Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 287

126 

McDANIEL  v.  BROWN 

Per Curiam 

for appeal.”  App. 1101.  The state postconviction court de­
nied relief, id., at 1489–1499, and the Nevada Supreme Court 
afﬁrmed,  judgt.  order  reported  at  119  Nev.  797,  130  P.  3d 
673 (2003). 

Respondent  thereafter  ﬁled  this  federal  habeas  petition, 
claiming there was insufﬁcient evidence to convict him on the 
sexual assault charges and that the Nevada Supreme Court’s 
rejection of his claim was both contrary to, and an unreason­
able  application  of,  Jackson.  He  did  not  bring  a  typical 
Jackson  claim,  however.  Rather  than  argue  that  the  total­
ity of the evidence admitted against him at trial was consti­
tutionally  insufﬁcient,  he  argued  that  some  of  the  evidence 
should  be  excluded  from  the  Jackson  analysis.  In  particu­
lar,  he  argued  that  Romero’s  testimony  related  to  the  DNA 
evidence  was  inaccurate  and  unreliable  in  two  primary  re­
spects:  Romero  mischaracterized  the  random  match  proba­
bility  and  misstated  the  probability  of  a  DNA  match  among 
his  brothers.  Absent  that  testimony,  he  contended,  there 
was insufﬁcient evidence to convict him. 

In support of his claim regarding the accuracy of Romero’s 
testimony,  respondent  submitted  a  report  prepared  by  Lau­
rence  Mueller,  a  professor  in  ecology  and  evolutionary  biol­
ogy  (Mueller  Report).  The  District  Court  supplemented 
the  record  with the  Mueller  Report,  even  though it  was  not 
presented  to  any  state  court,  because  “the  thesis  of  the  re­
port  was  argued  during  post-conviction.”  Brown  v.  Far-
well,  No.  3:03–cv–00712–PMP–VPC,  2006  WL  6181129,  *5, 
n. 2 (D Nev., Dec. 14, 2006). 

Relying  upon  the  Mueller  Report,  the  District  Court  set 
aside the “unreliable DNA testimony” and held that without 
the  DNA  evidence  “a  reasonable  doubt  would  exist  in  the 
mind  of  any  rational  trier  of  fact.”  Id.,  at  *7.  The  court 
granted respondent habeas relief on his Jackson claim.3 

3 The  District  Court  also  granted  habeas  relief  on  respondent’s  claim 
that he was denied effective assistance of counsel with respect to his attor­
ney’s handling of the DNA evidence and failure to adequately investigate