Daniel O. Conahan, Jr. v. Florida

Mr. Conahan has maintained his innocence; the case against him rests on circumstantial evidence. For more than a year and a half, Mr. Conahan has sought DNA testing of evidence collected at the scene and from the victim’s body to conclusively establish that he is not responsible for the death or Mr. Montgomery. While the State continues to actively test evidence in this case including hair and a cigarette butt, the Florida courts have precluded Mr. Conahan from testing similar items claiming that the nature of the items would not be probative of identity here. Florida state courts imposed an impossible, heightened burden concerning the materiality of the evidence to deny his access to DNA testing. Florida statutory procedures for obtaining DNA testing run afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as set forth in this Court’s precedents. This Court has explicitly recognized that capital prisoners have a liberty interest in obtaining DNA testing (see Gutierrez v. Saenz, 606 U.S. 305 (2025); Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011); Dist. Atty’s Office for 3rd Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69 (2009)) and a property interest in not being arbitrarily denied access to state-created investigatory procedures. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush, 455 U.S. 422 (1982). The question presented is: Whether Florida’s imposition of a heightened burden of proof at the pleading stage violated Petitioner’s right under Florida law to DNA testing that would demonstrate his innocence thereby depriving Petitioner of due process and rendering illusory his state-created right to prove his innocence through newly discovered evidence.