Coones v. Shelton
692 F. App'x 498
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2008 Kathleen Schroll and her husband were found shot to death; Coones was charged with Schroll’s premeditated murder.
- Two state trials: first conviction reversed for undisclosed evidence; second trial again resulted in conviction. Key prosecution evidence included a 2:21 a.m. phone call from Schroll to her mother, Elizabeth Horton, and photographs of Horton’s caller ID showing an incoming call from Schroll’s home.
- Defense advanced a murder-suicide theory and highlighted discrepancies between Horton’s caller ID photos and her phone records; experts criticized the state’s failure to test certain physical evidence (biological tissue, gunshot residue).
- After conviction, Coones moved for a new trial alleging his trial counsel Patti Kalb was ineffective; state courts rejected ineffective-assistance claims and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed.
- Coones filed a § 2254 federal habeas petition reasserting ineffective-assistance claims; the district court denied relief and refused a COA. Coones sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to object to admission of caller-ID photographs | Coones: Photographs lacked proper foundational proof the device worked that night (Schuette standard) | State: Record contained sufficient foundation under Kansas law; objection would be meritless | Denied COA — state-court ruling on state-law foundation controls; counsel not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection |
| Failure to obtain caller-ID "spoofing" expert | Coones: An expert could explain discrepancy between caller ID and phone records and show spoofing | State: Counsel reasonably investigated, highlighted discrepancies to jury, and strategically avoided expert that might strengthen prosecution | Denied COA — counsel’s strategic decision was objectively reasonable under Strickland/Harrington |
| Failure to object to Horton's testimony as testimonial hearsay (Confrontation Clause) | Coones: Statements were testimonial and admission violated Crawford/Davis | State: Schroll’s call was non-testimonial under Davis (ongoing emergency), so objection would be meritless | Denied COA — Kansas Supreme Court reasonably applied Crawford/Davis; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless confrontation objection |
| Inadequate cross-examination re: failure to test for gunshot residue | Coones: Counsel did not sufficiently pursue police failure to test, undermining murder-suicide defense | State: Record shows counsel did elicit testimony on lack of testing; challenges concern scope/strength, not absence | Denied COA — Coones has not shown deficient performance or prejudice; cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-part test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court Strickland rulings)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause — testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (ongoing emergency test for nontestimonial statements)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (federal habeas courts bound by state court interpretations of state law)
- Jackson v. Warrior, 805 F.3d 940 (cumulative-error requires multiple constitutional errors)