The H on orabl e Char l es N. Cl eve rt, J r. , Chi efJ udge ofthe  U nited States D istrict Co u rt fo r t h e E astern D istrict of W isc ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1116 A ND RE B R OWN , P et it ioner-App el lant, v. D AVE R ED NOUR, W ar d en , M en ard Correc tional Ce nt er, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. N o . 08 C6666

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge
.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 25, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON a nd W I L L I AMS, C ircu it Judges , a nd C LEV ERT, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C LEV ERT, D ist r i ctJudg e . L eo n M ay es d ied from m u lti ple gunshotwoun ds shor tl y a fterm i dn i ght o n Octo-2 N o. 10

- 1116 ber 10, 2000. A nd re Brow n an d D e rri ck Steve ns w ere charg ed and f ound gui l ty offi rs t- degre e m urder i n separa te but si m ult aneous tr i al s. Duri ng del iber ati ons, a she riff taking forens ic eviden ce t o t h e Steven s j ury n oti ced thatthe Brown j ury had an i nadm i ssibl e pol i ce re port . B ro w n m ai ntai ns thatthe j ury’ s e xposure to th atr epo r t ha d a sub stan ti ala nd i nj ur i o us e f f ec t o n the ver di c t
. Ho we v e r, b e c a us e the p o l i c e r e po r twa s c umula

tiv e o f ev id en c e b efo re th e jur y, th e jur y w as p ro p er ly i nstr ucted, an d exposur e t o the r epor t was har m l ess un d er Bre c h tv . A b r a h a mso n , 5 07 U

. S. 61 9, 63 7, 11 3 S

. Ct. 1 7 1 0 , 1 2 3 L

. E d

. 2 d 3 5 3 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , w e a f fi r m.

I

. B AC KG R O UND Br en da Gr ee n t es ti fi ed th ats he was sitti ngi n the dri ver ’ s s eato fherpark ed carwith he r boy f ri end, Leon M aye s, i n the f ro nt passe ngerse at, wh en a si l verPonti ac Sunbi rd bac ked up so i t was ri ght ne xt to hercar . Gree n re cogn ize d the dri veras “S tr i ker, ” who had dated her si ste r, and the passenge r as “P oo , ” who had dated her f ri en d. S he h a d kno wn e a c h manf o r ab o utfi v e y e a r s. I n a ddi ti o n, Gr ee n n o ticed th att wo o th er s sa t i n the back sea t o fthe Ponti ac a nd knew the s i l verPontiac bel onge d to “Stri ker ’ s” gi rl f ri end, Val enci a. S he r eco gni zed “Banks” as o ne o fthe peop le sitt i ng i n the back

sea t be cause he had go ne to gr am m arscho olwith G reen ’s si ster. Green hea rd som eo n e in the Po nti ac y el l, “Ther e g o that m - - - - - f

- - - - - . ” The car then drove offatM aye s’ s r equest. The Ponti ac purs ued G re en’ s ca r i n a hi gh spee d chaseN o. 10

- 1116 3 f orse ver albl ock s r em ain in g “ri ght b ehi nd ” her

. W hen Green turned l eft f ro m 51st St re et onto A shl and A ve n ue, she he ar d gun sh ot s. M aye s s ai d that “ St ri ker ” was sho oti ng athercar . Look i ng i n the re ar vie w m i rr or, Gree n saw “S tr i k er ’ s” l eft ha nd co m i ng o ut o f th e ca r wi th a gun. Ma y e s t o l d G r e e n t o s l o w t h e c a r d o wn a n d t o j u mp out, and she did. M aye s rem ai ned i n the caras i t r ol l ed do wn t he s t r e e t
. T he P o nt i a c the n pul l e d o v e r t o the s i de o fth e s treet, “ Po o ” g o t o ut, r anup to Gr ee n’ s ca r, a nd shoti nto the pass engersi de ofthe c ar w here M aye s was sitting. W ith his last shot, “Poo” said : “W e got t h at m
-- -- - f

- - - - - . Ba r None , r unni ngi t. ” “P o o ” g o t bac ki nt o the Ponti ac a nd “S tr i ker ” dro ve aw ay. Green a pp ro ached h ercar, wh i ch had sto pp ed aga i nst a p o l e a t 5 0 t h S t r e e t a n d As h l a n d Av e n u e . S h e f o und M aye s “ shotup i n a l ot ofbl oo d.” A t the sc ene, Gree n to ld p olic e t h at “S tr ike r” an d “P oo ” w er e re sp on sib le f orthe shoo ti ng. V i e w i n gp h o t o g r a p h s a tth e p o l i c e s t a t i o n th a ts a me ni ght, Gree n i denti fi ed A nd re B ro w n, Derr i ck St eve ns, and M ar l i n Gosa, as “S tr i ker, ” “ Poo” and “Banks” re spective ly. S he al so i denti fi ed al l o fthem i n l i neups. Gree n fur t h e r i d e n t i fi e d B r o wn i n o p e n c o u r t a s o n e o ft he sh o o te r s, r ei te ra tingtha t he was “ S tr i k er ” an d tha t he had shot M aye s. I n a ddi ti o n, M ar l i n Go sa t es ti fi ed th athe , Br o wn an d S te ve ns wer e m embe r s o fthe Bl ac kP S to ne s g an g, a nd i denti fi ed Brown as “S tr i ker

. ” Pr ior t o the t ri al, Gosa pr o vi ded a si g ne d s ta te m en t an d g r an d j ury t es ti m o ny det ai l i nghi s eye wi tn es s ac co unto fM ay es ’ s m ur der

. The4 N o. 10

- 1116
sta tem ent a nd gr and j ury te st im ony i nd i cate d that Gos a w as stan d ing on a street corner, w he n “D re” (a/k/a A nd re B ro w n ) ap p ea r ed d riv in g a gra y P on tia c . Ste ve n s s at in th e Po nt i ac ’ s f r o ntpa ss en g ers ea t. Br own an d S te ve ns tr i ed to co nvi nce Gosa to acc om pany them to a ni ghtcl ub f orBro w n’s bi rthd ay . Gosa decl i ned but as ked Brown to dri ve hi m hom e. A fter dri vi ng a f ew bl ock s, Brown spott ed a f am i l i ar ma n a n d wo ma n s i t t i n g i n a n o l d C h e v r o l e t
. B r o wn p as se d th e C h ev ro let, th en rev er se d to p u ll ev en w ith it and shouted, “S he with that m - - - - - f

- ----.” The w om an b e hi nd the wh e el sai d s o methi nga nd dr o v e a wa y s ud

den l y . S he the n l ed Br o wn o n a hi g h s pee d c ha se . Dur i ng th e c h as e, G os a s aw B ro w n st ick in g a g u n th ro u gh h is w ind ow and fire it at the m a n i n th e C he vrolet’s f r o ntpa ss en g ers ea t. The cha se e nde d whenthe wom an jum ped o ut
. Br o wn st o pped th e Po nt i ac a nd S t e v e ns e xi t e d h o l di ngBr o wn’ s g un . S t e v e ns r a n t o wa r ds the Chevr ol et, fi ri ng r ep eat edl y i nto i ts passenge r si de. Fleeing fr om the sh ooting, Brow n r e m a r ked , “Th e b---

- bett ernot t ell, ” r efer ri ng to the w om an wh o w i tness ed the c ri m e. Bro w n, a Blac k P S to n e g ener al, i nstr ucted G osa n ot to talk to p oli ce abo ut the m urd er. N ot w ith st an d in g h is s ta te m en t a n d g ra n d j u ry te st im ony, Gosa f ai l ed to r espond to the subpoena t o appear a t Bro w n’s tr i al

. A fterbeing ar re ste d and fo rce d to appear, Gosa cl ai m ed

— des pi te h i s ea r l i ert es ti m o ny an d the r ec o ve r y o fhi s fi ng er pr i nt s o n Va l enci a W as hi ngto n’s Ponti ac

— he was no t wi thBr o wn o n the ni g ht o fthe mur de r . Go s a c o nc e de d tha th e g a v e a h a ndw ri t-N o. 10

- 1116 5
ten s tat em ent a nd te sti fied b ef or e the gr and j ury that he was i n a c arwith Bro w n and Ste vens on October10 , that the c arwas i nvol ved i n a hi gh spee d chase, and that Brown and St eve ns had shotM aye s. N eve rthel ess, Gosa m a i n t a i n ed th at th e p olic e t old h im w h at to sa y in h is sta tem ent and that he l i ed to the gr and j ury b ecause the pol i ce threa tened t o charg e hi m with m u rd er . A s t o th e se que nc e o fe ve nt s su r r o undi ngthe c ar c hase a nd th e sh ootings, G osa’s signed state m en t an d gran d j ury tes ti m ony w er e no t di ssi m i l arfro m Gree n’s te sti m ony. T h e j u r y h ea r d tha ta tth e t i me o fth e mu r d e r, B r o wn live d w ith V ale n c ia W as h in gt on , th e m ot h er of h is c h ild an d ow ne r ofthe silver Pont iac i n v o lved i n th e m urd er. B ro w n h ad a se t o f ke ys to W as h in gt on ’s c ar an d it w as not unu sual f orhi m to dri ve i t. W hen Brown returned the m or ni ng afterthe shoo tin g and heard that pol i ce had vi si ted l oo ki ng f orhi m , he fl ed. W ashi ngton did notse e Bro w n aga i n f oro verte n m onths. So on a fterM aye s was sho t, Chica go Pol i ce Offi cer J ames S ul l i va n i nt er vi ewe d se ve r alwi tn es se s to the m ur der, i nc l udi ngGr ee n. S ul l i va n sum m ar i ze d the i nfo rm ati on he gathere d fr om the i nter vi ew s i n a c ase re port
. The o ne- page, two- si ded r epor t l i ste d s ix witne ss es t o the c rim e, na m ed “P o o h” a nd “ S tr i k er ” as the o f f en der s, no te d the o f f en d er s wer e m embe r s o fthe “St ones, ” pro vi ded a descri pti on a nd l i cense pla te num bero fthe off enders’ ve hi cl e, and i ncl ud ed a b ri ef d es c rip tio n of th e c rim e. O f th e s ix w itn es se s list ed in th e do cument, on e was the murde r v i ct i m , M ay es , o ne w as Green, and one w as K enneth Thor nton. M aye s was6 N o. 10

- 1116

w i tness 1, Gree n w as w i tness 2, and Thornto n w i tness 3. The pol i ce r epor t l abel ed the othe r thre e witn es ses 4 th r o ug h 6

. The repo r t at tr ibut ed to wi tn es se s 3- 6 th e follo w in g d es c rip tio n : [T ]h ey a ll w itn es se d off[e n d er ]s ru n u p to th e v ict im w hi l e fi ri ng se ver alsho ts. Off [ ender]s th en go t i nto th ei r ve hi cl e an d fl ed i n an unkno wn di r ec ti o n. The veh[ i cl e] the vi cti m was i n then began to proce ed n or th bo u n d on A sh lan d at[illegib le w or d ] [illegib le w or d ] st rik in g a p ole at50 00 S. A sh lan d

. A t t ri al, d efense counselu sed the pol i ce r epor t t o cro sse xa mi ne Gr e e n a nd S ul l i v a n. T he que s t i o ni nge s t abl i shed: ( 1) thatthe p olic e r epor t l i ste d si x w i tness es to the c ri m e, i ncl ud i ng Thornto n; ( 2) atthe cri m e s cene, Gree n iden tified B row n an d Ste ven s a s M ayes’s kil lers

— S te ve ns b y h is str ee t na m e an d B ro w n b y his st re et n am e o r b y h is str eetnam e a nd hi s l ega lnam e; and ( 3) Bro w n d rove Val enci a W ashi ngto n’s car du ri ng the at tack, wh i l e Gre en p r o v i d e d i t s l i c e n s e p l a t e n u mb e r t o S ul l i v a n a tth e c r i me scene. Pri orto del iber ati ons , t h e courti nstr ucted the j ury as f ol l ows: “The e vi dence w hi ch yo u shoul d consi der co ns i st s o nl y o f th e te st i m o ny o f th e wi tn es se s, th e ex h ibit s, an d st ip u lat ion s w h ich th e c ou rth as rec eiv ed .” The cour t furtheri nstr uc ted thatf orfi rs t- degre e m urder the s tat e m ust pro ve that d u ring the com m i ss i o n o fth e o f f e n s e B r o wn p e r s o n a l l y d i s c h a r g e d a fi r e a r m. Dur i ngi ts de l ibe r at ions, th e j ur y s en t o uta no te a sk i ng i fit needed to pro ve that Brown per sonal l y di schar ged a fi r ea r m . The j ur y al so as k ed f o r th e po l i ce r epor t do cu-N o. 10

- 1116 7

m en ting oth er w itness es ’ na m es, V alenc ia W ash ington ’s li cen se p late nu m b e r , w he th er any sta tem en ts w ere ta k enfr o m the other w i tn es se s atthe c r i m e sc en e an d w hethertheyco uld s ee thei r sta tem ents. The co urt re sponded

— w i th the approv alo fBro w n’s at tor ney

— as f ol l ows: “N o, yo u m ay not have add i ti onalev i dence. You have re cei ved al l o ft h e ev i dence. Idi re ct y our atte n tio n to th e firs t in st ru c tio n th atind i c at es th e e viden ce whi chy o u sh o ul d c o ns i derc o ns i st s o nl y o fthe tes ti mon y o fthe wi t ne s s e s , the e xh ib i t s , a nd s t i pu l atio n s w h ich th e C ou rth as rec eiv ed .” M ea nwhi l e, the S te ve ns j ur y ha d fi ni sh ed he ar i ng cl o singa r g um en ts a nd j ur y i ns tr uct i o ns . The sher i f fwent i nt o Br o wn’ s j ur y r o o m to r et r i ev e th e o nl y co py o f the f or ensi c ev i dence t o give to S tev ens’ j ury. A t that t i m e, the s h er iffsa w o ne o fthe Brown j uror s r eadi ng a pol i ce r e p o r t t h a t h a d n o t b e e n a d mi t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a nd too k i t t o the j ud ge. The part i es agr ee d that the pol i ce re porthad bee n i nadv er te n tl y l eft i n an e nvel ope that conta i ned adm i tte d exhibi ts. The j ury s en t o uta no th erno te a sk i ngabo utthe p rocess i f it could not reac h a un an im ou s verd ict. Th e j ury w as tol d to conti nue del iber ati ng. Later, the j ury w ro te an addi ti o na l no te a sk i ng, “ Canwe pl ea se ha ve b ac kthe y el l o w f o l dertha t was ha l fway s l i t o n th e s i de an d i ncl ud ed the poli ce r epor t o fthe i nventor y o fi tem s t ake n?” H ow ever, the p oli ce rep ort at i ssu e con tained no inven tory of i tem s. W ith th e con sen t of B row n’s attorn ey, th e cou rt p ro p osed to re peat the r esponse to the fi rs t no te. But, bef or e the co urt coul d re spond, the j ury announced i t had re ached a ver dict

.8 N o. 10

- 1116 A fterthe re adingo fthe ver dict, defense counselm ove d f or a mi s t r i a l o n t he g r o un d t ha t t he j ur y ’ s r e qu e s t f or th e p olic e re p or t in d ica te d th at it h ad co n sid er ed it dur i ngi ts de l ibe r at i o ns . The pr o se cut o rr es po nde d tha t th e j u r y ’ s r e q u e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t r e me mb er t he conte nts o fthe pol i ce r epor t a nd di d not r el y o n the pol i ce re porti n re achi ng the ve rdi ct. The c o ur t den i ed th e m i st r i almo tion on the g r o und that exposure of the j ury to the re port did n ot prej ud i ce Br o wn; the di sc l o su r e was i na dve r te nt ; m ucho fthe i nf o r m at i o n i n the r epo r t was b r o ug htout by th e d efense to i m p each the sta te’s w itne s s e s; an d the j ury was i ns tr uct ed th at i t sh o ul d o nl y co ns i der th e t es ti m o ny o fth e w itne ss es , the e xhibi ts , a nd s ti pul at i o ns tha t th e c o ur tr e c e i v e d. O n d ire cta ppea l, Br o wn ar g ue d, i n pa r t, tha t th e j ur y’s exposure to the p oli ce r epor t v i ol ate d his Fo urte enth an d S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht s to due pr oce ss a nd t o c o nf r o ntwi t ne s s e s a g a i ns th i m. T he I l l i no i s App e l l a te Cou r t, F i r s t J ud i c i a l Di s t r i c t, a f fi r med o n J ul y 2 3 , 20 07, ci tingBr o wn’ s ident i fi ca ti o n thr o ug h Gr ee n’ s te st i m o ny and G osa ’ s s i gned st atem ent a nd gr and j ury tes ti m ony. B ro w n’s peti ti on f orl eave to appeal to the I l l i n ois Suprem e Cour t was deni ed on Novem ber29 , 20 07. Br o wn fi l ed a ti m el y pe ti ti o n f o r wri t o fhabe as c o r pus i n t he No r t he r n Di s t r i c t o f I l l i no i s , whi c h wa s de ni e d o n N ove m ber5, 20 09. The di str i ct c ourthel d t h at und er Bre ch tthe er ro r i n the sta te court d id n ot have a s ubst a n tia l inju riou s e ffec t o r in flu en c e o n th e jur y. Sp ec ifical l y, th e d istr i ct c ourtci ted the cum ula ti ve nature o fN o. 10

- 1116 9 th e inform ation in th e po li ce rep ort and the trial co urt ’s curat i ve i nstr ucti ons i n re sponse to the j ury’ s req u est f orthe re port
. Bro w n ’s r equest f ora cer ti fi cate o f ap p ea lab ility w as d en ied by th e d i st ric t c ou rt, bu t, th is c ou rtgra n te d it on th e fo llow in g iss u e: “w h et h e r [p et it i o ne r ] wa s p r ej ud i c e d b y the pr e s e nc e o fa n i na dm iss ible p olic e re p or t in th e jur y ro om .”

I I

. D I S C US S I O N The I l l i nois A pp el l ate Courtf ound that a n er ro r occur re d i n Brown’s t ri al, but affi rm ed hi s co nvi cti on after ap p l yi ng the wrong s tandard. Ci ti ng Cran wil l v. D onah ue, 132 I ll

. A p p . 3d 873, 478 N

. E

. 2d 22 (3d Dist. 1985), the c ourtacknow l ed ge d thatj uri es shoul d not s ee pol i ce r epo r ts b ec au se the y are in the na tu r e o fhe ar sa y b ut d eterm ined that Brow n w as no t prej ud iced becau se th ere wa s n o “ a u r a o fm y s t e r y ” s u r r o u n d i n gth e r e p o r t
. Ho weve r, the appell ate cour t shoul d hav e dete rm i ned w hether th e e rro r w as h ar m les s b ey on d a r e a s o n ab le d ou b t. Chapm an v. C alif

ornia , 38 6 U

. S. 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed

. 2d 705 (1967 ). Recogni zi ng tha t C ranw il l was the wro ngs ta nda r d, the di s t r i c tc o ur ta pp l i e d Bre ch tv. Abrahamson , a n d c o nsi dered wh etherthe entr y o fthe i nadm i ssibl e pol i ce r epo r t i nt o the j ur y r o om h ad a s ubs ta nt i ala nd i njur iou s e f f ect ori nfl uence o n the j ury’ s deci si on. 50 7 U

. S. 619, 637-38, 113 S. Ct

. 1710, 123 L

. Ed . 2 d 3 53 (1993). Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d: The tr i alco u rt m ade cl earto the j ury, i n re sponse to [its ] q u e s tio n ab ou t t h e p olic e re p or t, th at th e o n ly10 N o. 10

- 1116

ev i de n c e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d wa s t h e t e s t i mo n y o ft he w itn esses, the exhibi ts and any st i pu l ati ons re cei ved b y t h e c ou rt . Th e s u b st an tia l w ei g h t o fth e p ro p er ly admi tt ed ev i den ce , al o ngwi ththe c o ur t’ s cl ea r i nstr uction t o the j ury that the pol i ce r epor t was nota par t o fthe e vi den ce , e f f ec ti ve l y fur th er lim i te d the i m pac t o fthe tr i ale r r o r . I t ca nno t be s ai d tha t th e e nt r y o fthe p o l i c e r e po rtin t o the j ur y r o o m ha d a substa nti alo r i nj uri ous e f f ect. The i ni ti alquesti on o n federa l r evi ew of a habe as peti ti on i s whether the s tat e cou rt d eci si on i nvol ved an unreas onabl e a p p l i cati on o fcl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l law

. 42 U

. S. C

. § 2254(d ). H ow ev e r, i f th e state cou rt n ever con d uc ted the h arm less error an alysis or otherwi s e a pp l i e d Chapm an un reason ably, th e federa l cou rt m us t m ake an i nd ep en d en t d ecision as i f th e state cou rt n ev er ad d re ss ed th e s u b j ec t a t a ll. Johns on v. Ace ve do , 57 2 F. 3d 39 8, 404 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. H ence, her e, the Bre ch t st an dard i s appr o pr i at e i n de te r m i ni ngwhethe r the er ro r w as harm l ess . Id. W h er e a fe d e r a l j u d ge in a h ab ea s p ro c ee d in g is “ in gr ave doubt abo ut wh ethera tr i ale rroro ffedera l l aw had ‘s ubstanti aland i nj u ri ous e f f ect ori nfl uence i n dete rm in in g t h e ju r y ’ s v er d ict,’ th at err or is n ot h ar m les s.” O ’Neal v. M cA ninch , 51 3 U.S

. 43 2, 43 6, 11 5 S

. Ct. 99 2, 13 0 L. Ed

. 2d 94 7 ( 1995). H ow ever, i n the habeas co ntext, “trial errors are often f ou n d h arm less w he re the record is r ep lete w ith overw he lm ing evide nc e of th e d efend an t’s gui l t. ” Wh i t man v . Ba r t ow , 4 3 4 F. 3d 968, 971 (7th Cir. 20 06 ). I n ad d itio n, erro n eo u sly ad m itt ed ev id en c e, ifN o. 10

- 1116 11

c u m u lat ive , i s a lso h ar m les s e rro r. S e eHi n t o n v . Uc h t m an , 395 F. 3d 810, 821 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( ci ti ng Bre ch t, 507 U

. S. at 639, 113 S. Ct

. 1710). A ccor ding to Brown , habea s co rpus m ust be gr anted bec au se even un d er Bre ch tth e e rro r w as su b st an tia l. H e ci tes t h e unre l i abl e nature ofey ew i tness i denti fi cat i o n a nd the j ur y ’ s r e qu e s tt o s e e the e r r o ne ou s l y a dm i tte d repor t a fterbeing i nstr uc ted o n w hat i s e vi dence. Speci fi cal l y, Brow n ar gues that Green a nd Gosa w er e no t cre dibl e, purposefullyl i ed to pol i ce a nd f ai l ed to re c al l m att er s duri ng the i r tr i alte sti m ony. Gree n, f or ex ampl e, t es ti fi ed th ats he l i ve d wi thhe r pa r en ts a nd ha d ne ve r g i ve n a no th era ddr es s. On cr o ss - ex ami na ti o n, Gr een a d m i tt ed l y i ngt o po l i ce abo uthe r na m e an d wher e sh e was l i vi ngatag e 1 6 ( i n 19 91 ) ho pi ngt o s ta y o ut oftr oubl e. A l so, Gree n did notgi ve police the nam e o f A n d re Bro w n i m m edi ate l y, but ra ther i den tifi e d “ S t r i k e r ” a nd “ Po o ” a s i nd i v i du a l s s he k ne w. On cr o ss -exam i na ti o n, s he c o ul d no t r ec al l whethe r s he du cked dow n duri ng the chase and shoo ti ng o r w hethershe l eft the ca r i n dri ve. Brown i gnor es that Green i denti fi ed hi m atthe scene, w i thi n hours of the m urder w hi l e vi ew in g ph oto
g r aph s atthe po l i ce s ta ti o n, a nd i n a l i ne up. I n a ddi ti o n, B r ow n fails to ac kn ow led ge th at G re en id en tifie d h im i n o penc o ur t as o ne o fthe s ho o ters. W he th ers he du c k e d d o wn a s s ho t s we r e fi r e d o r r e memb e r e d t o putthe c ari n pa r kwer e m at te r s o fc r edibi l i tyf o r the j u ry to as se ss . S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 21 6 F

. 3d 611, 614 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) . A t b es t, these f acts ar e per i pheralto12 N o. 10

- 1116 G reen ’s un eq uivoc al i d e n t ification of B row n an d cert a i nl y no t f a c t s t ha t wo ul d r e nd e r he r t e s t i mon y e xc e ptio n al or p h ys ica lly im p os sib le. Id. A dmi t t e dl y, M a r l i n Go s a ne v e r a c c us e d Br o wn at tr i aland m ai ntai ned that hi s pri orst ate m ents to pol i ce w ere un tru e. H ow ever, Gosa a c kn ow ledge d his prior, ha ndwri tt e n s t a t ementa nd t es ti m o ny b ef o r e th e gr and j u ry r ega rdi ng M aye s’ s k i l l i ng. H i s pri orst ate
m ent a nd te sti m ony w er e r ead and re cei ved as evid en ce co r r o bo r at i ngGr ee n’ s tr i alt es ti m o ny . A nd whi l e th e j ur y s ee m ed dea dlocked pr i o r t o r ea ch i nga v er di cta nd twi ce a sk ed to se e th e po l i ce r epo r t, i ts no te t o the c ou rtrefe rre d to a “y ello w fold er th at w as h alf w ay slit o n the s i de an d i nc l ude d the po l i ce r epo r t o fthe i nve nt o r y o fthe i tems t ak en . ” The po l i ce r epo r t ati ss ue did notco ntai n an i nventor y o fthe i tem s. U lti m ately, B row n h as no t refuted the ap p ell ee’s a s serti o n s th a tth e o n e - p a g e , t wo - s i d e d , p o l i c e r e p o r tc o ntained no m ate ri alev i dence thatwas not othe rwis e bef o r e th e j ur y . The po l i ce r epo r t i ndi ca te d tha t there wer e si x w itne ss es t o the s ho o tingo fM ay es , i nc l udi ng K enneth Thor nton, and the tr i al tes ti m ony est abl i shed that th e po l i ce r epo r t l i st ed si x wi tn es se s i nc l udi ngGr ee n a nd Thornto n. The pol ice r epor t i denti fi ed the off enders as “P o o h” an d “S tr i k er, ” m embe r s o f th e S to ne s g an g, a nd the tr i altesti m ony est abl i shed the sam e. The pol i ce r epor t pr ovi ded a des cr i pti o n a nd l i ce ns e plate numbe r, a nd the tr i al test i m ony est abl i shed that the a ssa i l ants drove a g r ayPo nt i ac di spl ay i nga l i ce ns e pl at e m atch i ng Val enci a W ashi ngto n’s l i cense pla te. M or eov er, the pol i ceN o. 10

- 1116 13

r epo r t st at ed th atthe no n- testi fy i ngwi tn es se s sa w the ass a i l a nt s r un t o t he v i c t i m wh i l e fi r i ng s ho t s , ge t in to th eir ve h i c le, th en flee as th e c ar w ith th e v ict im ro l l ed nor th o n A shl and and str u c k a pol e. A dd i ti onal l y, the t r i alt es ti m o ny e st ab l i sh ed th atS te ve ns r antow ard th e vi ctim s’ v eh i cl e fi r i ngmul ti pl e sh o ts i nt o the p assen ger side, the assa il an ts d rove aw ay, an d Gre en ’s ca r c o nt i nue d t o r o l l unti l i t hi t a po l e at5 0th a nd A shl and. I t i s e speci al l y no tabl e that Bro w n’s co unsel used the pol i ce re port i n an att em pt to i m peach sta te w i tnesse s. I nd eed, Brow n w as convi cted afterthe curat i ve i nstr ucti on m ade cl earto the j ury that the r equeste d pol i ce r epor t was noti n evi dence. This i s no t a cas e o fgr ave doubt. The evid ence aga i nst B ro w n ci ted by the appell ee and unrefuted by Brown was ove rw h elm i ng, and the pol i ce r epor t that we n tt o th e j u r y r o o m mi s t a k e n l y wa s c u mu l a t i v e . B r o wn had the o pp or tuni ty to cro ss- exam i ne Gree n and Gosa, b ot h of w h om h ad th e o p p or tu n i t y t o ob se rv e h im at the t i m e o fthe shoo ti ng and i m plicated hi m as the dr i verwh o fi red s h ots atM aye s. A rg uingthat othe rs have bee n cl ear ed w i th DN A ev i d en c e or that cour ts re cogni ze the inherentdanger s o fey ew i tness i den ti fi ca ti o n do es no t unde r m i ne the s tr en g tho fthe evi dence in thi s r eco rd. The j ury w as i n the bestposi ti on to asses s th e cr edibi l i ty ofGree n and Gosa a nd , under th es e c irc u m s t an c es , th is c ou rtca n n ot find th at it i s “r ea so nably lik el y ” th atthe j ur y r el i ed o n the i nadm i ssabl e pol i ce re port and that the pol i ce r epor t “ had su bsta nt ialand i nju rious effect or infl ue nc e” in d eterm i ni ng the ve rdi ct.14 N o. 10

- 1116 I I I

. C ONCLUS I ON Forthe f or ego i ng r easons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s d en i alo fBro w n’s peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s cor pu s.

3- 25- 11