Brown v. Lengerich
680 F. App'x 761
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dirk Brown was convicted in Colorado state court (2010) of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, conspiracy, and theft, and sentenced as a habitual offender to 256 years.
- The key inculpatory evidence was DNA from two blood smears on a detergent bottle found at the robbery scene; the DNA matched Brown. He contended the bottle may have come from a laundromat.
- Brown raised claims in state postconviction motions asserting the investigating detective lied about fresh blood smears and that an Internal Affairs report would show misconduct; those motions were denied and he did not timely appeal some denials.
- He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising sufficiency/perjury, destruction of evidence, Fourth Amendment, and Brady/newly discovered evidence claims; the district court denied relief, discovery, and a COA.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, finding the district court’s rulings were not debatable and many claims were unexhausted or procedurally defaulted.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / alleged perjured testimony | Detective’s testimony about fresh blood smears was unreliable; thus evidence insufficient and and perjury violated due process | CCA found evidence sufficient; prosecution lacked knowledge of false testimony and testimony not shown false or material | Court held CCA reasonably applied Jackson; habeas not warranted; Napue requirement not met |
| Destruction of evidence (lab testing/fingerprinting) | Lab employees destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence, violating due process | Failure to preserve evidence requires bad faith to violate due process (Youngblood) and Brown made no such showing | No due process violation—Brown failed to show bad faith |
| Fourth Amendment (invalid arrest warrant) | Arrest invalid because warrant description did not match Brown’s height/weight | State courts fully and fairly adjudicated claim; Stone v. Powell bars federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment if full and fair state opportunity provided | Federal review barred under Stone; claim not cognizable on habeas |
| Brady / newly discovered evidence / exhaustion | Internal Affairs report would impeach detective and show Brady material; surveillance tape allegedly doctored | Brown failed to exhaust state remedies; some state remedies now time-barred or procedurally barred; no good cause shown for discovery | Claims unexhausted and subject to anticipatory procedural bar; conclusory actual-innocence assertion insufficient; discovery denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard for habeas appeals)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA when denial on procedural or merits grounds)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (due process violation when prosecution knowingly presents false testimony)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (bad-faith requirement for failure-to-preserve-evidence claim)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (limits federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims if state provided full and fair opportunity)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual innocence gateway standard for overcoming procedural default)
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (standard for discovery in habeas proceedings; showing good cause)
- Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (federal habeas courts do not retry witness credibility)
- LaFevers v. Gibson, 182 F.3d 705 (10th Cir.; review of district court’s discovery-good-cause decision)