whether-trial-counsel-was-ineffective-for-failing-to-object-to-forensic-dna-evidence

QUESTION PRESENTED At Jamie Mills’ capital trial, the State introduced forensic DNA evidence, from an expert who did not testify, purporting to exclude the lead alternate suspect in the case. Despite Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), trial counsel did not object or argue that such evidence violated Mr. Mills’ confrontation rights. In habeas corpus proceedings below, the district court acknowledged both that trial counsel failed to object to this evidence and also that, because the expert in question did not testify, Mr. Mills was unable to “question that particular analyst to make sure that he had the training or skills necessary and did not make a mistake,” Mills v. Dunn, No. 6:17-cv-00789-LSC, 2020 WL 7038594, at *16 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2020). In addition to denying relief, the district court also denied a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to object to this evidence. The Eleventh Circuit also denied a COA. The question presented is: Whether, given that the district court’s agreement that Mr. Mills was denied the opportunity to confront the forensic analyst in this case, did Mr. Mills meet the certificate of appealability standard articulated by this Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and its progeny, “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” i