Dist.Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s section 2241 petition challenging his capital murder conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appropriately object to state’s cross-examination of defendant’s expert witness, and that certain favorable evidence was withheld from him in violation of Brady. Defendant raised same ineffective assistance of counsel claim (albeit citing to different instances of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel) in his prior section 2255 habeas petition, and thus defendant could not show that original section 2255 petition was ineffective avenue to address said claim for purposes of allowing defendant to raise said claim in section 2241 petition. Also, evidence at issue in defendant’s claimed Brady violation was known to defendant during his 1990 trial on different charge, and thus defendant could not raise said claim (which was otherwise without merit) in any section 2241 petition.
