Opinion ID: 150664
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Challenge DNA Evidence

Text: Allen claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Frye hearing before the State's DNA evidence was admitted. See Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 188, 195 (Fla.1989) (adopting the standard from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), that scientific evidence is not admissible unless the thing from which the deduction is made is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs (quotation marks omitted)). Allen argues that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodology for testing DNA was not generally accepted at the time of his trial, although it is now. The Florida state courts denied this claim based on Strickland 's prejudice element. See Allen II, 854 So.2d at 1258 n. 5 (deciding that this claim lack[s] merit because Allen was not prejudiced by the alleged error[ ]); Florida v. Allen, No. 92-30056-CF, slip op. at 42 (The DNA evidence did not prove the culpability of the Defendant with respect to the Victim's murder. The semen, blood and DNA evidence simply went to confirm the Defendant's presence in Summerland Key with the Victim, a fact that was not in dispute. The failure to conduct a Frye hearing or, alternatively, the exclusion of the DNA evidence would not have affected the outcome of the trial.). The Florida courts' decision is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, particularly in light of Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). The Fretwell case involved an ineffective assistance of counsel claim about the failure of counsel to raise at trial an issue that had merit at that time; however, by the time the case reached federal habeas review there had been a change in the law and the issue that counsel had not raised at trial was recognized not to have merit. Rejecting a pure outcome-determinative analysis for the Strickland prejudice element, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of habeas relief. It explained that: [A]n analysis focusing solely on mere outcome determination, without attention to whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable, is defective. To set aside a conviction or sentence solely because the outcome would have been different but for counsel's error may grant the defendant a windfall to which the law does not entitle him. Id. at 369-70, 113 S.Ct. at 842-43 (footnote omitted); see also id. at 374, 113 S.Ct. at 845 (O'Connor, J., concurring) ([T]oday we hold that the court making the prejudice determination may not consider the effect of an objection it knows to be wholly meritless under current governing law, even if the objection might have been considered meritorious at the time of its omission.); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 (stating that the prejudice component requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable); Jefferson v. Fountain, 382 F.3d 1286, 1298 (11th Cir. 2004) (As the Supreme Court explained in its Fretwell opinion, the critical focus of the Strickland prejudice inquiry is not results per se, but the fairness and reliability of the adversary proceeding in question.). The Fretwell decision requires that Allen must show not only that he could have successfully challenged PCR DNA testing in 1993, but also that the basis of the challenge would be recognized as valid under current law. He cannot do that. While PCR DNA testing was novel at the time of Allen's trial, see Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 163-64 (Fla.1997), the Florida Supreme Court has since determined that it clears the Frye hurdle. See Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1198 n. 3 (Fla.2005) ([T]he PCR method of DNA testing is now generally accepted by the scientific community and is not subjected to Frye testing.); see also Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1102 (10th Cir.2008) (collecting cases in support of the proposition that [n]umerous federal and state courts as well as scientific investigators have found that PCR DNA analysis is reliable). Because of those legal developments, Allen cannot establish Strickland -type prejudice from his counsel's failure to request a Frye hearing.