United States v. Bill Watson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11922

Defendant Bill Watson was convicted in 2006 of knowingly attempting a sexual act with a person physically unable to communicate unwillingness; acquitted on related assault charge.
Prosecution relied primarily on the victim’s brother’s eyewitness account; medical exams were inconclusive as to forcible intercourse.
Semen was found on underwear placed on the victim, but the 2006 DNA testing could not identify a male source because the sample quantity was too small.
Post-conviction advances (including "touch DNA" methods) could now identify contributors from tiny biological samples on underwear, clothing, and vaginal swabs; Innocence Project funded testing.
Watson moved under the Innocence Protection Act for mandatory post-conviction DNA testing in 2013; the district court denied the motion as untimely (motion filed more than three years after conviction).
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that DNA that becomes identifiable only because of new testing methods qualifies as “newly discovered DNA evidence,” rebutting the presumption of untimeliness and requiring testing if statutory preconditions are met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.)	Defendant's Argument (Watson)	Held
Whether Watson identified a theory of defense that would establish actual innocence and whether perpetrator identity was at issue at trial	Watson failed to identify a viable innocence theory; identity was not sufficiently "at issue"	Watson identified actual-innocence theory (he did not commit the act) and pointed to alternate-perpetrator theory; identity was contested by defense at trial	Court: Watson met the preconditions—he identified a defense that could establish actual innocence and identity was at issue
Whether DNA that was present at trial but untestable then, and becomes identifiable through new methods, qualifies as "newly discovered DNA evidence" for timeliness under the Innocence Protection Act	The phrase refers only to newly obtained physical evidence; because the underwear/semen were in government possession at trial, the DNA is not "newly discovered" and the motion is untimely	"Newly discovered DNA evidence" includes evidence (identifiable DNA) that only became discoverable due to post-conviction scientific advances, even if the physical sample existed earlier	Court: Reversed—newly identifiable DNA is "newly discovered DNA evidence," rebutting presumption of untimeliness and requiring testing if other statutory criteria are met

United States v. Youssef, 547 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (noting DNA testing’s power to exonerate and identify guilty parties)
United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.) (reversed denial of DNA testing where negative test would undermine eyewitness IDs)
United States v. Jordan, 594 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir.) (upheld denial where DNA testing would not be exculpatory because defendant admitted contact)
United States v. Pitera, 675 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (upheld denial where absence of defendant’s DNA would not prove he did not participate)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (constitutional principle favoring protection of the innocent)