The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Miller (D) was on trial for the sexual murder of a minor. There were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. An important part of the prosecution's (P) circumstantial case was a pair of shorts that were found near the scene of the crime. These shorts were covered with a dark substance, not easily identifiable. Throughout the trial, P continually referred to the shorts as bloodstained. P also introduced evidence showing that the blood type found on the shorts was the same as the victims. An expert witness for the prosecution identified the material as blood. D was convicted and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. During these proceedings, a chemical microanalyst examined the shorts and identified the stain on the shorts. He claimed that it was paint, not blood. The analyst could not positively swear that the shorts had never been bloodstained. However, it was established that P knew, during the trial, what the stain really was. P responded by claiming that 'everybody' at the trial knew that the shorts were covered with paint.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.