United States v. Higgs
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23614
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Higgs was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, kidnapping resulting in death, and related offenses for the January 27, 1996 killings of Tanji Jackson, Tamika Black, and Mishann Chinn at the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge, receiving nine death sentences.
- The government presented extensive eyewitness, physical, and documentary evidence, including Jackson’s day planner with Higgs’s nickname and address, and rifling and CBLA (bullet lead) analyses linking bullets to the murders.
- Higgs challenged the evidence, particularly asserting he was not a principal in the kidnappings and murders and disputing possession of a .38 caliber murder weapon.
- Post-trial, Higgs filed §2255 motions alleging Brady and ineffective-assistance claims related to CBLA; the district court denied relief, and this court granted a certificate of appealability.
- The court’s analysis covers Brady and Strickland standards, CBLA background, pre- and post-trial studies, and whether any error was prejudicial or ineffective under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation re undisclosed CBLA studies | Higgs contends the FBI/Iowa State CBLA studies were Brady material | Government asserts studies were publicly available or non-prejudicial | No Brady violation based on available evidence and trial strategy |
| Ineffective assistance for not discovering studies | Trial counsel failed to uncover or challenge CBLA studies | Counsel cross-examined effectively; no deficient performance | No Strickland prejudice; trial evidence overwhelming, CBLA not outcome-determinative |
| Pre-trial CBLA admissibility impact | CBLA connected Higgs’s bullets to the murder scene and supported 404(b) | Rifling and eyewitness evidence independently supported guilt; CBLA was cumulative | CBLA did not affect verdicts or sentence; not outcome-determinative |
| Post-trial motion for new trial based on CBLA studies | New CBLA studies would warrant a Rule 33 new trial | Studies were impeachment and cumulative; unlikely to change outcome | No basis for new trial; no prejudice shown |
| Overall prejudice from CBLA evidence | CBLA evidence created critical link to weapons and shootings | Other strong evidence linked Higgs to the crimes; CBLA was not pivotal | No reasonable probability of different verdicts if CBLA excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality and suppression standards for Brady claims)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment material must be disclosed if material to guilt/innocence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality and suppression undermine confidence in verdicts)
- United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382 (4th Cir. 2004) (Brady standard and disclosure duties in Fourth Circuit)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (standard for materiality of favorable evidence)
- Higgs v. United States (Higgs I), 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (prior appellate decision recognizing CBLA context and rifling evidence)
- Berry v. United States, 624 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) (CBLA criticism as impeachment evidence; no automatic reversal)