office,thePCD,ortheOfficeoftheChiefMedicalExaminer. TheStatecourt3 deniedNewtonsmotion. 4 In1995Newtonfiledahabeascorpuspetitionunder28U.S.C.2254inthe5 SouthernDistrictofNewYork. Inthecourseofthehabeasproceeding,andin6 responsetoNewtonsrequestinthatproceedingthattheCityproducetherape7 kitfortesting,theCityinformedNewtonandthecourtthatthekitcouldnot...8 belocated. JointAppx3316. OtherthanV.J.sclothes,whichtheCitywas9 abletofindaspartofitsresponsetoNewtonspetition,littleelseappearstohave10 comeofNewtonshabeasproceeding. Andso,in1998,Newtonagainsought11 DNAtestingoftherapekitandotherphysicalevidencefromStatecourt. Citing12 conversationswiththePCD,theDistrictAttorneysOfficereaffirmedthatthe13 rapekitcouldnotbelocatedandopposedthemotion. Aspartofthe14 governmentsopposition,anNYPDSergeantexplainedthatthevoucher15 describingthelocationoftherapekitwasnotinitslastlistedlocationandthatthe16 kitmusthavebeendestroyed. JointAppx2779. TheSergeantelaborated17 thatthevoucherwasprobablydestroyed,eitherbecausea1995fireatthe18 PropertyClerksOfficehaddestroyedseveralfilesorbecausetheProperty19 ClerksOfficehadapracticeofdestroyinginactiverecordsaftersixyears. 20 AlthoughtheStatecourtgrantedNewtonsmotioninsofarashesoughtDNA21

8

testingofV.J.sclothes,whichthepolicehadfound,itdeniedhismotionastothe1 rapekit. 2 In2005Newton,throughcounsel,askedanAssistantDistrictAttorney3 (ADA)whowasthenChiefoftheSexCrimesBureauoftheBronxCounty4 DistrictAttorneysOfficeandwhohadpreviouslynotbeendirectlyresponsible5 forhandlingNewtonscasewhetherthePCDwouldsearchoncemoreforthe6 rapekit. Attachingacopyofthevoucherthathadpreviouslybeenreportedlost,7 theADAaskedInspectorJackTrabitzatthePCDtoretrievetherapekit.3 Based8 onthebarrelnumberfortherapekitthatappearedonthevoucher,thePCDwas9 abletofindtherapekitinabarrellocatedinthePCDsPearsonPlaceWarehouse10 inQueens. 11 InJune2006theOfficeoftheChiefMedicalExaminerconcludedthatthe12 DNAprofilederivedfromtherapekitdidnotmatchNewtonsDNAprofile. 13 Withinamonth,NewtonandtheDistrictAttorneysOfficejointlymovedto14 vacatehisconviction. Thenextday,theNewYorkStateSupremeCourtvacated15 NewtonsconvictionpursuanttoNewYorkCriminalProcedureLawSection16 440.10(1)(g). Bythistime,Newtonhadbeenincarceratedformorethantwenty17 years. Hehadbeenseekingtheevidencefortherenewedtestingthatexonerated18 himandhadbeenrepeatedlytoldthatitnolongerexistedandcouldnotbe19 foundforoveradecade. 20

3 ItisunclearhowtheADAobtainedthiscopyofthevoucher.

9

C. NewtonsLawsuit1 Newtonwasimmediatelyreleasedfromprisonandfiledhislawsuitayear2 later. HiscomplaintassertedtwentyonecausesofactionagainsttheCityand3 individualdefendants. Asrelevanttothisappeal,NewtonallegedthattheCitys4 evidencemanagementsystemdeprive[d][him]ofimportantandwell5 establishedrightsundertheFourth,Fifth,Sixth,EighthandFourteenth6 AmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,aswellashisrighttoaccessto7 thecourtsundertheFirstAmendment. InOctober2009theDistrictCourt8 dismissedhisconstitutionalclaimsagainsttheindividualdefendantssothatonly9 commonlawclaimsremainedagainstsomeofthem. 10 RelyingonOsborne,however,theDistrictCourtallowedNewtonto11 continuehisclaimagainsttheCityforviolatinghisdueprocessrights.4 In12 Osborne,theSupremeCourtruledthatanAlaskastatutethatpermitteda13 prisonertochallengehisconvictionwhennewlydiscoveredevidencerequires14 vacaturoftheconvictiongavetheplaintiffalibertyinterestindemonstratinghis15 innocencewithnewevidence. 557U.S.at68. TheDistrictCourtconcluded16 thatSection440.30(1a)(a)ofNewYorksCriminalProcedureLaw5 conferredon17 4 TheDistrictCourtalsoseparatelyrefusedtodismissNewtonsFirstAmendmentclaim.5 Section440.30(1a)(a)wasnotenacteduntil2004. TheDistrictCourtsmistakenreferencetosubsection(1a)(a)ratherthantosubsection(1a),whichwasineffectatthetimethatNewtonfiledhisprosemotioninStatecourtseekingDNAtestingoftherapekitisunderstandableandofnomomentbecausetherelevantlanguageinbothversionsofthestatuteisthesame. CompareN.Y.Crim.Proc.

10

Newtonasimilarlibertyinterestinvacatinghisconvictionbyaccessing1 evidenceinthestatespossessionforthepurposeofDNAtesting. Newtonv.2 CityofNewYork,681F.Supp.2d473,489(S.D.N.Y.2010). Thecourtalso3 determinedthatNewtonhadraisedatriablequestionastowhetherNewYorks4 procedureswereinadequatetovindicatehisrights:NewtonhastestedNew5 Yorksproceduresandhasshownthemtofail.6 Id.at490. 6 Beforetrial,discoveryinthecaseuncoveredtheoriginalvoucherforthe7 rapekit,whichinturnrevealedthatthePCDhadreceivedaphotocopyofan8 outtocourtlogfromtheCitysCorporationCounselin2009indicatingthatthe9 rapekithadlastbeenremovedin1988. ThephotocopyhadpromptedthePCD10 toreviewthefileofouttocourtvouchersfor1988andledtothediscoveryofthe11 originalvoucherinthatfile. 12

Law440.30(1a)(a)(McKinney2004),withN.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.30(1a)(McKinney1994).6 TheDistrictCourtinitiallydeterminedthatNewtonstatedaclaimagainsttheCityforfailuretotrainorsupervise. ThedefendantsthenmovedforreconsiderationinlightofYoungv.CountyofFulton,160F.3d899,904(2dCir.1998),whichheldthataplaintiffcouldnotsustainamunicipalliabilityclaimunderafailuretotraintheorywhenthecitysemployeeshadviolatedarightthatwasnotclearlyestablishedatthetime. InaJanuary2010order,theDistrictCourtacknowledgedthatitwasboundbyourdecisioninYoungandinsteadreliedonTenenbaumv.Williams,193F.3d581,59597(2dCir.1999),inwhichweallowedaplaintifftopursueaclaimagainstamunicipalityforanunlawfulcitypolicywhentherightsatissuewerenotclearlyestablishedatthetimeoftheviolation. NewtonwasthenpermittedtoproceedonthetheorythattheCitymaintainedanunlawfulpolicy,custom,orpractice.

11

Afterathreeweektrial,ajuryfoundthattheCityhaddeniedNewtonhis1 FirstAmendmentrightofaccesstothecourtsandhisFourteenthAmendment2 righttodueprocessoflaw,hadengagedinapattern,customorpracticeof3 mishandlingevidenceandactedwithanintenttodeprive...Newtonofhis4 constitutionalrightsorwitharecklessdisregardofthoserights,andhad5 proximatelycausedNewtonsprotractedincarceration.7 Thejuryawarded6 Newton$18millionincompensatorydamagesagainsttheCity. 7 ThedefendantsmovedtosetasidetheverdictpursuanttoRule50ofthe8 FederalRulesofCivilProcedure,arguingthatourdecisioninMcKithenv.Brown,9 issuedaftertheverdict,foreclosedrelief. Ingrantingthatmotion,theDistrict10 CourtreliedonMcKithen,Osborne,andNewYorkCriminalProcedureLaw11 Section440.30(1a)(b). BasedonMcKithenandOsborne,itdeterminedthat12 NewtondidnothavearighttoreceivetheDNAevidence,butmerelyaright13 totheprocessundertheNewYorkstatute. Newtonv.CityofNewYork,784F.14 Supp.2d470,479(S.D.N.Y.2011)(emphasesomitted). ItalsointerpretedSection15 440.30(1a)(b)as(1)authorizingaStatecourt,facedwithamotiontovacate,to16 orderthepolicetodisclosethelastknownphysicallocationofevidence,but(2)17 7 ThejuryalsofoundInspectorJackTrabitz,thethenheadofthePCD,andSergeantPatrickMcGuire,aPCDintakesupervisor,liableforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress(IIED). TheDistrictCourtlateroverturnedtheentiretyofthejurysverdict,includingitsIIEDfinding. Newtonv.CityofNewYork,784F.Supp.2d470,48385(S.D.N.Y.2011). NewtondoesnotappealtheDistrictCourtsdecisiononhisIIEDclaims. Therefore,weconsideronlyNewtonsFirstAmendmentaccesstocourtsandFourteenthAmendmentdueprocessclaimsagainsttheCity.

12

preventingthesamecourtfromdrawinganunfavorableinferencefromthefact1 thattheevidencehasbeenlost. Id.at478. TheDistrictCourtobservedthat2 priortotheenactmentofSection440.30(1a)(b)in2004theCitywasnotobligated3 todisclosethelocationofevidenceandthat,inanyevent,Section440.30(1a)(b)4 contemplatedthepossibilityoflostevidence. Id.at47980. Forthesereasons,5 theDistrictCourtheldthatNewtonwasentitledtonomorethanthelastknown6 locationoftheevidence. 7 TheDistrictCourtalsoheldthatNewtonsconstitutionaldueprocessclaim8 failedbecausetherewasnotenoughevidencethatCityofficialshadactedwitha9 culpablestateofmind. Id.at48081. ItconcludedthatalthoughNewtonhad10 demonstratedthattheCitysevidencemanagementsystemwasdeficient,hehad11 failedtoprovethataspecificpersonhadactedwithanythingmorethan12 negligence. Inaddition,relyingonthefailureofhisunderlyingFourteenth13 Amendmentclaim,theDistrictCourtgrantedtheCitysmotiontosetasidethe14 verdictastoNewtonsFirstAmendmentclaim. 15 Newtonappealed. 16

DISCUSSION17 WereviewdenovoadistrictcourtsdecisiontograntaRule50motionfor18 judgmentasamatteroflaw,applyingthesamestandardasthedistrictcourt. 19 Cashv.Cnty.ofErie,654F.3d324,33233(2dCir.2011)(citationsomitted). A20 courtmaygrantaRule50motiononlyifapartyhasbeenfullyheardonanissue21 duringajurytrialandthecourtfindsthatareasonablejurywouldnothavea22

13

legallysufficientevidentiarybasistofindforthepartyonthatissue. Fed.R.1 Civ.P.50(a)(1). AlthoughapartymakingaRule50motionalwaysfacesaheavy2 burden,[t]hatburdenisparticularlyheavywhere,ashere,thejuryhas3 deliberatedinthecaseandactuallyreturneditsverdictinfavorofthe4 nonmovant. Cash,654F.3dat333(quotationmarksomitted). 5 A. FourteenthAmendmentDueProcessClaim6 WereviewNewtonsFourteenthAmendmentDueProcessclaim7 accordingtothefamiliartwoparttestforanalyzingallegeddeprivationsof8 proceduraldueprocessrights:(1)whether[Newton]hasacognizablelibertyor9 propertyinterestunderstateorfederallaw...;and(2)ifso,whether[Newton]10 wasaffordedtheprocesshewasdueundertheConstitution. McKithen,62611 F.3dat151. 12 1. NewtonsLibertyInterest13 TodeterminewhetherNewYorklawconferredonNewtonaliberty14 interestindemonstratinghisinnocencewithnewlydiscoveredevidence,westart15 withOsborne. 16 WilliamOsbornewasconvictedbyanAlaskajuryofkidnapping,assault,17 andsexualassaultandsentencedtotwentysixyearsinprison. 557U.S.at58. 18 Inafederalpostconvictionproceeding,OsbornesuedStateofficialsunder4219 U.S.C.1983,claimingtheDueProcessClausegavehimaconstitutionalrightto20 accessDNAevidenceinthecasefortestingbyanadvancedmethodnotavailable21 atthetimeofhistrial. Id.at60. TheNinthCircuitheldthatAlaskawas22

14

requiredtodisclosetheDNAevidencetoOsborneaspartofitsBradyobligations,1 whichextendedtocertainpotentiallyviablepostconvictionclaimsofactual2 innocence. Osbornev.Dist.AttysOfficefortheThirdJudicialDist.,521F.3d3 1118,112832(9thCir.2008),revd,557U.S.52(2009). Withoutidentifyingthe4 precisestandardOsborneneededtosatisfyinordertoprevailonhis5 accesstoevidenceclaim,theNinthCircuitdeterminedthatOsbornehad6 demonstratedmorethanareasonableprobabilitythathewouldnothavebeen7 convictedhadtheDNAevidencebeendisclosedtothedefenseattrial. Id.at8 113334.9 TheSupremeCourtreversedonthegroundthattherewasnofreestanding10 substantivedueprocessrighttoDNAevidence. 557U.S.at72. Citingthe11 progressofindividualStatesinpassingDNAtestingstatutes,theCourt12 expresseditsreluctancetoexpandthescopeofsubstantivedueprocessorto13 embroilfederalcourtsinquestionsofStatebasedpolicyforexample,questions14 suchashowlongaStatemustpreserveforensicevidencethatmightlaterbe15 tested,orwhetheraStatewouldbeobligatedtocollectevidencebeforetrial. Id.16 at7374. 17 Despiteitsreservationsaboutexpandingthescopeofthesubstantivedue18

processright,theCourtlocatedalibertyinterestgroundedinageneral19

postconvictionreliefstatuteenactedbytheAlaskalegislaturethatmade20

15

evidencefromDNAtestingavailabletodefendants. Id.at68. Thatstatute1

provided:2

Apersonwhohasbeenconvictedof,orsentencedfor,acrimemay3 instituteaproceedingforpostconvictionreliefiftheperson4 claims...(4)thatthereexistsevidenceofmaterialfacts,not5 previouslypresentedandheardbythecourt,thatrequires6 vacationoftheconvictionorsentenceintheinterestofjustice.... 7

AlaskaStat.12.72.010(2008). Arelatedprovisionstated,inrelevantpart:8

(b)...acourtmayhearaclaim[broughtunderAlaskaStat.9 12.72.010]...(2)basedonnewlydiscoveredevidenceifthe10 applicantestablishesduediligenceinpresentingtheclaimand11 setsoutfactssupportedbyevidencethatisadmissibleand...(D)12 [that]establishesbyclearandconvincingevidencethatthe13 applicantisinnocent.14

AlaskaStat.12.72.020(2008). BasedontheseAlaskastatutoryprovisions,the15 CourtconcludedthatOsbornedoes...havealibertyinterestindemonstrating16 hisinnocencewithnewevidenceunderstatelaw,557U.S.at68,andthat17 Alaskaprovidesasubstantiverighttobereleasedonasufficientlycompelling18 showingofnewevidencethatestablishesinnocence,id.at70. 19 TheCitydoesnotgenuinelydisputethatNewYorklawconferredon20 Newtonalibertyinterestindemonstratinghisinnocencewithnewevidence. 21 McKithen,626F.3dat152. Newtonretainssuchaninterestevenwithoutthe22 Citysconcession. Forthepurposeofdeterminingwhetheralibertyinterest23 existsinthiscase,wethinktheNewYorkstatutethatNewtoninvokesis24 materiallyindistinguishablefromtheAlaskastatuteuponwhichOsbornerelied. 25

16

Specifically,atthetimeNewtonfiledsuit,Section440.10(1)(g)8 oftheNewYork1 CriminalProcedureLawprovidedthatacourtmay,uponmotionofthe2 defendant,vacateaconvictiononthegroundthat[n]ewevidencehasbeen3 discoveredthatwouldprobablyhaveledtoanoutcomeattrialmorefavorable4 tothedefendant.9 N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.10(g)(McKinney1970). 5 Moreover,theStatesexplicitstatementontheimportanceofDNAtesting6 reflectedinitsenactmentofSection440.30(1a)in1994onlystrengthensthecase7 forStaterecognitionofalibertyinterest. 8 2. WhatProcessWasDue9 WeturnnexttodeterminewhatprocesswasduetovindicateNewtons10 Statecreatedlibertyinterestindemonstratinghisinnocencewithnewevidence,11 mindfulofOsbornesrelatedpronouncementthat[t]hisstatecreatedrightcan,12

8 Section440.10(1)(g1)nowpermitsajudgetovacateasentenceinlightof[f]orensicDNAtestingofevidence. Thissection,whichgivesamovantamorespecificlibertyinterestinprovinghisinnocencewithDNAtesting,wasnotenacteduntil2012,longafterNewtonsconvictionwasvacated. See2012N.Y.Sess.Laws294(McKinney). Newtonthereforecannotrelyonthecurrentversionofthestatute. UnderOsborne,however,thebroaderlanguageofsubsection(1)(g)coversnewlyavailableDNAevidenceandgivesNewtonalibertyinterest.9AlthoughthelanguageoftheAlaskastatuteinOsborneprovidesonlythatacourtmayhearaclaimbroughtunderSection12.72.010,AlaskaStat.12.72.020(b)(2008)(emphasisadded),andSection12.72.010providesonlythatthedefendantmayinstituteaproceedingforpostconvictionrelief,id.12.72.010(emphasisadded),theSupremeCourtreadthisStatelawtoconferalibertyinterestindemonstratingonesinnocencewithnewevidence. Osborne,557U.S.at68.

17

insomecircumstances,begetyetotherrightstoproceduresessentialtothe1 realizationoftheparentright. 557U.S.at68(quotingConn.Bd.ofPardonsv.2 Dumschat,452U.S.458,463(1981)). 3 AstheSupremeCourtexplained,[a]criminaldefendantprovedguilty4 afterafairtrialdoesnothavethesamelibertyinterestsasafreeman. Id. In5 identifyinganyotherproceduralrightsthatmayexistinthiscase,therefore,we6 startwiththeprinciplethatadefendantwhohasbeenconvictedafterafairtrial7 hasonlyalimitedinterestinpostconvictionreliefandthattheStatemay8 flexiblyfashionandlimitprocedurestooffersuchrelief. Id.at69. Wehave9 explainedthatthe...deferentialstandardofMedinav.California,505U.S.43710 (1992),governstheprocessdueaprisonerseekingevidenceforthepurposeof11 obtainingpostconvictionrelief. McKithen,626F.3dat152. Inkeepingwith12 thatstandard,whichtheMedinaCourtdescribedasapplyingtostate13 proceduralruleswhich...arepartofthecriminalprocess,weevaluateNew14 Yorksproceduresforfundamentaladequacy. Id.at15253(quotingMedina,15 505U.S.at443). FundamentaladequacydoesnotmeanthatStateprocedures16 mustbeflawlessorthateveryprisonermayaccesstheDNAevidencecollectedin17 hiscase. NordoesitmeanthatDNAevidencemustbestoredindefinitely. It18 meansonlythatwhenStatelawconfersalibertyinterestinprovingaprisoners19 innocencewithDNAevidence,theremustbeanadequatesysteminplacefor20 accessingthatevidencethatdoesnotoffend[]someprincipleofjusticesorooted21 inthetraditionsandconscienceofourpeopleastoberankedasfundamental,or22

18

transgress[]anyrecognizedprincipleoffundamentalfairnessinoperation. 1 Medina,505U.S.at445,448(quotationmarksomitted). 2 BeforeturningtoNewYorklaw(bothinMcKithenandinthiscase),we3 considerhowtheseprinciplesappliedtotheAlaskastatuteinOsborne. The4 proceduresAlaskaimplementedtovindicateadefendantsrightto5 postconvictionreliefcouldnotplausiblybedescribedasinadequateunderthe6 Medinastandard:withcaveatsnotrelevanthere,Alaskalawprovidedfor7 discoveryofnewlyavailableDNAevidenceinpostconvictionproceedings,5578 U.S.at6970,andtheAlaskacourtsreinforcedthestatutoryprotectionwitha9 prophylacticmeasurethatpermitteddefendantstoaccessDNAevidenceifthey10 coulddemonstratethat(1)theconvictionrestedprimarilyoneyewitness11 identificationevidence,(2)therewasademonstrabledoubtconcerningthe12 identificationofthedefendant,and(3)scientifictestingwaslikelytoresolvethe13 doubt,id.at65(citingOsbornev.State,110P.3d986,995(AlaskaCt.App.2005)). 14 Moreover,inconcludingthattheAlaskaStateprocedures[we]readequateon15 theirface,theSupremeCourtemphasizedthatwithouttryingthem,Osborne16 [could]hardlycomplainthattheydonotworkinpractice,id.at71,andthat17 Osbornesdecisiontofilea1983actioninsteadofavail[ing]himselfofall18 possibleavenuesforreliefin[Alaska]statecourthadimpairedhisdueprocess19 claim,id.at88(Stevens,J.,dissenting)(summarizingmajorityopinion). 20 Accordingly,theCourtconcludedthatOsbornehadreceivedtheprocesshewas21

19

dueandhadnofreestandingfederalconstitutionalrighttotheDNAevidencehe1 sought.2 Although,aswehavepointedout,theNewYorkstatuteatissueinthis3 case,Section440.30(1a),isinseveralrespectsquitesimilartotheAlaskastatutein4 Osborne,whatdifferencesexistbetweenthetwostatutesinuretoNewtons5 benefit. Forexample,Alaskasstatuterequiresthatthenewevidenceprove6 actualinnocencebyclearandconvincingevidence,whileNewYorksSection7 440.30(1a)demandslessofNewYorkdefendants,whomustshowonlythatthe8 evidencecreatesaprobabilityofamorefavorableoutcome. Consideringthe9 similaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwostatutes,weconcludethattheliberty10 interestcreatedbyNewYorklawisnonarrowerthanthatcreatedbyAlaskalaw;11 proceduresforvindicatingthisinterestthereforeshouldalsobeevaluatedunder12 thestandarddescribedinOsborne. 13 Inaskingusineffecttocondoneitsevidencemanagementproceduresin14 thiscase,theCityinvokesourdecisioninMcKithen,onwhichtheDistrictCourt15 alsoreliedtodismissNewtonsFourteenthAmendmentclaim. McKithenhad16 beenconvictedbyaQueensjuryofanumberofseriouscrimes. Hemoved17 pursuanttoSection440.30(1a)(a)forDNAtestingofevidencerecoveredatthe18 crimescene. TheStatecourtdeniedhismotiononthegroundthattherewasno19 reasonableprobabilitythatMcKithenwouldhavereceivedamorefavorable20 verdicthadtheforensictestingbeenperformedandtheresultsbeenadmittedat21 trial. 626F.3dat146. McKithenthensuedtheQueensDistrictAttorneyin22

20

federalcourt,claimingthatthedenialofaccesstoevidenceforpostconviction1 DNAtestingonitsfaceviolatedhisrighttodueprocessundertheFourteenth2 Amendment. RejectingMcKithensfacialdueprocesschallenge,weheldthat3 NewYorkStatesprocedureforpostconvictionreliefunderSection440.30(1a)(a)4 isfaciallyadequate,seeid.at152,andthatfederalcourtsaretodefertothe5 judgmentofstatelegislaturesconcerningtheprocessdueprisonersseeking6 evidencefortheirstatecourtpostconvictionactions,id.at153. Ourdecisionin7 McKithenthusrepresentedastraightforwardapplicationofOsbornetoNew8 YorkStatelaw,asbothOsborneandMcKithenaddresseddirectfacialchallenges9 byplaintiffsrelatingtotheeffectivenessofState(incontrasttomunicipal)10 postconvictionreliefprocedures. SeeOsborne,557U.S.at71. 11 McKithenresolvedanissuedifferentfromtheonethatthisappealcompels12 ustoconsider. UnlikeMcKithen,NewtonreadilyconcedesthattheStates13 statutoryproceduresareadequate. Instead,hecontendsthattheCity,notthe14 State,providedhimwithfundamentallyinadequateprocessbyunderminingthe15 Statesproceduresbyitsrecklesslychaoticevidencemanagementsystem. 16 Havingdemonstratedthat(incontrasttoOsborneandMcKithen)hediligently17 andrepeatedlytriedtheStatesproceduresforobtainingthenecessaryDNA18 evidence,NewtonclaimsthattheNYPDsevidencemanagementsystemwasso19 inadequateastonullifythoseprocedures. ThisappealandNewtonsarguments20 thuspresentanissuethatwehaveyettoaddressrelatingtotheinteraction21 betweenStatelawandlocalgovernmentinthecontextofpostconvictionrelief. 22

21

WeareunawareofprecedentthatpreventsNewtonfromchallengingamunicipal1 customorpracticethat,hecontends,underminesotherwiseadequateState2 procedures. McKithencertainlydoesnotdoso,andsotheDistrictCourterred3 insofarasitheldthatMcKithensquarelyforeclosedNewtonsclaims. Moreover,4 bypointingoutOsbornesfailuretoavailhimselfofAlaskasprocedures,5 Osborneappearstohavecontemplatedpreciselysuchasappliedchallengesby6 plaintiffswhoattemptunsuccessfullytoinvokeStatepostconvictionrelief7 procedures. See557U.S.at71. 8 TheprocedurescreatedbySection440.30(1a)requiretheState,upona9 defendantsmotion,toshowwhatevidenceexistsandwhethertheevidenceis10 availablefortesting. Peoplev.Pitts,4N.Y.3d303,311(2005).10 Inessence,11 Section440.30(1a)createsanessentialcorollaryproceduralrighttoafaithful12 accountingofevidence. SeeOsborne,557U.S.at68. InNewYork,local13 governmentappearstoplayanintegralroleinthisprocess,seeN.Y.C.Admin.14 10 Pittswasdecidedin2005aftertheNewYorkStateLegislatureamendedSection440.30(1a)throughtheadditionofsubsection(b),whichpermittedacourttodirectthepeopletoprovidethedefendantwithinformationinthepossessionofthepeopleconcerningthecurrentphysicallocationofthespecifiedevidenceandifthespecifiedevidencenolongerexistsorthephysicallocationofthespecifiedevidenceisunknown,arepresentationtothateffectandinformationanddocumentaryevidenceinthepossessionofthepeopleconcerningthelastknownphysicallocationofsuchspecifiedevidence. N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.30(1a)(b);see2004N.Y.Sess.Laws2794(McKinney). However,theNewYorkCourtofAppealsconcludedthatthestatuteasoriginallyenacteddidnotplaceondefendantstheburdentoestablishthelocationandstatusoftheevidencetheyseektobetested. Pitts,4N.Y.3dat311.

22

Code14140(a)(1)(2)(instructingthepropertyclerkofthePCDtotakecharge1 ofallpropertyseizedbypoliceandrequiringthat[a]llsuchproperty...be2 describedandregisteredbythepropertyclerkinarecordkeptforthatpurpose),3 andafailureoflocalgovernmentincarryingoutitsrolecannullifytheadequacy4 ofStateproceduresandexposethemunicipalitytoconstitutionalliability. 5 Thisishardlyanewconcept. Inothercontextswehavepermitted6 plaintiffstopursueclaimsagainstmunicipalitiesfordeprivationsofStatecreated7 interests. See,e.g.,Kappsv.Wing,404F.3d105,112,11826(2dCir.2005)(City8 administrationofStateHomeEnergyAssistanceProgramwasconstitutionally9 inadequatetovindicateplaintiffspropertyinterestinprogrambenefits);Winston10 v.CityofNewYork,759F.2d242,24749(2dCir.1985)(provisionofCity11 AdministrativeCodeviolatedteachersdueprocessrightsbydeprivingthemofa12 propertyinterestintheircontractualrighttoapension,derivedfromtheState13 Constitution);seealsoGoldbergv.Kelly,397U.S.254,26066(1970)(City14 proceduresinadequatetovindicaterightscreatedbyStateandfederalprograms). 15 IfproceduresfollowedbyamunicipalityratherthanaStateprovetobe16 constitutionallyinadequate,eveninthecontextoffaciallyadequateState17 procedures,thenadefendantmaysuethemunicipalityforviolatinghisdue18 processrightsonthegroundthatthemunicipalitysimplementationofState19 proceduresisinadequate.20 Evenintherealmofmunicipal(ratherthanState)inadequacy,however,we21 musttakecaretoavoidsuddenlyconstitutionaliz[ing]theareaofDNAtesting22

23

andtherebyplac[ing]thematteroutsidethearenaofpublicdebateand1 legislativeaction. Osborne,557U.S.at73(quotingWashingtonv.Glucksberg,2 521U.S.702,720(1997)). Atleastthreefactorshelpusavoidthatpitfallhere. 3 First,reinstatingthe1983verdictagainsttheCitywillnotimpairthe4 validityof,orexpandtherightsprovidedby,Section440.30(1a)(a). Asnoted,5 thiscasepresentsachallengetotheCitysexecutionofStatelaw,nottothelaw6 itself. SeeMcKithen,626F.3dat153([T]heOsborneCourtwasclearthatthe7 lowerfederalcourtsaretodefertothejudgmentofstatelegislaturesconcerning8 theprocessdueprisonersseekingevidencefortheirstatecourtpostconviction9 actions.(emphasisadded));seealsoid.at154(Barringproofoffundamental10 inadequacy,OsborneobligatesustodefertotheNewYork[State]legislatures11 judgment....). WedefertoStatesinthisareabecauseitisnormallywithin12 thepoweroftheStatetoregulateproceduresunderwhichitslawsarecarried13 out,Pattersonv.NewYork,432U.S.197,201(1977)(quotationmarksomitted),14 andStateshaveconsiderableexpertiseinmattersofcriminalprocedureandthe15 criminalprocess...groundedincenturiesofcommonlawtradition,Medina,16 505U.S.at44546. 17

Second,when,ashere,amunicipalitypromulgatespoliciesorpracticesthat18 affectthecriminalprocedurelawsoftheState,thosepoliciesorpracticesmayfail19 toreflecttheconsideredjudgmentoftheStatelegislature. Alocalpattern,20 custom,orpracticemayfrustrateorevenobstructotherwiseadequateStatelaw21 procedures. Inthoseinstances,itseemstous,neitherOsbornenorMedina22

24

mandatesthesamelevelofdeferencetolocalgovernmentastheydotoState1 legislativeaction. 2

Third,theproceduralrightatissuehereisquitenarrow:Newtonwasnot3 entitledtothepreservationofevidenceunderStatelaw,butonlytoafaithful4 accountingoftheevidenceintheCityspossession. Wedonotdecidewhat5 specificCityprocedureisnecessarytomanageandtrackevidence. Wesimply6 reinstateajuryverdictthatfoundthatthethenexistingsystemwasinadequate7 andthattheCity,throughitsagents,servants,oremployees,intentionallyor8 recklesslyadministeredanevidencemanagementsystemthatwas9 constitutionallyinadequateandthatpreventedNewtonfromvindicatinghis10 libertyinterestinviolationofhisFourteenthAmendmentrighttodueprocess. 11

Theadditionin2004ofNewYorkCriminalProcedureLawSection12 440.30(1a)(b)doesnotalterouranalysis. Thatsectionprovidesthatin13 conjunctionwithamotiontovacateunderSection440.30:14

[T]hecourtmaydirectthepeopletoprovidethedefendantwith15 informationinthepossessionofthepeopleconcerningthecurrent16 physicallocationofthespecifiedevidenceandifthespecified17 evidencenolongerexistsorthephysicallocationofthespecified18 evidenceisunknown,arepresentationtothateffectand19 informationanddocumentaryevidenceinthepossessionofthe20 peopleconcerningthelastknownphysicallocationofsuch21 specifiedevidence. Ifthereisafindingbythecourtthatthe22 specifiedevidencenolongerexistsorthephysicallocationofsuch23 specifiedevidenceisunknown,suchinformationinandofitself24 shallnotbeafactorfromwhichanyinferenceunfavorabletothe25

25

peoplemaybedrawnbythecourtindecidingamotionunderthis1 section. 2

N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law440.30(1a)(b). Byenvisioningthatevidencemightbe3

lostordestroyed,theprovisionreinforcesthelimitednatureofaconvicted4

defendantslibertyinterestinprovinghisinnocencethroughDNAevidence. 5

Butitdoessowithouteliminatingtherequirementthatfundamentallyadequate6

proceduresbeinplacetoallowthedefendanttovindicatethatinterest. Again,a7

fundamentallyadequatesystemforpermittingdefendantstoaccessevidence8

doesnotmeanoneinwhichevidenceisneverlostordestroyed. Anypolice9

departmentwilloccasionallyloseevidence,includingusefulevidence;absent10

more,thatlapsewillnotviolateadefendantsdueprocessrights. SeeArizonav.11

Youngblood,488U.S.51,58(1988). Rather,Section440.30(1a)(b)isconsistent12

withrequiringtheNYPDsevidencemanagementsystemtoprovideanadequate13

meanstodetermineifevidenceisavailablefortestingand,ifso,wherethe14

evidenceislocated. Inaddition,Section440.30(1a)(b)sproscriptionthatno15

inferenceunfavorabletothepeoplemaybedrawnfromthefactthatevidenceis16

missingordestroyedappliesexclusivelytomotionstovacate. Thelegislatures17

reasonabledeterminationthataconvicteddefendantshouldnotbereleased18

26

becausethepolicehavelostrelevantevidencedoesnotpreventanexonerated1

personfromhavingacivilremedyunder1983againstamunicipalityforan2

inadequateevidencemanagementsystem.3

3. WhethertheEvidenceWasSufficientforaReasonableJuryto4 FindthattheCityDeniedNewtontheProcessHeWasDue5

Toimposeliabilityonamunicipalityunder1983,aplaintiffmust6 identifyamunicipalpolicyorcustomthatcausedtheplaintiffsinjury. Bd.7 ofCnty.CommrsofBryanCnty.Okla.v.Brown,520U.S.397,403(1997)(citing8 Monellv.DeptofSoc.Servs.oftheCityofN.Y.,436U.S.658,694(1978)). The9 CityacknowledgesthattheDistrictCourtcorrectlyinstructedthejurythatin10 ordertofindtheCityliableitwasrequiredtofindthatthemunicipalityitself11 directlycause[d]theconstitutionalviolationbyapolicy,customorpractice,that12 is,apersistent,widespreadcourseofconductbymunicipalofficialsor13 employeesthathasbecometheusualandacceptedwayofcarryingoutpolicy,14 andhasacquiredtheforceoflaw,eventhoughthemunicipalityhasnot15 necessarilyformallyadoptedorannouncedthecustom. JointAppx2672. 16 Nevertheless,theCityarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidencetosupportthe17 jurysfindingsthattheCitysevidencemanagementsystemwasfundamentally18 inadequate,andthattheCityofficialsfailuresandmisconductrelatingtothat19 systemreflectedapracticeorcustom. 20 Acarefulreviewoftherecorddemonstratesotherwise. ThePCDProperty21 GuidedescribestheNYPDsofficialevidencemanagementsystemandalso22

27

containsthePCDspoliciesandproceduresforstoringandtrackingevidence. 1 AccordingtothePropertyGuide,akeytoolfortrackingaparticularpieceof2 propertywasayellowinvoicecreatedwhenthepropertyarrivedataPCD3 boroughoffice. Theyellowinvoicewasstoredinanactiveyellowsfile. 4 Wheneverthepropertymoved,itsnewlocationwastobeprintedontheyellow5 invoice. Whenthepropertywastransportedtocourt,theyellowinvoicewasto6 bestoredtemporarilyinanouttocourtyellowsfile,withanoutofcustody7 cardplacedinitssteadintheactiveyellowsfile. Whenthepropertywas8 destroyedorauctioned,thatfactandthedateofdestructionorsalewerenotedon9 theyellowinvoiceandtheinvoiceitselfplacedinaclosedoutyellowsbox. If10 propertywasmissingfromitsstoragelocation,thesupervisorofthePCDfacility11 wasrequiredtostartapreliminarysearchthatincluded(1)askingthearresting12 officerwhetherthepropertywaseverremovedtocourtandsubsequently13 repackagedafterreturn,andthen(2)checkingwithPearsonPlaceWarehouse,a14 warehousefacilityinQueens,todetermineifthemissingpropertywaslocated15 there. 16 TheNYPDsevidencemanagementsystemfailedmiserablyinNewtons17 case. WhenNewtonmovedforDNAtestingunderSection440.30(1a),the18 DistrictAttorneysOfficefiledanoppositioncontainingastatementbyanNYPD19 Sergeantthatmistakenlyreportedthattheevidenceandyellowinvoicehadlikely20 beendestroyed. Infact,theyellowinvoicefortherapekithadbeeninthePCD21 outtocourtyellowsfoldersinceMay1988,whentheevidencewasfirst22

28

removedtobeexamined. Theinvoicehadneverbeenreturnedtotheactive1 yellowsfile,eventhoughtherapekithadbeenreturnedtostorageatPearson2 PlaceWarehouse. SergeantThomasOConnorwasinvolvedwithdocumenting3 propertystoredinanotherPCDwarehouseintheBronxandultimatelyassigned4 tolocatetheyellowinvoicefortherapekitwhileNewtonsfederalsuitwas5 pending. Inonesearch,hefoundhundredsofpropertyitemsandevidencewith6 nopaperworkattachedtotheminthewarehouse,aswellas[a]boutahundred7 orsolooseinvoicesthathadnotbeenmarkedeitherdestroyedorauctioned. 8 JointAppx240708. Includedamongthelooseinvoiceswereinvoicesfor9 Newtonsbluesuedesneakersandforclothingfromthevictim,V.J.,relatedto10 Newtonscase. SeeJointAppx2408;seealsoJointAppx2767,2773.11 Ofcourse,asSergeantOConnorsexperiencesuggested,theproblemof12 lostinvoicesandevidencewasbynomeansisolatedtoNewtonscase:Sergeant13 OConnorwasawareofotherevidencethathadbeenlost,JointAppx2401,and14 theNYPDsfailuretotrackevidenceappearstohavebeenpervasive. Around15 thetimeofNewtonstrial,theBronxpropertyclerksofficehadhundredsof16 outtocourtyellowsfolders,datingbacktothe1970s,thatcontainedthousands17 ofyellowinvoices;thepropertyreflectedonthoseinvoiceshadneverbeen18 returnedtothePCDor,liketherapekitinNewtonscase,hadbeenreturnedbut19 notproperlyrecorded. JointAppx2403. InspectorJackTrabitz,thePCDs20 commandingofficeratthetimeofthe2010jurytrial,testifiedthatbetween21 approximately1800and3200invoiceswentouttocourtfromtheBronxborough22

29

officeeachyearfrom1994to2006. JointAppx2220. SergeantBruceKessler,1 thecommandingofficeroftheBronxPCDboroughofficefromapproximately2 1992to2003,couldnotevenrecalltheprocedureforevidenceretrievalinthe3 eventanitemofevidencehadnotbeenreturnedtotheboroughofficeafterayear. 4 JointAppx235960.115 ThefailuresoftheNYPDsevidencemanagementandretrievalsystem6 directlyaffectedtheofficesoftheDistrictAttorneys,aswellascertain7 nongovernmentalentities. From2005to2009,requestsfromtheDistrict8 Attorneysofficesforpostconvictionevidencefrequentlywentunanswered9 becauselogbookscontainedinaccurateinformationandin[n]umerouscases10 11AlthoughNewtonrefrainsfromadvancingafailuretotrainclaimonappeal,wecannothelpbutnotethat,basedontheevidence,theinadequacyoftheCitysevidencemanagementsystemappearstohavebeenrootedinsomepartintheCitysinadequatetrainingofNYPDofficersregardingevidencemanagement. Accordingtotheevidenceattrial,severalPCDofficers,includinghighrankingofficials,wereunfamiliarwiththePropertyGuideandlackedtraininginevidencemanagement. Andbefore1995,whenthePropertyGuidewascreated,therewasnowrittenprocedureforevidencemanagement. JointAppx2357. Asaresult,bothaformercommandingofficerwhosupervisedthePCDstartingin1990andoneofhissuccessorswhostartedin2000receivednoformaltrainingwhatsoeverregardingtheoperationsofthePCD. JointAppx251617,2519,2164. Similarly,throughoutthe1990s,lowerrankingofficerswhoworkedatthePCDincludingthePearsonPlaceWarehousefailedtoreceiverelevanttrainingorawrittenmanualonpropertyandevidencemanagement. JointAppx2461,2464. Moredisturbingstill,IntegrityControlOfficersresponsibleforensuringthatemployeesatthePCDcompliedwiththeproceduresinthePropertyGuideappearedtobeunfamiliarwiththoseproceduresortheevidencemanagementcomponentoftheirpositions. JointAppx2166,234547,2364,2598.

30

yellowinvoicesweremissing. Onlyabouttwentypercentofprosecutorial1 requestsforpre1988postconvictionevidenceweresatisfied. JointAppx2401. 2 Other,equallydisquietingexamplesofmissinginvoicesinvolvedtheInnocence3 Project,anorganizationdevotedtoexoneratinginnocentconvicteddefendants. 4 SeeJointAppx2601. AttherequestoftheInnocenceProjectin2006,thePCD5 identifiedandlocatedeightyseveninvoicesrelevanttoInnocenceProjectcases. 6 Nevertheless,theCityacknowledgedthattheremainingeightythreerelevant7 invoiceswerenotinthecustodyofthe[PCD],ha[d]alreadybeendestroyedor8 werereleasedaccordingtoDepartmentprocedures. JointAppx3444;seealso9 JointAppx2556,2610. FiftypercentofthecasesthattheInnocenceProject10 terminatedintheCityoveratenyearperiodwereclosedbecausethePCDhad11 lostordestroyedDNAevidence.12 JointAppx2603.12 Newtonalsoadducedevidencethat,priortohisrelease,thePCDhadno13 reliablesystemtodeterminewhatevidencehadbeendestroyedandthat,asa14 result,evidencemayhavebeenimproperlydestroyed,or,asinNewtonscase,15 reporteddestroyedwhenithadnotbeen. Priorto2000,forexample,thePCD16 routinelydisposedofrapekits,13 JointAppx217173,aswellassocalledwhite17 12AccordingtothetestimonyofanInnocenceProjectattorney,thenationalpercentageofInnocenceProjectcasesclosedduetolostordestroyedDNAevidencewassignificantlylowerthanthepercentageofsuchcasesintheCity. JointAppx2603.13 In2006thecommandingofficerofthePCDfinallyissuedawrittenmemoranduminstructingthatsexualassaultevidencekitsshouldneverbedestroyed. JointAppx217273.

31

invoices,whichdescribedwhetherapieceofevidencehadbeendestroyedor1 retainedbytheNYPD,JointAppx2469. Destroyingthewhiteinvoicefor2 evidencepreventedthePCDfromtrackingthatevidence. In1992and1998,3 moreover,thePCDengagedinwhatmayaptlybecharacterizedassweeps,in4 whichitdisposedofasubstantialamountofarrestevidencethathadnotbeen5 claimed. JointAppx2470. Althoughtheevidencemanagementsystem6 improvedafter2000,thePCDscommandingofficerstartingthatyearwas7 unawarethatthePropertyGuideprohibitedthedestructionofarrestevidence8 withoutadistrictattorneyrelease,andheadmittedthatarrestevidencemayhave9 beenimproperlydestroyedunderhiscommand. JointAppx2171. 10 Newtonsexpertwitness,anevidencespecialistwhoconsultedwith11 policedepartmentsthroughouttheUnitedStatesregardingevidence12 management,alsodescribedtheinadequacyoftheNYPDsevidence13 managementsystem. TheexpertconcludedthattheCitysevidence14 managementsystem,asitexistedfrom1994to2005,wassporadicatbest. 15 JointAppx2497. Aspectsofthesystem,includingchainofcustodyprocedures16 andpractices,wereweak,ifnotnonexistentandfailedtomeetthemostwidely17 acceptedprofessionalorindustrystandardsinthefieldofevidence18 management.14 JointAppx2490;seealsoJointAppx2491. 19 14AccordingtoNewtonsexpertwitness,thetwomostwidelyacceptedindustrystandardsinthefieldofevidencemanagementarepromulgatedbytheInternationalAssociationofPropertyandEvidence,anorganizationthat

32

Insum,Newtonpresentedevidencethatthousandsofsometimes1 decadesoldyellowinvoicesattheBronxpropertyclerksofficeoutofatotalof2 notmorethan3200suchinvoicesperyearwereinoldouttocourtfoldersthat3 hadimproperlyneverbeenclosedout;evidencelistedasouttocourtforover4 twentyyearswaslost;thePCDhadlosttrackofandwasunabletoretrieve5 evidenceinanunreasonablylargenumberofcases(involvingevidenceolder6 thanfiveyears);severalhighlevelofficialstaskedwithsupervisingtheNYPDs7 evidencemanagementsystemwereunfamiliarwiththePCDsprocedures;and8 thePCDsdysfunctionhadanunconstitutionallydeleteriouseffectoncase9 closingsinalargenumberofcases,including,obviously,Newtons. The10 probleminNewtonscasewaswiththeretrievalofevidencethatwassittingthere11 allalong. Despitethepreservationoftheevidencethatprovedcrucialin12 exoneratingNewton,thePCDwasunabletolocateitfrom1994to2005and13 inaccuratelyrepresentedthatithadbeendestroyedeitherinafireorpursuantto14 aregulardisposalprocedurethatmaynotevenhaveexisted. HadNewton15 acceptedtheCitysrecklesslyerroneousrepresentationsabouttheevidenceat16 facevalue,hemighthaveremainedinprisonfarlongerthanhedid. Taken17 together,thisevidencesupportsafindingthattheCity,throughthepoor18

provideseducationalresourcesandtrainingonevidencemanagementpractices,andtheCommissiononAccreditationforLawEnforcementAgencies,acredentialingauthoritythatdetermineswhetherlawenforcementagencieshavemetindustrywidepublicsafetystandards. JointAppx248485.

33

administrationofitsevidencemanagementsystem,perpetuatedapracticeor1 customthatwaswhollyinadequate. 2

WeacknowledgetheCitysargumentthata1983plaintiffseekingtohold3 amunicipalityliablemustshowthatthemunicipalactionwastakenwiththe4 requisitedegreeofculpabilityandmustdemonstrateadirectcausallinkbetween5 themunicipalactionandthedeprivationoffederalrights. Brown,520U.S.at6 404. Theremustbeproofthatthemunicipalitysdecisionwas7 unconstitutionaltoestablishthatthemunicipalityitself[i]sliableforthe8 plaintiffsconstitutionalinjury. Brown,520U.S.at406(emphasisadded). The9 SupremeCourthasdeclinedtoconsiderwhethersomethinglessthanintentional10 conduct,suchasrecklessnessorgrossnegligence,isenoughtotriggerthe11 protectionsoftheDueProcessClause.15 Danielsv.Williams,474U.S.327,33412 n.3(1986)(quotationmarksomitted). ButinBrownitheldthataplaintiff13 seekingtoestablishmunicipalliabilityonthetheorythatafaciallylawful14 municipalactionhasledanemployeetoviolateaplaintiffsrightsmust15 demonstratethatthemunicipalactionwastakenwithdeliberateindifferenceas16 toitsknownorobviousconsequences. Brown,520U.S.at407(quotationmarks17 omitted). Althoughwehavenotexplicitlyaddressedthisquestioninour18 15 TheSupremeCourthasheldthatina1983claimagainstamunicipalityforfailuretotrainitspoliceforce,aplaintiffisrequiredonlytoshowthatthemunicipalitywasdeliberatelyindifferenttotherightsofthosewithwhomthepolicewouldcomeintocontact;however,theCourtdistinguishedthatstandardfromthestateofmindrequiredforanunderlyingclaimofaconstitutionalviolation. CityofCanton,Ohiov.Harris,489U.S.378,388&n.8(1989).

34

subsequentcases,seeBarberav.Smith,836F.2d96,99(2dCir.1987),wehave1 maintainedthatastateprisonguardsdeliberateindifferencetothe2 consequencesofhisconductforthoseunderhiscontrolanddependentuponhim3 maysupportaclaimunder1983.16 Moralesv.N.Y.StateDeptofCorr.,8424 F.2d27,30(2dCir.1988). 5

InkeepingwithBrownandMorales,weconcludethatunderthe6 circumstancespresentedhereNewtonatmostneededtodemonstratethatthe7 Cityactedwithrecklessnessordeliberateindifference17 towardhisconstitutional8 rights.18 Here,ofcourse,thejuryactuallyfoundthattheCityhadactedwithan9 16Othercourtsofappealshavesuggestedthatrecklessnessordeliberateindifferencemaysufficetoestablishgroundsforaconstitutionalviolation. See,e.g.,Salazarv.CityofChicago,940F.2d233,238(7thCir.1991);TorresRamirezv.BermudezGarcia,898F.2d224,227(1stCir.1990);Woodv.Ostrander,879F.2d583,58788(9thCir.1989);Comm.ofU.S.CitizensLivinginNicar.v.Reagan,859F.2d929,94850(D.C.Cir.1988).17 [T]heCourtsofAppealshaveroutinelyequateddeliberateindifferencewithrecklessness. Farmerv.Brennan,511U.S.825,836(1994). 18 ItisnotaltogetherclearthatNewtonwasrequiredtomakeeventhisshowing(although,asweexplaininfra,hehasplainlydoneso). Aplaintiffcanidentifyamunicipalpolicybyprovingtheexistenceofanunlawfulpracticeorcustomthatissomanifestastoimplytheconstructiveacquiescenceofseniorpolicymakingofficials. Sorluccov.N.Y.C.PoliceDept,971F.2d864,871(2dCir.1992)). AfterconsideringNewtonsFourteenthAmendmentclaim,thejuryalsofoundthattheCitydirectlycause[d]theconstitutionalviolationbyapolicy,customorpractice,becausethemismanagementofevidencewaspersistentandwidespread,ha[d]becometheusualandacceptedwayofcarryingoutpolicy,andha[d]acquiredtheforceoflaw. JointAppx2672. BecauseNewton

35

intenttodeprive...Newtonofhisconstitutionalrightsorwithareckless1 disregardofthoserights. JointAppx3502. Thisfinding,towhichweafford2 considerabledeference,issupportedbytherecord. SeeZenov.PinePlains3 Cent.Sch.Dist.,702F.3d655,671(2dCir.2012). Andsoarecklessnessor4 deliberateindifferenceanalysisshouldhavecompelledtheDistrictCourtto5 upholdthe2010juryverdict.6 4. Arizonav.Youngblood7 OurconclusionisconsistentwithArizonav.Youngblood,488U.S.518 (1988). InYoungblood,theSupremeCourtheldthatunlessacriminal9 defendantcanshowbadfaithonthepartofthepolice,failuretopreserve10 potentiallyusefulevidencedoesnotconstituteadenialofdueprocessoflaw. 11 Id.at58. Thepresenceorabsenceofbadfaithbythepoliceforpurposesofthe12 DueProcessClausemustnecessarilyturnonthepolicesknowledgeofthe13 exculpatoryvalueoftheevidenceatthetimeitwaslostordestroyed,id.at5614 n.*,andisrelevantwhenwedealwiththefailureoftheStatetopreserve15 evidentiarymaterialofwhichnomorecanbesaidthanthatitcouldhavebeen16

provedthattheCityengageddirectlyinanunlawfulcustomorpractice,hemaynothavealsoneededtoprovethatCityofficialsactedwithrecklessnessordeliberateindifference. SeeBrown,520U.S.at404(Whereaplaintiffclaimsthataparticularmunicipalactionitselfviolatesfederallaw,...resolving[the]issuesoffaultandcausationisstraightforward.). Wedonotneedtodecidethatissuehere,however,becausethetrialevidencesupportsthejurysfindingofrecklessdisregard.

36

subjectedtotests,theresultsofwhichmighthaveexoneratedthedefendant,id.1 at57. 2 InlightofYoungblood,wemustagainrecognizethatafundamentally3 adequatesystemforpermittingdefendantstoaccessevidencemaybe,andwill4 be,imperfectonewhereevidenceissometimeslostorinadvertentlydestroyed. 5 Largelybecausethisisnotafailuretopreservecase,however(theDNA6 evidencethatNewtonsoughtwaspreserved,afterall),ourholdingfallsoutside7 thescopeofYoungbloodandreflectsthelimitedprescriptionofSection8 440.30(1a)(b),whichdemandsonlythattheNYPDsevidencemanagement9 systemprovideanadequatemeanstodetermineifevidenceisavailablefor10 testingand,ifso,wheretheevidenceislocated. AlthoughYoungbloodmakes11 clearthatNewtonwasnotentitledtothepreservationofevidence,hewas12 entitledtoafaithfulaccountingoftheevidenceintheCityspossession. 13 Otherwise,itseemstous,thestatutoryschemedevelopedbytheStatewould14 havelittleifanypurpose. 15

OurviewthatYoungblooddoesnotcontrolthedispositionofthisappealis16 fortifiedwhenweconsiderthetwoconcernsthatappeartohaveanimated17 Youngbloodsrequirementthattheplaintiffshowbadfaithonthepartofthe18 policeunderthesecircumstances. First,therequirementrelievescourtsfrom19 undertakingthetreacheroustaskofdiviningtheimportofmaterialswhose20 contentsareunknownand,veryoften,disputed. Id.at58(quotationmarks21 omitted). Second,theCourtwasunwilling[]toreadthefundamentalfairness22

37

requirementoftheDueProcessClauseasimposingonthepolicean1 undifferentiatedandabsolutedutytoretainandtopreserveallmaterialthat2 mightbeofconceivableevidentiarysignificanceinaparticularprosecution. Id.3 (citationomitted). [R]equiringadefendanttoshowbadfaithonthepartofthe4 policebothlimitstheextentofthepolicesobligationtopreserveevidenceto5 reasonableboundsandconfinesittothatclassofcaseswheretheinterestsof6 justicemostclearlyrequireit,i.e.,thosecasesinwhichthepolicethemselvesby7 theirconductindicatethattheevidencecouldformabasisforexoneratingthe8 defendant. Id.9 Neitherconcernexistsinthiscase.19 Asaninitialmatter,Newtonmay10 recoverunder1983forinadequateevidencemanagementbecausetheDNA11 evidencehadalreadyexoneratedhim. TheDistrictCourtdidnotneedto12 divinetheexculpatoryimportoftheDNAevidence;itsimportwasclearbythe13 timeNewtonstartedthisactionwiththebenefitofthatevidence. Inaddition,14 weneitherdiscernnorimposeanabsolutedutyonthepolicetopreserve15 evidencebasedonafreestandingconstitutionaldueprocessright. Tothe16 contrary,Section440.10(1)(g)appliestonewlydiscoveredevidence,including17 newDNAtestresults,andsaysnexttonothingaboutadutytomaintain18 evidence.19

19 ThejurydidnotfindthattheCityactedinbadfaith,asdefinedinYoungblood,andtherecorddoesnotsupportsuchafinding.

38

Inshort,hadtheCitydestroyedhisDNAevidenceaccordingtoa1 legitimateprocedurethatconformedwithStatelaw,Newtonwouldhaveno2 claimunder1983. Withoutdecidingaquestionnotbeforeus,wedonotsee3 howanincarcerateddefendant(orevenapersonlikeNewton)without4 exoneratingevidenceobtainedbyinvokingStateprocedureswouldhaveadue5 processclaimforreliefunder1983basedonourholdingtoday. Incontrastto6 Youngblood,theissuehereiswhetheramunicipalitymaybeheldliableforits7 recklessmaintenanceofasystemthatmadeitimpossibletoretrieveevidencethat8 hadbeenpreserved,thatStatelawrecognizedasparticularlysignificant,andthat9 ultimatelyexoneratedthedefendant. 10

5. JuryInstructionsRegardingNewtonsDueProcessClaim11 Lastly,theCityalsochallengesthejuryinstructionsrelatingtoNewtons12

dueprocessclaim. TheDistrictCourtinstructedthejurythatitcouldfindthat13 theCityhadviolatedNewtonsFourteenthAmendmentrightsonlyif,among14 otherrequirements,theCityengagedinapattern,customorpracticeof15 mishandlingevidencebyoperatingapoororanonexistentevidencemanagement16 system,andthisviolated[Newtons]constitutionalrightsby...denying17 [Newton]hisFourteenthAmendmentrighttodueprocessbyemployingan18 inadequateevidencemanagementsystemthatcausedCityemployeesto19 prematurelyabandontheirsearchforhisevidencein1994underthemistaken20 assumptionthatithadbeendestroyed. JointAppx2673.21

39

Thechallengedjuryinstructionswerenotwrong. Theycorrectlyrequired1 thejurytofindthattheCitysevidencemanagementsystemwasinadequateas2 amatterofdueprocessifitpreventedNewtonfromavailinghimselfofthe3 proceduresinSection440.30(1a)(a). Thejuryinstructionsalsocorrectly4 premisedtheCitysliabilityonthefailureofitsevidencemanagementsystemto5 accountfortheevidence,notonthedestructionofevidence. Cf.JointAppx6 2673.7 B. FirstAmendmentCourtAccessClaim8 NewtonalsoclaimsthattheCityisliableunder1983forviolatinghisFirst9 Amendmentrightofaccesstothecourtsbasedonitsfailuretoprovidehimwith10 evidencetochallengehisconviction. Weneednotaddressthisissueatlength. 11 Becausethejuryawardeddamagesonthe1983claiminorderto12 compensate...Newtonforanypainandsufferingcausedbythecitysfailureto13 producetherapekitfortest[ing],JointAppx2720,thedamagesawardwouldbe14 reinstatedinfullevenifweweretoaffirmtheDistrictCourtwithregardtoeither15 NewtonsFourteenthAmendmentdueprocessclaimorhisFirstAmendment16 accesstothecourtsclaim,aslongaswedidnotaffirmwithregardtoboth. Cf.17 ThisisMe,Inc.v.Taylor,157F.3d139,146(2dCir.1998)(Aslongasthereis18 someevidencebaseduponwhichthejurycouldhaveheld[thedefendants]19 individuallyliable,wemustreinstatetheverdict.). 20

Inanyevent,theDistrictCourtsdecisiontogranttheCitysmotiontoset21 asidethejurysverdictonthisclaimappearstohaverestedalmostentirelyonits22

40

rejectionofNewtonsunderlyingFourteenthAmendmentclaimthattheCity1 violatedhisproceduralrighttodueprocess. Onappeal,theCityparrotsthe2 DistrictCourtsrationale,arguingthatNewtonsaccesstocourtsclaimfails3 becausehehadnoviableconstitutionalclaimtoDNAevidenceinthefirstplace. 4 HavingrejectedthepremiseoftheDistrictCourtsdecisionandtheCitys5 principalargument,wevacatetheDistrictCourtsjudgmentdismissingNewtons6 FirstAmendmentclaimandremandtotheDistrictCourttoreconsidertheclaim,7 ifnecessary,inlightofthisopinion.20 8

CONCLUSION9 Weareconfidentthattheevidencemanagementfailuresidentifiedinthis10 casehavebeenorwillsoonberemediedwiththehelpofmoderntechnological11 advancesandstrongerrecordkeepingpractices. Fortheforegoingreasons,12 however,weVACATEthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtandREMANDthecase13 withinstructionstoreinstatethejuryverdictwithrespecttoNewtonsFourteenth14 AmendmentclaimandtoreconsiderNewtonsFirstAmendmentclaiminlightof15 thisopinion. 16

20 TheCityalsoarguesthatNewtonsaccesstocourtsclaimwasinadequatelypleadedandprocedurallybarredandthatNewtonforfeitedhisFirstAmendmentclaimbecausehefirstmentioneddenialofaccessinhistrialbriefandinhisoppositiontothedefendantsAugust2010motiontodismiss. Afterreviewingtherecord,weconcludethatbothargumentsarewithoutmerit.