Goodloe v. Brannon

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his murder conviction on grounds that state trial court erred in admitting victim’s identification of defendant as shooter at scene of shooting, and that defendant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Record showed that government obtained victim’s statements identifying defendant as culprit while victim was in ambulance at scene of crime, after police brought defendant to victim, who initially implicated defendant as shooter, and that victim gave said statements shortly before he died. As such, trial court could properly admit said statements, even though defendant argued that said statements violated his rights under Confrontation Clause, since said statements were not testimonial in nature, because statements were uttered to provide police assistance at time of emergency. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that emergency was over at time statements were made, even though defendant argued that only suspect in victim’s shooting was in custody at time statements were made. Ct. further noted that defendant could not obtain habeas relief, even if state court was wrong that emergency still existed at time of statements, since “fair-minded jurists” could disagree on correctness of state court’s admission of said testimony. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview three individuals, who could have provided innocent explanation for his presence near crime scene, since: (1) two of three individuals did not provide alibi for defendant and could have provided damaging evidence to defendant; (2) third individual was not with defendant at time of shooting and could not have provided exculpatory testimony; and (3) other evidence strongly indicated that defendant had committed instant shooting.