Michael Locascio v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 685 F. App'x 837

Michael Locascio was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for the killing of his sister‑in‑law; multiple items found near the scene (beige shirt, gloves, metal baton) contained DNA matching Locascio.
Mid‑trial the prosecution disclosed new DNA test results showing Locascio's DNA on a blue plaid shirt; those preliminary results were communicated to the prosecutor before the lab’s co‑reader (Dr. Hass) had completed a formal co‑read.
Crime lab analyst Jeff Johnson testified at trial that all of his DNA results were co‑read by Dr. Hass prior to dissemination. The prosecutor had earlier told defense counsel of the blue shirt result before the formal co‑read.
Locascio claimed the jury heard false testimony (Giglio) because Johnson said results were co‑read when the blue‑shirt result had been disclosed early, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Johnson on this point.
The Florida trial court held a Richardson hearing, found the late disclosure inadvertent and cumulative of other DNA evidence, and the state courts denied relief. The district court denied 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor knowingly failed to correct Johnson’s false testimony that all DNA results were co‑read (Giglio)	Johnson falsely testified that all results were co‑read before dissemination; prosecutor failed to correct this, so Giglio violation	Disclosure was inadvertent, lab results were later co‑read and made official before trial testimony, and the misstatement was not material given other strong evidence	No Giglio violation; any false statement was not materially likely to affect the verdict; state decision reasonable
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Johnson about premature dissemination	Counsel should have impeached Johnson on the co‑read misstatement, which would have undermined the DNA evidence and changed the outcome	Counsel had reasonable trial strategy (focus on lab methods, contamination, lack of corroborative testing); even if deficient, no prejudice given other strong evidence	No Strickland relief; performance not shown deficient or, alternatively, no prejudice from omission

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (establishes prosecutor's duty to correct false testimony and materiality standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state‑court merits decisions in habeas review)
Guzman v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 663 F.3d 1336 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of Giglio materiality and harmlessness)
Ford v. Hall, 546 F.3d 1326 (Eleventh Circuit Giglio framework)
Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. standard for inquiry into discovery violations)
Stewart v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 476 F.3d 1193 (standard of review for § 2254 in Eleventh Circuit)
Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227 (en banc discussion referenced regarding look‑through to state decisions)