181 So. 3d 631
La.2015Background
- After a lengthy 2004 trial, a jury convicted Lee of first-degree murder and unanimously imposed death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- At trial the State introduced DNA and forensic evidence linking Lee to victim Charlotte Pace and evidence of four other homicides and one attempted homicide.
- Lee filed a pro se post-conviction application, counsel supplemented it raising 42 claims, and the District Court summarily denied relief in 2014.
- Key post-conviction claims included: inadequate funding for independent testing, insufficiency/unreliability of the State’s DNA/forensic evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel (guilt-phase and penalty-phase), and denial of access to raw DNA electronic data.
- The Court reviewed whether the District Court erred in dismissing the application without an evidentiary hearing and whether Lee met Strickland prejudice standards for ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lee) | Defendant's Argument (State/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of funding for defense testing | District Court under-funded defense, preventing independent DNA/forensic testing that could have shown lab misconduct or exculpatory results | Court previously allocated budget and experts; Lee failed to show additional funds would have produced exculpatory evidence or prejudice | Denied — funding adequate and no prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency/reliability of DNA and rape evidence | DNA/forensic evidence unreliable; post-conviction expert found no spermatozoa on some swabs and questioned lab methods, so State failed to prove aggravated rape element | Trial record contained positive presumptive tests, DNA match to Lee (1 in quadrillions), and defensive wounds; jury credibility findings reasonable | Denied — evidence sufficient under Jackson/Captville standard |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to suppress or more vigorously challenge DNA | Counsel should have moved to suppress DNA or obtained raw electronic data; alleged methodological flaws warranted exclusion | No showing State results were incorrect or that a suppression motion would have succeeded; defense had DNA expert pretrial and was offered samples for independent testing | Denied — counsel not shown deficient or prejudicial; no basis to conclude suppression would have been granted |
| Ineffective assistance at penalty phase — failure to investigate/present mitigation | Counsel failed to discover/present evidence of frontal-lobe abnormalities, bipolar/schizophrenia, abuse history, family mental illness which could have led at least one juror to vote life | Counsel presented substantial mitigation (IQ/WAIS, Vineland, neuropsychologist, forensic psychiatrist, school records, family testimony); omitted evidence would be largely cumulative and might invite rebuttal or be double-edged | Denied — even if deficient, Lee failed to show a reasonable probability of a different sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lee, 976 So.2d 109 (La. 2008) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (applying Jackson standard in Louisiana)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping for scientific evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial judge’s latitude in assessing expert reliability)
- State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (Louisiana adoption of Daubert principles)
- State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley, 602 So.2d 721 (La. 1992) (summary disposition of post-conviction applications when no material factual dispute)
- State v. Peart, 621 So.2d 780 (La. 1993) (caseload/excessive workload considerations in effective assistance analysis)