Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31067/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31067-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31067

Summary Calendar

EDDIE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:12-CV-1112

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 303316, was convicted of the 

aggravated rape of a juvenile, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The 

district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition but granted a certificate of 

appealability on one issue: whether Williams was denied his right to confront 

his accuser when the trial court admitted DNA evidence based on the 

testimony of a supervisor at the laboratory that performed the DNA testing. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 26, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31067 Document: 00513691908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2016
No. 14-31067

2

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal 

conclusions de novo. Hatten v. Quarterman, 570 F.3d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir. 

2009).

We agree with the Respondent that Williams has not exhausted his state 

remedies as required by § 2254(b) and (c) as to the stand-alone Confrontation 

Clause claim recognized by the district court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 

27, 29 (2004); Smith v. Quarterman, 515 F.3d 392, 402 (5th Cir. 2008). 

However, even if Williams had exhausted his state remedies for this claim, his 

claim fails on the merits. See § 2254(b)(2). Here, the supervisor of the DNA 

laboratory testified as an expert who had a personal connection to the scientific 

testing and actively reviewed the results of the forensic analyst’s testing and 

signed off on the report. The supervisor thus was able to testify to the results 

without violating the confrontation rights of Williams. Cf. Bullcoming v. New 

Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 652, 655 (2011). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Respondent’s motion for leave to file a surreply brief is GRANTED.

 Case: 14-31067 Document: 00513691908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2016