Opinion ID: 39704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Appoint Ballistics Expert

Text: Aguilar also argues that the trial court’s failure to appoint a ballistics expert to testify on behalf of Petitioner violated his right to due process. The state called Ronald Richardson, a firearms expert. He testified that both victims were killed by .22 caliber slugs. The bullets removed from the victims’ bodies were badly damaged, and the expert was unable to determine whether they were fired from the .22 caliber pistol the state contended was the murder weapon. Before trial, Aguilar filed a written motion asking the court to provide a ballistics expert “to testify as to the potential weapon used in the alleged murders and evidence of ballistics in general.” He argued generally that the “expert witness [was] important in this case and proceeding to trial without 12 the witness would be prejudicial to the Defendant and would not afford him a fair trial....” The trial court denied his motion. In an oral pre-trial motion Aguilar again asked the court to provide a ballistics expert without giving specific reasons as to how it would aid in his defense.4 The state habeas court rejected Aguilar’s claim because of his failure to provide an affidavit from trial counsel explaining what expert witness he anticipated calling, and how his defense was actually prejudiced through his inability to present that expert. Habeas relief may be granted for failure to appoint a ballistics expert where the evidence is both 1) critical to the conviction, and 2) subject to varying expert opinion. See Scott v. Louisiana, 934 F.2d 631, 633 (5th Cir. 1991); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 1993). The defendant must also “demonstrate something more than a mere possibility of assistance from a requested expert.” Yohey at 227 (citing Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702, 712 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U. 1054, 107 S.Ct. 2192, 95 L.Ed.2d 847 (1987)). The magistrate judge and district judge 4 The defense asked the trial judge for permission to hire its own ballistics expert, stating: “The ballistics expert that appeared here for the Department of Public Safety last time, Your Honor, I think without, you know, really going into much of his testimony, I think was very inconclusive to some of his determinations, inconclusive as to what type – you know, the caliber, things of that nature, Judge. I would like to have an opportunity and I would like to have a ballistics expert come in here to be able to differentiate between .22 and .25 calibers, slugs, location of powder burns, types of powders that are used for ballistic purposes, projectile, things of that nature....” 13 rejected Aguilar’s claim because he failed to satisfy either prong of the test set forth in Scott and Yohey. The record evidence supports the conclusion that the state’s inconclusive ballistics evidence—that the bullets could have been but were not necessarily fired from the purported murder weapon—was not critical to the conviction. Also, Aguilar failed to provide any evidence that his desired expert could have excluded the gun as the murder weapon. In his COA application for the first time, Aguilar now claims that tests could have been performed to show that the gun had not been fired in years or that the gun did not have the victims’ blood on it, in order to prove it was not the gun used in the murders. However, the record reveals that Aguilar never asked the trial court for appointment of a ballistics expert or other expert to show there was no blood splatter on the weapon or that it not been fired recently. He also produced no evidence of the likelihood that such evidence could be recovered from the weapon. The record fully supports the state habeas court finding that Aguilar failed to show that evidence from a ballistics expert would have been beneficial to his case or that the evidence is subject to varying expert opinion. For the first time Aguilar, in support of his application, provided this court with several articles and books discussing the uncertainty of forensic science and how test results may be inaccurate. These treatises, however, are not helpful in showing how a ballistics expert would have assisted Aguilar in proving his innocence. 14 Because Aguilar has failed to show that a ballistics expert would have assisted him in proving his innocence or that the evidence in this case would be subject to varying opinion, we find that reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment of defendant’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong and therefore deny COA. F. Sufficiency of Evidence Aguilar also seeks a COA on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he was a party to the murder of Leo Chavez, Sr. and the finding that he was responsible for the murder of Annette Chavez. In determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, a court should consider whether “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Aguilar was a party to the murders. The court considered the eye-witness testimony of Leo Chavez, Jr. and his identification of Aguilar as the person directly responsible for the death of his mother. The court also observed that Aguilar, and not Quiroz, was the person with the motive to kill the people in the trailer home. The court also discussed the fact that Aguilar sold the .22 caliber revolver that 15 was later discovered by the police and offered by the state as a possible murder weapon. Based on the foregoing evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was criminally responsible for the deaths of both victims and that the victims were killed during the same criminal transaction. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s opinion that “[u]nder the very deferential Jackson standard, this was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Aguilar was a party to the second murder.” Based on the evidence presented at trial, we conclude that the district court’s conclusion based on the deferential Jackson standard was not debatable or wrong and we therefore deny COA. G. Appearance Before Jury in Shackles In his final claim, Aguilar argues that his right to due process was violated because he appeared before the jury in shackles. The state habeas court rejected the claim on the ground that Aguilar should have raised the claim on direct appeal and on the additional ground that he did not refer to any specific objections in the trial record. On federal habeas review, the district court also refused to grant relief because Aguilar did not reference any specific or timely objection and only provided a statement in an affidavit by his trial counsel that he “requested” that Aguilar not be shackled in the presence of the jury. In his COA request to this court, Aguilar once again gives us no record reference where he objected to the fact that he was shackled in the 16 presence of the jury and in our review of the trial record, we found no such objection. In Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the court found that claims which should have been raised on direct appeal are procedurally defaulted. Furthermore, in Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 719 (5th Cir.), this court established that “the Gardner rule set forth an adequate state ground capable of barring federal habeas review.” In the instant case, Aguilar’s claim that he was shackled in front of the jury should have been raised on direct appeal. We conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate whether the state court erred in its procedural ruling regarding Aguilar’s failure to raise his shackling claim on direct appeal. We therefore deny COA on this claim.