## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril11,2007 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 CH AR L E S E . BR OWN, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. D A V I D R . M cK U N E , W ar den, L ans i ng C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty ; and PH I L K L I N E , K ans as A t t orney G e n e ra l, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 3001 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 3 0 4 6 - M LB)

(D . K ansas)

OR DER DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. O n S eptem ber 6, 19 96 , P et i t i on er C harl es E . B row n w as conv i ct ed o f fi rs t d e g re e m u rd e r b ya K a n s a s s ta te tr ia l c o u rt a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to life in p ri s o n . A ttr i al , the St at e pr oduced e vi dence t hatM r . B r ow n ki l l ed hi s vi ct i m , M i chae l G erh ard , an d that, w ith the a ssist an ce o f a n em p loy ee , S h aw n C o rdra y , M r. B row n b u rne d M r. G erh ard ’s bo d yat a sa lvag e y ard o w n ed b yM r. B row n . M r. G erh ard ’s bo d yw as n ev er fo u n d , b u t sub stan ti al circu m stan ti al ev iden ce ti ed M r. B row n to the m u rde r, inclu d ing test im o n yb ym o re tha n o n e w itn ess th at M r. B r ow n admi t t ed t o ki l l i ng M r . G erhar d. M r . B r ow n’ s defe ns e att r i al s ought (u n su c c e ss f

u lly ) to su g g e st th a t S h a w n C o rd ra yk ill e d M r. G e rh a rd . A f ter trial,- 2 -

M r . B r ow n appea l ed hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , and he c om pl et ed a f ul l r ound o f c o lla te ra l r e v ie w in th e s ta te c o u rt s . M or e r ece nt l y , M r . B r ow n fi l ed a pe t i t i on forhabea s corpus i n the di s tr i ct courtunder28 U . S. C . § 2254, r ai s i ng a r aftof cl ai m s : ( 1) bi as bythe tr i al j udge; (2) v iolati o n o f h is r igh t t o a sp ee d ytr ial ; ( 3 ) refu sal o f th e tri al co u rtto g ive M r. B r ow n a tr ans cr i ptof hi s pr el i m i naryhear i ng i ns t ead of a t ape; ( 4) admi s s i on of b o n e a n d tee th f

ra g m e n ts w ith o u t fo u n d a tio n ; (5 ) in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e b yh is pos t - tr i al couns el ; ( 6) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance byhi s tr i al couns el ; ( 7) vi ol at i on of h is rig h ts u n d e r th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t b yfa ili n g to g iv e h im a f u ll an d fa ir hear i ng on s t at e col l at er al r evi ew ; ( 8) i ns uffi ci encyof evi dence ; and ( 9) u n c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e s ta te fir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r s ta tu te . A ppl y i ng the defer ent i al s t andar ds s etouti n the A nt i t err or i s m and E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ), w h ich a llo w s a fe d e ra l co u rt to gr anthabea s r el i ef onl yi f the s t at e courtdeci s i on w as “contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned by the Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 1) , the di s tr i ct court , i n a det ai l ed 47- page opi ni on, addr es s ed ea ch cl ai m and ei therdeni ed the cl ai m on i t s m er i t s orfound i tt o be pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. M r . B r ow n fi l ed a m o ti o n to alter or am en d jud g m en t un d er F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 9 (e), w h ich w a s d e n ied b yth e d istric t co u rt. M r. B ro w n th e n a p p lied fo r a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i ty( “C O A ”) i n the di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch di d notacton the appl i cat i onT hough w e cons i derhi s r eques ton i t s m er i t s , w e not e thati ti s notcl ear 1 that M r. B row n p rop erlyp rese rve d this argu m en t bym ak ing a re q u est fo r a hear i ng befor e the di s tr i ctcourti n the fi r s ti ns t ance . I n M r . B r ow n’ s r epl yt o t he St at e’ s r es pons e t o hi s pet i t i on ( w hi ch M r . B r ow n s ty l ed a “ T r aver s ”) , he s t at ed thathi s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el “[i ] s s ues ar e s uch thatt heyr equi r e no hear i ng. ” D . C t . D ocketN o. 19 at9. I n r es pons e t o the St at e’ s ar gum entt hatno evi dent i aryhear i ng w as nece s s ary , M r . B r ow n r es ponded onl yt hat“Pet i t i oner s t at es [her e] thati f the C our tdoes nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng, t hen i f i tr eads the EX H I B I T and M E M O R A N D U M [O F] L A W and otherfi l i ngs s ubm i t t ed by p e titio n e r i t s h o u ld b e [ a b le ] t o ru le o n m o s t o f th e is s u e s ra is e d b yh im . (c o n tin u e d ...) - 3 - wi th i n 3 0 d a y s o f

M r . Br o wn fi l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . Un d e ro u rru l e s , we th e re fo re d e e m th a t a p p lic a tio n d e n ie d . 1 0 th C ir . R . 2 2 .1 (C ). I n hi s appl i cat i on fora C O A i n thi s C our t , M r . B r ow n es s ent i al l yr ei t er at es th e a rg u m e n ts h e m a d e to th e d istric t co u rt, rar e lya d d re ss in g , let a lo n e se e k in g to res po nd t o, the d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis po si t i on of h i s cl ai m s. M r. B row n als o c o m p lain s o f

th e d istric t co u rt’s fa ilu re to h o ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n h is p e titio n . See N o ti ce o f A p p ea l ¶¶ 5 , 6 , 8 . H av ing rev iew ed ea ch o f M r. B row n ’s c laim s w ith c a re , w e d e n yM r. B ro w n ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A fo r su b sta n tially the s ame r eas ons s t at ed bythe di s tr i ctcour ti n i t s thor ough M emora ndum and O r derdeny i ng habea s r el i ef. W e fi nd thatM r . B r ow n has 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 ons t i tut i onal r i ght ” bec aus e the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s ord er o f d ism issal i s n o t r ea so n ab lyd eb atab le. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c); Uni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 7 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A d d iti o n a lly , w e d e n yM r. B ro w n ’s r e q u e st th a t h is c a se b e re m a n d e d to th e d istric t c o u rt fo r a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g . In h is a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A to th is 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 H ow ever , s om e w oul d notbe ful l ycons i der ed. ” Id. at12. M r . B r ow n never a p p rise d th e d istric t co u rt w h ich c laim s h e b e liev e d w o u ld “ n o t b e f u lly c o n sid e re d ” w ith o u t a h e a rin g , n o r d id h e o ffe r a n yre a so n s to su p p o rt h is as s ert i on on thi s s cor e. - 4 - C our t , M r . B r ow n ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n decl i ni ng t o gr anthi m an evi dent i aryhear i ng beca us e “the [a ppel l ant ] has cons i s t ent l yas s er t ed thathe w as unabl e t o pr es e[n] t[] evi dence of tr i al couns el ’ s i nadequa t e i nves t i gat i on” atthe s t at e evi dent i aryhear i ng. A ppel l ant/ Pet i t i oner ’ s O peni ng B r . at25. H e further ar gues thatthe St at e “e xpr es s l ynevercons i der ed the mer i t s of [hi s ] cl ai m s , ” and th a t “[ u ]n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s [ th e ] a p p e llan t ca n n o t b e fa u lted fo r [ f]a ili n g to devel op hi s evi dence i n s t at e pos tconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. B ysta tu te, if

a p e tit io n e r “ h a s fa iled to d e v e lo p th e fa c tu a l b a sis o f a c laim i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs , ” the di s tr i ctcourts hal l nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng u n less the p eti ti o n er m ee ts tw o req u ir em en ts: (i ) th e c lai m is ba sed o n eith er a new rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o habea s cas es , oron a fa ctual pr edi cat e thatcoul d notpr evi ous l yhave be en di s cover ed w i th due di l i gence , and ( i i ) “the fa ct s under l y i ng the cl ai m w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatbutforcons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder wo u l d h a v e fo u n d t h e a p p l i c a n tg u i l tyo f th e u n d e r l y i n g o ffe n s e . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 25 4(e) (2) . If a pri soner has notfai l ed to dev el op the fa ct s of his cl ai m becau se of l ack of

di l i gence , how ever , the s tr i ctur es of § 2254( e) ( 2) ar e i nappl i cabl e, Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 3 0 , 4 3 2 (2 0 0 0 ), an d a p e tit io n e r is “ e n tit led to- 5 -

an evi dent i aryhear i ng s o l ong as hi s al l egat i ons , i f true and i f notcontr avene d by the exi s t i ng fac tual r ecor d, w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o habea s r el i ef. ” A n d erso n v. A tt ’y G en. of Kan. , 4 2 5 F .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 8 -5 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). R e a d in g h is b rie f

lib e ra lly , M r. B ro w n a p p e a rs to b e a rg u in g th a t th e re q u ire m e n ts of § 2254( e) ( 2) do notappl yt o hi m – viz. , tha t h e c a n n o t b e fa u lted fo r fa ili n g to d ev elop h is cl aim s at th e state lev el. W e n ee d n o t dec ide th at qu esti o n , h o w ev er; forthe r eas ons ful l yexpl ai ned i n t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s anal y s i s , w e ar e unper s uaded th a t M r. B ro w n ’s a lle g a tio n s , e v e n if ta k e n a s tru e , e n title h im to h a b e a s re lie f. See Snow v. Si r m ons , 4 7 4 F . 3 d 6 9 3 , 7 1 9 n . 2 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). * * * W e d e n yM r. B ro w n ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge