F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 24 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1496 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 0- 14 01 5- CV-DLG RICH ARD MAR IO N B ROW ER , Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT O F CO RRE CT IO N S, S ec re tary of F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 24, 200 5)

Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ri ch ar d B ro w er

appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tit ionf

or w ri t of habe as c or

pus, br ough t purs uant t o 28 U . S. C. § 22 54. B ro w er w as c onvi ct ed

of m urder by a j ury in a Florida state court. H is convictio n was a ffirm ed on direct re vie wand h is p et iti on r ej ec te d by state c oll at er al pr oc ee din gs. O n a ppe al , Br ow er r ai se s si x arg um en ts, w hic h w e w ill a ddr es s intur n. I. S tandard of R eview A s am en de d by

A E D PA , 28 U . S. C. § 22 54 s ta te s: (d ) A n a ppl ic at ionf

or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus on b eh al f of

ape rs on i n custodypursuant to the j udgm ent of a State court shall not be granted w ithr es pe ct

to any c la im that w as a dj udi cate d onthe m er its in St at e court proceedings un less the adjudication of the claim -- (1) re sulted in a decision that was contrar y to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clear ly established Federal law , a s determ ined by

the Suprem e Court of the U nited States; or (2 ) re sul te d inade ci sio n th at w as ba se d onan unre as ona ble de te rm inatio n of

the f ac ts i n li ght

of the e vid en ce pr es en te d in the S ta te c ourt pr oc ee din g. Acco rd in g t o Wil li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 12 0 S .Ct. 1 49 5 (2 00 0) , U nde r the “ co ntr ar

y to” c lause , af

ed er al ha be as c ourt m ay

gr an t the wr it if the state court ar

rives at a c onclusi on op posit e to that reac hed by thi s C ourt onaque sti on o f lawor if the state c ourt de ci de s ac as e dif fe re ntl y than th is C ourt ha s onase t of m at er ia lly

ind ist ing uis hable facts. Under the “ unreasonable application ” clause, a fe deral habeas court m ay grant the wr it if the state court identifies the corre ct governing legal pr inc ipl e fr om

thi s C ourt' s de ci sio ns b ut unr ea sona bly appl ie s th at

pr inc ipl e to the fact s o f th e p ris on er's cas e. Id. at 412-13 , 120 S. Ct. at 1523. T he phrase “ clear ly established Federal law ,” as3

that t er m appe ar s inse ct ion225 4( d) (1 ), “ re fe rs to the hol din gs, a s op pose d to the dicta, of [the Suprem e Court's] decisions as of the tim e of the re levant state-court decision.” Id. at 412, 120 S.C t. at 1523 . F urtherm ore, a habeas petitioner can ove rc om e a state c ourt' s “pr es um pti on o f co rr ec tne ss” on f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns on ly by co m in g fo rth wit h “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)( 1). As a general rule, in review ing a district court's grant or denial of a habeas petition , w e re view the district court's f indin gs of fact f

or clear err or, and review de nov o bo th que sti ons of lawand m ixe d qu es tio ns o f lawand f ac t. N y land v . Moore, 216 F.3d 126 4, 1266 (11th Cir. 2000 ). In this case, because the district co urt “ ne ith er

he ld an e vid en tiary

he ar ing nor

m ad e any

ind ep en de nt f

ind ing s of fa ct [, ] ” w e re vie wit s ho ldi ngs de nov o, m ind fu l tha t “ w e (l ike the dis tr ic t c ourt) ar e re vie w ing , in es se nc e, [ the ] de ci sio n[ s] of the c ourts o f [F lor ida ] . ” Pu tm anv. He ad, 268 F. 3d 12 23, 1240 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). II. D isc us sio n A. D eprivation of a Fair Tr ial Beca use of Jury

Miscondu ct Brow er argues that he was deprived of a fair trial because of j ury m isc ondu ct

w he n th ey

w er e be ing im

pane le d and whe n th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d hi s m otion to dism iss the entire j ury pool b ased on the com

m ents m ade by

m em bers4

of the pane l. S pe ci fi ca lly , af ri en d of Br ow er ’ s ov er

he ar d po te nti al j ur or s’ co m m en ts tha t su gge ste d th ey a lr ea dy ha d de ci de d he w as gui lty . H e al so p oin ts to incident s of j uror m iscondu ct that took p lace during the trial: two j urors had co nve rs at ion s w ithS ta te w itn es se s, one j ur or w as se enr ea din g ane w spa pe r w ith co ve ra ge of

the tr ia l onthe f

ro nt p ag e, and the hus band o f one j ur or w as pr es en t dur ing a ll of

the pr oc ee din gs, e ve n duri ng t im es w he n th e j ur y w as not pr es en t. Br ow er arg ue s th at

his c as e is s im ilar to Unit ed S ta te s v. H el le r, 785 F . 2d 1524 ( 11 Ci r. 198 6) , w he re thi s C ourt gr an te d ane wtr ia l be ca use m em be rs of the th j ury had m ade anti-Se m itic rem arks during th e trial that suggested they we re im partial. The trial j udge learned of the rem arks afte r the j ury had been deliberating for one day . In response, the j udge qu estioned each of the j urors indiv iduallyabout what occurre d and asked each indivi dually if, in ligh t of what had occurred in the j ury

room , he or she would be able to reac h a decision based on the e vid en ce and the law . A ft er a ll ha d sa id tha t the y

c oul d, he r ec onve ne d th e j ur y and a ske d th em

to co nf irm the ir e ar lie r pr om ise s. T his Co urt r ej ec te d th e trial j udge’s handling of the m atter, determ ining that m erely asking th e j urors what the r em ar ks w er e an d if

the y w er e af fe ct ed by pr ej udi ce , w ith out

pr obi ng i nto the na tur e of the r em ar

ks, m eant tha t i t w as not

pos sib le to knowthe e xte nt o f prej udice displ ay ed. 785 F.2d at 1527 . Even though th e re m arks m ay have been5

intended as hu m or, the individuals m aking th em and those laug hing at them

“ dis play ed

the sor t of big otr y that c le ar ly

de nie d th e de fe ndant H el le r the f ai r an d im partial j ury

that the Constitu tion m andates.” Id. The Court also held that re ve rs al c oul d be gr an te d inthe a lte rn at ive on the ba sis of one j ur or ’ s r em ar

k to an oth er that the de fe ndant w as gui lty , be fo re the de fe nse ha d e ve n pr es en te d it s cas e, an d o n age ne ral pre su m pt io n o f gu il t am on g m an y of t he juro rs . Id. at15 28 . A ga in, the Co urt e m

pha siz ed the tr ia l c ourt’ s la ck

of pr obi ng i nve sti ga tio n duri ng the voi r dir e. I d. This Court has described the am ount of discretion available to the trial jud ge reg ard in g ju ry

im pr op rie ty as be in g v ery br oa d. T he m ost sa lie nt a spe ct

of the lawin thi s are a is the br ea dthof dis cr et iongiv ento j udge s who are c al le d up on t o de al w iththe poss ibilityof j uror m iscondu ct. District c ourt judges deal w ith jurors on a regular basis, and tho se j udges are in the trenches w hen pr obl em s ari se . T he pr obl em s th at pr es en t the m se lve s are se ldo m cl earl y de fi ne d and a

num be r of vari ab le s have to be c onsi de re d. T he re are of

te n no obv iou sly

r igh t or w ro ng answ er s to the que sti ons that arise. For all of these reasons, a trial j udge is vest ed with broad discretion in respon ding to an allegation of jury m iscondu ct, and that discretion is at its b roadest when the allegation invol ves internal m isc ondu ct . Uni te d S ta te s v . Dom in gu ez, 2 26 F.3d12 35 , 12 46 (11 Cir . 20 00 ). th W e cannot conclude that the trial court abused its d iscretion in the m anner in whic h it

de al t w iththe pot en tia l j ur or s. F ir st o f al l, the sit ua tio n is dif

fe re nt6

here than it w as in Heller . When the issu e of the inappropriate com m ents was ra ise d to the tr ia l c ourt by Br ow er ’ s f

ri en d, the c ourt be gan qu es tio nin g indiv iduallythe potential jurors identified. N ot onl y we re they

asked about what the y sa id b ut wha t w as sa id b y oth er s. T he c ourt he ar d te sti m ony f ro m the de puty cl er k, w ho r ep orte d th at

she ha d no t he ar d any

r em ar ks s ugge sti ng tha t the potenti al j urors had already m ade up their m inds abo ut Browe r’ s guilt but had not ic ed that the gr oup did

not se em to be takin g th e m atte r se ri ousl y . T his co nf orm ed w iththe te sti m ony

of the one pot en tia l j ur or

w hom Br ow er ’ s f

ri en d ide nti fi ed a s m ak ing ina

ppr opr at e re m ar

ks and who r em ai ne d inthe j ur y poo l; the j uror testified that the group was tired and m aking rem arks in j est about the pr oc ee din gs. T hus, unl ike the j udge in H el le r, the j udge he re a sc er ta ine d th e nature of the com

m ents m ade and did not j ust m ake the bald inqui ry about whether the pot en tia l j ur or s w er e pr ej udi ce d. I nst ea d, the j udge pe rm itt ed e xte nsi ve in qu iry int o t he na tu re o f th e rem ark s t o d et erm in e th ei r effe ct . There fo re, we agree with the district court that this si tuation is not lik e the one in Heller , and that the tr ia l c ourt di d no t pe rm it a bia se d j ur y to pr oc ee d. Moreover, the inappropriate rem arks in this case occurre d during voir dire, not du ring deliberations , a s in Heller . Beca use of that tim ing, Brow er’ s counsel wa s able to have som e of the potential juror s dism issed. Indeed, the state courtRabbit was the only juror who a ctually

serve d who was e ver a lleg ed to have made a n 1 offe nding r emar

k. And the state c ourt found that he did not do so, and more over, that neither sid e wa nte d to str ike him . 7 fo und as af

ac t tha t “ [n ] one of

the of fe ndi ng j ur or s se rv ed . ” Br ow er v. S ta te , 727 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1999). In addition, that court also found that

“ [n ] ei the r sid e w an te d to str ike Ra bbi t. ” I d. a t 10 26. T he re is no c le ar and 1 co nvi nc ing e vid en ce that the se f ind ing s of

f ac t are e rr one ous. L ike w ise , the tr ia l c ourt’ s handl ing of the oth er inc ide nts of

j ur or m isc ondu ct

w er e not an a buse of dis cr et ion . T he c ourt i nve sti ga te d e ac h in ci de nt and questio ned the jurors who were im plicated. I n all cases, the court determ ined that the incidents did no t rise to the level of causing the j ury to be rendered im part ia l, and w e ag re e. O ne j ur or w as c ongr at

ulate d by the vic tim ’ s m oth er

on be co m ing agr an dm oth er ; this did not c le ar ly r el at e to the c as e. A nothe r j ur or as ke d aw itn es s aque sti on a bout the loc at ionof

the m ur de r w ea pon; w hil e thi s wa s clearly

relate d to the case, the witness did no t reply . One j uror wa s seen re ad ing apa

pe r w hic h c ont ai ne d e xte nsi ve tr ia l c ove ra ge ; the j ur or de nie d r ea din g the article a

bout the trial and the person who reported the incident did no t testify that sh e ha d se enthe j ur or r ea d th e ar

tic le . L ike w ise , Br ow er

arg ue s th at

one j ur or ’ s hu sband w as pr es en t duri ng the e nti re tr ia l. H ow ev er , in both of the se incidents, Browe r has not presented any evidence that anything untoward8

oc curr ed . T he c ourt a dm oni she d th e j ur y not ta lk t o w itn es se s or

r ea d any m ed ia co ve ra ge . I n li ght

of the c ourt’ s a tte nti on t o th e re porte d im pr opr ie tie s, w e cannot co nc lud e that the c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n or

that B ro w er

w as de nie d af

ai r tr ia l. Fo r al l of the se r ea sons , w e cannot c onc lud e that the de ci sio n of the state co urt w as e ith er

c ontrary to cl earl y

e sta bli she d f ed er al law , or

an un re as ona

ble ap pli catio n th er eo f, or

an un re as ona

ble de te rm inatio n of

the f ac ts. B. I ne ff ec tiv e A ssi stanc e of

Co unse l F or

F ai lur e to P re se rv e E rr or Ne xt, Br ower

argues that he w as denied effe ctive assistance of counsel w he n hi s a tto rn ey

did not ti m el y r ai se his c la im

und er Co ne y v. S ta te , 653 S o. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995 ). U nder Coney , a crim inal defendant m

ust be present at the bench du rin g t he ex erci se of p erem pt ory ch al le ng es or m

us t ex pr es sl y

waiv e th atrig ht . Br ow er ’ s a tto rn ey

ne gle ct ed

to ra ise the iss ue unt il af te r the tr ia l c onc lud ed

and Brow er w as found gu ilty . Only in a m otion for newtrial did Browe r’ s attorney m ake the ar gum ent. O n direct appeal, the court of appeals granted Br ower a new tr ia l onthat i ssu e, but

the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt r ev er se d th at de ci sio n be ca

use Br ow er ha d no t pr es er

ve d th e er ro r. B ro w er

arg ue s th at

thi s f ai lur e to p re se rv e co nst itu te d in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el and tha t this c ourt sh oul d us e the an al y sis f ound in D av is v . S ec re tary

f or the D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, 341 F . 3d 1310 ( 11 Ci r. 200 3) , w he n ana ly zi ng the pr ej udi ce pr ong of the S tr ic kland th9

an al y si s. Inor de r to s uc ce ed

w ithac ha lle nge ba se d onine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of co unse l, ape tit ion er

ha s to sa tis fy

atw o- part

te st. F ir st, the pe tit ion er m ust sho w that counsel’s perf

orm ance w as deficient. Strickland v. W ashingt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687 , 104 S . Ct . 205 2, 206 4 ( 1984 ). T his m ea ns tha t the pe tit ion er

m ust sho w that the r ep re se ntatio n pr ovi de d by c ouns el w as out sid e the “ w ide r an ge of co m pe te nt ass is ta nc e” an d h e m us t al so ov erco m e th e p res um pt io n o f co m

pe te nc e. Id . a t 69 0, 104 S . Ct . a t 20 66. I n ana ly zi ng c ouns el ’ s c om pe te nc e, the c ourt m

ust ap ply a“ he av y m ea sur e of

de fe re nc e to c ouns el ’ s j udgm en ts. ” I d. a t 69 1, 104 S. Ct. at 2066. Sec ond, the petition er m ust sh ow that the perf

orm ance prej udiced the de fe nse , so tha t the r es ult of the tr ia l i s no t r el ia

ble . S ee id. T o satis fy

thi s te st, the de fe ndant “ m

ust sho wthat the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that, but f or counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been dif fe re nt. ” I d. a t 69 4, 104 S . Ct . a t 20 68. F urthe rm or e, “ [a ] r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity is a pr oba bil ity suf fi ci en t t o un de rm ine c onf ide nc e in the out co m e. ” I d. B ec au se both part s of

the te st m

ust be sa tis fi ed

in or de r to s howavio la tio n of the S ixth A m en dm en t, the c ourt ne ed not a ddr es s th e pe rf

orm an ce pr ong if

the de fe ndant can no t m eetth e p reju di ce p ro ng , see id ., or v ic e v ers a. InD av is, thi s C ourt l ooke d a t the pr ej udi ce pr ong in l igh t of the e ff ec t of10

co unse l’ s in co m

pe te nc e on the appe al . T he re , the a tto rn ey obj ec te d to the pr ose cu tio n’ s e xe rc ise of it s pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s to j ur or s ba se d onBatso n v. K en tuc ky , 476 U . S. 79, 106 S . Ct . 171 2 ( 1986 ), but f ai le d to r en ewhis obj ec tio n before the sw earing in of the j ury . By failing to renew the objection, the counsel fa ile d to pr es er

ve the e rr or

f or r ev ie w . 341 F . 3d at 13 12 n . 3. T his Co urt, loo kin g at the pr ej udi ce pr ong, de te rm ine d th at be ca use the pe rf

orm an ce e rr or onl y affe cted his appeal, “ the onlyeff ect of tri al

co u n s el ’s n eg l i g en ce wa s o n Da v i s ’s appe al . ” I d. a t 13 15 ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . T he re fo re , the Co urt di d no t e m plo y the standard

S tr ic kland p re

j udi ce inquir

y of w he the r the re w as ar ea sona ble lik el iho od tha t the tr ia l’ s ou tc om e w oul d have be endif fe re nt h ad

the e rr or not occurred, but rather looked at whether the a ppeal’ s outcom e w ouldhave been dif fe re nt. I d. a t 13 16. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t D av is i s no t a ppl ic ab le he re . I n th is ca se , Br ow er ’ s c ouns el did not r ai se the iss ue unt il af

te r Br ow er

w as c onvi ct ed , th u s d e n yi n g th e tr i a l c o u rtth e o p p o rtu n i ty t o r e med y th e e rr o r . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, Brow er argued below that the outcom e of the trial m ight h ave been diffe rent had he be ena llo w ed

to part ic ipate in the j ur

y se le ct ion . T he re fo re , thi s is not a de fi ci en cy

that on ly a ff ec te d B ro w er ’ s r igh ts o n a ppe al . F or

that r ea son, w e do n ot loo k to the e ff

ec t of the e rr or on B ro w er ’ s a

ppe al but , r athe r, it s e ff

ec t onthe11

tri al ’s o u t co m e. Br o we r h as n o ts h o wn th at th e e rr o r h adan ef fe ct o n th e t ri al ’s outcom e, let alone a r easonable likeliho od that th e outcom e w ouldhave been d i f f e r e n t . T h e r e f

o r e , w e r e j e c tth i s c l a i m. C. Ineff ective A ssistance of Counsel for Failure to Call W itnesses Br ow er a lso arg ue s he w as de nie d e ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el w he n hi s tr ia l c ouns el did

not c al l tw o w itn es se s. O ne of the w itn es se s, af

or en sic e xpe rt , w oul d have pr ovi de d te sti m ony that, ba se d onthe tr aj ec tor y of the bul le ts, the shots m ust have been fired by

a taller person. T his witness would have also called int o qu es tio n th e ve ra ci ty of the inf orm at iongle an ed

f ro m the c ri m e sc en e inv es tig at ion . T he oth er

w itn es s w oul d have im

pe ac he d th e te sti m ony

of the gove rn m en t’ s st ar

w itn es s. B ro w er

arg ue s th at

he suf fe re d pr ej udi ce be ca

use thi s te sti m ony w oul d have und er

m ine d th e gove rn m en t’ s c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce of his gui lt. A s di sc uss ed

above , an a

ppe llant m

ust sho wboth in co m

pe te nc e an d p re ju d i ce i n o rd ert o s u cc ee dwi th a c l ai m o f i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o f c o u n s el . We ag re e w iththe state ha

be as c ourt and the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t B ro w er c annot sho w pr ej udi ce . “ [T ] he abse nc e of e xc ulp at or

y w itn es s te sti m ony

f ro m ade fe nse is m or e lik el y

pr ej udi ci al w he n ac onvi ct ionis ba se d onli ttl e re co rd e vid en ce of gui lt. ” F orte nbe rr

y v. H al ey , 297 F . 3d 1 213, 122 8 ( 11 Ci r. 200 2) ( re j ec tin g th12

petition er’ s ineffec tive assistance of counsel argum ent on lack of prej udice gr ound s de spi te “ no c onc lus ive f or en sic or e y ew itn es s e vid en ce ” be ca use of pe tit ion er ’ s “ m

ult ipl e unc oe rc ed

c onf es sio ns” ). A s th e co urt of appe al s st at ed

on direct appeal, Brow er’ s guilt wa s supp orted by “ overwhelm ing evid ence. ” Br ower v. State, 684 So.2d 13 78, 1378 (Fla. 4 DC A 1996). As the state habea s court th el ab or at ed : The D efendant m ade severa l incrim inating statem ents to various law en fo rc em en t of

fi ce rs . A t the ti m e that he w as take n in to c ust ody in So uthCaro lin a, he vol unt ee re d st at em en ts tha t he kil le d th e pe opl e in Florida. When one of the poli ce off icers asked where the m

urder w ea pon w as loc at ed , Br ow er answ er ed

that the thr ewit

on the c ouc h, an d t ha t i t was same gu n h e u se d t o k il l Sa nd ie an d J oh n C as si dy. A ft er his arr es t, the D ef

en dant v olunte er ed

anothe r state m en t whil e be ing tr an spor

te d to the j ai l f

ac ili ty , to the e ff

ec t tha t the S ta te of Fl or id a wou ld“ fir e m e up wh en th ey ge t m e b ackforth is .” O pin iona t 5. T he c ourt a lso r ec ount ed the te sti m ony

of tw o w itn es se s a t tri al to whom Brow er had confessed the cr im es. In light of thi s overwhelm ing evid ence, we conclude Browe r cannot show prej udice. D. Ineff ective A ssistance of Counsel Because Counsel Changed Five Tim es Ne xt, Br ower

argues that he w as denied effe ctive assistance of counsel because his defense counsel changed five tim es during th e course of pre trial pr oc ee din gs. H e ar gue s th at his f our -w ee k tr ia l w as m or e co m ple x th anthat f

ound in the c as e re lie d up on b y the dis tr ic t c ourt, T ri ce v. W ar d, 196 F . 3d 1 151, 116 013

(1 0 Ci r. 199 9) . H ow ev er , a lth oughBr ow er arg ue s th at

T ri ce w as le ss th co m p l i ca t edth an h i s ca s e, Tr i ce al s o co n fe s s ed . Ad d i t i o n al l y, th e a t t o rn ey’s pur porte d la ck

of pr ep ar at ionha d no be ar ing on the pr etri al j ur or m isc ondu ct

and j ur or m isc ondu ct

dur ing the tr ia l. I n sum , w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the nine m onth s that Sm ith served as counsel were sufficient. And, as m entioned above, in light of the ov erwhelm ing evid ence of guilt, B rowe r cannot show that the out co m e of

the tr ia l w oul d have be endif fe re nt. E . D u e P r o c e s s R i g h t s V i o l a t e dB e c au s e o f D e n i a l o f

A c c e s s t o th e C r i me Scene Br ow er arg ue s th at

his due pr oc es s r igh ts w er e vio la te d w he n hi s de fe nse co unse l w as de nie d a cc es s to the c ri m e sc en e fo r inv es tig at ion . H e dis put es the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce of gui lt re nde re d hi s la ck of a cc es s to the c ri m e sc en e ir re le vant b ec au se “ [t ] he S ta te r el ie d he av ily upon the crim e scene e vidence to sup port its th eory that Mr. Brow er c omm itted f i r s td e g r e e mu r d e r . ” H o w e v e r , a l th o u g h th e g o v e rn me n td i dr e l y up o n th e c r i me sc en e ev ide nc e, it

a lso r el ie d he av ily

upo n th e te sti m ony

about the m ult ipl e co nf es sio ns. T ha t e vid en ce r en de re d any e vid en ce garn er ed

f ro m the c ri m e sc en e unable to create “ a re asonable likelih ood” of “ affe ct[ing] the j udgm ent of the trier of f ac t. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. V al en zu el a- Be rn al , 458 U . S. 858 , 874 , 102 S . Ct . 344 0,Br ower ’s re quest for or al ar gument is denied. 2 14 3450 (1982). F. Suff iciency of the E vidence Fi na lly , Br ow er

arg ue s th at

the re w as ins uf

fi ci ent e vid en ce pr es en te d f or the j ur y to fi nd h im

gui lty . “ Ac onvi ct ionm ust be uph el d un le ss the j ur

y c oul d no t have f ound the de fe ndant g uil ty

und er any r ea sona ble c onstru ct ionof

the ev i d en ce .” Un i t edSt at es v . C h as t ai n , 1 9 8 F. 3 d1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 1 (1 1 th Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ). We sum m ar ily r ej ec t B ro w er ’ s arg um en t i n li ght of the F lor ida

Co urt of Appe al s state m en t tha t the e vid en ce pr es en te d inthi s c as e w as ove rwhe lm ing . For the re asons stated in the bodyof this opi nion , the dec ision of the district co urt i s AFFIRMED. 2