Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claims of Error in the Guilt Phase

Text: Mr. Wilson claims that the use of the dual juries during his trial with codefendant Darwin Brown violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. He argues that the use of the dual jury procedure is structural error; in the alternative, he contends that the procedure prejudiced his defense and that the prejudice was not harmless. Before we determine whether a dual jury procedure is amenable to harmless error analysis, however, we must determine if there was any error at all. See Bland v. Sirmons, 459 F.3d 999, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 2006); Turrentine v. Mullin, 390 F.3d 1181, 1189 (10th Cir.2004). The OCCA found that there was no error in the use of the dual jury procedure, Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 456-58, and the district court agreed. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at -7. Because a great deal of the evidence pertained to both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown, the two were tried jointly with two separate juries assigned each to one defendant. Each was represented by separate counsel. Both juries sat in the jury box together and the state presented the evidence against both defendants simultaneously. When evidence admissible only against or in favor of one defendant was introduced, the court removed the other jury from the courtroom. See Tr. trans. 2/3/97, 3-6; Cohee v. State, 942 P.2d 211, 213 (Okla.Crim.App.1997); see also Beam v. Paskett, 3 F.3d 1301, 1302 (9th Cir.1993) (reversed on other grounds) (describing the dual jury procedure). In order to facilitate this, Mr. Wilson's counsel was required to inform the court whenever he was about to present a defense or evidence antagonistic to Brown so that the court could remove Brown's jury. The dual jury procedure is not without problems. Dual jury trials require counsel to guard against prejudicial evidence that might be entered against another defendant, drawing the lawyer's attention away from his own client. This increases the already difficult job of the capital defense lawyer. Additionally, constantly removing a jury from the room interrupts the flow of trial and can confuse the jury. Jury management difficulties increase two-fold. Scarborough v. State, 50 Md.App. 276, 437 A.2d 672, 674-75 (Spec.App.1981); see also United States v. Rimar, 558 F.2d 1271, 1273 (6th Cir.1977); State v. Corsi, 86 N.J. 172, 430 A.2d 210, 213 (1981) ([T]he multiple jury procedure . . . can involve substantial risks of prejudice to a defendant's right to a fair trial.). Our role as an appellate court, however, is not to determine what would have been the optimal procedure, but rather, to determine whether there has been a constitutional violation. Mr. Wilson's argument that the dual jury procedure is unconstitutional is precluded by this Court's recent decision in Brown v. Sirmons, 515 F.3d 1072, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding no error in the use of the dual jury procedure). Moreover, many of the potential harms from a dual jury procedure, including the inadvertent introduction of prejudicial evidence against one defendant, are also present and possibly magnified in a trial where the defendants are tried jointly. In joint trials without dual juries, defense counsel and defendants often wind up at the same counsel table. Lambright v. Stewart, 191 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). Though the jury is instructed that at times they may have to consider evidence against one defendant but not against the other, there might be some rub off. Id. Yet the Supreme Court has expressed a preference for joinder. Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). The use of a dual jury system may very well be a reasonable response to prejudicial joinder, as it recognizes the court's interest in efficiency while mitigating the prejudice inherent in joint trials by diminishing the amount of inadmissible evidence a jury hears. See Lambright, 191 F.3d at 1186; Smith v. DeRobertis, 758 F.2d 1151, 1152 (7th Cir. 1985) ([T]he double-jury procedure may reduce the prejudice from being tried jointly with anothera form of prejudice usually held outweighed by the economies of joint trials.). Given the Supreme Court's continuing approval of joinder, we can scarcely conclude that the generally less problematic alternative of dual juries is categorically forbidden. Indeed, every federal appellate court that has considered a dual jury system has upheld the procedure. See Lambright, 191 F.3d at 1186 (finding no violation of due process or any other trial right in the use of dual juries in a capital case); Smith, 758 F.2d at 1152 (same); United States v. Lewis, 716 F.2d 16, 19 (D.C.Cir.1983) (We accept the dual jury procedure so long as it comports with the ethos of due process commanded by our stringent rules of criminal justice.); United States v. Hayes, 676 F.2d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 1982) (rejecting a challenge to the use of multiple juries and noting that neither [defendant] has alleged any more than a generalized possibility of harm). Mr. Wilson cites several reasons why the dual jury procedure violated his constitutional rights. First, he contends that the dual jury procedure created a conflict of interest by requiring counsel to notify the judge in advance of potential prejudicial testimony. He cites no specific incidents where a conflict occurred. Mack v. Peters, 80 F.3d 230, 235 (7th Cir.1996) (For [a dual jury] trial to be unconstitutional, a defendant tried in such a trial must show some specific, undue prejudice.). Mr. Wilson's counsel's sole duty to the court was to inform it of questions against Brown that were potentially prejudicial. And though this was an important duty, in the end, if he failed to fulfill it, Brown's counsel could object to any prejudicial information introduced against his client. See Brown, 515 F.3d at 1079. While Mr. Wilson's counsel had to inform the court in advance of potential prejudicial questions, his additional duty to the court did not diminish his presence at counsel table during all stages of the trial, nor did it prevent him from acting as counsel, as he was free to ask all questions and present all evidence. Whatever minimal obligation he had did not materially limit his ability zealously to represent Mr. Wilson. The defendant invokes Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978), but that was a far different case. In Holloway, a single attorney represented three co-defendants despite having confidential information from one adverse to the others, which limited his representation; the Court naturally presumed prejudice from that egregious situation. Nothing in the dual jury procedure rises to that level. Second and more specifically, Mr. Wilson argues that defense counsel was loathe to remove the jury and cause a spectacle, and therefore refrained from cross-examining some of the government's witnesses. We note that Mr. Wilson has not identified any specific information that might have been, but was not, elicited from a proper cross-examination of any witnesses. Additionally, we are slightly puzzled by why counsel would elect not to cross-examine important witnesses, given that the trial court gave careful and meticulous . . . instructions, Brown, 515 F.3d at 1078, informing the juries that they would at times leave the courtroom, and that they could not attempt to draw any inference, or come to any conclusions, or guess at what evidence may be presented or is being presented at the time when they were outside of the courtroom. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 457. We are aware that cautionary instructions cannot entirely eliminate juror suspicion, but we cannot imagine why a reasonable counsel would have refrained from cross-examining key witnesses under those circumstances. Mr. Wilson also claims that the dual jury system resulted in improperly admitted evidence about Yost's death on the theory that because he was not in the back room while the beating occurred, details of the event were not relevant to his case. This argument borders on the absurd. The government tried Mr. Wilson for felony murder and for first degree malice murder; the government's theory was that Mr. Wilson helped plan Yost's murder two weeks prior to the robbery and that the murder occurred in furtherance of the robbery of which Mr. Wilson was an integral part. Details of the victim's death were relevant. Because we find no error, we do not reach Mr. Wilson's claim that the dual jury procedure is structural error, though we note that this Court recently rejected this argument when made by Mr. Wilson's co-defendant. Brown, 515 F.3d at 1078-79. We would be bound to reach the same conclusion here. [5]
During the guilt phase, the state introduced the results of a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test performed on blood stains found on various pieces of evidence, including the black aluminum baseball bat, shoes, sweatpants, a QuikTrip jacket, a Nike jacket, a paper bag, a latex glove, and a steering wheel. Tr. trans. 2/12/97 at 257. As the state's expert, Cindy Brown, a criminalist with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, (OSBI), explained, the PCR test is a method used to replicate DNA which can then be typed. [6] United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1445 (8th Cir.1996); David H. Kaye & George F. Sensabaugh, Jr., Reference Guide on DNA Evidence, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 485, 493 n. 32 (2d ed.2000); see also Tr. trans. 2/12/97, at 263-270. The PCR tests demonstrated that Yost's blood was on all of those items. Tr. trans. 2/12/97, at 260. Mr. Wilson argues that the admission of the PCR DNA test results without a Daubert hearing violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). He also argues that the State did not lay the proper foundation to admit this evidence, nor did it properly lay the foundation to qualify its expert witness. Defense counsel did not make these objections at trial. The OCCA found that the use of the PCR test did not amount to plain error. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 460-61. The district court affirmed. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at . As a general matter, federal habeas corpus relief does not lie to review state law questions about the admissibility of evidence. . . . Moore v. Marr, 254 F.3d 1235, 1246 (10th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). Absent a showing that the admission of the evidence violated a specific constitutional guarantee, a federal court on habeas review will not disturb the state court's evidentiary ruling unless it was so grossly prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process. Fox v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1286, 1296 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Williamson v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508, 1522 (10th Cir.1997)); Milone v. Camp, 22 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 1994). Because Daubert does not set any specific constitutional floor on the admissibility of scientific evidence, the only relevant question is whether the PCR test rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Milone, 22 F.3d at 702; see also Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 335 (6th Cir.1998). The introduction of this evidence did not violate traditional notions of due process. Numerous federal and state courts as well as scientific investigators have found that PCR DNA analysis is reliable. See, e.g., United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1027 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Shea, 159 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir.1998); United States v. Lowe, 145 F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 1998); Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448; United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 844-45 (9th Cir.1996); State v. Hill, 257 Kan. 774, 895 P.2d 1238, 1246-47 (1995); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807, 685 N.E.2d 739, 743 (1997); George Bundy Smith & Janet A. Gordon, The Admission of DNA Evidence in State and Federal Courts, 65 Fordham L.Rev. 2465, 2470 (1997) (noting that PCR analysis has received overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community and the courts.). Mr. Wilson has offered no reason to believe these holdings were in error. Mr. Wilson's claim that Cindy Brown was unqualified to testify as a DNA expert is similarly meritless. She had worked as a criminalist with OSBI for seven and a half years. She holds a Bachelor of Science in chemistry and received training in DNA testing from OSBI and from the FBI. Before Mr. Wilson's trial, she had testified in about a dozen other trials, six times as a DNA analyst. Mr. Wilson has not demonstrated any error in the admission of Ms. Brown's testimony, much less that the admission of the . . . evidence rendered the proceeding fundamentally unfair. Fox, 200 F.3d at 1297.
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 2002 provides that, upon request from defense counsel, the state shall disclose, at least ten days prior to the start of trial, the names and addresses of witnesses which the state intends to call at trial with their statements or summaries thereof, along with results of scientific tests or experiments and tangible objects which the prosecution intends to use at trial. Mr. Wilson contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it admitted evidence, specifically, the PCR DNA results, in violation of the Oklahoma discovery code, because the district attorney did not inform him ten days in advance of the presence of the DNA evidence. Because federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law, Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990), we construe Mr. Wilson's claim to allege that the late notice deprived him of his ability to provide a proper defense. Though not entirely clear, he also seems to argue that the admission of the DNA evidence in contravention of the Oklahoma Discovery Code violated a specific, protected liberty interest created by state law. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 488, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). The OCCA rejected this claim, finding that the defendant had been given the notice required under the discovery code. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 461. The district court affirmed, Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at  17-18, and we agree. First, Mr. Wilson has not shown that the Oklahoma Discovery Code creates a protected liberty interest, compare with Vitek, 445 U.S. at 488, 100 S.Ct. 1254, and even if it did, we agree with the OCCA's assessment that proper notice was given. On July 16, 1996, defense counsel filed a motion for discovery requesting all physical evidence. On January 24, 1997, ten days prior to trial, the District Attorney informed counsel that the entire file was available for him at the office. Defense counsel, however, failed to pick up the file until Monday, January 27, 1997. Defense counsel was unaware of the fact that the DNA evidence existed only because of his own negligence, and we therefore find no violation of the prosecution's obligations under the Code. Second, while [a] defendant's right to notice of the charges against which he must defend is well established, there is no clearly established constitutional right to non-exculpatory discovery. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 167-68, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996). So long as Mr. Wilson had a meaningful opportunity to deny or explain, Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 361, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), there is no clearly established due process violation. Gray, 518 U.S. at 169-70, 116 S.Ct. 2074. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 thus prohibits us from finding error here. Mr. Wilson knew about the DNA evidence before trial and heard about it in open court during the trial, and so he was free to contest it; additionally, he has shown no evidence of prejudice for example, that defense counsel tried to hire an expert but was unable to do so because of the short notice. Because Mr. Wilson has failed to show that the admission was so prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial, we must deny this claim. Fox, 200 F.3d at 1296.
Mr. Wilson next argues that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct on the lesser included offense of second degree felony murder. We recently denied a similar claim in Brown, 515 F.3d at 1085-86, and we do the same here. Under Beck v. Alabama, a sentence of death [may not] constitutionally be imposed after a jury verdict of guilt of a capital offense, when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included non-capital offense, and when the evidence would have supported such a verdict. 447 U.S. 625, 627, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). Mr. Wilson must demonstrate that he presented sufficient evidence to warrant a lesser included instruction. Hogan v. Gibson, 197 F.3d 1297, 1306 (10th Cir.1999). He must also show that the evidence presented at trial would permit a rational jury to find him guilty of the lesser included offense and acquit him of first degree murder. Young v. Sirmons, 486 F.3d 655, 670 (10th Cir.2007); Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206, 1223-29 (10th Cir.1999). Mr. Wilson claims that he presented sufficient evidence at trial to warrant a jury instruction on second degree felony murder. A person commits first degree felony murder when he takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of [certain listed felonies, including] . . . robbery with a dangerous weapon. . . . Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7(B). Homicide is murder in the second degree when it is perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in § 701.7. 21 Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.8(2). Second degree felony murder encompasses murder committed during a robbery by force or fear, which is not an enumerated felony in the first degree murder statute. See Brown, 515 F.3d at 1086. The use of the weapon is what distinguishes robbery by force or fear from robbery with a dangerous weapon: once the state has established that a defendant used a dangerous weapon in the course of a robbery that results in death, the offense of second degree murder is no longer an option under Oklahoma law. Fowler v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1302, 1309 (10th Cir.2000) overruled on other grounds by Moore v. Marr, 254 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir.2001); see also Brown, 515 F.3d at 1086; Hatch v. Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447, 1454 (10th Cir.1995) overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. United States, 254 F.3d 1180, 1188 n. 1 (10th Cir.2001). Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson argues that a second degree instruction was appropriate because the perpetrators brought a dangerous weaponthe baseball batinto the QuikTrip only after they subdued Yost, and thus it was not used to effectuate the robbery. Mr. Wilson also asserts that he did not have the requisite intent to kill with a dangerous weapon because he was not present in the back room when Yost was beaten to death. The OCCA rejected both versions of the argument, stating that [i]n this case, the evidence clearly showed that the victim was beaten to death with a baseball bat, a dangerous weapon which was used to complete the robbery. . . . There was no evidence other than the evidence that a dangerous weapon was used to commit the robbery. Accordingly, we find no error. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 463; see also Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at  (affirming). The evidence, as found by the OCCA, demonstrates that the bat was used during the course of the robbery. We afford this finding a presumption of correctness unless it is rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), a high burden which Mr. Wilson has not met. It is impossible to disaggregate the robbery from the murder. Mr. Wilson stood behind the counter at the QuikTrip, attempting to pull out the safe, as the other co-defendants murdered Yost, the sole witness to the robbery, with the bat. Additionally, Mr. Wilson confessed that the group planned to kill Yost as part of the robbery. The OCCA's decision was not contrary to federal law, nor was it an unreasonable application of the facts to that law. See Brown, 515 F.3d at 1086.