Fiore v. Neven

Background

Brian Fiore filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for federal review of his state-court custody or conviction. The petition concerned counts on which Fiore was found guilty and argued that defense counsel should have presented favorable expert testimony. The court noted that it was skeptical that the petition should receive fresh, independent review, but it considered the claim even under that standard.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the requirement that Fiore show a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if the expert testimony had been presented. It concluded that the testimony would have weakened the state’s trial arguments that Fields was in the front seat when he was shot and that Fiore shot Fields.

The court nevertheless found that the testimony would not have meaningfully weakened the remaining counts. The testimony did not concern the robbery at the beginning of the night. The court also pointed to evidence that made Fiore’s account unlikely, including the number of people in the house, the house’s layout, two eyewitnesses who said Fiore wielded the Glock during the robbery, and evidence that Fiore possessed the Glock at the end of the car chase. The court further relied on evidence that the Glock was fired at Noland while the AK-47, held by Fields, was fired at Officer Nelson. The court said Fiore’s account would require Fields to switch between the two guns within seconds, and that the proposed expert testimony would not make that account more believable.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria denied Fiore’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Fiore had not shown a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have reached a different result on his non-murder convictions. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not consider its assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.