Moeller v. Weber, No. 10-2069 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of first degree murder and first degree rape, and sentenced to death. At issue was whether defendant was entitled to habeas corpus relief because the trial court's response to a jury question regarding his eligibility for parole was inadequate. Also at issue was whether the state court violated clearly established federal law when it determined that defendant's counsel performed reasonably even though they failed to actively participate in the Daubert hearing regarding DNA evidence and failed to test soil evidence from the crime scene and from defendant's vehicle. Affording the South Dakota Supreme Court the substantial deference that it was due, the court found that it reasonably applied Simmons v. South Carolina and other clearly established federal law in rejecting defendant's claim relating to the jury question. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 on this claim. As with the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court held that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in rejecting both of defendant's claims relating to the subsequent admission of evidence based on those claims. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. The instructions in Moeller's death penalty case were sufficient to comply with the Supreme Court's holding in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) that a jury must be informed of a defendant's parole eligibility when a defendant's dangerousness is put into question; South Dakota courts did not violate clearly established federal law by rejecting Moeller's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; nor did the South Dakota courts unreasonably apply clearly established law in rejected Moeller's claims concerning the admission of DNA evidence; remaining claims rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.