Robert Brannon v. Lloyd Rapelje
672 F. App'x 557
6th Cir.2016Background
- Brannon was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based principally on his niece’s delayed report of abuse that allegedly occurred when she was six.
- Defense presented alibi witnesses and other lay testimony to challenge the niece’s credibility; trial lasted four days and resulted in conviction and a 20–40 year sentence on remand.
- Post-trial, Brannon sought a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate or call expert witnesses on child memory and delayed reporting; the trial court granted a new trial, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed and ordered reinstatement of the conviction.
- Brannon filed a federal habeas petition raising multiple claims; the district court granted relief solely on the ineffective-assistance claim regarding expert investigation/presentation.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the state courts’ rejection of the ineffectiveness claim was unreasonable under AEDPA and whether counsel’s strategic decision not to call experts violated Strickland.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, holding the state court’s conclusion that counsel’s choice was a reasonable strategic decision was not objectively unreasonable under AEDPA, and remanded for consideration of Brannon’s remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not adequately investigating/presenting expert testimony on child memory/delayed reporting | Brannon: counsel’s failure to interview/call experts deprived him of a defense that could have undermined the niece’s delayed disclosure and created reasonable doubt | State/Schloff: counsel investigated three experts, discussed tradeoffs, and reasonably decided not to present expert testimony because it might aid prosecution or spark a damaging battle of experts | Reversed district court; state court’s finding that counsel made a reasonable strategic choice was not objectively unreasonable under AEDPA |
| Whether counsel’s omission satisfied Strickland deficiency prong | Brannon: decision not to call experts was error given potential to explain delayed reporting and suggest false memory risk | State: tactical decision after consultation with experts and concern expert testimony could concede delayed-reporting is common | Court: even if debatable, fairminded jurists could accept the state court’s view that decision was strategic, so no habeas relief under AEDPA |
| Whether the omission caused Strickland prejudice (reasonable probability of different result) | Brannon: expert testimony would likely have created reasonable doubt and changed outcome | State: risk that expert testimony would open door to damaging admissions or rebuttal evidence; defense already pursued alibi and credibility attacks | Court: district court did not adequately respect AEDPA; state-court resolution of prejudice issue not shown to be unreasonable |
| Standard of federal review under AEDPA | Brannon: district court should apply Strickland de novo to grant habeas relief | State: federal review is deferential; must reverse only if state decision is contrary/unreasonable under clearly established law | Court: applied AEDPA deferential standard; reversed district court for failing to identify why fairminded jurists could not disagree with state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires deference; federal courts must identify arguments that could have supported state court’s decision and reverse only if no fairminded jurists could disagree)
- McGowan v. Burt, 788 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2015) (illustrates limits of de novo review where AEDPA applies; reverses district court that effectively conducted de novo Strickland review)