Booth v. Kelley, No. 17-1218 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to defendant with respect to his Arkansas arson conviction. The court found that trial counsel's choice not to challenge a fire investigator's testimony regarding whether defendant was a suspect in a home fire investigation did not render counsel's performance deficient. In this case, the fire marshal did not testify that defendant caused the fire, but rather that he developed defendant as a suspect based on his investigation. The court explained that the testimony was not unfounded speculation nor did it improperly usurp the providence of the jury. Furthermore, even if counsel's performance were deficient, defendant failed to establish prejudice.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit Judge] Prisoner case - Habeas. Counsel's failure to object to a fire investigator's testimony that he had identified Booth as an arson suspect in his investigation of a home fire was not ineffective assistance of counsel as Arkansas's Rules of Evidence allow expert testimony on a fire's origin and possible causes; the fire investigator did not testify that defendant caused the fire, only that he developed Booth as a suspect based on his investigation; such testimony was not unfounded speculation and did not invade the province of the jury; as a result, counsel's failure to challenge the testimony was not ineffective assistance; in any event, Booth could not establish, in light of the evidence in the case, that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to object.
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.