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

Keith McBride, Petitioner, was convicted in New Jersey state court for crimes including armed robbery, felony murder, and weapons charges in connection with the 2006 homicide of Robert Funderberk.
Evidence at trial was largely circumstantial but included Sanford's eyewitness account, surveillance footage, and DNA evidence linking McBride to the crime scene and victim.
McBride was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 50 years’ imprisonment, with 30 years before parole eligibility.
All levels of state appeal and post-conviction relief were unsuccessful, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and evidentiary errors.
The present opinion addresses McBride’s federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective Assistance – Failure to Seek Acquittal	Counsel failed to seek acquittal on robbery/felony murder counts due to insufficient evidence of intent to rob.	State courts found sufficient circumstantial evidence; motion was meritless.	No ineffective assistance; evidence supported conviction.
Ineffective Assistance – Jury Instructions/Charge	Counsel did not object to initial erroneous robbery charge and flawed verdict sheet, causing prejudice.	Errors were corrected before verdict; no prejudice to McBride.	No prejudice; errors cured and instructions proper.
Ineffective Assistance – Special Verdict Form/Unanimity	Jury should’ve specified object of theft (vehicle or personal property); lack of specificity risks non-unanimous verdict.	Unanimity was ensured; New Jersey law does not require special verdict.	No constitutional error; state court acted reasonably.
Confrontation Clause Violation (DNA Evidence)	DNA analyst testified to conclusions of non-testifying peer, violating right to confront witnesses.	Testifying analyst performed her own analysis and formed independent conclusions.	No error; confrontation rights not violated.
Due Process/Sufficiency of the Evidence	Evidence was insufficient to support conviction, violating due process rights.	Ample circumstantial and direct evidence supported verdict.	No due process violation; sufficient evidence presented.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (limits of federal habeas review for improper jury instructions)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (limits on admissibility of testimonial hearsay without confrontation)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Confrontation Clause and surrogate forensic testimony)