The Innocence Project, Inc. v. National Museum of Health and Medicine

Background

The Innocence Project, Inc. filed this action to inspect archives of the American Board of Forensic Odontology held by the federal government’s National Museum of Health and Medicine. The inspection proceeded under a Privacy Act Order and Protective Order entered by the court.

The dispute concerned a report dated April 3, 2006. The report was written by a forensic odontologist for the American Board of Forensic Odontology during an ethics investigation of another forensic odontologist. The Innocence Project sought to remove the report from the protective order and disclose it publicly. It said the report could be used in a client’s state post-conviction proceedings and could show that an important expert witness committed perjury.

The government did not oppose the request. The report’s author, who acted without a lawyer in submitting several letters, opposed disclosure. The author argued that the report was not evidence of perjury, that disclosure would unfairly harm the author’s professional reputation, and that disclosure would violate a confidentiality agreement involving the American Board of Forensic Odontology and the Museum. The subject of the report supported disclosure.

Legal standard

The Privacy Act generally restricts disclosure of covered records. One exception permits disclosure when ordered by a court with authority over the matter. The court followed decisions holding that disclosure under this exception requires consideration of whether there is “good cause,” meaning sufficient justification after balancing the relevant competing interests, including privacy interests.

The court assumed without deciding that the report was covered by the Privacy Act. It therefore addressed whether good cause supported disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11).

Court’s analysis

The court found that the report could be relevant to one or more ongoing state-court proceedings because it allegedly could show that an important expert witness committed perjury. The court said the possible effect on criminal defendants’ liberty interests supported broad disclosure for use in the proceedings identified by The Innocence Project.

The court also found an important public and professional interest in scrutiny of forensic experts and improvement of forensic science used in criminal cases. It emphasized that it was not deciding whether the author had committed perjury; the author had credibly denied that allegation in letters to the court.

The court considered the author’s privacy and reputation concerns but found them minimal. It reasoned that the report contained little, if any, private information about the author, and that the alleged perjury involved testimony in a public criminal proceeding. The author also remained able to publicly deny the allegation, as the author had already done.

The court further relied on the fact that no signatory to the protective order, including any defendant, opposed disclosure. It rejected the argument that a confidentiality promise involving the Museum could prevent the court from ordering disclosure. Even if such a promise existed, the court held, it did not eliminate the court’s authority to order disclosure under the Privacy Act’s court-order exception. The court also noted that the report did not contain personally identifying information such as Social Security numbers, medical records, or personal contact information.

Ruling

The court found good cause for disclosure and granted The Innocence Project’s request. To the extent the April 3, 2006 document was subject to the Privacy Act, the defendants were ordered to produce it to The Innocence Project under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). The produced copy was not to remain subject to the Privacy Act Order or Protective Order in the case.

The opinion did not decide whether the report proved perjury or resolve the underlying criminal or post-conviction proceedings.