KEVIN M. BELLINGER v. UNITED STATES.
127 A.3d 505
| D.C. | 2015Background
- In May 2000 Lorraine Jackson was shot and identified appellant as the shooter; appellant was convicted after three trials (guilty verdict in April 2002).
- Appellant’s original defense counsel from Public Defender Service (PDS) withdrew in Sept. 2001 due to a conflict tied to another PDS client, Randall Mack; replacement counsel Phyllis Baron represented appellant at the second and third trials.
- PDS later sought access to firearms/ballistics evidence because Mack (and co-defendant Andrews) were arrested with guns used in a July 2000 homicide; a defense expert in 2006 concluded the shell casings from the Jackson shooting matched the gun recovered from Mack.
- In 2011 appellant filed a D.C. Code § 23-110 motion alleging (1) ineffective assistance because Baron failed to investigate or present the ballistics link to Mack as a third‑party perpetrator, and (2) Brady violations for suppression of ballistics information.
- The trial court summarily denied the § 23-110 motion and discovery; on appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance but affirmed denial of a Brady hearing while permitting limited, narrower discovery on remand regarding whether the police actually possessed the ballistics information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance (Strickland) was required | Baron told appellant of a possible ballistics link to Mack, promised to investigate, but failed to do so; that failure was objectively unreasonable and prejudiced the defense | Delay in raising claim and counsel’s unavailability (Baron deceased), plus counsel’s generally competent trial performance and possible strategic concerns justify summary denial | Reversed in part: remand for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance; summary denial unreasonable without live factfinding |
| Whether appellant showed Strickland prejudice from counsel’s failure to investigate/present the ballistics match | A competent attorney would have introduced the ballistics match as third‑party evidence, creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome given prior hung juries and weaknesses in prosecution | Identification evidence at third trial was strong; any ballistics evidence could have been rebutted by proof of communal gun‑sharing among crew members, so no reasonable probability of different verdict | Prejudice not resolved on existing record; trial court erred in deciding prejudice without a hearing—remand to develop record and assess available rebuttal evidence |
| Whether the government violated Brady by suppressing exculpatory ballistics information | The police/prosecution had reason to compare Mack’s recovered gun to other recent shootings; discovery may show the government possessed and withheld a match | Prosecutors and (on submitted affidavits) investigating officers had no knowledge or possession of any comparative ballistics test at trial time; Brady requires actual government possession | No hearing required on Brady claim as presented—appellant failed to show the government actually possessed the exculpatory information; but court left open limited discovery on whether police (MPD) files/personnel had such information |
| Whether post‑conviction discovery should be allowed to develop Brady claim | Movant sought broad discovery into police/FBI files, protocols, personnel to show suppression or negligence that led to nondisclosure | Requests were overly broad, speculative, aimed at proving negligence rather than actual possession of exculpatory evidence | Denial of broad discovery affirmed as an abuse of discretion; court invited narrower, targeted discovery on whether MPD actually had/withheld ballistics information |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government must disclose material, favorable evidence in its possession)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady duty extends beyond individual prosecutor to those acting on government’s behalf)
- Cosio v. United States, 927 A.2d 1106 (D.C. 2007) (prejudice inquiry for investigative omissions; focus whether investigation itself was reasonable)
- Long v. United States, 910 A.2d 298 (D.C. 2006) (standard for denying § 23‑110 hearings)
- Newman v. United States, 705 A.2d 246 (D.C. 1997) (resolve doubts in favor of holding evidentiary hearings on § 23‑110 motions)
- Winfield v. United States, 676 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1996) (standard for admitting third‑party perpetrator evidence)
- Bellinger v. United States, 916 A.2d 199 (D.C. 2007) (procedural history of appellant’s convictions referenced)