Bryan Mincey v. Ron Davis
712 F. App'x 642
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bryan Mincey appealed denial of his habeas petition challenging his conviction; COA initially granted for exclusion of evidence regarding co-defendant/girlfriend Sandra Brown and was later expanded to include certain ineffective-assistance claims.
- Trial court granted prosecution’s motions in limine to exclude evidence of Brown’s prior drug use and child abuse as cumulative because Mincey would have presented witnesses the prosecution could counter with witnesses about Mincey’s own bad acts.
- Defense called Dr. Oliver to pursue a lack-of-intent theory; trial counsel made tactical choices about theme and witness use at trial.
- Defense conceded admission of three unredacted interrogation recordings that included deputies’ false or disparaging statements, as part of a strategy to show a coercive interrogation; judge instructed jury those deputy statements were not evidence and some were lies.
- Coroner testified death resulted from massive blunt trauma with metabolic acidosis as a complication; toxicology was negative for amphetamines. Years later, Dr. Pablo Stewart offered an alternative opinion suggesting possible amphetamine involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mincey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Brown’s prior drug use/child abuse evidence | Excluding Brown’s prior bad acts prevented presentation of exculpatory or impeaching evidence | Exclusion proper under rules permitting exclusion of cumulative/prejudicial evidence | Affirmed: exclusion appropriate as cumulative and to avoid mini-trials/confusion |
| Ineffective assistance for focusing on intent via Dr. Oliver | Counsel unreasonably limited defense strategy by concentrating on lack of intent | Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision based on materials and interactions at trial | Affirmed: tactical decision protected by Strickland/Harrington deference |
| Ineffective assistance for allowing unredacted interrogation tapes | Playing tapes admitting deputies’ false statements prejudiced Mincey | Admission was tactical to show coercion; jury was instructed deputies’ statements were not evidence | Affirmed: strategic choice reasonable; cautionary instructions presumed to cure prejudice |
| Failure to investigate toxicology/metabolic acidosis (Dr. Stewart evidence) | New expert undermines coroner; counsel unreasonable for not pursuing this line | Dr. Stewart’s later opinion is a difference of expert opinion; counsel could reasonably focus elsewhere | Affirmed: no unreasonable performance; post-conviction expert not enough to warrant relief or hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (trial courts may exclude evidence when probative value is outweighed by prejudice or confusion)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to reasonable tactical decisions by counsel on habeas review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (standards for certifying issues on habeas review)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecutorial presentation of false evidence and due process)
- Gimenez v. Ochoa, 821 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) (contradicted expert testimony is part of ordinary litigation, not proof of falsity)
- Duncan v. Ornoski, 528 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2008) (counsel unreasonable when failure to investigate would plainly have undermined prosecution)
- Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008) (no evidentiary hearing where allegations, taken as true, fail to entitle petitioner to relief)
- Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2015) (jury instructions presumed to cure prejudicial impact)