McKithen v. Brown
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23802
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- McKithen was convicted in New York in 1993 of multiple offenses related to an assault with a knife and a prior possession of a weapon; he did not request DNA or fingerprint testing on the knife at trial.
- McKithen sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing under NY CPL § 440.30(1-a)(a) in 2001; the state court denied testing, finding no reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict if testing were performed.
- McKithen filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in district court asserting due process violations from denial of access to evidence for post-conviction DNA testing, among other claims.
- The district court held in 2008 that McKithen had a procedural due process right to obtain DNA testing and that New York proceedings denied that right; Osborne (Supreme Court) subsequently issued controlling guidance on post-conviction DNA testing.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the district court, applying Osborne to hold that New York procedures were constitutionally adequate under due process, and dismissed some claims as unnecessary or non-justiciable.
- The court concluded that McKithen could not obtain relief under substantive due process, access-to-courts, or Eighth Amendment claims, but ultimately reversed to align with Osborne’s framework that defers to state procedures for post-conviction DNA testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial challenge to § 440.30(1-a)(a) due process | McKithen argues statute unconstitutional for not assuming exculpatory results. | Brown argues statute consistent with due process under Osborne. | Statute constitutionally adequate under Osborne. |
| As-applied challenge to state court’s application of § 440.30(1-a)(a) | McKithen contends state court failed to assume exculpatory results in testing. | Brown argues no jurisdiction to review as-applied challenge under Rooker-Feldman. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review as-applied challenge; rejected on merits due to Osborne. |
Key Cases Cited
- District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (U.S. 2009) (controls due process framework for post-conviction DNA testing; limits liberty interests)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1992) (establishes deferential due process standard for state procedures in post-conviction relief)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2005) (connects procedural due process to the core of following established procedures)
- Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (limits federal review of state-court judgments under Rooker-Feldman doctrine)