Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views4 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed by Roosevelt Brown seeking a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. The district court had denied Brown's habeas petition in which he claimed he was denied due process when the trial court allowed a partial rereading of testimony to the jury and admitted a love letter Brown wrote to the victim. The Court of Appeals denies Brown's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the alleged errors did not have a substantial effect on the jury's verdict.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-12-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-3043

    Original Title

    Brown v. Hannigan, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed by Roosevelt Brown seeking a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. The district court had denied Brown's habeas petition in which he claimed he was denied due process when the trial court allowed a partial rereading of testimony to the jury and admitted a love letter Brown wrote to the victim. The Court of Appeals denies Brown's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the alleged errors did not have a substantial effect on the jury's verdict.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16 views4 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition filed by Roosevelt Brown seeking a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. The district court had denied Brown's habeas petition in which he claimed he was denied due process when the trial court allowed a partial rereading of testimony to the jury and admitted a love letter Brown wrote to the victim. The Court of Appeals denies Brown's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the alleged errors did not have a substantial effect on the jury's verdict.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    DEC 16 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    ROOSEVELT BROWN,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    ROBERT D. HANNIGAN and
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    KANSAS,

    No. 98-3043
    (D.C. No. 96-CV-3267)
    (D. Kan.)

    Respondents-Appellees.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal.

    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

    ordered submitted without oral argument.


    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    Petitioner Roosevelt Brown, appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of


    appealability in order to appeal the district courts denial of his writ of habeas
    corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254.

    See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no

    appeal can be taken from the denial of a 2254 habeas petition unless the
    petitioner first obtains a certificate of appealability).
    Petitioner was convicted in Kansas in 1993 for criminal trespass,
    aggravated kidnaping and rape. On direct appeal, petitioners criminal trespass
    conviction was reversed, but his kidnaping and rape convictions were affirmed.
    The Kansas Supreme Court denied review, after which petitioner filed this 2254
    petition. His petition claims that he was denied due process when the trial court
    allowed the jury to hear a partial rereading of petitioners and the victims
    testimony. Petitioner argues the rereading of testimony was not responsive to the
    jurys request. Petitioner also claims that he was denied due process when the
    trial court admitted evidence of a love letter he wrote to the victim while he was
    awaiting trial. He claims that the letter was irrelevant and was improperly
    introduced to show that he was trying to manipulate the victim.
    The district court denied the petition, finding that the alleged errors did not
    have a substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict. In a subsequent
    order, the district court denied petitioners request for a certificate of
    appealability.
    -2-

    Whether testimony of a witness shall be reread to a jury during the course


    of its deliberations is a matter lying within the sound discretion of the trial court.
    See United States v. Brunetti , 615 F.2d 899, 902 (10th Cir.1980). While we have
    recognized that rereading of witness testimony to the jury during deliberations is
    disfavored because of the potential that the jury might unduly emphasize that
    evidence, see United States v. Keys , 899 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir. 1990), we find
    no abuse in the trial judges exercise of its discretion and we agree with the
    district court that the alleged error did not have a substantial and injurious effect
    or influence in determining the jurys verdict.

    See Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507

    U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993). We also agree with the district court that the admission
    of the love letter did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jurys
    verdict.
    Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district courts
    order denying petitioners habeas corpus petition is not debatable, reasonably
    subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further
    proceedings. See Gallagher v. Hannigan , 24 F.3d 68, 68 (10th Cir. 1994)
    (discussing how to make substantial showing of denial of constitutional right).
    Thus, we find that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional right and that the district court properly denied petitioners
    application for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we DENY petitioners
    -3-

    request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. The mandate
    shall issue forthwith.

    Entered for the Court

    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge

    -4-

    You might also like