State v. Buckman
311 Neb. 304
| Neb. | 2022Background
- 1988 murder of Denise Stawkowski; Herman D. Buckman convicted at trial based on circumstantial evidence (blood group/AK testing on clothing and car items, slippers at scene, cigarette/saliva evidence, possession of same-caliber gun, post‑murder spending and an alleged brag to a cellmate).
- Buckman previously pursued DNA testing; prior testing was largely inconclusive and earlier postconviction and testing motions were denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In 2016 Buckman obtained court-ordered DNA testing of Stawkowski’s panties and of the steering-wheel cover and floormats from Buckman’s car; items had been stored long-term in a semi-trailer without climate control.
- DNA results: panties produced a sperm donor profile that excluded Buckman as the major contributor; steering-wheel cover and floormats produced no detectable blood and only partial/inconclusive DNA profiles.
- The State moved to dismiss under the DNA Testing Act, arguing storage/integrity concerns and that the results were not exculpatory; the district court granted the motion, finding the results inconclusive or immaterial to guilt, and denied vacatur or a new trial.
- Buckman appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the testing results neither exonerated nor were sufficiently material to require a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buckman) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA results require vacatur under the DNA Testing Act (exonerative/highly exculpatory) | Test results discredit State’s scientific evidence (no blood now on car items) and thus exonerate or create reasonable doubt | Results are inconclusive, possibly due to degradation; do not falsify or discredit evidence necessary to prove murder | Court: Results not exonerative; vacatur not warranted; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether DNA results warrant a new trial (newly discovered exculpatory evidence) | Exclusion of Buckman as sperm donor on panties is newly discovered exculpatory evidence that likely would have changed the verdict | Semen evidence was not material to murder charge (Buckman not charged with sexual assault); exclusion would not probably produce a substantially different result | Court: Exclusion of semen not material to guilt; new trial denied |
| Whether storage/chain compromised integrity of car items so results are unreliable | Testing was court‑ordered and scientifically valid; results should be considered | Items were stored over decades (including 10 years in an uncontrolled trailer), undermining integrity under §29‑4120(l)(b) | Court: Regardless of storage issues, expert testified absence now does not prove absence in 1988; results were inconclusive and insufficient to require relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Amaya, 305 Neb. 36 (2020) (standard of review and that post‑testing dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Parmar, 283 Neb. 247 (2012) (DNA exclusion that contradicts key eyewitness testimony can require a new trial)
- State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505 (2004) (procedural framework for relief after DNA testing; distinction between exonerative vs. merely exculpatory evidence)