United States v. Brooks
678 F. App'x 755
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony Brooks was convicted of armed bank robbery; DNA evidence from zip ties linked him as a major contributor and he was sentenced to 188 months. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal (United States v. Brooks, 727 F.3d 1291).
- At trial Bethany Stone, the government DNA expert, testified it was "very highly unlikely" Brooks’ DNA was on the zip tie by secondary transfer; she acknowledged forensic testing cannot definitively determine transfer mechanism.
- Brooks filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to Stone’s testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702, submitting a new expert report from Suzanna Ryan criticizing Stone’s methodology and stating secondary transfer was possible and that quantity/majority status cannot reliably distinguish transfer type.
- The district court denied relief, finding Stone’s opinion was grounded in her finding that Brooks was a major contributor and was supported by literature and trial testimony; Ryan’s report did not contradict Stone’s opinion about the likelihood of secondary transfer, only addressed the impossibility of definitive proof.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether reasonable jurists could debate the denial of relief or the need for an evidentiary hearing and concluded Brooks failed both Strickland prongs and was not entitled to a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to DNA expert testimony | Brooks: Stone’s opinion was unreliable under Rule 702; counsel should have objected based on Ryan’s report showing methodology and conclusions are unsound | Government/District Court: Stone’s opinion was based on major-contributor finding, supported by literature and trial cross-examination; Ryan’s report does not refute likelihood analysis | Denied — no reasonable jurist could debate that counsel was not deficient; testimony admissible and challenges went to weight, not admissibility |
| Prejudice under Strickland (would result differ but for the error?) | Brooks: DNA testimony was critical; without it conviction may not have occurred | Government: Independent, substantial evidence (relationship, knowledge of bank, phone records, description, financial gain) supported verdict | Denied — no reasonable jurist could debate lack of prejudice given other strong evidence |
| Whether Ryan’s report refuted Stone such that an evidentiary hearing was required | Brooks: Report shows Stone’s opinion should be excluded or questioned, warranting a hearing | Government/District Court: Report concedes Stone relied on major-contributor finding and acknowledges impossibility of definitive proof; it disputes certainty but not likelihood; record conclusively shows no relief due | Denied — no abuse of discretion in denying a hearing |
| Request to liberally construe pro se filings to raise additional expert-preparation/other theories | Brooks: As a pro se litigant, ambiguous materials should be read broadly to include theories like counsel’s failure to master literature | Government: New theories were not raised in § 2255 and are forfeited; solicitous construction does not extend to an expert report or new claims not presented below | Denied — court refused to consider new theories not raised in the motion or addressed below |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (scope of COA review — overview, not full merits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- United States v. Cavely, 318 F.3d 987 (methodology admissibility vs. weight of expert testimony)
- United States v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188 (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing on § 2255)
- Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (new theories on appeal are forfeited)
- Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151 (solicitous construction of pro se filings)
- Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239 (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
- Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distribs., Inc., 686 F.3d 1144 (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- United States v. Brooks, 727 F.3d 1291 (direct appeal affirming conviction cited for factual background)
- United States v. Moya, 676 F.3d 1211 (declining to consider arguments raised first on appeal)