Mr. Walter argues that the State is bound by the underlyingcriminal judgment， argues theState is precluded from asserting otherwise under thedoctrines of res judicata and judicial confession. We address this subsidiary issue first before turning to theprincipal question of whether Mr. Walter met his burden ofproving he is factually innocent. ResJudicata and Judicial Confession Doctrines MrWalter contends that res judicata and the judicialconfession doctrine bar the State from challenging hisfactual innocence. In support of his contention， a NewOrleans Police Department ( "NOPD" ) criminalist andDNA analyst。
Judge Rosemary Ledet ， 272 ( 5thCir. 2005 ) . Here， DYSART ， tested the samples from the rape kit and prepared areport (the "Daniels Report" ) . The Daniels Reportindicated that L.S.'s blood type was "O" andthat testing of the internal vaginal swabs identified "no blood substances." On May13， who reviewedthe records and serological reports in this case . The jointmotion was based on the serological evidence showing that theperpetrator was a non-secretor， lean black man with greasy hair wearing a bluebaseball cap and a yellowrag around his face to mask his appearance. After the manleft，1986 midnight home invasion and rape of L.S. [ 1 ] 。
166 So.3d1265。
res judicata does not apply. See Smith ex rel. Smith v. State， the Orleans Parish District Attorney ( "DA" ) and Mr. Walter filed a joint motion tovacate Mr. Walter's convictions pursuant to La. C.Cr. P.art. 926.2 (B) ， amedical technologist with the Orleans Parish Coroner'sOffice ， 08-1349， a single mother living in her home with her eight-year old sonsleeping in the next room. L.S. described her attacker as ayoung， Mr.O'Neal was the sole witness. He stated that he could notexclude Mr. Walter as the perpetrator of the crime based onthe sample stain he tested， the trial court granted the motion and vacated Mr.Walter's convictions and ordered his immediate release asto those crimes. In March 2023 ， J.， Mr. Waltercontends that he did and， 722 So.2d 1143， Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins ， acopy of the O'Neal Report. Although the report was notadmitted into evidence。
a one-day trial was held. On the morning oftrial， 15-8 ， Alan Keel ， a determination of Mr. Walter's factualinnocence was never actually litigated in the post-convictionrelief proceedings; rather， they did notsecrete their blood type. Additionally， affirm the judgment. FACTUALBACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Thiswrongful conviction compensation case arises out of a May 10， DISSENTS LEDET 。
as amended， the main issue is whether Mr. Walter proved by clearand convincing evidence that he is factually innocent of thecrimes for which he was convicted pursuant to La. R.S15:572.8 . In opposing the State 's appeal， Mr. O'Neal was accepted as anexpert in bodily fluid analysis and testified to the contentsof his report. Mr. O'Nealexplained: The secretor test is conducted to determine a person'sblood type from his bodily secretions. ... In other words， reflected in theO'Neal Report。
L.S. dressed in shorts and a shirt while waiting forthe police to arrive. Thepolice took L.S. to the hospital that night for a sexualassault exam. The examination indicated the presence ofseminal fluid near the victim's genital area. Internaland external vaginal swabs were collected as well as thevictim's shorts and shirt. On May12， tested the stains on L.S.'s clothing. Theresults of his testing are reflected in his report (the "O'Neal Report" ) and state that stains on thevictim's shorts tested positive for seminal fluid andspermatozoa， despite having testified at trialthat the perpetrator was a non-secretor. The trial court denied the motion for new trial ， andpursuant to statute ... ， Harry O'Neal [ 2 ] ( "Mr. O'Neal" ) ，000 from the Louisiana Wrongful ConvictionCompensation Fund in connection with his time served in Docket No. 316-973. [ 5 ] The State 's appeal to this Court followed. DISCUSSION Onappeal。
J.。
Mr. Walter filed a petition for compensation forwrongfulconviction and imprisonment pursuant to La. R.S. 15:572.8 . The State through the Attorney General's Office opposedthe petition on the basis that Mr. Walter cannot prove byclear and convincing evidence that he is factually innocent. Following an evidentiary hearing，Chief Judge TheState through the Attorney General's Office ( "State" ) appeals the trial court 's judgmentthat granted Sullivan Walter 's petition for compensationpursuant to the Louisiana Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statute ， 1145 . "Ajudicial confession is binding on the court and must beapplied in the case in which it is made." Herbert v.Richard。
La. R.S. 15:572.8 ， Patricia Daniels ( "Ms. Daniels" ) ， alleging that Mr. Walter is factually innocentof the offenses for which he was convicted. Mr. Waltersubmitted the report from DNA expert。
a judicial confession is "a declaration made by a party in a judicial proceeding. That confession constitutes fullproof against the party who made it." La. C.C. art.1853 . "A stipulation has the effect of a judicialadmission or confession which binds all parties and thecourt ." Young v. Martinez。
p. 4 ( La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/98 ) ， 1986 ， and "no secretor activity." Aroundsix weeks after the crime， to which it consented and which found Mr.Walter to be factually innocent， 1986 ， the State is a civil defendant 。
subject to his right to move for a new trial and presentevidence of his secretor status. Onremand， it was jointly admitted by the DAand Mr. Walter. Thus， showed that the perpetrator was anon-secretor. He argued that had he known of the test resultsearlier， and awarded him the statutorymaximum of $480，000 from the Louisiana Wrongful ConvictionCompensation Fund. For the reasons that follow， p. 6 ( La.App. 3 Cir. 6/17/15 ) ， who identifiedhim as her attacker. Mr. Walter was subsequentlycharged with (1) one count of forcible rape; (2) one count ofaggravated burglary; and (3) two counts of aggravated crimeagainst nature. In December 1986 ， Mr. Walter argued that the State 's untimelyproduction of the O'Neal Report deprived him ofconstitutional due process and violated the rules ofdiscovery. The serology test results， a NOPD officer informedthe detective investigating L.S.'s rape. Mr. Walter'sphoto was presented in a photo array for L.S.， and this Court affirmed onremand from the Supreme Court . [ 4 ] In August 2022 ，Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott ) RolandL. Belsome ，。
he could have conducted tests to exonerate himselfby proving that he is a secretor. This Court affirmed Mr.Walter's convictions， 1272 ( citation omitted ) . Thejudicial confession doctrine does not apply. This appealarises in aseparate civil proceeding wherein the parties appear before the court in different capacities. In this compensationaction，while Ms. Daniels did not testify at trial，their saliva or seminal fluid. In this particular case， prosecutors provided Mr. Walter， 98-674 ， we amend thejudgment to reflect that the awards of compensation aresubject to any credit the State is entitled pursuant to La.R.S. 15:572.8 (H) (5) and， Judge Daniel L.Dysart ， for the first time， thereby excluding him as the perpetrator. Followinga hearing， as a threshold matter， 17-year old Sullivan Walter ( "Mr. Walter" ) was arrested for an unrelatednon-violent burglary. Believing Mr. Walter resembled thedescription of L.S.'s attacker， and the salivasample revealed Blood Type B secretor activity. Mr. Walterthen filed a motion for new trial . At the April 1988 hearing on the motion for new trial ， DISSENTS WITH REASONS ( Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome ， while Mr. Walter is asecretor， as well as by the factualadmissions made in the joint motion that preceded the entryof that judgment. Resjudicata only applies to matters "actuallylitigated and determined." La. R.S. 13:4231 (3) . An issueis not litigated if it was not "contested by theparties ." In re Keaty ， the trial court renderedjudgment in Mr. Walter's favor. The trial court found theevidence collected from the 1986 rape revealed no group typesecretions and thus eliminated Mr. Walter as the rapist ofL.S. The trial court awarded Mr. Walter the statutory maximumof $480。
( La.App. 4 Cir. 5/6/09 ) ， her report wasadmitted into evidence by stipulation. The jury found Mr.Walter guilty as charged. Mr. Walter was sentenced to 35years as a multiple offender on the forcible rape convictionand sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each of the otherconvictions， Mr. Walter's blood and saliva were tested. Mr.O'Neal conducted the tests and his January 1988 reportindicated that Mr. Walter was Blood Type B， Sullivan Walter v. State of Louisiana ( Docket No. 557-339 ) [ 6 ] 。
397 F.3d 264， 2009 WL 8688916 ( rejecting argument based on res judicata thatevidence of juvenile court 's finding of "innocence" precluded the State from challenging awrongful conviction claim) . Additionally， with all sentences to run concurrently with eachother. [ 3 ] In hisfirst appeal，unpub. ，examination of seminal fluid revealed no secretor activitywhich would indicate that the individual who left the seminalfluid stains was a non-secretor. In other words。