State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361

Background

Courtney W. Starks was convicted in 1986 of first degree murder and use of a weapon; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Starks (1988).
At trial Starks confessed after being transported from jail to police headquarters for questioning; he had been arrested earlier for DUI and outstanding warrants.
Starks claimed at trial that officers showed him gruesome photographs which coerced his confession; officers disputed having photos available at the time of the interview.
Years later Starks obtained a police laboratory report stating seven Polaroid photos were taken and turned over to Officer Nutsch; the photos themselves are not in the record.
Starks filed a pro se postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise (1) an improper legal standard for admission of his confession, (2) prosecutorial misconduct by knowingly presenting false testimony about photographs, and (3) a Brady violation for not producing the Polaroids. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirms, finding the record and files show Starks is entitled to no postconviction relief and that his appellate counsel’s omissions were not prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing the trial court applied an improper legal standard to admit the confession	Starks: trial court used wrong standard (should be totality of circumstances); appellate counsel failed to raise this	State: legality of confession was raised on direct appeal and court properly considered evidence of coercion	Denied — record shows the trial court considered coercion claims and direct appeal reviewed the suppression ruling; no prejudice from counsel’s omission
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not alleging prosecutorial misconduct based on alleged false testimony by Officer Nutsch about possession/showing of photographs	Starks: lab report shows Nutsch lied about not having/showing photos; counsel should have raised this as prosecutorial misconduct	State: report does not prove Nutsch had photos at interview; trial already explored conflict about photos; no evidence prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony	Denied — record does not show false testimony or that prosecution knowingly presented it; no denial of fair trial
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a Brady claim for failure to produce seven Polaroid photos	Starks: photos were impeaching/exculpatory and withheld; counsel should have raised Brady	State: photos not in record, contents unknown, and similar gruesome photos were already admitted; any impeachment value was developed at trial	Denied — no showing of suppressed, material Brady evidence or prejudice; appellate counsel not deficient

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (requires favorable evidence, suppression by State, and prejudice for Brady violation)
State v. Starks, 229 Neb. 482 (direct appeal affirming conviction and suppression ruling)
State v. DeJong, 292 Neb. 305 (postconviction standards — evidentiary hearing required when motion alleges facts that, if proved, show constitutional infringement)
State v. Nolan, 292 Neb. 118 (standards for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; assess strength of omitted claim)
State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703 (restating Brady components)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (definition of prosecutorial misconduct)