Tolbert v. State of Florida et al, No. 0:2017cv62407 - Document 77 (S.D. Fla. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 10/13/2021. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
U NITED STA TES DISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF PLORIDA M iam iD ivision CaseN um ber:17-62407-CIV -M OREN O CECIL TOLBERT, Petitioner, VS. STATE OF FLO RD A and PA M ELA JO B ON D I,in heroffcialcapacity as Attorney Generalofthe State ofFlorida, R espondents. / ORDEF DENYING PETITION UXDER 28U.S.C.12254FOR W RIT OF HABEAS c o r tls Petitioner,CecilTolbert?filedaPetition forW ritofHabeasCorpusunder28U.S.C.5 2254 stem m ing from his state coulj crim inalconviction for anned kidnapping and sexualbattery. Petitionerargues he is entitled to habeas corpus reliefon various claim s,including ineffective assistance ofcounsel,theStateofFlorida'sandjhetrialcourt'sviolationsofdueprocess,and a Brqdy violation forthe State'snondisclosure ofexculpatory DN A evidence.H aving found Petitioner'sclaim m eritless,the Courtdenieshabeascorpusrelief. FA C TUA L BA CK G R O U ND Thefollowingfactualrecitation comesfrom theFourthD istrictCourtofAppeal'sdecision Tolbert v. State of Florida et al Doc. 77 affirmingPetitioner'sconvictipn ondirectappeal,Tolbertv.State,114 So.3d291,292 (F1a.4th DCA 2013),andispresumed correct,j2254(d)(2),(e)(1);BecausePetitionerhasnotpresentçd clear and convincing evidence to the contrary or shown that these factual /ndings are ' . unzeasonable,the Courtm ay adoptthe recitation in ruling on the Petition. Dockets.Justia.com In 2011,PetitionerCswascon'victed of one cçuntofttnned kidnapping and two countsof sexualbattely with the useOrthreajened gseOfa deadly weapcm.''Thetrialcoul'tsentenced him Ssto life imprisonm ent for the kidnapping charge and thirty years each for the sexualbattery charges,w ith a1lsentencestoJgp çopcun-ently.''The following evidence wasintroduced attrial. . . Cton July 11, 1996,the victim w as w alking to a store atabout 1:30 a.m .''(:A s the victim waswalking,am an drovehiscarnearthevictim ,threatçnedherwith agun,and toldthevictim to getinto the car.''Sûl-heviçtim gotinto thecar,and theman droveto an areabehind awarehouse.'' Ssl-he m an forced the victim to perform oralsex on him and vaginally raped her.''CçA. tsom e point, theback ofthevictim 'shead wasinjured apd shepassed outorfellasleep.''SçW henthevictim aw oke,the m an sexually assaulted heragain.''(s-f' hem an then released the victim .'' (s-f'hevictim wentto ahospitalea' nd wastreated forthe iqiury on theback ofherhead.'' çT he victim then w entto a sexualassaulttteatm entcenter,where a nurse practitionertook vaginal swabs.''ds-l-heswabsweresealedahdsenttotheBroward Sheriff'sOffice(CBSO').'' . l . tsllevin Noppinger,a DNA analystwith the BSO,' analyzed the swabsusing restriction fragmentlengthpolymorphism (ILFLP)testing.''SçNoppingerfoundmaleDNA intheswabstaken fro'm the victim , butthe DN A profle did notm atch any know n suspect.'' $çBy 2001,DNA technologyhadadvancedtoamethodcalledshorttandem repeat(STR).'' GCRFLP resultsand STR resultscamlotbe com pared,so olderDNA samplesthathad been tested using the RFLP p ethod had to be retested using the STR m ethod.''ECBSO had insufticientresources toretesttheoldersamples,andifl2003thefederalgovernmentproviéedagranttoallow BSO to outsourcethe retesting ofolderDNA samplestb reduce the backlog. BSO selected olderDNA samples that had yielded RFLP results and outsburced the samples to Bow dy Technology ((Bowdy')forSTR testing.''--howdy tested the samplesfrom thevictim'scase.'' Ctf' heBowdy analystsfound thevictim 'sDN A in the snmplesbut,unlike BSO analystNoppinger,theBowdy ' analystsdid notfindm qleDNA in thepodion ofthevictir' ri'ssnmplesthey tested.'' ''Bi ow dy repol-ted itsresultsto B so .' ''tynnBaird,aBso DNA analyst,hy/othesizedthat there m ust have been m ale D N A in the sam ples taken from the victim because N oppinger had ' . fotmd itduringthe 1996 testing.''StAsstim ing thattheSTR testing perform ed by Bowdy m ay have simply failed to detectthe male DNA,Baird herselfretested the victim 's sam ples and,in fact, found maleDN A.''itusing theSTR method,Baird isolated them aleDNA profile and provided it totheCombinedDNA lndex System (CODIS),afederaldatabaseofDNA profiles.'' CICODIS matchedthemaleDNA profilefrom thevictim'ssampleto gpetitioner's)DNA sample.''SCBSO then locatedgpetitionerqandreceivedaDNA samplefrom him,whichBairdthen com pared to the m ale D N A sam ple she recovered from the victim 's sam ple.''tsB aird detennined (Petitioner'sqDNA wasinthevictim'ssample....'' ($A t the 2011 trial, the victim w às unable to rem em ber several portions of the 1996 incident.''ds-f' hevictim wasunabletoidentify (Petitionerjasthemanwhorapedherandthestate's primaryevidenceofgpetitioner'slinvolvementinthecrimewastheDNA evidence.'' tsB aird explained thatthe m annerin w hich Bowdy tested the snm ples could accountforthe failure to tlnd them ale DNA in'the sample.''G$An analystfrom Bowdy who tested the samples testifed thatoccasionally a DNA profile was missed when only a portion ofthe sam pleswere tested.''tsl-he B ow dy analystalso testified thatshe hefselfhad m issed such sam ples in the past.'' (tBaird explained' tothejurythatsheretestedthesamples,foundmaleDNA,andisolated themaleDNA profile.''(GBairdalsotestifiedthataftergpetitioner'sqDNA profilewasprovidedto her,shecompared Petitioner's)DNA to themaleDNA inthe sampletaken from the victim.'' (GBairdtestifiedthatgpetitioner'sjDNA wasinthesampletakenfrom thevictim .'' 3 çsM al'tin Tracey,abiology professorspecializing in population genetics,testified thatthe odds of reaching into the hum an population and pulling out another individual w ith the sam e genetic sequence as (Petitioner) w ere approxim ately one in four hundred and eighty-seven quadrillion.'' PR O CE D UR AL H IST OR Y J . TheFloridaFourth DistrictCourtofAppealaffirmed the Petitioner'scopvictionsand the FloridaSupremeCoul'tdeniedhispetition forreview.Tolbert,114So.3d292* ,(D.E.55)at6. On Septem ber 8,2014,Petitionerfiled a motion forpostconviction relieftmderFlorida Rule ofCriminalProcedure3.850.On M arch 24.2017,the trialcourtdenied the 3.850 M otion, as w ellasthe Supplem ental3.850 M otion,and the M otion forN ew ly Discovered Evidence in a iorderthatincorporatedbyrdferencetheargumentsintheState'sresponses. reason ec ThePetitionerappealed andthe FloridaFourth DistrictCourtofAppealaffirm ed without com m ent. PetitionertimelyfiledhisPetitioninthisfederalhabeascase.(D.E.1), .seealso(D.E.31). TheStateresponded.(D.E.34).Petitionerreplied.(D.E.43-1).1 LEGAL STANDARD UNDER j22544d) Secsion2254(d)setsforththefollowingstandardsforgrantingfederalhabeascorpusrelief: Anapplicationforawritofhabeas'corpuqon behalfofapersonin custody pursuant tothejudgmentofaStatecoul' tshallnotbegrantedwithrespecttoany claim that wasadjudicatedonthemeritsin Statecout' tproceedingsunlesstheadjudicationof the clainA lTheCoul' tgpvePetitionerperm igsionto tilean overlength reply butdeclined tottconsiderany neF claim sraised forthe f' irsttim e.,'(D' . E 48). ' ' '' 4 (1) resulted in a decision thatwas contrary to,or involved an unzeasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determ ined by the Suprem e Coud oftheU nited States;or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination ofthefactsinlightofthe evibencepresented in the State courtproceeding. Underj2254(d)(1)'sçscontraryto''.clause,courtsmay grantthewritifthestatecoul't:(1) reqchesaconclusionon aquestion oflaw oppositetothatreached bytheSupremeCourt;Or(2) decides a case differently than the Suprem e Courthas on m aterially indistinguishable facts. Williamsv.Taylor,529 U.S.362,412-13 (2000).Underitsçcunreasonableapplication''clause, courtsm ay grantthew ritifthe state courtidentifesthe col-rectgoverning legalprinciple 9om the Supreme Court'sdecisionsbutunreasonably appliesthatprinciple to thefactsofthe case.f#.at 413.CtgcllearlyestablishedFederallaw''consistsofSupremeCourtSçprecedentsasofthetimethe statecourtrendersitsdecision.''Greenev.Fisher,565U.S.34,38(2011)(citationandemphasis omitted). A,n unreasonable application offederal1aw differs from an incorrectapplication offederal law.Rqnico v,fett,559 U.S.766,773 (2010)(citation omitted).Underthisstandard,ç$a state prisohermustshow thatthestatecourt'sruling .'..wassolackinginjustification thattherewas anerrorwellunderstoodandcomprçhendedinexistinjlaw beyondanypossibilityforfairminded disagreement.''Harringtonv.Richtqr,562U.S.86,103(2011). Courts çûapply this sam e standard w hep evaluating the reasonableness of a state cotlrt's decisionunderj2254(d)(2).''fandersv.Warden,776F.3d1288,1294(11thCir.2015)(citations omitted).Thatis,tcgaqstate coul-t's...determination ofthe facts is unreasonable only ifno fairminded jurist could agree with ihe state court's determination.''Holsey v. Warden, Ga. DiagnosdcPrison,694F.3d 1230,1257(11th Cir.2012)(citationsandquotationmarksomitted). lft' he laststate courtto decide aprisoner'sfederalclaim providesan explanation forits decision in areasoned opinion,C(afederalhabeascoul'tsimply reviewsthe specifcreasonsgiven bythestatecoul'tanddeferstoihosereasonsifthey arereasonable.''Wilsonv.Sellers,138S.Ct. . ' . 1188,1192 (2018).Butwherethedecision ofthe laststaie coul'tto decide aprisoner'sfederal claim containsno reasoning,federalcourtsmustGçslook through'theunexplained deçision to the lastrelated state-courtdecision thatdoesprovidearelevantrationale.''Id Stltshould then presume thattheunçxplained decision adopted thesamereasoning.''1d. LEG A L STA N DA R D FO R IN EFFEC TIV E A SSISTA N CE O F CO UN SEL To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner m ust show that cotmsel'sperformancewasdeficientapd thatthedeficientperformanceprejudiced hisdefense. Strickland v.Washington,466 U.S.668,687 (1984).To prove defciency,he mustshow that. counsel's performance dGfellbelow an objective standard ofreasonableness''as measured by prevailing professionalnorm s.1d.at688.Courtsm ustSûindulge astrong presum ptionthatcotm sel's conductfalls within the wide range ofreasonable professiohalassistance.''1d.at689.$C(Ajn attorney willnotbeheld to haveperformed deficiently forfailingto perform a futileact,one that would nothavegottenhisclientany relief.,,Pinkney v.Sec>,DOC,876 F.3d jp.qtl,jaqg (jjtjj Cir.2017)(collectingcases). Toprovbprejudice,Petitionermustshow ç$areasonableprobabilitythat,butforcotmsel's unprofessionalelrors,theresultoftheproceeding w ould hévebeen different.''Strickland,466 U .S. at694.Counsel'sfailuretoraiseameritlessclaim isnotprejudicialtmderStrickland.Hittson v. GDCP Warden,759F.3d 1210,1262(11thCir.2014). ltis(çallthemoredifficult''toprevailonaStricklandclaim underj2254(/).Richter,562 U.S.at105.AsthestandardsthatStvickland and j2254(d)createareboth Sthighly deferential,'' review isCsdoubly''so when the two apply in tandem.ld (citation omitted).Thus,tdlwjhen j 2254(d)applies,thequestionisnùtwhethercounsel'sactionswerereasonaéle.''Id Rather,Ctgtlhe questioniswhetherthereisany reasonableargum entthatcounselsatisfiedStricklandtsdeferential standard.''1d. A .j 2254 petitioner'sallegationsitmustmeetheightened pleading requirements''under Rule2 oftheRulesGoverning j2254 Cases.M cFarlandv.Scott,512U.S.849,856 (1994).$1A convicted defendantm aking a claim ofineffective assistance mustidentify the actsoromissions ofcounselthatare alleged notto have been the resultofreasonable professionaljudgment.'' Strickland,466 U .S.at690.Conclusory allegationsofineffective assistance are insufficientfor reliefunderj2254orStrickland.SeeBoydv.Comm ' r,a4/J.Dep 'tofcorn,697F.3d 1320,1333- 34 (1lth Cir.2012).Likewise,apetttionerisnotentitledtoanevidentiary hearingunderj2254 ttwhenhisclaimsaremerelyconclusory allegationsunsupportedbyspecitics.''Tejada#.Dugger, 941F.2d 1551,1559(11th Cir.1991)(citation andquotationmarksomitted). Petitionerhas the burden ofproofon his ineffectiveness claim s.H olsey,694 F.3d at 1256. Likewise,hehastheburdenofproofunderj2254 generally,'Garlotte'v.Fordice,515U.S.39,46 (1995),andj2254(d)specifically,Cullenv.Pinholsteri56)U' .S.170,187(2011). D ISCU SSIO N The lietition alleges 16 claim s' IA -IE,'2--4, 6A -6B, 7-8, 9A -9B ,and 10A-10B.The . discussion startsw ith claim s 1A ,3,and 4 because they are procedurally defaulted.The rem aining claim s gte addressed in turn. A. Claim s 1A,3,and 4 7 Claim IA alleges that defense counsel ineffectively failed to provide Petitioner with witnessdepositionsbeforetrial.Claim 3 allegesthatthe evidence wasinsufficientto suppol'tthe jury's factualfinding that a firearm was used during the crimes.Claim 4 alleges that 1aw enforcem ent officers coerced the victim to identify Petitioner as the assailant w ith an im proper identification process. The Reportand Recom m endation recom m ended denying these claim s on the m erits and declinedtoaddresswhethertheywereprocedurally barred.In itsObjections,the Statecontends thatthe M agistrateJudgeshould have enforced theproceduralbar.In support,the Statenotesthat Petitioner did not present claim s 3 and 4 on direct appeal and abandofled claim IA w hen he appealed the denialofhis 3.850 M otion. Initially,in his Reply,Petitioner conceded thatthese claim s were procedurally barred. Then,in hisObjections,he challenged theM agistrateJudge'srejection ofthese claimson the m erits. 1;A State's procedural rules are of vital im portance to the orderly adm inistration of its crim inalcôurts;w hen a federalcoul' tperm itsthem to be readily evaded,itunderm inesthe crim inal justicesystem.''fambrixv.Singletary,520U.S.518,525(1997).Therefore,federalhabèascourts should ordinarily resolve w hethera claim isprocedtlrally barred before considering itsm erits.1d.; accordlohnsonv.fee,136S.Ct.1802,1807(2016)(percurinm).Here, because the record clearly reflects thatPetitionerfailed to raise claim s 1A ,3,and 4 on appeal,the R& R should have applied thism anifestproceduralbar. ttBefore seeking a federalwrit of habeas corpus,a state prisoner m ustexhaustavailable stateremedies,28U.S.C.j2254(b)(1),therebygivingtheStatetheopportunity topassuponand . con-ectallegedviolationsofitsprisoners'federalrights.''Baldwinv.Reese,541U.S.27,29(2004) 8 (citation omitted).d&ToprovidetheStatewith thenecessaly opporhmity,theprisonermustfairly presenthisclaim in each appropriatestatecourt,thereby alertingthatcourtto thefederalnature of . ' theclaim.''fJ.(cleanedup);seealso O 'Sullivan v.Boerckel,526U.S.838,845 (1999)(tilsqtate prisoners m ustgive the state courts one fullopportunity to resolve any constitm ionalissues by invoking one complete round ofthe State'sestablished appellatereview procecs.'').Regarding Rule 3.850 m otions,Gtexhaustion usually requiresnotonly thefilingofa...3.850 motion,butan appealfrom itsdenialt''Nievesv.Sec% Fla.Dep 'tof Corr.,770 F.App'x 520,521(11th Cir. 2019)(percuriam)(citationomitted). CCA claim isprocedurally defaulted forpùrposesoffederalhabeasreview ifthepetitioner failed to exhauststateremediesand the courtto which thepetitionerwould berequiredto present gtheclaim)in ordertomeettheexhaustionrequirementwouldnow findtheclaim gjprocedurally ban-ed.''Raleighv.sec>,Fla.Dep'tofcorn,827F.3d 938,956-57(11th cir.2016)(alterations in original)(citationandquotationmarksomitted). The proceduralrule under which the state courtwould find the claim ban'ed m ust be Csadequateandindependent.''' H enderson v.Campbell,353 F.3d 880,891(11th Cir.2003).To be independent,thestateprocedlzralruling çsmustrestsolidly on state law groundsl)and gqnotbe intel4winedwith an interpretationoffederallaw.''Judd v.Haley,250F.3d 1308,1313(11th Cir. 2001)(citation and quotation marksomitted).(Cstaterulescountasadequate ifthey arefhnnly establishedandregulartyfollowed.''Lee,136S.Ct.at1804(citationandquotationmarksomitted). Petitioner cannotret' ulm to the Fourth Districtto raise claim s 1A ,3,and 4 because he did notraisethem inhisinitialbrief.'Hoskinsv.State,75So.3d250,257(F1a.2011)(holdingthatan Ssissuenotraisedin aninitialbriefisdeemed abandonèd'').Thisnlleisindependentandadequate. Lecroy v.Sec>,Fla.Dep 'tofcorn,421F.3d 1237,1260(11th Cir.2005), .Thomasv.Crews,No. 3:12CV128/LAC/EM T,2013W L 3456978,at*14n.8(N.D.Fla.July9,2013)(collectingcases). W hen a prisoner has procedurally defaulted his claim s,Cçfederalhabeas review of the claimsisbarredunlesstheprisoneréan demonstratecauseforthedefaultandactualprejudiceas aresultoftheallegedvtolation offederallaw,ordemonstratethatfailuretoconsidertheclaims willresultinafundamentalmiscaniageofjustice(i.e.,actualirmocencel.''Colemanv.Thompson, 501U.S.722,750(1991).Petitionerbearstheburdenofestablishingcauseandprejudiceoractual irmocence.SeeLucasv.Sec% Dep 'tofCorn,682 F.3d 1342,1354 (11th Cir.2012);Gr@ n v. McNeil,667F.Supp.2d 1340,1352(S.D.Fla.2009)(Moore,J.). PetitionerCçhasnotpresentedEtheCourtqwithanyargumentaboutcauseandprejudice... toovercometheproceduralbar.''Gr@ n,667F.Supp.2dat1352. SCTC establish actualirmocence,gtheqpetitionermustdemonstratethat,in lightofa11the evidence,itismorelikely thannotthatnoreasonablejurorwouldhaveconvictedhim.''Bousley v. United States,523 U.S.614,623 (1998) (citation and internalquotation marks omitted). Petitionersmustsupportclaims ofactualinnocence with (tnew reliable evidence whetheritbe exculpatôryscientitscevidence,trustworthyeyewitnessaccounts,orcriticalphysicalevidencel.q'' ' SeeSchltqp v.Delo,513U.S.298,324(1995). Petitioner essentially argues throughouthis papers thathe is actually innoceflt.H e bases thiscontention on a Februarv 21.2016 investigative reportfrom the A m erican Society forCrim e Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board in response to a complaintfrom Tiffany Roy,a private DNA consultantalleging thatthe Browaid Sheriff'sOftice Crim eLaboratory was Ccusing inappropriate proceduresand a m isapplication ofstatisticalprocedure.''M ore specifically, Roy alleged: ' 10 lnappropriate consideration ofsubmittedknown referencesamplesto determ ine locithatwillbeselected forstatisticalcalculation purposes. 2. lnappropriate use ofthestatisticltnown asthe Com binedProbability ofInclusion C(CP1'')tocalculatestatisticalsignificanceofoccurrenceofgeneticprofileswhen allelic dropoutisknown and/orissuspectedto have occurred. UseoftheFBIpopulation databaseto calculate statistics. çd-f' heallegationofgjthreeprimaryissues(aroseqfrom gRoy'sjreview of(a)specifccase,'' although she believed that these issues çGexistged) in other cases she hagdj reviewed/gwasq reviewing''from theBrowardSheriffsOfficeCrimeLab.Thesubjectcaseinvolved(tseveralDNA profiles,onebeing apartialmixedDNA profilerecoveredfrom thehandleofaknife.''CG-l-heDNA m ixtureresultswerecomparedtolm ownreferencesampleprqfilesfrom two individuals,onebeing thedefendant,and calculationsto assessthe statisticalsignificance ofoccurrenceofthe evidentiary genetic profile were perform ed using the CPI.'' The Reportsustained m any bf Roy's allegations.Yetthe Reportnoted thatboth Roy and theBrowardSheriff'sOfficeCrimeLabt'acltnowledgegd)thatthetopicofstatisticalcalculations used to evaluatethesighificanceofo'ccurrencebfDNA mixedproflesgwas)underdebateinthe scientifiç com munity.''Further,theReportnoted thatGcthe validations and m ethodsttsed by''the Broward Sheriff'sOfficeCrim eLab had çspreviously undergone review and gssessm entptlrsuant toFBIQASrequirementsand''theAmerican Society forCrimeLaboratoryDirectors/Laboratory Accreditation Board's (ASCLD) requirements and had çlbeen accepted as meeting relevant requirem ents during those reviews.'' On Novem ber 11?2016,the State sentPetitionera MoticePursuantto Florida Rule of CriminalProcedure3.220(b)(4)thatitpossessed theReport which may havefallen within the 11 purview ofBrady v.Maryland,373 U.S.83 (1963)(çBrady Notice').TheBrady Notice stated that,onApril12,2016,theBroward Sheriff'sOfficeCrimeLab çiwasadvisedby the (ASCLDj thattherewas,çtllnappropriateuseof...(CPI)tocalculatestatisticalsignificanceofoccurrence ofgeneticprofileswhen allelicdropoutisknown and/orsuspectedto have occurred.'''TheBrady N otice also stated thatCSCPIcalculationsw ere only used by the B SO DN A Crim e Lab in com plex DNA mixturecases.''TheBradyNoticef'urtherstatedthat,'tgilfthezewasDNA evidenceinyotlr case,there has notbeen a determ ination w hetherthe CPIcalculationsw ere utilized orw hetherthe evidence w as relevantin yourparticularcase.'' Here,Petitionerhasnotshown thathe isactually innocent.The Reportdoesnotexculpate him . Liberally construed, the Repol't reflects A SCLD 'S determ ination that there w ere certain methodologicaland statisticalproblemswith the BSö Crime Lab's procedures for analyzing mixed DNA samples.However,the Reportdid notexoneratethe defendantin the casethatRoy review ed,m uch less a defendantin any other case.There are no facts in the record lirlking the Report's specialized findings to'Petitioner's case or explaining how the problems the Report identified show thattheState'sDNA expertsincorrectly concludedthatPetitiolter'sDN A matched DN A recovered from the victim 'svagina. There are no facts in the record linldng the Report's specialized findings to Petitioner's case or explaining how the problem s the Repol' t identitied show that the State's D N A experts incorrectly concluded thatPetitioner's DN A m atched DN A recovered from the victim 's vagina. The Florida trial courtdenied this M otion for new ly discovered evidence.Pertinently,it reasoned thatD r.Tracey did'the only population genetic calculation,notanyone atthe B SO Crim e Lab.Petitioner'sM otion forDNA EvidenceExam ination wasalso denied.Thetrialcourtreasoned that:(1)theBrady Noticestated thatûttherewasnotadetermination thatCPIcalculationswere 12 utilized''inPetitioner'scase;and(2)CtgnjothinginthetestimonyofLynnBaird...orgDr.)M artin Traceyreflectsthat...CP1wasused inthestatisticalanalysis.''Therecordsupportsthesetindings. (D.E.35-1)at21-23 (Baird'sreport);(D.E.36-1)at302-41(Baird'stestimony);(D.E.36-1)at 345-57(Dr.Tracey'stestimony).Therefore,PetitionerhasnotshownthattheStateusedCP1in his case.A nd,even if itdid,Petitioner has not adequately explained how its use un'derm inesthe specifictindingsofBaird and Dr.Tracey. ' . A ccordingly, Petitioner has not show n that, in light of a11 the evidence,including the Report,itismorelikelythannotthatnoreasonablejurorwouldhaveconvictedhim.Consequently, ' .. claim s1A,3,and 4 areprocedurally defaulted. In sum ,the Coul' tdism isses claim s 1A ,3,and 4 as procedurally defaulted and declines tp nlleonthemerits,butoven'ulesthePetitioner'sobjections. B. C laim IB . E In claim 1B,Petitioner alleges that' counselineffectively failed to m ove to suppressD NA çvidenceand objectto itsadmidsion attrial.HereasonsthatCONA gelvidencewasfoundn0tto includeorimplicateghimqontwoseparateoccasionsbyanindependentLab GBode'g.j''TheCourt agrees with the M agistrate Judge's conclusion that Petitioner ltm ischaracterizes the D N A testim ony''and Clfails to allege any gm und upon w hich the trial court could have excluded the DNA evidence.'' Petitioneffurtiercontends,based on theReport,thattheBSO CrimeLabwasusing the dswrong testing p' rotocol.''However,the Reportwas issued in Februaa 2016 based Pn Ruy's October2015 complaint.Petitiöner'strialstarted on Novem ber28.2011.(D.E.36-1)at1.So counselcould not have m oved to suppress the State's DN A evidence based on the R eport.See Strickland,466U.S.at689C' A fairassesjmentofattorneyperfofmancerequiresthateveryeffbrt be made to elim inate the distorting effects of hindsight,to reconstruct the circum stances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time.'').The M agistrateJudge'stindingsregarding thisclaim are ADOPTED and Petitioner's objectionsOVERRULko . C. C laim IC Petitioner alleged thatcounselineffectively failed to retain a DN A expertto challenge the State's DN A expert.Ct-l-he Petitioner's expertw ould have acknow ledged the inappropriate and uncertified protocolfortesting mixed DNA.''Cdrl-hiswould havemade M s.Bairdg'sqtestimony ' i inadm issible-'' Inrejectingthisclaim,thetrialcourtfoundthatcounsel'sdecisionnottocallaDNA expert wasnotprejudicialbecause:(1)counselraisedadefensebased onconsensualsexualcontactand conflicts in the evidence' ,(2) counselthoroughly cross-examined Baird;and (3)Petitioner's allegationsofprejudice werespeculativebecausehedidnotidentify an expertwho could have challenged Baird's conclusions.The M agistrate Judge's fndings are consistent with the trial court'sconclusions.Petitioner'sobjectionsarelargelynortresponsiveandtakeforgranted,without an adequate factualsltowing,thatn expertwouldhaveprovidedhelpfultestimony.seeHoltv. sec>,p' la.oep'tof corn,489 F.kpp'x 336,338 (11th cir.2012) (per curinm) (csqqaere ineffectiveassistanceisbasedoncounsel'sfailuretocallawitness,theburdentoshow prejudice is heavy because tof' ten allegations of what a witness would have testified to are largely speculative.'''(quoting Sullivan v.DeLoach,459 F.3d 1097, 1109 (11th Cir.2006))).The M agistrate Judge's findings regarding this claim are ADOPTED and Petitionef's objections UVERRULED. D. c laim ID Petitioner alleges that counsel ineffectively failed to retain a mental health expertto Cdexplain the effectsofschizophreniq and psychotic m edication and the m entalstate ofthe victim .'' ThetrialcourtheldthatPetitionercouldnotshow prejudice.ItreasonedthatcounselSseffectively cross-exam ined the victim abouther m entalstate at the tim e of the crim e,and her ability to rem ember,and attacked thereliability ofthévidim based on herinconsistency due to herm ental health condition.''TheM agistrateJudgereachedthesameconclusion.(D.E.55)at15.Petitioner has identified no error in those findings,which are ADOPTED and Petitioner's objections O V ER RU LED . E. (zlairn 1>2 PetitionercontendsthatcounselineffectivelyfailedtoobjecttoBaird'shearsaytestimony referencing N oppinger's RFLP testing in 1996,thus failing to preserve his right to confront the w itnesses againsthim .The trialcourtheld thatthe record refuted this claim .TheM agistrate Judge so found aswell;counselobjectedto thetestimony.Indeed,appellate counselraised thisissue. Tolbert,114 So.3d 293-95. Petitionercontendsthatthereportand B aird'stestim uny aboutitviolated theConfrontation Clause.How ever,despite his reference to his Sixth Am endm ent right to confront the w itnesses againsthim,Petitionerraisedthisctaim intermsofineffectiveassistance.TheM agistrateJudge in the reportso construed the claim .Notably,in his Reply,Petitioner did not challenge the resolution ofthis claim or finding thatitargued ineffective assistance.Because Petitioner raised this claim in term son ineffective assistance,and because he acquiesced in the M agistrate Judge's construal of it,the Court declines to consider his C onfrontation Clause argum ent. W illiam s v. McNeil,557 F.3d 1287,1291 (11th Cir.2009)(($rT)he districtcourthas broad discretion in reviewing amagistratejudge'sreportandrecommendation (and)...ctid notabuseitsdiscretion 15 indeclining to considergthepetitioner's)...argumentthatwasnotpresentedtothemagistrate judge-''). Inahyevent,thisclaim lacksmerit.ConfrontationClauseviolationsaresubjecttoharmless erroranalysisunderBrechtv.Abrahamson,507U.S.619(1993).Al-Aminv.WardenGa.Dep'tof Corn,932 F.3d 1291,1302 (11th Cir.2019)(G(On federalcollateralreview,...wereview an alleged Confrontatio'n Clause errorunderBrecht'sactualprejudice standard.'').CtunderBrecht, gtheCourtjcarmotgranthabeasreliefunless(ithasqgravedoubtthattheconstimtionalerrorhad substantialandinjuriouseffectorinfluenceindeterminingthejury'sverdict.''1d.at1298(citation and quotation marks omitted).$çTo prevail,a petitionermustshow actualprejudice from the constitutionalerror.''Id at1299(citationandquotationmarksomitted).((Toshow prejudiceunder Brecht,theremustbem orethan areasonablepossibility thattheenorcontributedtotheconviction orsentence.''f#.(citation omitted). Here,PetitionercarmotsatisfyBrecht.On directappeal,the Fourth Districtfoundthatthe trialcourt's erroneous adm ission of Baird's hqarsay testim ony aboutN oppinger's findings w as harm less.Tolbert, 114 So.3d at295.In so concluding,itreasoned thatSiBaird's discussion of N oppinger's findings established w hy Baird chose to retestthe victim 's sam ple after Bow dy did notfind m ale DN A in the sam ple;N oppinger's findings did notindependently establish Tolbert's guilt.''1d.EcBaird did notconsuitwith Noppihgerto reach herconclusion orrely on any ofhis conclusions;she independently tested the victim 's sam ple and determ ined thatthe m ale profile m atched Tolbert.''1d.çsBaird's discussion ofthe 1996 testing bolstered her expel' topinion only to the extentthat itsupported her finding thatthere w as m ale genetic m aterialin the sam ple taken from theyictim .''1d Sç-l-hem ofe importantportion ofBaird'stestimony wasthatthe maleprofile in thevictim 'ssamplematched Tolbert,and the 1996 testresultswereneverm atchedto Tolbert.'' 1d. Forthesereasons,Petitionercannotshow morethan areasonablepossibility thatBaird's testim ony about N oppinger's findings about an Gtun-m atched DN A profile''contributed to the jury's verdict.See jt; l Accordingly,the CourtADOPTS the Reportand Recommendation's findingsregarding thisclaim and OVERRULE Petitioner'sobjections.ThePetitionerraisesa new Confrontation Clauseclaim inhisObjections,butthisclaim lacksmerit. F. C laim 2 Petitionercontendsthatthe trialcoul'tviolated due processby adm itting Baird'stestim ony aboutNoppinger'sfindingsovercounsel'sobjection.Thetrialcoul'tconstruedthisasaclaim of trialcourterrorandrejecteditonthegroundthatPetitionercouldhaveraisediton directappeal. The M agistrate Judge found thatPetitionerraised the sam e claim on directappealand concluded thatthe Fourth Districtdid notunreusonably rejectit.In hisObjections,Petitioneràppearsto contend that the R & R did not address the constitutional aspect of this claim .Furtherm ore,he repeatsthç contention,raised throughouthisObjections,thatBairdused impropertestprotocol whenperfofmingherDNA analysis.' Becausethisclaim 'srecord isuntidy,theCourtshouldreview itdenovo.Connerv.GDCP Warden,784F.3d752,767(1lth Cir.2015)(coul'tsmaydenyaclaim underdenovoreview ((withoutresolvingwhetherAEDPA deferenceapplies''l.z ThePetition allegesdueprocessviolationsbasedontheadm ission ofNoppinger'stindings. A s the R & R correctly notes,evidentiary errors w arranthabeas reliefonly w here they Etso infuse the trialw ith unfairnessasto'deny due processof lam ''A s setforth in the R& R ,and as indicated 2Attheend qfitsdiscussion,theRepol' tandRecom mendation stated thattheclaim failedeven underdenovoreview . ECF No.55at18. above, the àdmission of testim ony about Noppinger's findings did n' ot render the trial fundam entally unfair;there is no indication that this testim ony stlbstantially contribuseé to the . ' Jury's verdict. Petitioner's contention that Baird's testim ony w as inadm issible because she relied on im propertesting protocolis conclusory.M oreover,he raised this contention for the firsttim e in hisReply.SotheCourtnçednotconsiderit.See,e.g.,Foley v.WellsFargoBank N A.,849 F. Supp.2d1345,1349(S.D.Fla.2012)(Dimitrouleas,J.)(çsBecauseitisimproperforDefendantto raise this new argumentin its Reply brief,the argumentwillnotbe considered.''(citations omittedl). The Court ADO PTS the M agistrate Judge's findings regarding this claim but also concludesthat:(1)theCourtreviewedtheclaim denovoanddid notapply j2254(d)deference; and (2) Petitioner did notshow a due process violation for the reasons in the Reportànd Recommendation.Petitioner'sobjectionsareOVERRULED. C laim 5 PetitionerallegesthattheStateknowinglypresentedfalseevidenceandperjuredtestimony inviolationofdueprocess.SeegenerallyNapuev.Illinois,360U.S.264,269(1959).In support, he contends thatthe State used the (tdwrong'DN A protocol''to testm ixed DNA and solicited expel-ttestim ony based itsknow ing use ofthis çdwrong protocol.'' However,in his 3.850 M otion,Petitionerdid notraise this argument.Rather,he raised ram bling allegations aboutB aird's reliance on N oppinger's findings and the overallreliability of her testim ony.H e also alleged,conclusorily,thatthe State w ithheld N oppinger's repol' taftidavit inviolationofBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963).Thetrialcourtheldthattheclaim raisedin 18 Petitioner'sRule 3.850motion lackeLmerit' .TheM agistrateJudge agreed,fnding thatthetrial court'sconclusion did notviolate clearly established federallaw. However,becguse the M agistrate Judge'sRepol'tdoesnotaddressthe claim raised in the Pétition,theCourtwillreview thisclaim den 'ovo. Claim 5 fails under de novo review . For starters, claim 5 is conclusory, and hence, insufficientforreliefunderj2254 oranevidentiaryhearing.SeeScott,512U.S.at856;Dugger, 941 F.2d at 1559;see also Fordice,515 U .S.at46. Furtherm ore,asdiscussed above,theReportand Brady N otice do notshow thatthe State's experts used the çsw rong protocol'' to test the m ixed DN A sam ple at issue. The R eport acknow ledged that dûthe topic of statistical calculations used to evaluate the significance of occurrenceofDNA mixedprofilesgwasqunderdebatein thescientificcommunity.''TheReport further acknowledged that (dthe validations and methods used by''the BSO Crim e Lab had Slpreviously undergone review and assessmentpursuantto FBI QAS requirements and''thç A SCLD 'S requirem ents and had ççbeen accepted as m eeting relevantrequirem ents during those review s.''A nd,critically,the A SCLD issued the R eportseveralyears after Petitioner'strial. For their part, Baird and D r. Tracey testified extensively about their qualifications, experience,and the m ethodology underlying their conclusions.See Tolbert, 114 So.at293-94. And,on direct appeal,the Fourth District im plicitly found that the State's DN A evidence w as sufficientto supportPetitioner's conviction.See Tolbert,114 So.at293,295. O n this record,there is no indication that the State used Sûfalse'' evidence or that any supposedfalseevidence was6dknownby the (Sltatetobefalse.''See Williamsv.Griswald,743 F.2d 1533,1542(11thCir.1984).Consequently,claim 5lacksmerit. In sum,the Coul'tdenitsthis claim under de novo review.Petitioner'sobjedions are O V ERR ULED . H. Claim s 6A and 68 Inclaim 6A,PetitionerallegesthattheStateviolateddueprocessûiwhen git)usedforensic fraud by using protocolsfortesting mixed DNA that(wereqnotapproved orcertified by the'' ASCLD andScientificW orkingGrouponDNA AnalysisMethods(CQSW GDAM ').lnsupport,he allegesthatthe BSO Crim e Lab's Slprotocolfortesting m ixed DN A w ere notin com pliance''w ith theFrye3standard fortheadm issibility ofscientificevidehce. Relatedly,in claim 6B ,Petitioner alleg4s thatsom e ofthe State's D N A testkits (çhave a certain allele drop out'' which the State's DNA experts ltnew and used whenever it was (Eadvantageous to their goal.''The State's failure to disclose this m ethod of DN A lnanipulation violated dueprocess. Underdenovo review,the Coul'trejectsthese claims.As with claim 5,the Magistrate Judge's reasoning doesnotapply to the actualclaim sthatPetitionerraised. The contentionsthatthe State violated due processhy using DNA testing protocols that w ere notapproved by the A SCLD and SW G DA M and know ingly m anipulated DN A failforthe sam e essential reasons as claim 5. In short, these claim s are unsupported, conclusol' y, and speculative. Petitioner'scontention thattheBSO Crim eLab'sDNA testingproéeduresdid notcomport w ith Frye is also conclusory.W hathe m eans by this is unclear.Ifhe m eans thatBaird's and Dr. Tracey'stestim ony violated due proùessbecause itw asinadm issible underFrye,this claim w ould 3 Frye v, Unitedstates,293 F.1013,1014 (D.C.Cir.1923),superseded by statuteasstated in Daubertv.MerrellDow Pharm-k,Inc.,509U.S.579,589(1993). fail.lnFlorida,çtgtlheFryetestisusedtoevaluatetheadmissibilityofexpertscientifiçopinionby ascertaining w hethernew ornovelscientificprinciples on w hich an exped 'sopinion isbased have gained generalacceptance in the particular feld in which it belongs.''Boyd v. State,200 So.3d 685,703-04 (Fla.2015)(percuriam).So,Ccwherethemethodology wasneithernew nornovel, existingcaselaw recognizesthataFryehearingisnotnecessary.''f#.at704(citationsomitled). Here,Petitioner hasnotshown tlpatthe State's m ethodology wasnew ornovel.As the Fourth Districtfound in affrm ing his conviction,(IDNA teclmology had advanced to a method called shorttandem repeat(STR).''Tolbert,114 So.3d at293.Bairdtestified thatsheusedthis m ethod when analyzing the sample atissue.STR wasnotnew ornovelin 2011 and would not have w arranted a Frye hearing.Boyd,200 So.3d at704;Overton v.State,976 So.2d 536,553 (Fla.2007) (per curiam).And Petitionerhas notsetforth any facts warranting a reasonable inference thatsom e otheraspectoftheirtestim ony w as new ornovel. lf Petitioner m eans thatthe adm ission of the testim ony of the State's DN A experts w as erroneousunderFla.Stat.90.702 (2011),thiscontention isprocedurally defaulted becausehe failed to raise it on direct appeal and calm otshow actualilm ocence.This contention w ould also failbecause itis conclusory. ln sum,the Courtdeniesthis claim underde novo review.Petitioner's objections are frivolousand are O V ER R ULE D . 1. C laim 7 Petitioner alleges that B aird w as not qualified to testify as an expertbecause she w as Ctw ritten up for2.2.72,w hich wasappealed and sustained on N ovem ber2003.''Further,he alleges thatthe State Attorney's'Office lm ew ofherSdw ork history and herpm pensity to m ake inaccurate DN A analyses;which 1ed to hermisleadingthejurywithhertestimony;sheutilizeduncertifed , testingmethodsfortestingm ixedDNA.''SotheState'spresentation ofBairdasawitnessallegedly violated dge process. In his3.850 M otion,Petitioner challenged Baird's qualifcations,buton differentgrounds than those raised here.The trialcourtdenied that claim ,and the M agistrate Judge's findings are consistentw ith the trialcou/'sdecision.A gain,how ever,the Reportand R ecom m endation invites theCou14to deferto astatecourtruling thatdoesnotaddresstheparticularclaim atissue. Claim 7 fails under de novo review. This claim is conclusory. Petitioner has not m eaningfully alleged thereasonsforwhich Baird wasdçwritten up.''N orhashe explained how a work performance issue in aseparate matterthatoccurred roughly 6 yearsbeforeBaird prepared her 2009 DN A reportunderm ined her testim ony.A nd the conclusol'y allegation that she used uncertified testing m ethods for m ixed DN A is unavailing for the reasons set forth above. Petitioner'sobjectionsaremeritlessandareOVERRULED.Theclaim failsunderdenovoreview. Claim 8 Petitioner alleges that counselineffectively failed to investigate Baird's qualifcations ç&in thetieldofm ixedDNA testingprotocol.''ThisfailureallowedBairdto paintan inaccurateGdpicture inthemindsofthejurorsabouthtjw DMA canbemissedinaDNA extractionformixedDNA.'' Counselalso ineffectively failed to discover thatBaird çswas m 'itten up in the past for work performanceissues.''4TheMagistrateJudgefindsthatthetrialcoul4reasonablyrejectedthisclaim. Y etthe Reportand R ecom m endation did notidentify w here Petitioner alleged this claim in state coul' t. 4A lthough Petitionerallegesviolationsofdue process and equalprotection,he sim ply piggybacksthese nom inal claimsonto hisineffectivenessclaim .The purported dueprocessand.equalprotection claim shavethesam e facm al predicateastheineffectivenessclaim andafewholly conclusory.Thus,they neednotbeaddressed separately. Yet,daim 8failsunderdentworeview.Thisolaim isnotmeaningfillydistinctfrom the contention, addressed above, that counsel ineffectively failed to m ove to suppress the DN A evidenceandobjectto itsadmission attrial.Again,becausetheASCLD issued theRepol'tover fouryearsafterPetitioner'strial,counselcouldnothaveobjectedtotheState'sexperts'testimony on thatbasis.See Strickland,466 U .S.M, t 689.ltis speculative to assert,as Petitioner does,that cotm selw oùld havedisèovered theproblem stheR eportdiscusseshad counselinvestigated further. SeeAldrich v.Wainwright,777 F.2d 630,636 (11th Cir.1985)(stspeculation isinsufficientto can'y the burden of a habeas corpus petitioneras to w hatevidence could have been revealed by fuMherinvestigation.'').And counselreasonably could have concluded thatany evidenceabout Baird's pastw ork perform ance issue w ould have no probative force given its vague description and rem oteness. TheCourtovernllesPetitioner'sobjectionsanddeniestheclaim underdenovoreview. lf. (zlaizn 9 Petitionerallegesaclaim ofûsnewly discovered evidence,''which healternately labelsasa due processviolation. In claim 9A ,Petitionerrepeatstheallegation thattheB SO Crim eLab (çw asusing thew rong protocolto testm ixed D NA .'' In claim 9B ,he alleges thatthe B SO Crim e Lab's Ccstandards'and protocols''did notm eet theFryestandard.Insupport,lteallegesthattheBSO CrimeLab used CP1andthatCPI'susage Scin conjunctionu withafaultyFBldatabasegaveanexaggeratedandan inflatedoccurrenceofa genetic profile.'' Thetrialcourtrejededclaim 9A onthegroundthattheReport'sûtallegeddeticiencies''did notCtprejudicially affectgl''Baird's testimony.Itreasoned that:(1) Dr.Tracey did the only populationgeneticcalculation,notanyoneatiheBSO CrimeLab;(2)Petitionerbasedhisdefe'nse attrialon conflicts ofthe evidence and consent;and (3)Petitioner stated atsentencing that ( . ' som eone Splanted''the DN A .The record supports the firsttw o findings.Furthennore,although the Courtdoesnothavethesentencing transcript,Petitionerdoesnotdisputethethird finding.So thetrialcourtreasonablyrejected claim 9A.Petitioner'sObjectionsregurgitatefindingsfrom the Repolt raiseirrelevantm atters,and arenonr 'e' sponsiveto thetrialcourt'sfindings. The Courtdenies this claim on the basis thatthe trial courtreasonably rejected it. Petitioner'sobjectionsam OVERRULED. Claim 98 is m aterially indistinguishable from claim 6A and is DEN IED under de novo revieW fOrthe Sam e reasons. L. C laim 10 In claim IOA ,Petitioneralleges aBrady violation çtfornon-disclosure ofexculpatory DN A evidence/mixed DNA testprotocolincluding uncertified population frequency statistics.''Thisis a roundabout w ay of alleging that the State violated Brady by failing to discluse the Report. Likewise,claim 10B allegesthatthe Isprotocolfortesting mixed DNA used by the''BSO Crime Labtswasunknown?'tohim andthetrialcourt.Tàeseclaimsateoneandthesame. Petitioner did notraise thisBrady claim in hisM otion forN ewly Discovered Evidence. The M agistrate Judge recom m ended denying the claim on the ground that, at the tim e of Petitioner'strial,the State lsdid notpossessthe infonuation regarding the CP1protocols.''Thus,it cannot bq said thatthe State (çw illfully or inadvertently''suppressed (sevidence ...favorable to (Petitionerq.''SeeClarkv.Att>Gen.,Fla.,821F.3d 1270,1289(11thCir.2016)(citationomitted). In his Objections,Petitionercontends thatthe State did n' otwantto disclose thatthe Brow ard Sheriff's Office Crim e Lab w asusing the allegedly im proper m ethodology discussed in theReport.Allegedly,theStatewantedto keep using iton (tunwary''defendantsand avoidputting (Ca1otof(itsjconvictionsindoubt,''Thesecontentionsareunsupportedandconclusory;thereisno record evidence substantiatingthem .Furthennore,they takeforgranted that1heissuestheReport analyzes are exculpatory.But,as discussed above,the Reportand the Brady N otice failto show thatthemethodologytheStateusedto analyzethem ixed DNA sampleherewasflawed orthatthe State's findingsw ere unreliable. ln sum ,theM agistrateJudge'sreasoning in denying the Brady claim iscorrect.ThisCourt, how ever,need notadoptthatportion ofthe R eport,w hich recom m endsdefen'ing to the statetrial court's decision even though the state trialcoul'tw as notruling on the claim atissue.The Coul't denies the claim 10A underde novo review forthe above reasons.Petitioner'sobjectionsam O VER R IJLED .S67 V 1l. CO N C LUSIO N S Forthe foregoing reasons,thepetition isDISM ISSED and thecertificate ofappealability isD EN IED . DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatMiami,Florida,this Y ofOctober2021. Z FEDER I A . NO U N ITED S TES D ISTRICT JUD GE Copiejfurnished to: CounselofRecord 5ThroughouthisPetition,Petitionerallegesviolationsofhisrightto afairtrialandequalprotection in additiontodue processviolations.Asexplainedinnote6,sypra,Petitionersimplypiggybacksthesepul -portedclaimsontohisprimary dueprocessandineffectivenessclaim s.Thepiggybackedclaim shavethesam efactualpredicateastheprim aryclaim s and arew holly conclusory.Sotheyw arrantnoseparateanalysis. 6Any claimsraisedforthefirsttimeinPetitioner'sObjectionsarenotproperlybeforetheCourt.SeeMcNeil,557 ' F.3d at1291! . 7Petitionerisnotentitled toanevidentiaryhearing.SeeSchrirov.Ltzzltfr/gt'z?,550U.S.465,474(2007)($$EI1fthe. recordrefutestheapplicant'sfactualallegationsorotherwiseprecludeshabeasrelief,adistrictcourtisnotrequiredto holdanevidentialy hearing(underj22541.'7). . 25
]]>
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.
