Amicus Brief: Cody Kloepper
STate of Washington v. Cody Kloepper
Filing Date
August 16, 2024
Charge
Rape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, and assault in the first degree
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Partners
Innocence Network
Summary
CIFS and the Innocence Network filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Cody Kloepper’s case to argue that post-conviction DNA testing requires relief for Kloepper. Other jurisdictions have recognized that even “overwhelming” evidence of guilt does not inherently diminish exculpatory DNA results.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The post-conviction DNA results in Cody Kloepper’s case are powerful and compelling evidence of his innocence. Semen and sperm cells were in multiple spots on the victim’s clothing that she wore during the rape and interactions with her assailant. In all those locations deemed suitable for testing, Cody Kloepper was excluded as a possible source of the biological material. Male DNA from the semen and sperm cells ran through CODIS hit to the DNA profile of Sal Contreras. Sal Contreras was a key State’s witness at Mr. Kloepper’s trial and testified that he had no sexual contact with Mr. Kloepper during their time together prior to the time the rape occurred. Yet at Mr. Kloepper’s motion for a new trial after he received the DNA results and CODIS information, Mr. Contreras contradicted his trial testimony by now claiming that he did have a sexual encounter with Mr. Kloepper and that Mr. Contreras ejaculated. For the very first time at the motion hearing, the State presented a theory that Mr. Contreras’s DNA was on Mr. Kloepper after intimate encounter, and that Mr. Kloepper transferred Mr. Contreras’s DNA onto the victim’s clothing when Mr. Kloepper later committed the rape.
A jury must be allowed to determine Mr. Kloepper’s guilt or innocence while considering the startling new DNA results. Amici has provided examples of exonerations in this briefing that were confirmed despite some involving more evidence against the claimant than in this case. Notably, these occurred in states with similar or more onerous standards to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered DNA evidence than under Washington State law. These are just a handful of examples of exonerations based on DNA evidence in the United States with similar exculpatory DNA results. If the same reasoning used to deny Mr. Kloepper’s motion had been applied to their cases, these innocent people would still be incarcerated.