Brown v. Bolin

Background

Willie B. Brown, who represented himself in this federal case, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his Minnesota conviction for second-degree murder. The Minnesota Court of Appeals had previously reversed his first trial because the murder, drive-by-shooting, and assault charges were improperly joined, but it determined that the evidence was sufficient to allow a retrial. After separate proceedings, Brown was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 386 months.

At the retrial, the state introduced limited evidence of the drive-by shooting under Minnesota’s rule governing evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts, commonly called Spreigl evidence. Brown also challenged a blood draw, the exclusion of alternative-perpetrator evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, the lack of an indictment or grand jury proceeding, other evidentiary rulings, and the trial judge’s failure to recuse.

Habeas claims and procedural default

The magistrate judge concluded that Brown had fairly presented only his Fourth Amendment challenge to the blood draw as a federal claim in the Minnesota courts. The other claims had been presented primarily under state law or had not been raised in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The district court explained that a habeas petitioner must give the state courts a fair opportunity to consider the federal nature of a claim. When state procedural rules prevent another attempt to do so, the claim is procedurally defaulted, meaning federal review is generally barred unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

The district court agreed that Brown’s federal claims concerning the Spreigl evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, alternative-perpetrator evidence, indictment, other allegedly inadmissible evidence, and recusal were procedurally defaulted. The court found that Brown had not shown the required cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court also stated that Brown’s argument about the need to seek state post-conviction relief was moot because the report and recommendation did not find that he was required to do so.

Fourth Amendment blood-draw claim

Brown argued that the trial court should have dismissed the murder case because a blood draw performed while he was in custody violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court rejected that argument. It distinguished the Supreme Court decision on which Brown relied because that case involved compelled surgery under anesthesia, not a blood draw. The court also explained that the usual remedy for an unconstitutional search is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the criminal charges. The trial court had suppressed the blood-draw evidence from Brown’s second murder trial.

The district court held that Brown had not shown that the Minnesota courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law or unreasonably determined the facts. The blood-draw claim therefore did not support habeas relief.

Additional merits discussion

Although the court found the alternative-perpetrator claim procedurally defaulted, it also considered the claim on the merits. The court concluded that the state courts’ handling of the evidence was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The state courts had found that Brown’s proposed evidence did not connect the alleged alternative perpetrator to the murder and that Brown was allowed to testify that the victim had pointed a gun at someone else and that an unknown third party had killed the victim. The state appellate court also found any evidentiary error harmless because Brown presented the substance of the evidence through his own testimony.

The court likewise discussed the state courts’ treatment of Brown’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence and other evidentiary claims. It found that the state courts’ factual determinations were supported by the record and that Brown had not rebutted them with clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that these claims did not provide a basis for habeas relief.

Other motions and final disposition

The court determined that the record and the parties’ legal arguments were sufficient to resolve all issues, so it denied Brown’s request for an evidentiary hearing. It also found that Brown had not made the required substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied and therefore did not grant a Certificate of Appealability.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Brown’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation as modified, denied the § 2254 habeas petition, denied the motion for an evidentiary hearing, did not grant a Certificate of Appealability, and dismissed the action with prejudice.