Opinion ID: 3178942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Investigate the State’s Witnesses

Text: Petitioner next argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to investigate the past disciplinary issues and lab protocol violations of the State’s witnesses, Baird and Noppinger. Petitioner contends that, if his attorney had been aware of these incidents, he could have impeached Baird and Noppinger and cast doubt on the State’s case. 9 Case: 14-12981 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 10 of 12 Petitioner has not shown that the Florida court’s denial of his ineffectiveassistance claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The Florida court’s decision was not “contrary” to federal law, as it correctly identified the governing legal principles from the relevant Supreme Court decision. Although it did not cite to Strickland, the Florida court stated that Petitioner failed to show that his attorney was deficient, or that his attorney’s alleged errors prejudiced him. The court correctly identified the governing legal principles, and thus its decision was not contrary to federal law. The Florida court’s determination was also not an “unreasonable application” of federal law. As noted previously, in denying this claim, the Florida court determined that Petitioner failed to show that his attorney was deficient, or that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s alleged errors. Because we conclude that Petitioner did not show that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to investigate Baird and Noppinger, we need not decide whether his attorney’s performance was deficient. See Cox, 638 F.3d at 1362. Baird tested the DNA from the rape kit in the present case on May 15, 2001, which was several months before she mistakenly mixed DNA samples from two unrelated cases. Following the DNA-mixing incident, an independent agency reviewed 30 other cases handled by Baird during the same time-frame—in addition to 5 cases each from the other laboratory employees—and determined that Baird’s 10 Case: 14-12981 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 11 of 12 mishandling of DNA was an isolated incident. As to Noppinger, he was disciplined for pouring hazardous chemicals down the drain in December 2002. This infraction occurred almost two years before Noppinger analyzed the DNA in Petitioner’s case. As illustrated above, these incidents are wholly unrelated to Petitioner’s case. Baird’s DNA mix-up involved two cases unrelated to Petitioner’s and occurred several months after Baird analyzed the rape kit in the present case. Moreover, Noppinger’s act of pouring chemicals down the drain had nothing to do with the DNA analysis in the present case, in addition to the fact that it occurred several years before Noppinger determined that Petitioner’s DNA was a match to the rape kit. Because Petitioner failed to show that Baird and Noppinger’s disciplinary problems and protocol violations were connected to the DNA analysis in his case or that they had any bearing on his guilt, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that investigation by counsel of the above matters would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.