Legal Document

Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Wash ington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 08–559 E. K. MCDANIEL, WARDEN, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TROY BROWN ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT [January 11, 2010] PER CURIAM. In Jackson Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), we held a state prisoner entitled habeas corpus relief if federal judge finds “upon record evidence adduced at trial no rational trier fact could have found proof guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” Id., 324. A Nevada jury convicted respondent rape; presented included DNA matching respondent’s pro file. Nevertheless, relying upon report prepared by expert over 11 years after trial, Federal District applied standard and granted writ. divided Appeals affirmed. Brown Farwell, 525 F.3d 787 (CA9 2008). We certiorari consider whether those courts misapplied Jackson. Because includes both convincing guilt, conclude they clearly did. I Around a.m. on January 29, 1994, 9-year-old Jane Doe was brutally raped bedroom her trailer. Respon dent Troy crime. During 2 MCDANIEL since his has steadfastly maintained innocence.1 He was, however, admittedly intoxicated when crime occurred, he awoke fol lowing morning told friend “ ‘he wished remember what did go went on.’ ” App. 309. brother Travis resided near same trailer park. Their Trent wife Raquel lived park as well, across street from Doe’s. Both were ac quainted with Doe’s family; had visited several times. not know Travis. The evening attack, Jane’s mother, Pam, took Trent’s babysit while three adults out for about an hour. returned 7:30 p.m. home 9:30 Pam stayed ended up drinking playing pool nearby bar called Peacock Lounge. knew 4-year-old sister alone because answered phone mother earlier evening. consumed least 10 shots vodka followed beer chasers, so drunk vomited himself walking leaving 12:15 rape approximately Although it would taken sober man less than 15 minutes walk home, arrive until 1:30 wearing dark jeans, cowboy hat, black satin jacket, boots. Two witnesses saw dressed jacket stum —————— denied involvement police officer claimed (wrongly) fingerprints bedroom, even sentencing him accep tance responsibility garner leniency. 3 bling road between two trailers shortly where occurred dark, unable conclusively identify assailant. When asked whom reminded of, she mentioned Trent. Several days rape, identified television (Troy) assailant but then stated who sent flowers attacked her. It flowers, Troy. She photo lineup, trial. night said attacker zipper, boots, watch. also vividly remembered “stunk real, real bad” “cologne, some puke something.” 172– 173. Some besides inconsistent identification inculpate testified thought bitten assailant, bite marks hands examined four hours attack. assailant’s zipper (Troy’s not) wore watch (Troy not). Addi tionally, there conflicting testimony left received call ing rape. stumbling reported bright green logo back Troy’s yellow orange logo. Finally, light bed, suspected turned off light. only usable fingerprint match find Other physical evidence, pointed recovered semen underwear 4 kit. State’s expert, Renee Romero, tested former determined matched probability another person general population share (the “random probability”) 3,000,000. coun sel own although consulted advance prob lems Romero’s test procedures. At time sentencing, family additional testing done. That showed kit DNA, random 10,000. guilty sexual assault sen tenced life possibility parole years.2 On direct appeal, considered claim conviction sup ported sufficient analyzing “whether jury, acting reasonably, been convinced [Troy’s] Nevada, 113 Nev. 275, 285, 934 P.2d 235, 241 (1997) (per curiam). court rejected claim, summarizing follows: “Testimony indicated around Under law rather judge, imposed sentence resulted substantial bodily harm. Rev. Stat. Ann. §200.366(3) (Michie 1992). For resulting harm, option without eligibility years. §200.366(2)(a). elected more lenient sentence. sentenced second count assault, run consecutively. reversed one child abuse double jeopardy grounds, ordered resentencing count. 235 resentencing, before. 5 a.m., relatively close bar, very Doe. enough get house tele 1:00 While description clothing similar wearing; smelled like vomit times night. Furthermore, got which gave Additionally, [witnesses] someone resem hat 1:05 washed pants shirt arguably remove blood clothes. se men collected 3,000,000 people 10,000 DNA).” Ibid., P. 2d, 241–242. Respondent argued appeal erred failing conduct pretrial hearing determine reliable. raised this issue concluded plain error court’s failure hearing. 284, 241. 2001, sought postconviction relief, claiming, inter alia, counsel constitu tionally ineffective object admission evidence. number foundational problems 6 objected, excluded its importance diminished. noted “totally failed challenge case,” “failed preserve valid issues appeal.” 1101. postconvic tion id., 1489–1499, affirmed, 1500–1506. thereafter filed petition, claiming insufficient convict charges Court’s rejection contrary to, unreasonable application bring typical however. Rather argue totality admitted against constitutionally insufficient, should analy sis. particular, related inaccurate unreli able primary respects: Romero mischaracterized misstated probabil ity among brothers. Absent testimony, contended, him. support regarding accuracy Ro mero’s submitted Laurence Mueller, professor ecology evolution ary biology (Mueller Report). supple mented Mueller Report, though court, “the thesis during post-conviction.” 3:03–cv–00712–PMP–VPC, 2006 WL 6181129, *5, n. (Nev., Dec. 14, 2006). Relying set aside “unreliable testimony” “a doubt exist mind fact.” *7. 7 claim.3 Ninth Circuit 787. unreasonably F. 3d, 798; see 28 §2254(d)(1). first reasoned unreliable misleading violated due process rights,” cor rect exclude it. 797. “weighed sufficiency remaining evidence,” including Dis trict “catalogu[e] [of] numerous inconsistencies raise juror.” Ibid. “stark” conflicts concession absent objectively reject insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. 798. certiorari, 555 ___ (2009), questions: proper review habeas, such rely outside reliability II Respondent’s now crystallized into import specific inaccuracies testi mony Report. Report does effective assistance respect attorney’s handling adequately investigate victim’s stepfather alternative suspect. *9–*10 claims us. 8 qualifications validity tests performed. instead contends committed so-called “prosecutor’s fallacy” underestimated prosecutor’s fallacy assumption defendant source sample. See Nat. Research Council, Comm. Forensic Science, Evaluation Evidence 133 (1996) (“Let P equal match, given genotype. say scene came defendant”). words, juror member popu lation (random probability), takes mean chance (source succumbed fallacy. further equate unless explanation crime-scene DNA. faulty reasoning result erroneous statement that, based 10,000, .01% de fendant innocent 99.99% guilty. dispute profile rapist. correctly points out, how ever, testimony—as well argument—suggested established .000033% innocent. State concedes much. Brief Petitioners 54. example, prosecutor 9 closing “99.999967 percent sure” case. 730. And classic example erroneously equat probability, “it [would] fair . chances panties—the panties— sample, likelihood .000033,” 460, ultimately agreed “not inaccurate” way, 461–462. Looking whole, though, merely accepting mathe matical equivalence per centage figure. end colloquy ages, affirmatively question percentage math just ex pressed differently.” 462. greater identifies testimony: estimate brothers’ match. 6,500 (or .02%) another. 469, 472. “that change[s] all brothers,” no. According analysis re spects. First, used par ents under siblings lowest biologically possible, stingy brothers (1 6,500) much lower 1,024 assumption). Second, using assumptions appropriate, single sibling 263, 132, 66. 1583. sum, case turns equating underestimate scene. III parties agree Appeals’ resolution error. 2–3; Reply Peti tioners 1. Indeed, argues decide all, resolved rendered fundamentally unfair harmless. petitioners aligned side questions our review, moot continue seek different relief” Court. Pacific Bell Tele Co. linkLine Communications, Inc., ___, (2009) (slip op., 6). primarily affirm proposed ground remand harmless Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619 (1993). State, hand, asks us reverse. amicus suggested dismiss improvidently granted, National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Curiae 27–28, think prudential concerns favor Cf. Bell, supra, 7). longer admit purpose evaluating 35, “purpose acted manner returning verdict it, improper process,” 2. There suggestion excluded. thus disposes correct. An “appellate reversal insufficiency evi dence effect determination government’s lacking entered judgment acquittal.” Lock hart Nelson, 488 33, 39 (1988). equivalent judg ment acquittal, bars retrial. Burks 437 1, 18 (1978). To “make analogy complete” granting Lockhart, S., 42, reviewing must court,” regardless erroneously, 41. therefore considering Even aside, assume context egre gious concluding “involved 12 law,” §2254(d)(1).4 provided warrant entirely cluding consideration. contest remains powerful inculpatory overstated probative value dispel Mueller’s underes timated indicates experts do another, estimates unreliable.5 66,” 1583, substantially But wrong, confidence undermined. pertinent 132—the decision “contrary to” “reasonable” “rational” one, assesses defendant’s each element 787, 794–795 little moment analyzed “reason able” doubt, asking ele guilt; hardly satisfied doubt. attention cases criticized opinions Professor past. 53–54. need pass relative credibility assuming correct, fails. 13 brothers—because Utah. tioned trailer, (unlike Troy) bed early odds, guilt. discussion non-DNA departed deferential §2254(d)(1) demand. can state-court “an un §2254(d)(1), “objectively unreasonable,” Williams Taylor, 529 362, 409 (2000). requires “in most favorable prosecution.” 319. Expressed fully, means “faced torical facts supports inferences presume—even appear record—that prosecution, defer resolu tion.” 326; Schlup Delo, 513 298, 330 (1995) (“The looks which, credited, port conviction”). acknowledged recitation incon sistencies shows that. highlights Peacock. true accept bartender attack occurred. Yet credited bartender’s Resolving 14 conflict undisputed clothes immediately home. notes “plausibly consistent being assailant” reason washing Viewed prosecu tion, inference clean them. sure, relied substan tially post proceedings “absent findings, [Troy] crime.” 1180. posited situation all,6 situa pieces question. factfinder’s role weigher evidence” “all prosecution,” Jack son, 319, finding unreasonable. IV Resolution consid eration ground. errors describing statistical meaning” competent objected admissibility grounds—including qualifications, chain-of-custody problems, follow protocol—and might successfully altogether. 1099–1100. law. 4. [respondent’s] 797, view (erroneously) harmless, below basis calls “DNA process” 35. As acknowledges, prevail show adjudi cation involved unrea sonable law.” Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 114 (1977), suggestive eyewitness procedure, “reliability linchpin determining” admissible, deter mined according factors Neil Biggers, 188 (1972). Brathwaite cause “identification testimony,” 114, “unnecessarily suggestive,” 113, unreliable. forfeited makes brief merits present new consis tently simply “unreli violation convict. Pet. Cert. 157a (“[Respondent] asserts If so, then, pre sented prove [respondent] 16 guilty”). Circuit, too, claim,7 is, least, unclear newly minted courts.8 Recognizing cannot prevail, tries rewrite petition. His attempt comes too late, start over. * provide unlike anything known before.” Attorney’s Office Third Judicial Dist. Os borne, 557 8). Given persuasiveness eyes important reliable manner. acknowledges fallacy, 54, suggests Regardless, ample grounds. inextricably intertwined make petition clear never consider—and upon—the 98 either exhausted procedurally defaulted. beginning court. 182a–183a. consistently exhaustion objection arguing 1521–1526. 793. occasion 17 supported jury’s Jackson, last minute recast Brathwaite. consider, ineffective-assistance relief. Accordingly, versed, remanded opinion. ordered. THOMAS, J., concurring JUSTICE SCALIA joins, concurring. join curiam holds departing Jackson’s mandate confine sufficiency-of-the trial” and, specifically, ‘all court.’ Ante, (quoting Lockhart 41 (1988)); (1979). write separately disagree complicate exten sive ante, 7–13. commissioned port’s attacks part place inquiry. 318; 40–42. deciding demonstrates lengthy 7– 10, predicate asserting “even if” analysis, “provided excluding consideration” “did Troy” otherwise “unreliable,” 12. Based these observations, concludes mine “powerful dence.” true, completely undermined evidence—which mistakenly believed did, 795–796 (2008)—the panel still resolve reason, reaffirms, decided solely 11. correct impressions concerning report’s impact claim.* properly us, dicta Report’s findings affect constitutional long post-trial apply. 318. Correcting Circuit’s apparent misconception effects plausible explain results ered resolving 11–12. read suggest circumstances “warrant” 12, applying pur pose. squarely foreclosed precedents relies reversing judgment. (citing 307, 324 (1979)); (1988)), respectively.

Classification Label: 0