David Flick v. Millicent Warren
465 F. App'x 461
6th Cir.2012Background
- Flick cared for an eight-month-old, David McBain, while his girlfriend Tina worked; David died after injuries at home.
- Flick initially claimed David fell from a waterbed and a dog jumped on him; later admitted dropping David and hitting his head when rushing to a neighbor.
- Prosecution offered two medical theories: shaken baby syndrome and blunt-force trauma; some doctors said injuries could not come from a fall or a dog.
- Flick was convicted of second-degree murder after a trial and mistrial, receiving a 30 to 75 year sentence.
- On habeas review, a district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, though it issued a certificate of appealability on ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial, addressing trial and appellate counsel ineffective-assistance arguments under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffectiveness for not challenging SBS science | Flick contends counsel failed to challenge SBS science or investigate controversy. | States counsel reasonably avoided Daubert-like challenges given limited expert support. | No merits; counsel's strategy reasonable; no prejudice shown. |
| Ineffectiveness for not investigating short-fall studies | Counsel should have investigated short-fall studies to support a defense. | District court and appellate process refused to entertain new theories; no prejudice shown. | Not reached on merits due to procedural posture; no relief. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising trial deficiencies | Appellate counsel should have raised trial counsel’s SBS/short-fall issues. | Appellate counsel not ineffective where issues lacked merit or prejudice. | Affirmed; no prejudice from failing to raise non-meritorious issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; performance and prejudice prongs)
- Ludwig v. United States, 162 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 1998) (requirement of reasonable investigation in Strickland context)
- Mapes v. Tate, 388 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2004) (prejudice showing for appellate counsel under Strickland)
- Greer v. Mitchell, 264 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2001) (appellate counsel not ineffective for meritless issues)
- Searcy v. Carter, 246 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2001) (certificate of appealability scope; limits on new claims)
- Willis v. Smith, 351 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2003) (procedural default and defaulted procedural issues)
- Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2000) (independent review when state court did not address issue)
- Dando v. Yukins, 461 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2006) (de novo review standards for habeas; factual findings)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (standards for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)