The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Harrison County prosecutors improperly withheld a DNA test in a 14-year-old sexual-assault case, setting the stage for a Clarksburg man to possibly be freed from state prison and cementing a new precedent in West Virginia criminal law.
The court ruled, for the first time, that West Virginia prosecutors must hand over evidence to defendants, not just before a trial, but during the plea-bargain process, as well.
In a unanimous opinion, the court found that Harrison County prosecutors violated Joseph Buffey's due-process rights by not disclosing the DNA results before Buffey pleaded guilty. The court ordered Buffey's case sent back to Harrison County, where he will withdraw his guilty plea and prosecutors will have to decide whether to take the case to trial or to drop the charges.
"Defendant repeatedly requested the results of DNA testing, was incorrectly informed that such testing was not complete and was presented with a time-limited plea offer that he accepted upon advice of counsel," Chief Justice Margaret Workman wrote for the court. "The suppressed evidence was material and the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of its concealment."
The case had drawn national attention, as it presented a question never previously resolved by either the West Virginia Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court: At what point in the criminal process does a prosecutor have to hand over favorable evidence to the defense?
"That legal issue is as important an unanswered question as there is in criminal procedure," said Paul Shechtman, a professor at Columbia Law School, who filed an amicus brief in the case.
Since 1963 and a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, prosecutors have had to hand over exculpatory evidence prior to a trial, but it had been unclear if that requirement applied to the plea-bargain process, where more than 90 percent of criminal cases are settled.
Workman noted that various state and federal courts have been "widely inconsistent" in deciding if a defendant's right to evidence applies to the plea bargain process.
Citing the desire to "promote justice for this state's citizens" the court ruled that "a defendant is constitutionally entitled to exculpatory evidence during the plea negotiation stage."
This duty to disclose evidence applies to the entire prosecution team - police and forensic scientists included - even if the prosecutor isn't personally aware of the evidence, Workman wrote.
In 2002, Buffey, then 19, pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of an 83-year-old woman. His admission came after a nine-hour interrogation and after his court-appointed lawyer advised him that his sentence would not be any greater than the sentence he would receive for separate nonviolent robbery charges.
Buffey soon asked to recant his plea and requested the results of the DNA test. The test had been completed prior to his plea being finalized, but neither he nor his lawyers had ever seen the results, despite asking for them.
Assuming there was only one assailant, as prosecutors had argued, the results excluded Buffey as the assailant. In 2010, the results of a more sophisticated DNA test specifically pointed to another man as the perpetrator of the sexual assault. That man was convicted earlier this year.
Buffey has been represented by lawyers from the Innocence Project, a national legal clinic dedicated to using DNA evidence to free wrongly convicted people.
Assistant Prosecutor David Romano, who was not on the case when it first came up in 2002 but argued it for Harrison County last month, did not return requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Allen Loughry wrote that he made no claim to Buffey's guilt or innocence, but prosecutors had acted inappropriately in seeking a conviction at the expense of their obligation to seek justice.
"The state's overwhelming desire to obtain a conviction for this unspeakable crime of violence fueled a legally untenable series of events," Loughry wrote. "When the state fails in this obligation, it is not only the rights of the individual defendant that are compromised, but the public's confidence in our system of justice, as well."
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5119 or follow @davidlgutman on Twitter.