State v. Watson, 295 Neb. 802

Background

Jerry Watson was convicted in 2011 of first degree murder and use of a weapon for the 1978 killing of Carroll Bonnet; DNA, hair, fingerprints, and other forensic evidence tied Watson to Bonnet’s apartment and car.
Watson was sentenced to life plus 10–20 years; this court previously affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
In 2014 Watson filed a postconviction motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to obtain DNA and fingerprint experts, to investigate other suspects, to file a motion to quash, to object to instructions or testimony, to obtain handwriting analysis, to move to suppress DNA, and bad plea advice).
The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing; Watson appealed that denial.
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether Watson alleged sufficient facts to require an evidentiary hearing under Strickland and Nebraska postconviction standards and affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Watson)	Defendant's Argument (State / Record)	Held
Failure to obtain independent DNA expert	Counsel should have retained an expert to test/analyze State DNA results and rebut testimony	Counsel thoroughly cross-examined State DNA witnesses; Watson did not allege what his expert would specifically testify to	Denied — allegations insufficient; no specific expert opinions pleaded
Failure to investigate other suspects (e.g., George Kirby)	Counsel failed to obtain comparative DNA from other suspects	Record shows counsel attempted to locate suspects; some were unavailable or deceased and a Kirby sample already existed	Denied — counsel not deficient for failing to obtain unavailable or already-obtained evidence
Failure to file motion to quash (statutory citation)	Information cited wrong statute for first degree murder	Elements in the information tracked the correct law; the statute cited (§ 28-303) was applicable to the 1978 offense	Denied — no prejudice and motion would have been denied
Omission of "malice" in second-degree instruction	Counsel should have objected to instruction omitting malice	Malice is not an element of second-degree murder; conviction was of first degree under a step instruction	Denied — instruction issue would not prejudice because jury convicted on first degree via step instruction
Failure to object to law-enforcement testimony placing Watson with victim	Testimony improperly linked Watson to victim pre-murder	Forensic evidence already established acquaintance; Watson did not allege resulting prejudice	Denied — no prejudice shown
Failure to obtain handwriting analysis/report re: note	Counsel failed to secure Secret Service report or preserve handwriting analysis for missing note	Note is now missing; report did not concern Watson’s handwriting at time of testing; record suggests counsel used the report in cross-examination	Denied — not prejudicial and testing not feasible or relevant
Failure to move to suppress DNA based on chain-of-custody/storage	Counsel should have moved to suppress physical evidence for chain-of-custody/storage issues	Chain-of-custody challenges affect weight, not admissibility; counsel previously challenged storage and cross-examined witnesses	Denied — suppression inappropriate; no deficient performance
Inaccurate plea advice re: maximum sentence for manslaughter	Counsel told Watson max was 20 years when it was 10	At time of offense (Oct 1978) manslaughter was a Class III felony with a 20-year maximum; counsel’s advice was correct	Denied — advice was legally correct
Failure to retain fingerprint expert	Counsel should have called defense fingerprint expert to rebut State	Watson did not identify an expert or say what the expert would testify; counsel cross-examined State fingerprint witnesses	Denied — pleadings lacked specificity; no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382 (2012) (trial strategy can justify not calling defense DNA expert)
State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 284 Neb. 322 (2012) (step instruction on first degree precludes prejudice from errors on lesser homicide instructions)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (2016) (postconviction pleading standards and Strickland application)
State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 (2015) (representation through direct appeal does not necessarily bar postconviction claims)
State v. Smith, 294 Neb. 311 (2016) (malice is not element of second degree murder)
State v. Bradley, 236 Neb. 371 (1990) (chain-of-custody affects weight, not admissibility)