MCBRIDE v. KUHN, 3:22-cv-02016

Keith McBride was convicted in New Jersey state court for conspiracy to commit robbery, armed robbery, theft of an automobile, felony murder, weapons offenses, hindering apprehension, and disturbing human remains related to the 2006 killing of Robert Funderberk.
The convictions relied on circumstantial and testimonial evidence, including witness testimony and surveillance video showing McBride participating in the disposal of the victim's body.
McBride was sentenced to 30 years without parole and an additional consecutive 20-year sentence for weapons possession.
His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal and following post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings in New Jersey courts.
McBride filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Confrontation Clause violations, and due process violations.
The federal district court reviewed the last reasoned state court decisions under AEDPA's deferential standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance—failure to move for acquittal	Counsel failed to move for acquittal due to insufficient theft/robbery evidence	Counsel did move generally; sufficient circumstantial evidence existed	Denied; evidence sufficient; no ineffective assistance
Ineffective assistance—jury instructions	Counsel failed to object to erroneous robbery jury charge and verdict sheet	Errors were corrected before verdict; no prejudice resulted	Denied; errors corrected; no prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance—special verdict form	Counsel failed to request special verdict to clarify object of theft	Jury was unanimous; law does not require specific object of theft	Denied; no constitutional requirement for special verdict
Confrontation Clause—DNA testimony	State introduced DNA evidence via surrogate analyst, violating rights	Testifying analyst performed independent work and review	Denied; no violation; testimony met confrontation standards
Due process—insufficient evidence	Conviction based on insufficient evidence, violating due process	Evidence was sufficient under Jackson standard	Denied; evidence sufficient for conviction

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sets the standard for sufficiency of evidence in habeas review)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (addresses surrogate testimony and the Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes testimonial evidence requirements under the Confrontation Clause)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts, but not special verdicts as to means)