WPC$ !$mPyB,B/KDWTW8T BӇ_4 >Vo,I|=^- o֮ ΣV mͰN4ĥ>Ihp*wIϼKl{{Z|mZ-~+=dIOǺrHFzg$V 7E_wZgM+DP݄@@Ǽkz5& b)K0e0@Pz&w*xؚrᩝ?_kEG dEܪc`vMrR6< Zb&+Nca:E;a$ LDq;3p9rC .^Z\\x6E+ޯHO-P$9h⣟ؚ Tt53SKEQɷ kހh  Thus,underRule3.850, theburdenisupontheStateto   demonstratethatthemotionislegallyflawedorthattherecord   conclusivelydemonstratesnoentitlementtorelief.Id.In p  ordertosupportasummarydenial,thecircuitcourt musteither F  stateitsrationaleinitsdecisionorattachthosespecific l  partsoftherecordthatrefuteeachclaimpresentedinthe B motion. M Spencerv.State,842So.2d52,69(Fla.2003).#XXXXj#ԀThese  principlesareequallyapplicabletoRule3.853,asexplainedinBorland.3Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. at 419, 434 (1995)1Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. at 419, 434 (1995) !  _XggXXXYoungv.State,739So.2d553,559(Fla.1999)#XXX Xgg+#7Young v. State, 739 So.2d 553, 559 (Fla. 1999)1 !  _XggXXX_Lightbourne_Ԁv.State,742So.238,24748(Fla.1999)#XXX Xgg+#9Lightbourne v. State, 742 So. 238, 247H48 (Fla. 1991 !  _XggXXXManualv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyD1399(Fla.2ndDCAJune13,  2003)#XXXXgg+#;Manual v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1399 (Fla. 2nd1Knighten v. State, 829 So.2d 249, 252 (Fla 2nd DC !  _XggXXXRileyv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyD1790(Fla.2ndDCAJuly30,  2003)#XXXXgg+#>Riley v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1790 (Fla. 2nd1 !  _XggXXXHuffmanv.State,837So.2d1147,1149(Fla.2ndDCA)#XXXXgg+#@Huffman v. State, 837 So.2d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 2nd 10Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)1 !  _XggXXX_Hewitt_Ԁv.Helms,459U.S.460,466(1983)#XXX Xgg+#EHewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983)1 !  _XggXXXFreemanv.State,761So.2d1055,1061(Fla.2000)#XXXXgg+#HFreeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000)1 !  _XggXXXGaskinv.State,737So.2d509,516(Fla.1999)#XXXXgg+#JGaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509, 516 (Fla. 1999)1 !  _XggXXXSpencerv.State,842So.2d52,69(Fla.2003)#XXXXgg+#LSpencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52, 69 (Fla. 2003)1($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0 Lightbourne v. State, 742 So. 238, 247H48 (Fla. 199 !  _XggXXXStatev._Gunsby_,670#XXX Xgg+#XggXXXԀSo.2d920(Fla.1996)#XXX Xgg#RState v. Gunsby, 670 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1996)1 !  _XggXXXStatev.Smith,100Wash.App.1064(Ct.App.Wash.2000)#XXXXgg+#TState v. Smith, 100 Wash. App. 1064 (Ct. App. Wash.1 !  _XggXXXStatev.Underwood,518S.E.2d231(Ct.App.S.C.1999)#XXXXgg+#VState v. Underwood, 518 S.E.2d 231 (Ct. App. S.C. 11 !  _XggXXX_Swafford_Ԁv.State,    828So.2d966(Fla.2002)#XXXXgg.#YSwafford v. State, 828 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2002)1 !  _XggXXXBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963)#XXXXgg+#[Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)1Swafford v. State, 828 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2002) !  _XggXXX_Swafford_Ԁv._Dugger_,569So.2d1264(Fla.1990)#XXX Xgg+#^Swafford v. Dugger, 569 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1990)1 !  _XggXXX_Swafford_Ԁv.Singletary,584So.2d5(Fla.1991)#XXX Xgg+#`Swafford v. Singletary, 584 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1991)1 !  _XggXXX_Swafford_Ԁv.State,636So.2d1309(Fla.1994)#XXX Xgg+#bSwafford v. State, 636 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1994)1 !  _XggXXX_Swafford_Ԁv.State,679So.2d736(Fla.1996)#XXX Xgg+#dSwafford v. State, 679 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)1$57=CIQYag421.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)  $    8    _XjXXX_Volusia_ԀCountySheriffInvestigator_Buscher_ԀinhisAugust  10,1982,report,discussedSpecialAgentBakersinterviewof  JamesWalsh.Therein,itwasreportedthatAgentBakerdescribed \ Walsh asbeing6'1",165lbs., blonde hair,blueeyeswitha 2 ruddycomplexion.AttachmentD.Thereportshowedhisageto f be31.TheBOLOissuedonFebruary16,1982,includedthe < compositefoundinWalshspossessionatthetimeofhisarrest   inArkansasamonthafterthe_Rucker_Ԁhomicide.TheBOLOincluded   thefollowingdescriptionofthesuspect: late20'stoearly n   30's,160to170lbs,5'10"to6'0"tall, Brown hairwith_Redish_  tint,LightBrowneyes,BushyEyebrows,Afull_Redish_ԀtintBeard  neatlytrimmedwithfaircomplexion.(PCR5.53). j   ThecriminalcomplaintfiledinthiscaseagainstMr. @ _Swafford_ԀonJune27,1983,describedMr._Swafford_Ԁas5'8",140 f lbs,with darkbrown hairandbrowneyes.(PCR5.55).Mr. < _Swafford_sagewasnotedtobe36.  !USUS.,  _Ԁ  4  XjXXXTherewasalsoaquestionastowhetherBrenda_Rucker_,the  victim,wasshotatthescenewhereherbodywaslocated,or  whetherherbodywasdumpedthereaftershehadalreadybeen x killed.Nospentbulletswerefoundatthescene.#XXXXj^#Ԁ  !USUS.,  _Ԁ  5  XjXXXOnJuly23,1982,Mr._Lestz_ԀassertedthatonFebruary14,  1982,Mr.WalshandMr.Leviremovedhisclothing,tookhis  vehicle,andreturnedseveraldayslaterwithalargeamountof x money.(PCR4T.Def._Exh_.4).#XXXXj^# h !USUS.,  _Ԁ  6  XjXXXOnAugust30,1982,Mr.Levitoldlawenforcementthatat  approximately6:00a.m.onFebruary14,1982,Mr._Lestz_Ԁarrived  atthemotelroomwhereMr.LevihadspentthenightwithMr. x Walsh.Mr.WalshthendepartedwithMr._Lestz_Ԁsayingthatthe N pairhad"somethingtodo."(PCR4T.Def._Exh_.7).Mr.Levi $t saidthathedid#XXXXj^#XjXXXnotseeMr.WalshandMr._Lestz_Ԁagainuntil J between11:00a.m.andnoon.#XXXXj#  !USUS.,  _Ԁ  13  XjXXXInhisclosingargument,thetrialprosecutorrecognizedthat  therewasaproblemwiththetestimonyfromMr.GriswoldandMs.  _Sarniak_.Soheargued, WhatisimportantontheShingleShack x episodewherethegunwasrecoveredis,one,therewasagun N recovered,andthegunistheonewhichwasidentifiedhereby $t theserialnumbersbythepoliceofficersandplacedinthe J records._(R_.1393).Later,hecalledthematter aredherring   runbeforeyourpathheretoday._(R_.1394).Hewroteoffthe   contradictorytestimonysaying, Theonlypersonthathadany |  reasontothrowawaythatgunwasthepersonthatthepolicewere R   after,thepersonthatthepolicesuspected.TheywereafterMr. ( x  _Swafford_.Hewastheonlyonethattheywereafter.Isaman  N  justgoingtothrowawayagunwhenthereisnobodyquestioning $  himanditdoesn'tevenappeartobesimilartoanything?_(R_.   1394).     OfcoursethejurydidnotknowthatonFebruary14,1982, V  Mr.WalshtoldMr._Lestz_ԀtodrivearoundtheDaytonaBeacharea ,|  sothathecouldfindaplacetounloadtwo.38s.This R informationwascontainedinapolicereportthatwasnot (  receivedbydefensecounselandwouldhaveprovidedananswerto  theprosecutorsotherwiserhetoricalquestion.#XXXXj_#NOP67(2$0 0 0 0 (<$0 0 0 0 0 91($ d !USUS.,  XjXXX@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @"CASENO.SC03931 x ?FX' pdE4?p? @ @ ROYCLIFTONSWAFFORD#XXXXj-#XjXXX, 3  @*  Appellant,  K @tt)v.    @"STATEOFFLORIDA,   @*  Appellee. S  ?FX' xpdE4p? k  @l l ONAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURT B @l l OFTHESEVENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT, & @ INANDFORVOLUSIACOUNTY,STATEOFFLORIDA   ?FX' 8pdE4p?  ?FX' dE X? Y @ INITIALBRIEFOFAPPELLANT 0 ?FX' dE ? H    `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN  $    `     h   SpecialAssistantCCRCSouth {!%    `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773 _"&    `     h   497StonehouseRd. C#'    `     h   Tallahassee,FL32301 '$w(    `     h   (305)9848344   %[ )  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#OFFICEOFTHECAPITALCOLLATERAL &"+ REGIONALCOUNSELSOUTH'",(#(#    `     h   101N.E.3RDAve.,Suite400 (#-    `     h   Ft.Lauderdale,FL33301 q)$.    `     h   (954)7131284 #XXXXjo#XjXXX U*%/     `     h   COUNSELFORAPPELLANT  ,C(2   -')3 8jXXdd8@    PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT   J Ԉ    Citationsinthisbrieftodesignatereferencestothe x records,followedbytheappropriatepagenumber,areasfollows: $t   R.___RecordonappealtothisCourtinthe1988direct   appeal; |    PCR1.___RecordonappealtothisCourtfromthe1990 ( x  summarydenialofpostconvictionrelief#XXXXj #XjXXX; $    PCR2.___RecordonappealtothisCourtfromthe1994   appealfromthesecondsummarydenialofpostconvictionrelief; ,|    PCR3.___RecordonappealtothisCourtfromthe1996 ( appealfromthethirdsummarydenialofpostconvictionrelief;    PCR4.___RecordonappealtothisCourtfollowingthe 0 1997evidentiaryhearingorderedbythisCourt; ,   PCR4T.___Transcriptofevidentiaryhearingconducted  February67,1997;#XXXXjt #XjXXX 4   PCR5.___Recordonappealinthecurrentappealfrom 0 thedenialof#XXXXjT#XjXXXDNAtesting;     Allothercitationswillbeselfexplanatoryorwill 8!" otherwisebeexplained. "4$   $& #XXXXj#XjXXX@  REQUESTFORORALARGUMENT   kԈ    ThisisacapitalcaseinwhichDNAtestingunderRule3.853 x hasbeendenied.Afullopportunitytoairtheissuesthrough $t oralargumentisnecessarygiventheseriousnessoftheclaims   andtheissuesraisedhere.Mr.Swafford,throughcounsel, |  respectfullyurgestheCourttopermitoralargument.#XXXXj%#XjXXX ( x  D $    @"   TABLEOFCONTENTS   Ԉ  H!H!G(# Page  j 5   N  N0     PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT#""J(#.(#(##iN݌ J Ќ  N  NX0     REQUESTFORORALARGUMENT#8"8"I(#.hh#(#(##iiNXs݌   Ќ  N  N"0     TABLEOFCONTENTS#!!H(#. (#(##iiiN"=݌ R   Ќ  N  N0     TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#8"8"I(#.(#(##ivN݌  N  Ќ  N  N0     INTRODUCTION#""J(#.P P (#(##1N݌   Ќ  N  Nf0     STATEMENTOFTHECASE#""J(#.(#(##7Nf݌ V  Ќ  O  O,0  0` (#(#    a.ProceduralHistory#""J(#.XX%` (#` (##7O,G݌ R Ќ  O  O0  0` (#(#    b.RelevantFacts#8"8"I(#.xx!` (#` (##10O!݌  Ќ  N  N0     STANDARDOFREVIEW#8"8"I(#. (#(##25N݌ Z Ќ  N  N0     SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT#8"8"I(#.xx!(#(##25N݌ V Ќ  N  Ng0     ARGUMENTNg݌(#(# Ќ  ݀ 8  MR.SWAFFORDWASERRONEOUSLYDENIEDHISRIGHTUNDER ^ FLORIDALAWTOOBTAINDNATESTINGOFTHEAVAILABLE 4 PHYSICALEVIDENCEINVIOLATIONOFTHEEIGHTHAND  Z FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTS.#8"8"I(#.XX%  #25 0 O  OE0  0` (#(#    A.SubstantiveRighttoDNATesting#8"8"I(#.``4` (#` (##25OE`݌   Ќ  O  O/ 0  0` (#(#    B.The ReasonableProbabilityStandard#8"8"I(#.9` (#` (##27O/ J ݌ 8!" Ќ  O  O$!0  0` (#(#    C.TheCircuitCourtsAnalysisWasErroneous#8"8"I(#.>` (#` (##30O$!?!݌ "4$ Ќ  O  O"0  0` (#(#    D.Conclusion#8"8"I(#.` (#` (##33O"6"݌ $& Ќ  N  N"0     CONCLUSION#8"8"I(#.` ` (#(##34N" #݌ <&!( Ќ  N  N#0     CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE#8"8"I(#. (#(##35N##݌ '8#* Ќ  N  Np$0     CERTIFICATEOFFONT#8"8"I(#. (#(##35Np$$݌ )$, Ќ    j*%- @<<    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   q%Ԉ  H!H!G(# Page  j 8   9  9&  #XXXXjn#XjXXXBorlandv.State,9&2&݌ $t Ќ    848So.2d1288(Fla.2003)#XXXXjs&#XjXXX8"8"I(#.88)28 J 9  9'  #XXXXj,'#XjXXXBradyv.Maryland,9''݌   Ќ    373U.S.83(1963)#XXXXj'#XjXXX""J(#.xx!1 |  9  9(  Duckettv.State,9((݌ ( x  Ќ    CaseNo.SC012149dated3/21/038"8"I(#./27  N  9  9)  #XXXXj(#XjXXXEvittsv.Lucey,9))݌   Ќ    469U.S.387(1985)#XXXXj%*#XjXXX8"8"I(#."26   9  9)+  #XXXXj*#XjXXXFordv.Wainwright,9)+D+݌ ,|  Ќ    477U.S.399(1986)#XXXXj+#XjXXX8"8"I(#."27 R 9  9,  #XXXXj9,#XjXXXFreemanv.State,9,,݌  Ќ    761So.2d1055(Fla.2000)#XXXXj,#XjXXX8"8"I(#.*31  9  9-  #XXXXj-#XjXXXGarciav.State,9-.݌ 0 Ќ    622So.2d1325(Fla.1993)#XXXXjQ.#XjXXX8"8"I(#.*28 V 9  9]/  #XXXXj /#XjXXXGaskinv.State,9]/x/݌  Ќ    737So.2d509(Fla.1999)#XXXXj/#XjXXX8"8"I(#.88)31  9  90  #XXXXjq0#XjXXXHewittv.Helms,900݌ 4 Ќ    459U.S.460(1983)#XXXXj 1#XjXXX8"8"I(#."27  Z 9  9$2  Huffmanv.State,9$2?2݌  Ќ    837So.2d1147(Fla.2ndDCA)8"8"I(#.@@,30   9  93  Knightenv.State,93,3݌ 8!" Ќ    829So.2d249(Fla2ndDCA2002)X X E(#./28,30 "^# 9  94  #XXXXj1#XjXXXKylesv.Whitley,94!4݌ # % Ќ    514U.S.at419(1995)#XXXXjb4#XjXXX8"8"I(#.XX%29 $& 9  9j5  #XXXXj5#XjXXXLightbournev.State,9j55݌ <&!( Ќ    742So.238(Fla.1999)#XXXXj5#XjXXXX X E(#.&29,32 'b") 9  96  Manualv.State,966݌ ($+ Ќ    28Fla.L.WeeklyD1399 )$,   (Fla.2ndDCAJune13,2003)8"8"I(#.+30 j*%-   ,f'/ 9  98  #XXXXj6#XjXXXOhioAdultParoleAuthorityv.Woodard,98+8݌  Ќ    523U.S.272(1998)#XXXXjl8#XjXXX8"8"I(#."26  9  99  Rileyv.State,999݌ 2 Ќ    28Fla.L.WeeklyD1790 X   (Fla.2ndDCAJuly30,2003)8"8"I(#.+30 . 9  9:  Riverav.State,9::݌   Ќ    CaseNo.SC012523dated7/11/028"8"I(#./27 `  9  9;  #XXXXj49#XjXXXSpencerv.State,9;;݌  \  Ќ    842So.2d52(Fla.2003)#XXXXj;#XjXXX8"8"I(#.(32  2  9  9<  #XXXXj<#XjXXXStatev.Gunsby,9<=݌   Ќ    670#XXXXjV=#XjXXXԀSo.2d920(Fla.1996)#XXXXj=#XjXXX8"8"I(#.(32 d  9  9>  Statev.Smith,9>>݌ `  Ќ    100Wash.App.1064(Ct.App.Wash.2000)8"8"I(#.@@833 6 9  9?  Statev.Underwood,9??݌  Ќ    518S.E.2d231(Ct.App.S.C.1999)8"8"I(#.pp233 h 9  9@  #XXXXjO>#XjXXXStricklandv.Washington,9@@݌ d Ќ    466U.S.668(1984)#XXXXj@#XjXXX8"8"I(#."28 : 9  9A  #XXXXjA#XjXXXSwaffordv.Dugger,9AB݌  Ќ    569So.2d1264(Fla.1990)#XXXXjGB#XjXXX""J(#.*8 l 9  9UC  #XXXXjC#XjXXXSwaffordv.Singletary,9UCpC݌ h Ќ    584So.2d5(Fla.1991)#XXXXjC#XjXXX""J(#.HH'8 > 9  9D  #XXXXjnD#XjXXXSwaffordv.State,9DD݌  Ќ    636So.2d1309(Fla.1994)#XXXXjE#XjXXX""J(#.*8 p  9  9)F  #XXXXjE#XjXXXSwaffordv.State,9)FDF݌ !l" Ќ    679So.2d736(Fla.1996)#XXXXjF#XjXXX""J(#.88)9 !B# 9  9G  #XXXXj?G#XjXXXSwaffordv.State, #%   828So.2d966(Fla.2002)#XXXXjG#XjXXX@(#.88)1,7,9,329GG݌ t$& Ќ  9  9I  #XXXXjH#XjXXXUnitedStatesv.Bagley,9II݌  &p!( Ќ    473U.S.667(1985)#XXXXjcI#XjXXX8"8"I(#."28 &F") 9  9lJ  #XXXXjJ#XjXXXYoungv.State,9lJJ݌ (#+ Ќ    739So.2d553(Fla.1999)#XXXXjJ#XjXXX8"8"I(#.(29 x)$, 9  9K  #XXXXj~K#XjXXXZollmanv.State,9KK݌ $+t&. Ќ    820So.2d1059(Fla.2ndDCA2002)#XXXXj-L#XjXXX8"8"I(#.126 +J'/   &#XXXXjL#XjXXX@$  INTRODUCTION   MԈ \   Mr.Swaffordsconvictionandsentenceofdeathhavebeen $t vexatioustothisCourt.Recently,thisCourtnarrowlydenied   Mr.Swaffordanewtrial. Z #XXXXjM#XjXXXSwaffordv.State,828So.2d966 |  (Fla.2002).Overtwodissentingopinionsreflectingtheviews ( x  ofthreejustices,threeothermembersofthisCourtjoinedina $  percuriamopinionthatconcludedthatMr.Swaffordsclaimunder    \ Bradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),wasprocedurallybarred ,|  becausehisstateprovidedcollateralcounselhadnotbeen ( diligentinlocatingawitnesswhosenamewasnotdisclosedto  Mr.Swaffordstrialcounsel,butwhosenamewasturnedoverto 0 collateralcounselfiveyearsafterMr.Swaffordwasconvicted. ,  ] Swaffordv.State,828So.2dat978(percuriamopinion,joined  byChiefJusticeWells,andJusticesShawandHarding). #  1       4 #XXXXj#O#XjXXX  Inhisdissentingopinion,JusticeAnsteadstated: 0 ` Thiscaserepresentsoneofthosetrulyrareinstances   wherethisCourthassummarilybrushedasideonwholly b ! speculativegroundsa colorableclaimofactual 8!" innocenceandapossibleseriousmiscarriageof "l# justice .Therehasbeenabsolutelynofocushereon #P$ therealityofwhatactuallyhappened.Tragicallytoo, #4% theclaimarisesoutofademonstratedBradyviolation $ & wherethepoliceandprosecutingauthoritiesfailedto % ' providethedefendant,astheywereconstitutionally f&!( obligatedtodo,withsubstantialevidenceofanother <'") personsguiltforthecrimeforwhichthedefendant (b#* hasbeensentencedtodie. (8$+ ` SS )%,  ] Swaffordv.State,828So.2d966,97879(Fla.2002)(Anstead,  J.,dissenting)(emphasisadded). #  2      ׀Inherdissentingopinion, \ JusticeQuincestated: X ` Thehighlycircumstantialevidenceproducedattrial,   alongwiththeevidenceSwaffordclaimedinhisfirst   [postconviction]motionwasnotdisclosedbytheState `  concerningothersuspectsandwitnesses,when 6   consideredinconjunctionwiththeLestzaffidavit,  \   wouldprobablyproduceanacquittalattrial.  2  ` &YBY Swaffordv.State,828So.2dat985(Quince,J.,   dissenting)(emphasisadded).< #  3      #XXXXj[S#XjXXX H    InNovemberof1985,Mr.Swaffordwasconvictedoffirst D degreemurderandsentencedtodeath.Hebecameasuspectnearly  sixteenmonthsaftertheFebruary,1982,homicidewhenRoger L Harper,seekingconsideration,providedMr.Swaffordsnameto H lawenforcement.TheevidencethatwasdevelopedagainstMr.  Swaffordwascircumstantial.Therewasnophysicalevidence P linkingMr.Swaffordtothemurderotherthana.38pistolfound L intrashcanattheShingleShackbarinDaytonaBeachwhich  ballisticanalysisidentifiedasthemurderweapon.However,the T ! testimonylinkingMr.Swaffordtothat.38wasitself "P# circumstantialandinternallyinconsistent.Mr.Swaffords #% defensewasinnocence.Specifically,histrialattorneyfocused X% ' uponthefactthatevenaccordingtotheState,Mr.Swafford  couldonlyhavecommittedthemurderduringanhourtoanhour \ andhalfperiod,andthiswasaninsufficientperiodoftimeto X haverapedthevictimbothvaginallyandanally,burnedhertwice   withcigarettes,madesureshewasfullyclothed,andthenshot `  herninetimes.  #  4      ׀  \    InearlyOctoberof1990,policereportsconcerninglaw   enforcements1982investigationofothersuspectsJamesMichael d  Walsh,WalterLevi,andMichaelLestzweredisclosedtoMr. `  Swaffordscollateralcounsel.Thesereportsclearlyimplicated   JamesMichaelWalshasanindividualwhomayhavemurderedBrenda h Rucker.ThesereportsplacedMr.Walshoneblockawayfromthe d scenewhereBrendaRuckerdisappeared,fifteenminutesbeforeshe  disappeared.Mr.Walshwasnotseenagainuntiloverfourhours l later.Whenhereappeared,Mr.Walshwassweatyandnervous. h ThereportsalsorevealedthatMr.Walshhadhomosexually  assaultedMr.Lestzandwhiledoingsoburnedhimwithcigarettes p  infashionthat stronglyresemble[d]thoseburnsfoundonthe !l" bodyofBrendaRucker.(PCR3.205). "$   TheinvestigationofJamesMichaelWalshasperpetratorof t$& theRuckerhomicidehadendedonJanuary25,1983,whenMichael  &p!( Lestzwasconfrontedabouthisfailuretopassapolygraphin  Julyof1982duringwhichhedeniedanyinvolvementintheRucker \ homicide. #  5      ׀(PCR4T.538).OnJanuary25,1983,MichaelLestz X revealedthatat6:00a.m.onFebruary14,1982,JamesMichael   WalshleftMr.Lestzatalaundromatapproximatelyoneblockaway `  fromtheFinaStationatwhichMs.Ruckerhadjustarrivedat  \  work.OnJanuary25,1983,Mr.Lestzrevealedthatat6:00a.m.   themorningofFebruary14th,Mr.Walshleftthelaundromatin d  Mr.Lestzsvehicletogofindsomedrugs,thisbeingfifteen `  minutesbeforeMs.RuckerwastakenfromtheFinaStation   accompaniedbyamanwhosefaceinacompositedrawing strongly h resembledMr.Walsh.(PCR4T.546).Atthattime,Mr.Lestz d furtherstatedthatMr.Walshdidnotreturnuntilafter10:30  a.m.andthenheappeared [p]rettynervous,sweaty.Hewasreal l hyper.(PCR4T.65).OnJanuary25,1983,Mr.Lestzindicated h thatafterMr.Walshgotbackhewasanxioustodisposeof  severalguns,specificallyincludingtwo.38s.OnJanuary25th, p  1983,itwasknownthata.38hadmostlylikelybeenthemurder !l" weapon.Mr.LestzsJanuary25thstatementwas verysimilarto "$  whatWalterLevihadalreadystated,andwasthuscorroboratedby t$& anotherwitness. #  6      ׀(PCR4T.558).Yetaswasrevealedon   February7,1997,theinvestigationendedthenbecauseCaptain \ RandallBurnsed justdidntfind[Mr.Lestz]credible.(PC X R4T.569).NofurtherinvestigationofMichaelWalshoccurred. #  7           TherewasphysicalevidencefoundwithMs.Ruckersbody `  whichproducednoevidenceinthemid80'slinkingMr.Swafford  \  tothecrimeusingthetechnologiesavailableatthetime#XXXXjE\#XjXXX(PCR5.   38,63).Thisphysicalevidenceincludedhair.Nowovertwenty d  yearsafterthemurder,mitochondrialDNAtestingisavailable#XXXXjkq#XjXXXԀto `  testhairsthatwerefoundwithMs.Ruckersbody.#XXXXj\r#XjXXXInanFDLE   reportissuedonMay12,1982,itwasnotedthat [f]our light h browntoblonde hairstypicalofCaucasianpubichairwere 0 collectedfromthetissue[foundwithMs.Ruckersbody].These H hairsaresuitableforcomparisonpurposespendingthesubmission  ofknownhairsamplesfromthesubject.(PCR5.46).Astothe P pubichairsamplecollectedfromMs.Rucker,itwasnotedthat L therewere numerous brownanddarkbrown hairstypicalof   Caucasianpubichair[thatwere]suitableforuseasaknownhair  sample.(PCR5.46).Astothescalphairsamplecollected \ fromMs.Rucker,itwasnotedthattherewere numerous brown  X hairstypicalofCaucasianscalphairandissuitableforuseas   aknownhairsample.(PCR5.46).Astothepubichair |  combing,itwasnotedthattherewere [n]umerous brown hairs ( x  typicalofCaucasianpubichair[that]weresuitablefor @  comparisonpurposespendingthesubmissionofknownhairsamples   fromthesubject.(PCR5.46).Astothequestionedhairs H  collectedfromthepubicregion,thereportindicated [n]umerous D  brown hairstypicalofCaucasianpubichairarecontainedinthis  exhibit.Thesehairsaresuitableforcomparisonspurposes h pendingthesubmissionofknownhairsamplesfromthesubject. d (PCR5.47).Astotheblouseandsock,thereportnotedthe  presenceof [t]hree blonde hairfragmentstypicalofCaucasian l scalphair.(PCR5.47).Astothedebrisintheshoesand 4 socks, [s]everalhairstypicalofCaucasianbodyhair,in 0  additiontoseveralanimalhairs,arecontainedinthedebris. !" (PCR5.47). #  8       8#$   ThroughmitochondrialDNAtesting,itcanbedetermined  whetherthemitochondrialDNAinthosenumeroushairsmatch \ eitherMr.SwaffordorMs.Rucker.IfmitochondrialDNAisfound X thatestablishesthatthehairfoundwiththebodyoriginated   withsomeoneotherthanMs.RuckerorMr.Swafford,theresults `  wouldbehighlyexculpatory.Accordingly,Mr.Swaffordhas  \  soughtDNAtestingunderRule3.853.   @    STATEMENTOFTHECASE  I~  d  #XXXXjr#XjXXX@  a.ProceduralHistory  ~  ,|  #XXXXj~#XjXXX  Mr.Swaffordwaschargedwithfirstdegreemurder,sexual D batteryandrobbery.AjuryfoundMr.Swaffordguiltyoffirst  degreemurderandsexualbattery,butacquittedhimofrobbery. L Thejuryrecommendedadeathsentencebyavoteof10to2(R. H 1661),andthecourtsentencedMr.Swaffordtodeath.ThisCourt  affirmedtheconvictionsanddeathsentence. ] Swaffordv.State, P 533So.2d270(Fla.1988). L   In1990,Floridasgovernorsignedadeathwarrant   schedulingMr.SwaffordsexecutionforNovember13,1990.Mr. T!" SwaffordfiledamotionunderRule3.850,Fla.R.Crim.P.,in #P$ thecircuitcourt,whichdeniedthemotionwithoutanevidentiary $& hearing.Mr.SwaffordappealedtothisCourtandfileda  petitionforawritofhabeascorpus.ThisCourtaffirmedthe \ denialofRule3.850reliefanddeniedthehabeascorpus X petition. _ Swaffordv.Dugger,569So.2d1264(Fla.1990).     In1990,Mr.Swaffordfiledafederalpetitionforawritof `  habeascorpusintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,whichdenied  \  relief.Mr.SwaffordappealedtotheUnitedStatesCourtof   AppealfortheEleventhCircuit.InNovemberof1990,the d  EleventhCircuitstayedMr.Swaffordsexecution.Proceedingsin `  thatcourtwerelaterheldinabeyancewhileMr.Swaffordpursued   otherstateremedies. h   In1991,Mr.Swaffordfiledasecondpetitionforawritof d habeascorpusinthisCourt.Subsequently,thisCourtdenied  relief. a Swaffordv.Singletary,584So.2d5(Fla.1991). l   In1991,Mr.SwaffordfiledasecondRule3.850motion.The h circuitcourtdeniedthemotionwithoutanevidentiaryhearing,  andMr.SwaffordagainappealedtothisCourt.Whiletheappeal p  waspending,Mr.SwaffordaskedthisCourttorelinquish !l" jurisdictionforanevidentiaryhearingregardingtrialcounsels "$ statusasadeputysheriffandonwhetherthecircuitcourtjudge t$& engagedinexpartecommunicationswiththeStateindenyingthe  &p!( firstandsecondRule3.850motions.ThisCourtgrantedthe '(#* requestedrelinquishment,andthecircuitcourtheldan )$, evidentiaryhearingonthesetwoissues.Thecircuitcourt 0+&. deniedrelief,andMr.Swaffordappealed.ThisCourtaffirmed  thedenialofRule3.850relief. c Swaffordv.State,636So.2d \ 1309(Fla.1994). X   In1994,Mr.SwaffordfiledathirdRule3.850motion.The   circuitcourtdeniedthemotionwithoutanevidentiaryhearing. `  Mr.SwaffordappealedtothisCourt,whichreversedandordered  \  anevidentiaryhearing. e Swaffordv.State,679So.2d736(Fla.   1996).In1997,thecircuitcourtheldanevidentiaryhearing d  anddeniedrelief.Onappeal,thisCourtaffirmedthedenialof `  Rule3.850relief. ] Swaffordv.State,828So.2d966(Fla.   2002). h   InOctoberof2002,Mr.SwaffordfiledaMotionForDNA d TestinginwhichhesoughtDNAtestingoftheavailablephysical  evidence.(PCR5.27). l   InMarchof2003,theStatefiledaresponsetothismotion, h inwhichiturgedthecircuitcourttodenythemotion.#XXXXjc#XjXXXAsto  themitochondrialDNAtestingofthehairevidence,theState p  contendedthatMr.Swaffordsmotion offerednothingbut !l" speculationregardinganalternativesource,letaloneonethat "$ exculpateshim.(PCR5.75). #  9      ׀#XXXXj#XjXXXAstonuclearDNAtesting,the t$& StatedidrevealinitsresponsetoMr.SwaffordsMotionForDNA  &p!( TestingthatthebloodsamplesdrawnfromMs.Ruckerduringthe  autopsyweredestroyedin1986.(PCR5.76).Thus,theState \ contendedthatDNAtestingofvaginalswabscouldnotbedone X becausetherewasnomeansofestablishingwhatwasMs.Ruckers   DNA. `    #XXXXjǑ#XjXXXOnApril25,2003,thecircuitdeniedthemotion.(PCR5.  \  78). #  10      ׀Thereafter,Mr.Swaffordfiledanoticeofappealtothis   Court.#XXXXj #XjXXX&    d  @!  b.RelevantFacts  `   he' Lk#XXXXjL#XjXXX  OnFebruary14,1982,atapproximately6:15a.m.,Brenda ( RuckerwasabductedfromaFinastationinOrmondBeach,Florida.  (R.728,73940,1273).Acompositedrawingoftheassailantwho 0 abductedMs.Ruckerwassubsequentlyprepared.(PCR4T.547). ,   OnFebruary15,1982,Ms.Ruckersbodywasdiscoveredby  sheriff'sdeputiesinawoodedareaaboutsixandahalfmiles 4 fromtheFinastation.(R.746,748).Ms.Ruckerhadbeen 0 sexuallyassaulted(bothvaginallyandanally),burnedtwicewith   cigarettesandshotninetimes.(R.76869,771).Thebullets 8!" passedthroughherclothing,indicatingthatshewasfully "4$ clothedatthetimeshewasshot.(R.767).Themostlikely $& fatalshotwas [b]ehindtherightearwhere afaintimprintof <&!( themuzzleofaweaponappeared.(R.765).#XXXXj"#XjXXX    #XXXXj#XjXXXExaminationofMs.Ruckersbodyprovidedevidencethatshe \ hadbeensexuallyassaulted,bothvaginallyandanally.Alab X reportliststhefollowingitemscollectedatthescene:      ` a.0 threeMichelobbottlesandsixpackholder;`  (# (#    ` b.0 anotherMichelobbottle; \  (# (#    ` c.0 anotherMichelobbottle;  (# (#    ` d.0 aBudweiserbottle;d  (# (#    ` e.0 tissuewithsuspectedhair;`  (# (#    ` f.0 anotherMichelobbottle;  (# (#    ` g.0 thepaperbagfoundinthevictimsrighthand;h (# (#    ` h.0 amatchbookcover;d (# (#    ` I.0 twocigarettebutts; (# (#    ` j.0 threeBudweisercans;l (# (#    ` h.0 alargepaperbag.h (# (# (PCR5.38).Thelabreportsreflectthatthefollowingevidence  wascollectedfromMs.Ruckersbody: p     ` a.0 bloodsample;!l" (# (#    ` b.0 vaginalswabs;"$ (# (#    ` c.0 oralswabs;t$& (# (#    ` d.0 analswabs; &p!( (# (#    ` e.0 swabsfrombackofhead;'#* (# (#    ` f.0 swabsfrombehindrightear;x)$, (# (#    ` g.0 swabfrombehindrightear.$+t&. (# (# (PCR5.42).ThisevidencewasforensicallyexaminedandanFDLE  reportissuedonApril19,1982.Thereportnoted [a]chemical \ testforacidphosphatase,asubstancecharacteristicallyfound X inseminalfluid,waspositiveonExhibitQ26(thevaginalswabs)   andonExhibit26D(theanalswabs).However,semencouldnotbe `  conclusivelyidentifiedasnospermatozoawerefound.(PCR5.  \  43).     ReportsfromtheFDLELabnotedthatsomeofthephysical d  evidencecollectedcontainedbiologicalmaterial: `     ` a.0 portionoftoilettissuecontainingquestioned   hairs; (# (# ֥   ` b.0 pubichairsamplecollectedfromRucker;> (# (#    ` c.0 scalphairsamplefromRucker;: (# (#    ` d.0 pubichaircombingscollectedfromRucker (# (#    ` e.0 hairsamplecollectedfromareaofwound;B (# (#    ` f.0 fingernailscrapingscollectedfromRucker;> (# (#    ` g.0 questionedhairscollectedfrompubicregion; (# (#    ` h.0 bagcollectedfromRuckersrighthand;F ! (# (#    ` I.0 bagcollectedfromRuckerslefthand;!B# (# (#    ` j.0 hairsamplecollectedfromareaofwound;#% (# (#    ` k.0 blouseandonesock;J% ' (# (#    ` l.0 vest;&F") (# (#    ` m.0 slacks;(#+ (# (#    ` n.0 panties;N*%- (# (#    ` o.0 pairofshoesandonesock;+J'/ (# (#    ` p.0 bloodsampleandswabs. (# (# (PCR5.4546).Theseitemswereexaminedforensically.Inits \ reportofMay12,1982,theFDLEnotedthat [f]our lightbrown X toblonde hairstypicalofCaucasianpubichairwerecollected   fromthetissue[foundwithMs.Ruckersbody].(PCR5.46).    Thesehairsaresuitableforcomparisonpurposespendingthe D   submissionofknownhairsamplesfromthesubject.(PCR5.46). @  AstothepubichairsamplecollectedfromMs.Rucker,itwas   notedthattherewere numerous brownanddarkbrown hairs H  typicalofCaucasianpubichair[thatwere]suitableforuseasa ` knownhairsample.(PCR5.46).Astothescalphairsample   collectedfromMs.Rucker,itwasnotedthattherewere numerous h  brown hairstypicalofCaucasianscalphairandissuitablefor d useasaknownhairsample.(PCR5.46).Astothepubichair , combing,itwasnotedthattherewere [n]umerous brown hairs  typicalofCaucasianpubichair[that]weresuitablefor P comparisonpurposespendingthesubmissionofknownhairsamples L  fromthesubject.(PCR5.46).Astothequestionedhairs !" collectedfromthepubicregion,thereportindicated [n]umerous T#$  brown hairstypicalofCaucasianpubichairarecontainedinthis %P & exhibit.Thesehairsaresuitableforcomparisonspurposes &"( pendingthesubmissionofknownhairsamplesfromthesubject. t(#* (PCR5.47).Astotheblouseandsock,thereportnotedthe  *p%, presenceof [t]hree blonde hairfragmentstypicalofCaucasian +'. scalphair.(PCR5.47).Astothedebrisintheshoesand  socks, [s]everalhairstypicalofCaucasianbodyhair,in \ additiontoseveralanimalhairs,arecontainedinthedebris. X (PCR5.47). #  11      #XXXXj#XjXXX     #XXXXj#XjXXXLongbeforeRoySwaffordsnamesurfacedinthecase, `  MichaelWalshwasinvestigatedasasuspect.Accordingtoa  \  supplementalpolicereportdatedMarch17,1982,MichaelWalsh   hadjustbeenarrestedinArkansas.(PCR4T.Def.Exh2). d  ArkansasauthoritiesdiscoveredinhispossessionaBOLOforthe `  RuckerhomicideinDaytonaBeach.(PCR4T.Def.Exh2).The   ArkansasauthoritieswerestruckbyMr.Walshsstrong h resemblancetothecompositedrawingcontainedintheBOLO.Asa d result,theArkansasauthoritiescontactedtheVolusiaCounty  Sheriff'sOfficeonMarch17,1982.(PCR4T.546).Volusia l CountylawenforcementcommencedinvestigatingMr.Walsh.Andin h fact,they corroborate[d]that,thatMr.Walshresembledthe  BOLO.(PCR4T546).Lawenforcementalsodeterminedthat \ Walsh,alongwithMichaelLestzandWalterLevi,hadbeenin X DaytonaBeachonFebruary14,1983.     Thereafter,therewereaseriesofinterviewsofMr.Walsh, `  andhistravelingcompanions,Mr.Lestz,andMr.Levi.A  \  supplementalpolicereportdatedJuly20,1982,summarizeda   conversationSpecialAgentBakerhadwithMr.LestzandMr. d  Lestz'sattorney.(Def.Exh.3).SpecialAgentBakerwaswith `  theUnitedStatesSecretService.Mr.Lestzwasinfederal   custodyonachargeofforgeryoftreasurybonds.(PCR4T.85). h AgentBakerreportedthatMr.WalshhadpistoledwhippedMr. d LestzpriortothetwobeingarrestedinMarch,1982.(Def.Exh.  3).AfterpistolwhippingMr.Lestz,Mr.Walshtookhimtoa l motelwherehepointedagunatMr.Lestz,burnedhimwith h cigarettesandsaid hewasgoingtokillmebymeansofplacing  apistolbehindmyleftearandshooting[sic]mybrainsoutand p  wantedmetothinkaboutthatbeforehedidit.(PCR4T72). !l" InJulyof1982,AgentBakerreportedthat Lestzattorney "$ advisesthat[theinformation]Lestzhasinvolvesseveral t$& homicideswhichoccurredinthestateofFloridaincludingWalsh  &p!( ЄWalshsmurderofawhitefemale.(PCR4T.574). '#*   OnJuly23,1982,VolusiaCountypersonnelinterviewedMr. x)$, LestzandsubsequentlyMr.Walsh.(PCR4T.580).Atthattime, $+t&. Mr.Lestzsaidthathe,WalshandLeviwereintheDaytonaBeach  area on2/14,2/151982...WalshaccompaniedbyLevihad \ againtakenhisclothesfromhim,lockedhiminasmallroomand X takenhisvan,thatthepairdisappearedforseveraldayswith   himnotknowingwheretheywent.(PCR4T.117,Def.Exh.6at `  4).DuringMr.LestzsJuly23rdinterview,apolygraph  \  examinationwasadministered.Deceptionwasfoundinmanyofthe   questionsansweredbyMr.Lestz. d    OnJuly23,1982,Mr.Walshwasinterviewedregardingthe `  Ruckerhomicide.(PCR4T.#XXXXj #XjXXXԀDef.Exh.6).Areportsummarizing   thisinterviewedwaspreparedJuly26,1982. [I]tindicated h thatWalshindicatedthathewouldnotrelatewhathewasdoing d orhiswhereaboutsduringtheperiodofFebruary14ththrough  15th,1982statingquote,thathewouldrathernotsay,close l quote.(PCR4T.575).ThereportalsonotedthatWalshwas h shownseveralphotographsoftheRuckerhomicideatwhichtimehe  wasobservedasbecoming extremelyupset,disorganized,nervous p  andunsureofhisstatements.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh6).Thereport !l" alsostated: WALSHwasaskedwhyuponhisincarcerationhehada "$ copyoftheRUCKERhomicidesuspect'scompositeinhispossession t$& atwhichtimeWALSHindicatedthatheobtainedthiscomposite  &p!( fromaOrmandBeachfoodstoreandhadsimplyretaineditbecause '#* ofamatterofcuriosity.(PCR4T.#XXXXj}#XjXXXԀDef.Exh6).Thereport x)$, furtherstated: WALSHindicatedthathisprimarysupportduring $+t&. theseperiodsoftimewereburglariesandrobberiesofwhichhe  didnotcaretoelaborate,thathewasanarcoticaddict,using \ littleDs(Dialuded).(PCR4T.#XXXXjk#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.6). X   OnAugust25,1982,VolusiaCountyauthoritiesinterviewed   WalterLevi.(PCR4T.#XXXXj #XjXXXԀDef.Exh.1).Duringthatinterview,Mr. `  Leviindicatedthat itwascommonforhimandMr.Lestztobe  \  leftatthelaundromatwhileMr.Walshwenttopurchasedrugs.   (PCR4T.555).Mr.Leviindicatedthatthiswasthelaundromat d  locatedonGranadaBoulevard.Byalawenforcementofficers `   ownestimate,thiswasprobablyaquartermileorsofromthe   FinaStationwhereBrendaRuckerworked.(PCR4T.555).The h August30,1982,policereportsummarizingtheinterviewofMr. d Levistated, LEVIindicatedthatonnumerousoccasionsafterhis  arrivalbackintheDaytonaareain1982,thatWALSHdroveboth l heandLESTZtotheareaofGranadaBoulevardatthelaundromat h anddroppedthetwooff.LEVIindicatedthatWALSHwouldthengo  totheaddressofB.P.wholivesneartheintersectionof p  GranadaandRoute1andpurchasenarcotics.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh. !l" 7).Thereportobservedthat: "$ LEVIfurtherindicatedthatonthe14thofFebruary,in t$& theearlymorninghours,thathewasspendingthenight J% ' inDaytonaBeachhotelunderafictitiousnamewitha  &p!( stolencreditcard.LEVIstatedthataccompanyinghim &F") onthisparticulareveningwasWALSH. '#* LEVIindicatedthatatapproximately6:00AM,that x)$, LESTZrespondedtothehotelroomandpickedupWALSH N*%- statingthatthepairhad'somethingtodo'.LEVI $+t&. statedthatLESTZinformedWALSHthathedidnotwish +J'/ LEVItogowiththemashedidnotknowhimthatwell  ortrusthim.  (PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.7at2). 2   OnSeptember3,1982,inSangamonCounty,Illinois,the . vehicleMr.LestzhadpossessionofwhileintheDaytonaBeach   areaonFebruary14thwassearchedpursuanttoasearchwarrant. 6   ThesearchwarrantwassupportedbytheaffidavitofBernard  2  Buscher,aVolusiaCountyDeputySheriff.Intheaffidavit   DeputyBuscherstatedthat,whenWalshwasarrestedinMarchof :  1982,hehadinhispossession acompositebulletinconcerning 6 detailsoftheBrendaRuckerhomicide(PCR3.205).Deputy  BuscheralsoindicatedthatBrendaRuckersautopsy revealedtwo > marksonthebodyofthevictimpossiblycausedbythe : applicationofalightedcigarette(PCR3.204).DeputyBuscher  revealedintheaffidavitthatLestzhadstatedthatWalsh B subjectedLestztohomosexualattacksduringwhich Lestzwas > burnedwithacigarette(PCR3.205).DeputyBuscheralso  statedthathehadexaminedLestzsburnsandfound thatthese F ! burnsonLestzsbodystronglyresemblethoseburnsfoundonthe !B# bodyofBrendaRucker.(PCR3.205).DeputyBuscherfurther #% explainedthatonFebruary14th,Walshwasanxioustoselltwo J% ' .38caliberhandguns;Walsh thendyedhishairblackandforced &F") LestztodrivehimtoNewOrleans(PCR3.205206). (#+   Norelevantphysicalevidencewasfoundasaresultofthe N*%- searchofthevehiclewhichhadpreviouslybelongedtoMr.Lestz. +J'/ Aftertheresultsofthevehiclesearchwerein,CaptainBurnsed  decidedtotraveltoafederalprisoninIllinoistointerview \ Mr.LestzyetagainabouttheRuckerhomicide.(PCR4T.55051). X SoinJanuaryof1983,CaptainBurnsedalongwithDeputyBuscher   traveledatcountyexpensetoMarion,Illinoistoreinterview `  Mr.Lestz.CaptainBurnsedexplainedthathewantedtoobtain  \  fromMr.Lestzanexplanationofwhyhehadshowndeceptionon   thepolygraphexaminationconductedinJulyof1982.(PCR4T. d  538).InfactasCaptainBurnsedhasnowtestified,Mr.Lestz's `  problemswiththepolygraph indicate[d]to[CaptainBurnsed]   thatthismeantthatMr.Walshwasmorelikelytobeinvolvedin h thehomicide.(PCR4T.538). d   DuringtheJanuary25,1982interview,Mr.Lestzchangedhis  story.(PCR4T.568).Heabandonedhispreviousclaimofhaving l beenlockedinamotelroomfortwodaysandhavingablackout. h Instead,hereportedthatbetween6:00a.m.and10:30a.m.onthe  dayoftheRuckerhomicide,Walshlefthiminalaundromatin p  DaytonaBeach,ablockfromtheFinastation.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh. !l" 5at3)ApolicereportdatedJanuary31,1983summarizingthe "$ interviewofLestzreportedthat LESTZindicatedhoweverthat t$& uponWALSHSonnumerousoccasionsdroppinghimoffonGranada  &p!( Boulevardatthelaudromat,hewouldobserveWALSHtodrivehis '#* (Lestz)vehiclewestonGranadaandmakealeftturnonUS1 x)$, adjacenttotheFINASERVICESTATIONatwhichthevictimwas $+t&. abducted.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.5at4).Lestzfurtherindicated  thatWalshhadonnumerousoccasionsfrequentedtheconvenience \ storenearthelaundromatandhadcommentedonaparticular X femaleclerkworkingattheconveniencestore(PCR4T.7677).   OnJanuary25,1983, LESTZagainreiteratedthathefeltWALSH `  wasresponsibleforthehomicideofBRENDARUCKERbutagain  \  statedthathewasnotthereandthatWALSHhadnotinformedhim   thathekilledthevictim.(PCR4T.#XXXXjp#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.5at4). d    AftertheJanuary25thinterviewofMr.Lestz,law `  enforcementstoppeditsinvestigationofMr.Walshasasuspect   intheRuckerhomicide. h   FivemonthsafterthelastinterviewwithMr.Lestz,Mr. d Swaffordsnamefirstsurfacedasasuspect.InJuneof1983,  RogerHarpercontactedVolusiaCountyauthoritiesindicatingthat l hemayhaveinformationregardingtheRuckerhomicide.AJune h 21,1983SupplementalNarrativewaspreparedbyVolusiaCounty  lawenforcement.Accordingtothisreport,Mr.Harperindicated p  thatheandfourotherindividualshadtraveledfromTennesseeto !l" Daytonaforthe500inFebruaryof1982.ThegroupincludedRoy "$ Swafford.AccordingtoMr.Harper, SWAFFORDthenleftby t$& himselflateintheeveningof2/13/82andremainedgonethe  &p!( entirenightnotreturninguntillateinthemorningof2/14/82." '#* (PCR4T.Def.Exh.8at2).Mr.Harperwasservingasevenyear x)$, sentencefor hispartintheburglaryofamotorhomeandthe $+t&. shootingofthemotorhomesoccupants.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.8at  1).ThiscrimehadoccurredJune19,1982,inBayCounty, \ Florida.(R.144043).Mr.SwaffordwasMr.Harpersco X defendantinthatcase.Mr.HarpertoldVolusiaCounty   authoritiesthat,afterMr.HarpersarrestinBayCounty, `   SWAFFORDapparentlytriedtoputtheentireblameon[Harper].  \  (PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.8at5).     BeforecontactingtheauthoritiesabouttheRuckerhomicide, d  Mr.HarperhadcontactedanattorneyintheDaytonaBeacharea, `  Mr.JohnTanner.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.8at5).Mr.Harperhad   toldMr.Tannerthathe,Harper, mighthaveinformationona h murder.HestatedthathereceivedtwolettersfromJohnTanner d indicatingthattheinformationappearedtobegood,andthathe  wanted$3,000.00torepresenthim.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.Exh.8at5).( #  12       l   Mr.HarperalsoreportedthatontheeveningofFebruary  14th,thegroupfromTennesseegotintoanaltercationatthe \ ShingleShack.Mr.HarperreportedthatMr.Swaffordpulleda X gunonindividualswhowerehavingadisputeovermoneywithhis   travelingcompanions.Shortlythereafterpolicearrived. `  Meanwhile,Mr.Swaffordhidhisguninabathroom.(PCR4T.#XXXXj#XjXXXԀDef.  \  Exh.8at4).AccordingtoMr.Harper,whenMr.Swaffordwas   arrested,amaleemployeeoftheShingleShackcameoutwitha d  gunheclaimedtohavefoundinthebathroom.Thegunwasturned `  overtothepolice.#XXXXj\#XjXXX(PCR4T.Def.Exh.8at4).AfterMr.   Harpercameforward,thisgunwasfoundtostillbeinpolice h custody.Ballisticstestsweredone,andtheconclusionwas d reachedthatthisgunhadfiredsomeofthebulletsintheRucker  homicide.    EmployeesfromtheShingleShackwerecalledatMr. \ Swaffordstrialtotestifyregardingtheseizureofthegunat X theShingleShackonFebruary14,1982.ClarkBernardGriswold   andKarenSarniakgavetwototallydifferentversionsastowhere `  thisweaponhadbeenseized.Indeed,Mr.Griswoldcouldnot  \  identifyMr.Swaffordastheindividualwhomhebelievedhadleft   agunintheShingleShackontheeveningofFebruary14,1982. d  (R.1042).Mr.Griswoldsaidthathesawanindividualacting `  suspiciouslywhenthepolicearrived.Theindividualbriefly   wentintothemensrestroom.(R.1045).Eventhoughhedidnt h seeagunonthisindividualorseetheindividualhideagun, d (R.1051)Mr.Griswoldtestifiedthathesomehowknewthatthe  individualhadhiddenaguninthemensrestroom.(R.1045). l Aftersubsequentlysearchingthemensrestroom,Mr.Griswold h retrievedagunfromathreefoothightrashcaninthemen's  restroom.Mr.Griswoldgaveittothepoliceafterthe p  suspiciousindividualwastakenintopolicecustodyandnogun !l" wasfoundonthatperson.(R.1059).Mr.Griswoldrelatedthat "$ theindividualinquestion,atthetimeofhisarrest,was t$& wearingonlyjeansandablacktshirt.(R.1052).The  &p!( individualwasnotwearingaleatherjacket,asMr.Harperhad '#* indicatedthatMr.Swaffordwaswearing.(R.825).Theother x)$, Stateswitness,KarenSarniak,specificallyrememberedand $+t&. identifiedMr.Swaffordathistrial.However,shestatedthat  sheactuallyobservedMr.Swaffordputtingaguninawastepaper \ basketintheladiesrestroom(R.10931094).Sheremembered X thisbecauseMr.Swaffordhadaskedherto firstlookintomake   suretherewasntanybodyelseinthere.(R.1096).Shethen `  accompaniedhimintotheladiesrestroomandshewatchedashe  \  took agunonhisperson[and]put[it]inthetrash.(R.   1096).Hehadalsoaskedherto makesurenoonecameinwhile d  hewasintheladiesrestroom.(R.1097).Shealsotestified `  thatsheneversawthepoliceactuallyseizetheweaponfromthe   ladiesrestroom.(R.1094).Apoliceofficertestifiedthatthe h guntakenintocustodywastheoneprovidedbyMr.Griswoldwhich d Mr.Griswoldindicatedcamefromthemensrestroomatthe  ShingleShack.(R.1062). #  13       l   AtMr.Swaffordstrial,theStatereliedheavilyonthegun  whichhadbeenseizedattheShingleShackonFebruary14,1982 \ andwhichtheStatearguedhadbeeninMr.Swaffordspossession. X TheStatesrelianceonthisgunisnotsurprisinggiventhefact   thatnoscientificevidenceinanywaylinkedMr.Swaffordtothe `  victiminthiscase.Therewasnohair,fiber,fingerprints,  \  bloodoranyotherforensicevidencelinkingMr.Swaffordtothe   crime. d  & x @!  STANDARDOFREVIEW epK  `    ThisisanappealfromthecircuitcourtsorderdenyingMr. ( SwaffordsMotionforDNAtesting.Thecircuitcourtsorderis  revieweddenovo. 0 #XXXXj#XjXXX'xL*@   SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT ot  ,  (43   Mr.SwaffordsRule3.853motionforDNAtestingofthe  physicalevidenceinhiscaseshouldhavebeengranted.The P circuitcourtsdecisiondenyinghismotiondeprivedMr.Swafford L ofasubstantiverightinviolationoftheEighthandFourteenth   Amendments.Thecircuitcourterredinholdingthattherewasno T!" reasonableprobabilityofadifferentoutcome.Italsoerredin #P$ failingtoacceptthefactualallegationscontainedintheRule $& 3.853motionandinmakingadversefactualdeterminationswithout X&!( conductinganevidentiaryhearing. (T#* @&  ARGUMENT    MR.SWAFFORDWASERRONEOUSLYDENIEDHISRIGHTUNDER x FLORIDALAWTOOBTAINDNATESTINGOFTHEAVAILABLE \ PHYSICALEVIDENCEINVIOLATIONOFTHEEIGHTHAND @ FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTS. ot   $ t      A.SubstantiveRighttoDNATesting epf .   .   Section925.11,Fla.Stat.,adoptedin2001,extendedto    convictedcriminaldefendantsthesubstantiverighttoobtainDNA R  testinginordertochallengetheirconvictionorsentence.When N  thisCourtissuedFla.R.CrimP.3.853,itestablishedthecourt   proceduretobeemployedwhenexercisingthatsubstantiveright. V AmendmenttoFla.RulesofCriminalProcedureCreatingRule R 3.853,807So.2d633(Fla.2001).Rule3.853setsforththe  pleadingrequirementstobeusedbyaconvicteddefendantto Z obtainDNAtestingofbiologicalevidence. [T]hepurposeof V section925.11andrule3.853istoprovidedefendantswitha  meansbywhichtochallengeconvictionswhenthereisacredible ^ concernthataninjusticemayhaveoccurredandDNAtestingmay  Z resolvetheissue. " Zollmanv.State,820So.2d1059,1062  ! (Fla.2ndDCA2002),quotingInreAmendmenttoFla.Rulesof b"# CriminalProcedureCreatingRule3.853,807So.2dat636 $^% (Anstead,J.,concurring). % !'   WheretheStateofFloridaextendsarightoraliberty f'") interest,therightorlibertyinterestmayonlybeextinguished )b$+ inamannerthatcomportswithdueprocess.Thiswasexplained *&- bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin $ Evittsv.Lucey,469U.S. j,'/ 387(1985).There,theCourtnotedthattheStateswerenot  requiredtoprovidearighttoadirectappealofacriminal \ conviction.However,wheretherightwasnonethelessextended, X dueprocessprotectionattached:   ` Therighttoappealwouldbeuniqueamongstateactions `  ifitcouldbewithdrawnwithoutconsiderationof 6   applicabledueprocessnorms.Forinstance,althougha  \  Statemaychosewhetheritwillinstituteanygiven  2  welfareprogram,itmustoperatewhateverprogramsit   doesestablishsubjecttotheprotectionsoftheDue   ProcessClause. d  ` Evitts,469U.S.at40001.! #  14       `    HavingextendedtoMr.SwaffordarighttoobtainDNA   testingofthephysicalevidenceinhiscase,theStateof h Floridacanonlyextinguishthatrightinamannerthatcomports d withdueprocess.TodenyMr.SwaffordDNAtestingofthe  availablephysicalevidencewhileothersimilarlysituated  capitaldefendantshavereceivedsuchtestingdemonstratesan \ arbitraryprocessthatviolatestheEighthandFourteenth X Amendments.#XXXXj#XjXXXThisCourtsuasponteorderedDNAtestinginthe   caseof  Duckettv.State,CaseNo.SC012149(Orderdated l  3/21/03),andattherequestoftheAppellantrelinquished  h  jurisdictiontopermitDNAtestingin  Riverav.State,CaseNo.   SC012523(Orderdated7/11/02). p    B.The ReasonableProbabilityStandard ep_.  l    Rule3.853providesthatinpassinguponamotionforDNA 4 testing,thecircuitcourtshouldassess [w]hetherthereisa  reasonableprobabilitythatthemovantwouldhavebeenacquitted < orwouldhavereceivedalessersentenceiftheDNAevidencehad 8 beenadmittedattrial.Thus,amotionforDNAtestingshould  begranted iftheallegedfactsdemonstratethatthereisa @ reasonableprobabilitythatthedefendantwouldhavebeen < acquittediftheDNAevidencehadbeenadmittedattrial.    & Knightenv.State,829So.2d249,252(Fla2ndDCA2002).In D!" makingthisdetermination,theallegationscontainedinthe "@$ motionmustbetakenastrue. * Borlandv.State,848So.2d1288, $& 1290(Fla.2003)( If[]theStatesresponsecreatesafactual H&!( dispute,thetrialcourtshouldconductanevidentiaryhearingto 'D#* resolvethedispute.). )$, #XXXXj#XjXXX  The reasonableprobabilitystandardisafamiliarlegal L+&. standardthatwasfirstadoptedandexplainedbytheUnited  StatesSupremeCourtin#XXXXj!# , XjXXXStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668 \ (1984).Thenextyear,theSupremeCourtusedthatstandardfor X determiningwhetherundisclosedexculpatoryevidencewas   material.#XXXXj"# . XjXXXUnitedStatesv.Bagley,473U.S.667(1985).#XXXXj##XjXXXԀAsthis `  Courthasexplained,exculpatoryandmaterialevidenceis  \  evidenceofafavorablecharacterforthedefensewhichcreatesa   reasonableprobabilitythattheoutcomeoftheguiltand/or d  capitalsentencingtrialwouldhavebeendifferent. 2 Garciav. `  State,622So.2d1325,133031(Fla.1993).Thisstandardis   metandreversalisrequiredoncethereviewingcourtconcludes h thatthereexistsa reasonableprobabilitythathadthe d [unpresented]evidencebeendisclosedtothedefense,theresult  oftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Bagley,473U.S.at l 680. Thequestionisnotwhetherthedefendantwouldmore h likelythannothavereceivedadifferentverdictwiththe  evidence,butwhetherinitsabsencehereceivedafairtrial, p  understoodasatrialresultinginaverdictworthyof !l" confidence. 5 Kylesv.Whitley,514U.S.at419,434(1995). "$   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtandthisCourthave t$& explainedthatthe reasonableprobabilitystandardrequiresthe  &p!( courttoanalyzetheevidencethatthejurydidnothear '#*  collectively,notitembyitem. 6 Kylesv.Whitley,514U.S.at x)$, 436(1995); 8 Youngv.State,739So.2d553,559(Fla.1999). $+t&. Thus,theproperstandardiswhether thefavorableevidence  couldreasonablybetakentoputthewholecaseinsucha \ differentlightastoundermineconfidenceintheverdict. X Kyles,514U.S.at435(footnoteomitted).See : Lightbournev.   State,742So.238,24748(Fla.1999).Thus,the reasonable `  probabilitystandardmandatedbyRule3.853requirescumulative  \  considerationofalltheevidencenotheardbythejuryasa   resultofeithertheStatesfailuretodiscloseunderBradyor d  defensecounselfailuretoadequatelyinvestigateunder `  Stricklandwhendeterminingwhetherthereisa reasonable   probabilityofadifferentoutcome. h   Further,itisnotaquestionofwhethertherewas d sufficientevidencetoconvict.InKyles,t#XXXXj]$#XjXXXheSupremeCourt  explained: l [T]hequestionisnotwhethertheStatewouldhavehad h acasetogotothejuryifithaddisclosedthe > favorableevidence,butwhetherwecanbeconfident  thatthejurysverdictwouldhavebeenthesame.  Confidencethatitwouldhavebeencannotsurvivea p  recapofthesuppressedevidenceanditssignificance F ! fortheprosecution. !l" 514U.S.at453.#XXXXja/#XjXXX "$   Thus,thefactthataneyewitnessidentifiedthedefendant t$& attrialisnobartoobtainingDNAtestingunderRule3.853.  &p!(  < Manualv.State,28Fla.L.WeeklyD1399(Fla.2ndDCAJune13, '#* 2003); = Knightenv.State,829So.2d249,251(Fla.2ndDCA2002). x)$, WithfavorableDNAresults,theeyewitness testimonymaynot $+t&. havebeensufficienttoconvict. ? Rileyv.State,28Fla.L.  WeeklyD1790(Fla.2ndDCAJuly30,2003). \   Certainly,favorableDNAresultsestablisha reasonable X probabilityofadifferentoutcomeinacircumstantialevidence   case.In A Huffmanv.State,837So.2d1147,1149(Fla.2ndDCA), `  thedenialofDNAtestingwasreversedwherethetrialcourthad  \  reliedupon significantcircumstantialevidencepresentedat   trialtoconcludethattherewasnoreasonableprobabilitythat d  favorableDNAevidencewouldhaveledtoanacquittal. `    C.TheCircuitCourtsAnalysisWasErroneous Hb7.      IndenyingMr.SwaffordsmotionforDNAtesting,the  circuitcourtrelieduponthecircumstantialevidencepresented 0 attrialtoconcludethatfavorableDNAtestresults wouldnot , renderareasonableprobabilitythatthedefendantwouldhave  beenacquittedorreceivealessersentence.(PCR5.At84). 4 Thiswasclearlyanerroneousapplicationofthe reasonable 0 probabilitystandard.Huffman.     IndenyingMr.SwaffordsmotionforDNAtesting,the 8!" circuitcourtfurtherstated, althoughtheevidencewas "4$ initiallyobtainedbylawenforcementduringitsinvestigation $& andhasbeeninthecustodyofgovernmentagenciessincethat <&!( time,theriskofcontaminationissubstantial.(PCR5.83). '8#* Thecircuitcourtlaterconcluded, thisCourtfindstheproofis )$, unreliabletoestablishthattheevidencecontainingtheDNAis @+&. authenticandwouldbeadmissibleatafuturehearing.(PCR5.  83).Thisfactualdeterminationthat theproofisunreliable \ wasmadewithoutconductinganysortofevidentiaryhearing.It X wasmadeinviolationoftheprinciplethat, [i[nmakingfactual   determinations,atrialcourtcanconsideronlyswornevidence. `  Borland.4 #  15      ׀Noswornevidencesubjecttoconfrontationwas  \  presentedbytheStateregardingthematter.TheStatedid   allegeinitsResponsethattheknownbloodfromMs.Rucker was d  destroyedin1986,"butnoproofwaspresented,letalone `  submittedtothecrucibleofadversarialtesting.Thecircuit   courterredindenyingMr.Swaffordsmotionbymakingadverse h factualdeterminationswithoutconductinganevidentiaryhearing. d   Further,thecircuitcourtcompletelyoverlookedthewealth  ofexculpatoryevidencethatwasnotpresentedattrial,buthas  beendiscoveredduringpostconvictionproceedings.This \ exculpatoryevidencemustbeconsideredwhenconsideringwhether X theallegedDNAresultscouldcreatea reasonableprobability   ofadifferentoutcome.#XXXXj22#XjXXXԀ Q Lightbournev.State,742So.238(Fla. `  1999); S Statev.Gunsby,670#XXXXjB#XjXXXԀSo.2d920(Fla.1996).Here,three  \  justicesofthisCourthavealreadyconcluded,baseduponthe   exculpatoryevidencedevelopedduringthepostconvictionprocess, d  thatMr.Swaffordsjuryprobablywouldhaveacquittedhimhadit `  beeninformedofthisevidence.#XXXXj^C# ] XjXXXSwaffordv.State,828So.2dat   985(Quince,J.,dissenting)#XXXXj E#XjXXX. h &   D.Conclusion HE. #XXXXjE#XjXXX d   NoDNAtestingwaseverconductedofthebiologicalevidence , collectedintheRuckerhomicide.Suchtestingwasnotavailable  'EpriortoMr.Swaffordstrial.Certainly,thesophisticated 4 testingnecessarytotestseminalfluidwherenospermatozoawas 0 observedwasnotpreviouslyavailable.Further,noDNAtesting   ofthefingernailscrapingscollectedfromMs.Ruckersbodywas 8!" everconducted.MitochondrialDNAtestingofhairhasonly "4$ recentlybeenfoundtobeadmissibleinjudicialproceedings. $&  U Statev.Smith,100Wash.App.1064(Ct.App.Wash.2000), W State <&!( v.Underwood,518S.E.2d231(Ct.App.S.C.1999).Thetesting '8#* ofthehairevidenceusingmitochondrialDNAtestingcertainly )$, couldnothavebeenconductedpriortotheperfectionofsuch @+&. testingtechniques.Suchtestingcannowanalyzethe  mitochondrialDNApresentinhairandmatchittothe \ mitochondrialDNAcontainedintheknownhair.Itcannowbe X definitivelydeterminedwhichoftheunknownpubicandheadhairs   actuallyoriginatedwithMs.Rucker.Itcanalsobedefinitively `  determinedwhetheranyofthosehairsoriginatedwithMr.  \  Swafford.Similarly,thevaginalandanalswabscanbeanalyzed   todetermineifDNAfromsomeoneotherthanMs.Ruckeris d  present. `    ThedefinitiveanswersthatcouldbeprovidedthroughDNA   analysisofthebiologicalevidencewouldfinallyprovidethe h answersthatlawenforcementsoughtwhentheevidencewasfirst d submittedin1982forforensicanalysis.Obviously,theState  believedatthetimeofthosesubmissionsthatthebiological l evidencecouldidentifytheperpetratoroftheRuckerhomicide. h DNAtestingcoulddefinitivelyidentifytheperpetratornow.  @%  CONCLUSION  O  p    p    Foralloftheforegoingreasons,thisCourtshouldvacate 8!" thecircuitcourtsorderdenyingMr.SwaffordsMotionforDNA "4$ Testing. $& _ <&!(     @  CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE  )Q #XXXXj