State v. Broomer, 1504010863A

Background

April 4, 2015: a shooting in Wilmington left Raekwan Mangrum mortally wounded. Officer Begany witnessed a man firing at a blue Ford Focus; a high‑speed chase followed. A .40 caliber handgun and a .380 were recovered along the chase path.
Defendant Michael Broomer (driver) and co‑defendant Atiba Mayfield (passenger) were charged; jury convicted Broomer of second‑degree murder, two counts of PFDCF, and first‑degree reckless endangering.
On direct appeal the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded for a fuller Batson analysis; the Superior Court completed Batson on the trial record without an evidentiary hearing; the Supreme Court later affirmed.
Broomer filed a timely Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief raising 21 ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel (IAC) claims against trial and appellate counsel (failure to test/preserve evidence, jury selection, cross‑examination, experts, investigation, jury instructions, etc.).
The Superior Court reviewed the record, counsel affidavits, and filings, applied Rule 61 and Strickland, and denied the AMPCR in full: most claims were unsubstantiated, strategic choices were reasonable, and Broomer failed to show prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Broomer’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Failure to collect/test GSR/DNA; request Lolly instruction	Trial counsel should have pressed for GSR/DNA testing of vehicle/victim and requested Lolly instruction for missing exculpatory evidence	Existing GSR favored defense; testing would be cumulative or irrelevant; no basis for Lolly/Brady relief	Denied — counsel’s strategy reasonable; claims speculative and no prejudice shown under Strickland
Batson/jury selection and remand hearing	Trial counsel ineffective in voir dire/peremptory use; appellate counsel ineffective for not obtaining a remand hearing or further briefing	Appellate counsel did request a hearing; State’s explanations were race‑neutral; no additional briefing would have changed outcome	Denied — Court found race‑neutral reasons credible; no Strickland prejudice; remand scope limited
Cross‑examination of eyewitnesses (Morris, Stevens)	Counsel failed to impeach inconsistencies and out‑of‑court statements effectively	Counsel impeached Morris (criminal history, immunity, inconsistencies) and preserved helpful points from Stevens; cross‑examination was strategic and adequate	Denied — cross‑examinations were reasonable; no prejudice established
Ballistics expert/Rone; Brady re: later misconduct	Counsel should have retained a defense firearms expert and the State should have disclosed Rone’s later criminal conduct	Rone’s post‑trial convictions were unknown to State at trial; Rone’s testimony was consistent with defense theory; a defense expert was unnecessary	Denied — no Brady violation; trial counsel reasonably declined a defense expert; no prejudice shown
Failure to investigate/call witnesses; cell‑phone evidence	Counsel failed to locate/call witnesses (Mildred Munce, Mayfield) and obtain cell messages that would exculpate Broomer	Investigator searched identified leads; Mayfield unavailable as represented co‑defendant; cell review produced no exculpatory messages	Denied — investigations were reasonable; proposed testimony speculative and would not likely change result
Accomplice liability and unanimity (Probst) instruction	Counsel failed to challenge accomplice instruction and should have requested a Probst unanimity instruction	Ample record support for accomplice instruction; Probst special‑unanimity not triggered here	Denied — instruction proper and claim barred to extent re‑litigation of direct‑appeal issues
Off‑record court communications; verdict form (no hung option)	Court and counsel failed to ensure on‑record communications with jury; verdict form lacked a hung‑jury option	Court did not engage in private improper communications; usual administrative sidebars and jury‑room excusal were non‑prejudicial; hung‑jury option not required	Denied — allegations unsupported; no prejudice
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Counsel failed to object and appellate counsel failed to press the issue	Appellate counsel raised prosecutorial misconduct on appeal; Supreme Court rejected it	Denied — issue raised and rejected on appeal; no Strickland prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (gender‑based peremptory strikes unconstitutional)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (standards for appellate counsel effectiveness)
Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935 (Del. 2013) (appellate counsel need not raise every nonfrivolous issue)
Lolly v. State, 611 A.2d 956 (Del. 1992) (treatment of lost or destroyed evidence and instructions)
Deberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983) (precedent on lost evidence and disclosure)
Probst v. State, 547 A.2d 114 (Del. 1988) (specific‑unanimity instruction principles)
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural bars under Rule 61)