* T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the

c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 8, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT ALVI N PARKE R,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 6021

v . W e s t e rn Di s tr i c to f Ok l a h o ma M A R T Y SI R M O N S, W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 1 2 5 2 - T)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A l vi n Par ker , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty (“ C O A ” ) th a t w o u ld a llo w h im to a p p e a l f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(c) (1) (A ). B ecause w e c o n clud e tha t M r. Par kerhas fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t,” w e d e n yh is re q u e s t f o r a C O A , a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ). BA CKGROUND A n O kl ahoma j uryconvi ct ed M r . Par keri n 1990 of s econd- degr ee mur derfor s hoot i ng an off

- dutypol i ce of

fi cer . M r . Par kerfi l ed an uns ucce s s ful di r ectappea l bas ed-2-

i n partupon a cha l l enge t o t he t es t i m onyof the s t at e’ s for ens i c expe r t , fol l ow ed byan equal l yuns ucce s s ful 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on forhabea s corpus . M r . Par kerthen fi l ed sev en ap p li ca ti o n s in the stat e d istri ct co u rtfo r po st- co n v ict ion reli ef. T h e state c o u rt d e n ie d a ll o f

th e s e a p p lic a tio n s . T he curr entappea l i nvol ves M r . Par ker ’ s fi l i ng of a s ucce s s i ve 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on, cl ai m i ng thatnew D N A evi dence fr om hai rfr agment s l eftatt he m u rde r sce n e re q u ir es re v ersa l of h is co n v ict ion an d a n ew tr ial . T h e d istri ct co u rt deni ed the pet i t i on forfai l ur e t o i dent i fya cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, as r equi r ed by28 U . S. C . § 2244. N otw i ths t andi ng the cur s orynatur e of M r . Par ker ’ s pl eadi ng, the di s tr i ct courtw enton t o concl ude thatM r . Par kerhad furtherfai l ed t o s at i s fythe r equi r ement s of § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 )(B )(ii) f

o r tw o re a so n s: th e D N A tes t w a s n o t ex c u lp a to ry , an d a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld still fin d h im g u iltyw ith o u t th e c o n tes ted tes tim o n yc o n c e rn in g th e h a ir f ra g m e n ts . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o d e n ie d M r. P a rk e r’ s re q u e s t f o r a C O A . DI S CU S S I ON T h e d e n ial o f

a m o tio n f

o r re lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 m a yb e a p p e a led o n lyif th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt f ir s t is s u e s a C O A . I

d. § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” I d. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). In o rd e r to m a k e su c h a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r . . . th e p e tit io n sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re so lv e d in a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agement-3-

t o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . M r . Par kerhas notm ade the r equi s i t e s how i ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed M r . Par ker ’ s pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2244 ( b) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) . T he pet i t i on cont ai ned onl yone r efe r ence t o anyunder l y i ng cons t i tut i onal err or : namel y , the unexpl ai ned and uns uppor t ed s t at ementthatthe new D N A evi dence r equi r es r ever s al underthe Four t eenth A m endment . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtt hat th is w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n t to s ta te a c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r. See H al lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1 1 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (“co n clus o ryall eg ati o n s w ith o u t sup p o rt ing fa ctua l ave rm en ts are insu ff ici en t t o stat e a claim ” (intern al cit ati o n s o m itted)). I n hi s r eques tforC O A t o thi s C our t , M r . Par kerm or e thor oughl yal l eges thatt he sta te d e c e iv e d th e ju ryb yk n o w in g lya llo w in g f a lse tes tim o n yin v io latio n o f h is F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t du e p roc ess righ ts un d er G igl i o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 405 U . S. 150, 1 5 3

– 5 4 (1 9 7 2 ). In p a rticu lar , M r. P a rk e r c laim s th a t th e sta te k n o w in g lya llo w e d sta te f o re n sic e x p e rt Jo y c e G ilch rist to tes tifyf a lse lya t th is tria l. A lth o u g h w e c o u ld tre a t th is c la im a s w a iv e d

— b e c a u s e it a p p e a rs f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n th is a p p e a l, s ee Anders on v. B lake , 46 9 F . 3d 91 0, 91 8 (10th C i r. 20 06 )— du e t o the unf ortun at e his t oryof f

al se t es t i m onyof a s i m i l arnatur e i n thi s j ur i s di ct i on, w e exe r ci s e ourdi s cr et i on t o exami ne on th e m e rits w h e th e r M r. P a rk e r’s c laim w a rra n ts C O A . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c laim f a ils beca us e the D N A evi dence does notpr ove thatM s . G i l chr i s t ’ s t es t i m onyw as fal s e. M r . Par keral l eges , as he has s i nce hi s tr i al , thatthe r eal m ur der erw as G l enn B rig g s, M r. P a rk e r’s m a ter n a l co u sin a n d a c c o m p lice o n th e n ig h t o f th e m u rd e r. A t trial,-4-

the st at e i ntr od uced hairfragm ents fou nd on the m urdered po l i ce of fi cer’ s bod y . M s. G il ch ri st t esti fied , b ase d so lel yo n p h y sical co m p arison , that the h air co u ld b elon g to M r. P a rk e r, b u t n o t to M r. B rig g s. S h e a lso tes tifie d o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t h e r a n a ly sis w as s ubj ect i ve, thata per s on coul d notbe pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed byhai revi dence , and that otherexpert s coul d r eac h a di ffe r entconcl us i on. M r . Par ker ’ s for ens i c expe r tt es t i fi ed th a t th e h a ir f

ra g m e n ts c o u ld n o t b e lo n g to e ith e r o f th e m e n . H e a lso a d m itt e d th a t h a ir w a s n o t a p o s itiv e id e n tif ie r a n d th a t h is re s u lts w e re s u b je c t to a d if

f e re n t in te rp re ta tio n . W hi l e w e ar e verym uch aw ar e of M s . G i l chr i s t ’ s hi s t oryof abhorr enttr i al p ra c tic e s , see P i erce v. G i l christ , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 2

– 8 4 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , th e DNA evi dence i nvoked byM r . Par kerdoes nots ugges tthathert es t i m onyathi s tr i al c o n c e rn in g th e h a ir f

ra g m e n t an a ly sis w a s f

a lse , an d th e re is n o o th e r b a sis f o r th e c laim of fa l s i ty . T he D N A t es ts how ed that , beca us e theyar e mat ernal l yr el at ed, M r . Par ker and M r . B r i ggs have the s ame m i t ochondr i al D N A pr ofi l e. B as ed on thatevi dence , nei therM r . Par kernorM r . B r i ggs can be excl uded as the s our ce of the hai r s . T o be s ur e, thatdi ffe r s fr om M s . G i l chr i s t ’ s t es t i m onythatM r . B r i ggs coul d nothave be en the s our ce. I tal s o di ffe r s fr om the def ens e expe r t ’ s t es t i m onythatnei therm an coul d be the s o u r c e . Bu tn e i th e rM s . Gi l c h r i s tn o rth e d e f e n s e e x p e r tb a s e d th e i rt e s t i mo n yo n DNA a n a ly sis , b u t o n th e b a sis o f a c o m p a riso n o f

th e p h y sic a l ch a ra c ter istics o f th e h a ir s ampl es . I ti s notl ogi cal l yi ncons i s t entforone t es tt o concl ude thatboth m en coul d be the s o u rce o f th e h air an d the o ther test t o ex clud e o n e o r bo th o f th e su sp ec ts. M o reo v er,-5-

M s . G ilc h ri s t a p p ro p ri a te ly ac k n o w le d g e d th e s u b je c tiv e c h a ra c te r o f

h e r t e s tim o n y . W e cannotconcl ude thatM r . Par kerhas s how n thats he l i ed. In a d d it ion , w e c o n clud e tha t M s. G il ch ri st’ s testi m o n y , ev en if fa lse, fa ll s fa r sho rt o f th e d em an d ing stan d ard o f m aterial ityu n d er G ig lio . See 405 U . S. at154 ( “A new t r i al i s r equi r ed i f ‘ the fa l s e t es t i m onycoul d . . . i n anyr eas onabl e l i kel i hood have a ffe ct ed the j udgm entof the j ury. . . . ’ ” ( quot i ng N a p u e v . Ill in o is , 360 U . S. 264, 271 ( 1959) ) . T he juryh ea rd c o n fli cti n g ex p ert t esti m o n yab o u t th e p o ssible h air do n o rs, w ith ea ch ex p ert admi t t i ng the s ubj ect i vi tyof the ana l y s i s ; the j urythus had an opportuni tyt o w ei gh the ev iden ce w ith fu ll k n o w ledg e o f th e p o ssible ina cc u rac yo f th e h air i d en ti fica ti o n . In s uppor tof thei rver di ct , the j ur or s hear d ey e w i tnes s es l i nk M r . Par kert o the s cene and i dent i fyM r . Par keras havi ng the s ame phy s i cal char act er i s t i cs as the murde r er ; they hear d M r . B r i ggs i dent i fyM r . Par keras the murde r er ; theyhear d pol i ce t es t i fyt o fi ndi ng M r . Par kerhi di ng i n a cr aw l s pace nextt o a box thatcont ai ned the murde rw eapon, and theyhear d t es t i m onythatM r . Par ker ’ s fi ngerpr i nt s w er e found on thatbox. I n l i ghtof a ll th e e v id e n c e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. P a rk e r h a s n o t m e t th e h ig h sta n d a rd o f m a ter iality re q u ir e d to u p s e t th e c o n v ic tio n . S e e G ig lio , 4 0 5 U . S . at 15 4 . B ythe s am e log ic, M r. Par ker ’ s cl ai m w oul d fai l under§ 2244 beca us e he c annots how bycl earand convi nci ng e v id e n c e th a t b u t f

o r th e c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r, n o re a so n a b le ju ryw o u ld h a v e f o u n d h im g u il tyo f th e m u rde r. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(B )(i i) .-6- CO NC L US I ON W e GRANT M r . Par ker ’ s r eques tt o pr ocee d in fo r m a p a u p e r is , DE NY h is r eques tfora C O A , and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. E n ter e d f o r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge