We granted a certificate of appealability to consider Higgs's claim that his constitutional rights to due process of law and effective assistance of counsel were violated by the introduction of Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (“CBLA”) evidence at trial. § 2255, which was denied by the district court.
Presently before us is Higgs's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.
Higgs also filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the district court and affirmed on appeal. We affirmed his convictions and sentences. § 1201(a)(2), arising out of the January 27, 1996, murders of three young women in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge. § 1111(a), first-degree murder committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a kidnapping, see id., and kidnapping resulting in death, see 18 U.S.C. Petitioner Dustin John Higgs was convicted of three counts each of first-degree premeditated murder, see 18 U.S.C. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Deborah Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Sachs, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. ON BRIEF:Leigh Skipper, Chief Federal Defender, Matthew Lawry, Michael Wiseman, Assistant Federal Defenders, Federal Community Defender Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Stephen H. Sandra Wilkinson, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Decided: November 23, 2011īefore TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.ĪRGUED:Angela Elleman, Federal Community Defender Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.
0 kommentar(er)
