BRIEF FOR APPELLEE _________________________ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS _________________________ No. 19-CO-392 _________________________ KEITH LITTLEPAGE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. _________________________ APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION _________________________ MICHAEL R. SHERWIN Acting United States Attorney ELIZABETH TROSMAN JOHN P. MANNARINO PAMELA SATTERFIELD * ELIZABETH GABRIEL MD Bar Assistant United States Attorneys * Counsel for Oral Argument 555 Fourth Street, NW, Room 8104 Washington, D.C. 20530 [email protected] Cr. No. 2011-CF1-4384 (202) 252-6829 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page The Trial ............................................................................................. 2 The Government’s Evidence ........................................................ 2 The Defense Evidence .................................................................. 7 The Post-Conviction Proceedings ....................................................... 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................ 26 ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 27 I. The Trial Court Did Not Plainly Err in Failing to Order a Manual Keyboard Search or Abuse its Discretion in Determining That Appellant Was Not Entitled to Discovery of CODIS Information Under Rule 16. ..................... 27 A. Applicable Legal Principles ................................................ 28 1. CODIS .......................................................................... 28 2. The IPA ........................................................................ 31 3. Discovery ...................................................................... 32 B. Standard of Review ............................................................. 33 C. Discussion ........................................................................... 34 1. The Failure to Order a Manual Keyboard Search Was Not Plain Error. ................................................... 34 2. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Determining that Appellant Was Not Entitled to Discovery Under Rule 16. ............................................ 38 3. Appellant Was Not Prejudiced by the Alleged Errors. .......................................................................... 42 II. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Denying Appellant’s Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. ......................................... 44 A. Standard of Review and Applicable Legal Principles ........ 44 B. Discussion ........................................................................... 45 CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 50 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES* Page Bellinger v. United States, 127 A.3d 505 (D.C. 2015) ............................. 41 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) .................................................. 41 Brown v. United States, 726 A.2d 149 (D.C. 1999) ................................. 34 Cowels v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 936 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2019) ............................................................ 28-29 Cuffey v. United States, 976 A.2d 897 (D.C. 2009) ........................... 37, 44 Hill v. United States, 489 A.2d 1078 (D.C. 1985) ................................... 45 * Hood v. United States, 28 A.3d 553 (D.C. 2011) .................... 31-32, 36, 47 Hunter v. United States, 606 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1992) ................................ 33 Jones v. United States, 946 A.2d 970 (D.C. 2008) .................................. 34 Littlepage v. United States, No. 12-CF-1920 (D.C. Oct. 1, 2015) ............................................... 1-3, 8 Malloy v. United States, 797 A.2d 687 (D.C. 2002) ................................ 41 Odom v. United States, 930 A.2d 157 (D.C. 2007) .................................. 42 Otts v. United States, 952 A.2d 156 (D.C. 2008) ..................................... 45 * Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks. iii Sanchez-Rengifo v. United States, 815 A.2d 351 (D.C. 2002) ................. 50 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ...................................... 45 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) ................................................. 42 Teoume-Lessane v. United States, 931 A.2d 478 (D.C. 2007) ................. 43 United States v. Butler, 499 F.2d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ........................ 40 United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) .......................................... 34 United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ........................... 40 Ventura v. United States, 927 A.2d 1090 (D.C. 2007) ............................ 40 Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296 (D.C. 2018). ................................ 33 Williams v. United States, 237 A.2d 539 (D.C. 1968) ............................. 39 Winstead v. United States, 809 A.2d 607, (D.C. 2002) ...................... 47-48 Young v. United States, 63 A.3d 1033 (D.C. 2013) ................................. 28 iv OTHER AUTHORITIES D.C. Code § 22-801(a) ................................................................................ 1 D.C. Code § 22-801(b) ................................................................................ 1 D.C. Code § 22-1810 .................................................................................. 1 D.C. Code § 22-2101 .................................................................................. 1 D.C. Code § 22-2104 .................................................................................. 1 D.C. Code § 22-2104(b)(12) ........................................................................ 1 D.C. Code § 22-2104.01(a) ......................................................................... 1 D.C. Code § 22-3211 .................................................................................. 1 D.C. Code § 22-3212(b) .............................................................................. 1 D.C. Code § 22-4131(2) ............................................................................ 35 D.C. Code § 22-4131(5) ............................................................................ 35 D.C. Code § 22-4132 ...................................................................... 9, 25, 27 D.C. Code § 22-4133 ...................................................................... 9, 23, 27 D.C. Code § 22-4133(a) ............................................................................ 31 D.C. Code § 22-4133(b)(4) ........................................................................ 14 D.C. Code § 22-4133(d) ...................................................................... 31, 35 D.C. Code § 22–4135 ......................................................................... 31, 39 D.C. Code § 22–4135(e)(4) ................................................................. 32, 39 v D.C. Code § 22-4502 .................................................................................. 1 D.C. Code § 23-110 .................................................................................. 12 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16 ..................................... 22, 26-27, 32, 34, 39-40, 42 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(a)(1)(E) ............................................................... 32 34 U.S.C. § 12592(a)(1) ............................................................................ 28 34 U.S.C. § 12592(a)(2) ............................................................................ 28 34 U.S.C. § 12592(b)(1) ................................................................. 14, 29-30 34 U.S.C. § 12592(b)(2)(A)(i) ................................................................... 29 National DNA Index System (“NDIS”) Operational Procedures Manual ................................. 15, 23, 29-30, 38 NDIS Operational Procedures § 2.2 ................................................. 20, 23 NDIS Operational Procedures § 5.0 ................................................. 30, 37 NDIS Operational Procedures § 5.3 ............................................ 29, 37-38 vi ISSUES PRESENTED I. Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s post- conviction motion for additional DNA analysis under the Innocence Protection Act (“IPA”), where the court’s failure to sua sponte order a manual keyboard search of the CODIS database was not plain error, and where the court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery under Rule 16. II. Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, where appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to advise him of his right to request pretrial DNA testing. vii On November 9, 2011, appellant was indicted on two counts of armed first-degree murder (premeditated murder and felony murder of ) (D.C. Code §§ 22-2101, -4502), with aggravating circumstances (a previous manslaughter conviction) (D.C. Code §§ 22- 2104, -2104.01(a), -2104(b)(12)); first-degree burglary (D.C. Code § 22- 801(a)); second-degree burglary (D.C. Code § 22-801(b)); second-degree theft (D.C. Code §§ 22-3211, -3212(b)); and three counts of threatening to injure/kidnap a person (D.C. Code § 22-1810) (R. A at 12-13).1 After a trial before the Honorable Thomas J. Motley, a jury found appellant not guilty of second-degree theft but guilty of every other count (7/24/12 Tr. 3-5). Judge Motley sentenced appellant to the following concurrent terms of incarceration: 50 years