Lott v. Trammell
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 896
10th Cir.2013Background
- Ronald Lott convicted in Oklahoma of two counts of first-degree murder for 1986–1987 deaths and sentenced to death in 2002 after a trial that included two stages and DNA evidence linking him to Fowler and Cutler rapes/murders.
- Robert Miller was initially charged with Fowler and Cutler murders; later DNA testing showed Lott raped Fowler and Cutler, while Miller’s conviction was reversed for those crimes.
- Miller’s wrongful conviction backdrop and the State’s use of forensic evidence underlie the speedy-trial and DNA-dispute issues raised on appeal.
- Lott’s state direct appeal affirmed; he later pursued federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with the district court and court of appeals denying relief.
- OCCA denied post-conviction relief and Lott pursued federal review under AEDPA, with the Tenth Circuit applying deferential review to state-court determinations.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief, addressing Barker factors, trial-court instructions, evidence admissibility, and mitigation strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation, Barker factors | Lott argues length of delay violated Barker factors | OCCA found delay reasonable given context | OCCA reasonable; no violation under Barker factors |
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction | Instruction allowed conviction on felony murder even if Miller caused death | Instruction supported by evidence; not plain error | Not plain error; instruction admissible and supported by record |
| Admission of other-crimes evidence | Evidence of Marshall/Hoster rapes unfairly prejudiced trial | Evidence admissible for identity/common scheme; not unduly prejudicial | OCCA properly admitted; no due-process violation under standards cited |
| Ineffective assistance—mitigating evidence presentation | Counsel failed to present social-history mitigation | Strategic choice; evidence would risk harm; not ineffective under Strickland | OCCA decision applying Strickland deferential review reasonable; no reversible error |
| Victim-impact testimony | Houston’s testimony violated Payne/Booth by weight and recommendation | Minimal impact; limited testimony; no constitutional error | Admission not constitutionally prejudicial beyond Brecht standard; no error warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1967) (right to speedy trial and tolling issues under state procedures)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (balancing four Barker factors for speedy-trial claim)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1986) (pretrial-appeal delays weigh differently in Barker analysis)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (victim-impact evidence constitutional under certain limits; clarifies admissibility post-Booth)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation-right entails cross-examination for testimonial statements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in habeas review)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of ineffective assistance absent actual prejudice in certain trial-structure claims)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (non-constitutional evidence rules apply to evidentiary issues in trial)
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1987) (victim-impact testimony doctrine; later affected by Payne)