ALLEY v. STATE (Tenn. 6-23-2006)


SEDLEY ALLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.
June 23, 2006.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals at Jackson, No. W2006-001179-CCA-R3-PD

CAPITAL CASE

Bradley A. MacLean, STITES HARBISON, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee. Counsel for Amici Curiae

Of Counsel: Alison Flaum, Esq., Steven Drizin, Esq., Center on Wrongful Convictions, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL.

MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE, DOUGLAS WARNEY, CLARENCE ELKINS, CHRISTOPHER OCHOA, DENNIS FRITZ AND KEVIN GREEN, FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI BRIEF
Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 31, propose amici curiae, Douglas Warney, Clarence Elkins, Christopher Ochoa, Dennis Fritz and Kevin Green, hereby move this Honorable Court for leave to file an amici curiae brief in support of Petitioner’s Application for Permission to Appeal urging reversal of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Contemporaneously herewith, these proposed amici curiae are conditionally filing their brief pursuant to Tenn.R.App.P. 31(a).

In support of this Motion, these proposed amici curiae state the following:

1. Proposed amici curiae are persons once wrongfully convicted and now completely exonerated by precisely the kind of post-conviction DNA testing that is at issue in this case. Specifically, proposed amici were all proven innocent only upon post-conviction DNA analysis that included comparison of the crime scene DNA with the DNA of other known suspects or with DNA profiles stored in a known offender database.

2. Proposed amici’s interest in this case stems from their concern that the Tennessee Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act is being construed in a manner that will curtail to a great extent the ability of innocent persons to pursue their own vindication and the ability of the criminal justice system to ensure that true perpetrators are brought to account. Indeed, had amici’s
cases been reviewed under a standard applied by the courts below in this case — limiting post-conviction DNA analysis to a comparison of a defendant’s DNA to DNA recovered from a crime scene — every single one would still be incarcerated, if not executed, and the true perpetrator of the crimes of which they were convicted would likely still be at large.

3. Moreover, like the petitioner in this case, each of th amici were convicted of — or pleaded guilty to — a heinous crime based on seemingly overwhelming evidence of guilt, including confessions and eyewitness identifications. Also, as has happened here, in many of amici’s cases, protestations of innocence and requests for DNA testing did not occur until years after the conviction.

4. Proposed amici accordingly and respectfully submit that their real world experiences in endeavoring to prove their innocence via post-conviction DNA testing will assist the court in evaluating Mr. Alley’s virtually identical request.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and for such other reasons as the Court may deem just and proper, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant this motion and allow propose amici to file their brief which is being conditionally filed herewith.