State v. Ellis, 975 N.W.2d 530

12-year-old Amber Harris disappeared; her bookbag and blood-stained jeans were found behind a boarding house where Roy L. Ellis had lived; a DNA mixture in a handprint on the jeans could not exclude Ellis and a lab statistic reported a 1-in-2.3-billion chance of a coincidental match.
Harris was later found dead of blunt-force trauma; before discovery of the body/DNA, Ellis made multiple incriminating statements to neighbors and inmates admitting sexual assaults and knowledge of the case.
Defense filed a motion in limine challenging PCR-STR DNA methodology under Nebraska’s Daubert/Schafersman framework; State experts testified at the hearing and trial, and the court overruled the motion and admitted the DNA evidence over a foundational objection.
Trial counsel cross-examined State experts, retained Dr. Ron Ostrefski (who did not dispute the State’s statistics), and elected a strategy to attack weight (common alleles/statistical interpretation) rather than fight admissibility; no defense DNA expert testified at trial.
A jury convicted Ellis of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal (281 Neb. 571 (2011)), finding the DNA admissible and the overall evidence sufficient.
Ellis sought postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance for failing to preserve an admissibility challenge and failing to present a defense expert; after an evidentiary hearing the district court denied relief and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging DNA admissibility and for not presenting a defense DNA expert	Ellis: counsel should have preserved and litigated a Daubert/Schafersman challenge based on the "relatively modest" 1-in-2.3-billion statistic and should have retained/testified an expert to rebut the State’s statistical analysis	State/Board: counsel reasonably chose a strategy to minimize weight via cross-examination; defense expert reviewed data and did not dispute the statistics; counsel’s strategic choices were lawful and reasonable	Court affirmed denial of postconviction relief: counsel’s strategy was reasonable (no deficient performance) and Ellis showed no prejudice; DNA admissibility and weight issues were properly handled under precedent

Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. 2001) (Nebraska’s framework for evaluating scientific evidence admissibility).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeper role for expert/scientific testimony).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Ellis, 281 Neb. 571, 799 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. 2011) (direct appeal affirming DNA admissibility and discussing common-allele statistical analysis).
State v. Newman, 310 Neb. 463, 966 N.W.2d 860 (Neb. 2021) (standards for postconviction evidentiary hearings and review of ineffective-assistance claims).
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (prejudice inquiry requires a substantial—not merely conceivable—likelihood of a different outcome).
State v. Baldwin, 283 Neb. 678, 811 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. 2012) (DNA probability differences go to weight, not necessarily admissibility).
State v. Tucker, 301 Neb. 856, 920 N.W.2d 680 (Neb. 2018) (small probability of coincidental match does not render Y-STR DNA evidence inadmissible).