542 F.Supp.3d 649
E.D. Mich.2021Background
- Two-vehicle head-on collision (July 20, 2013) in which Bergman crossed the centerline; both occupants of the other truck died. Bergman’s BAC was below legal limit but tests showed carisoprodol, meprobamate, oxycodone, and amphetamine.
- Prosecutor’s toxicology expert (Dr. Glinn) testified that the drug combination could magnify impairing effects and impaired Bergman’s driving; her testimony was emphasized in closing.
- Trial court admitted seven prior incidents of Bergman’s impaired or erratic driving under MRE 404(b); it excluded the deceased driver Ward’s toxicology results and denied Bergman’s request for a court‑funded defense toxicologist.
- Jury convicted Bergman of two counts of second‑degree murder and related charges; she was sentenced to concurrent lengthy prison terms and appealed to Michigan courts, which affirmed; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave.
- Bergman filed a federal habeas petition raising insufficiency of evidence (malice), exclusion of victim toxicology, denial of a court‑funded toxicologist, and admission of prior‑acts evidence; district court denied habeas relief but granted a limited certificate of appealability on the expert‑funding claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (malice) | Conviction lacked proof of malice/depraved indifference | Prior bad‑act evidence showed knowledge of propensity to create severe hazard | Viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational jury could find malice; claim denied |
| Exclusion of victim Ward’s toxicology | Ward’s toxicology was relevant to causation/fault and right to present a defense | Ward’s results were irrelevant because Bergman crossed centerline and Ward did nothing negligent | Exclusion was a state evidentiary ruling and did not violate federal due process; claim denied |
| Denial of court‑funded toxicologist (Ake claim) | Indigent defendant needed an expert to meaningfully challenge prosecution’s toxicology and cross‑examine Dr. Glinn | Ake applies to psychiatric experts only; no Supreme Court holding requires non‑psychiatric experts at state expense | Court found denial unfair but AEDPA bars relief because Supreme Court has not clearly established a right to non‑psychiatric experts; limited COA granted on this issue |
| Admission of prior bad acts under MRE 404(b) | Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and undermined presumption of innocence | Evidence was admissible to show knowledge/absence of mistake and probative of malice; jury instructed | State evidentiary ruling not cognizable on federal habeas absent fundamental unfairness; no due process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (indigent defendant entitled to psychiatric expert when sanity is at issue)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1992) (procedural‑due‑process analysis; discusses Ake but does not extend it to non‑psychiatric experts)
- Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1971) (state must provide indigent prisoners basic tools of adequate defense when needed)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (AEDPA requires deference unless state decision was unreasonable)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (federal habeas not review state‑law evidentiary rulings absent fundamental fairness)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (U.S. 2014) (§2254(d)(1) "clearly established Federal law" means Supreme Court holdings)
- People v. Werner, 659 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (prior blackout while driving admissible to show knowledge/absence of mistake)
- Stewart v. Winn, 967 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2020) (no clearly established Supreme Court precedent that admission of propensity evidence violates due process)
- Conklin v. Schofield, 366 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2004) (Ake has not been extended to non‑psychiatric experts)
- Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2000) (federal habeas not to reexamine state evidentiary rulings)
- Bugh v. Mitchell, 329 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2003) (no Supreme Court precedent clearly establishing due‑process bar to other‑acts evidence)