Background
Daniel Conahan was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Richard Montgomery, who was found nude and strangled in a wooded area. At Conahan’s bench trial, the State presented evidence including testimony about Conahan’s similar prior assault on Stanley Burden, evidence of purchases of clothesline and Polaroid film shortly before Montgomery’s murder, and paint evidence linked to a car Conahan used. The jury unanimously recommended death, and the trial court imposed that sentence.
After Governor DeSantis signed a death warrant in August 2026, Conahan pursued appeals from the summary denial of his third and fourth successive postconviction motions and his request for DNA testing. He also sought a stay of execution and filed an original habeas petition. His successive motions challenged forensic evidence and expert testimony as newly discovered evidence and asserted that the post-warrant timetable denied him due process.
The Court’s Holding
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the summary denials of both successive postconviction motions. The reports Conahan relied on were new, the court held, but the underlying evidence and potential challenges to it were long available through due diligence. The court also rejected his requested amendment as procedurally barred and concluded that the expedited warrant schedule did not violate due process because Conahan received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court also affirmed the denial of DNA testing. Although some tested items contained DNA from an unidentified third party, the court found no reasonable probability that identifying that contributor would have led to an acquittal or a lesser sentence. Conahan’s theory that further testing of Montgomery’s fingernail clippings might reveal another person’s DNA was speculative. The court denied the habeas petition as an improper effort to relitigate claims already raised or available in prior proceedings, denied a stay of execution, and ordered the mandate to issue immediately.
Key Takeaways
- New expert reports do not establish newly discovered evidence when the underlying trial evidence could have been challenged earlier with due diligence.
- Post-warrant proceedings do not violate due process absent a denial of notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- DNA testing requires a reasonable probability of a different verdict or sentence, not speculation that additional testing may identify another contributor.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Florida’s procedural limits on successive capital postconviction litigation. Defendants cannot use later-developed critiques of evidence or general scientific concerns to reopen claims when the operative facts were available years earlier.
It also illustrates the demanding materiality standard for postconviction DNA testing, particularly where third-party DNA evidence was already known at trial and does not meaningfully undermine the proof of guilt.