Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2940 September Term, 2007

JAMES ALLEN KULBICKI

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

Wright, Matricciani, Watts, JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J. Filed: September 26, 2012

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, appellant, James Kulbicki, was convicted of first degree murder on October 20, 1993. On December 1, 1994, this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Kulbicki v. State, 102 Md. App. 376 (1994). On November 22, 1995, Kulbicki was again convicted, by a jury, of murder, as well as a related handgun charge. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On December 20, 1996, this Court affirmed Kulbicki's convictions, and on April 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied Kulbicki's petition for writ of certiorari. Kulbicki v. State, 345 Md. 236 (1997). On or about March 17, 1997, while his request for certiorari review was pending, Kulbicki filed a petition for postconviction relief. After filing several amendments and repeatedly seeking postponements of his postconviction proceedings, Kulbicki filed an amended petition for postconviction relief on April 4, 2006. Following a five-day hearing in April 2007, the circuit court denied postconviction relief through an opinion and order dated January 2, 2008. Kulbicki then filed an application for leave to appeal the denial of postconviction relief, which this Court granted on March 9, 2010. Questions Presented We have rephrased and renumbered the questions presented by Kulbicki, as follows:1
1

Kulbicki presented these two issues for our review: Whether a defendant who has been convicted on the basis of unreliable scientific evidence has a due process claim cognizable

1.

1.

Where Kulbicki alleged that his conviction was based on unreliable, false, and misleading scientific evidence, did the postconviction court correctly conclude that he did not have a cognizable due process claim?

2.

Where Kulbicki alleged that the State used perjured, false, and misleading expert ballistics testimony in securing his conviction, did the postconviction court correctly find that he was not denied a fair trial?

3.

Did the postconviction court correctly conclude that Kulbicki failed to establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

through the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. 2. Whether the Circuit Court erred by denying Appellant a new trial when the evidence established that 1) the State used unreliable, false, and misleading scientific evidence; 2) the State introduced perjured expert testimony; 3) Appellant's attorneys failed to investigate and challenge the scientific evidence presented by the State; and 4) Appellant's attorneys failed to object when the State told the jury that Kulbicki's consultation with an attorney following his arrest constituted evidence of guilt and his appellate counsel failed to raise the issue on appeal.

However, in the argument section of his brief and at oral argument, Kulbicki set forth three issues.
2

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court's judgment. Facts The testimony at Kulbicki's 1995 trial established that at about 8 a.m. on Sunday, January 10, 1993, Walter Kutcha was walking his dog near the archery range at Gunpowder State Park when he saw a body lying by one of the trash cans. Suspecting "foul play," Kutcha went to a park ranger's cabin and came back with Ranger Ross Harper. Upon their return, Kutcha and Ranger Harper discovered that the body was that of a deceased woman, lying on her back. Officers of the Baltimore County Police Department responded to the scene at approximately 8:30 a.m. Detective William Ramsey, a member of the Baltimore County Police Department's Homicide and Missing Persons units, testified that he arrived at 10:18 a.m. and began his investigation. He observed blood on the victim's forehead, around her nose, and on the right side of her shoulder. Det. Ramsey also noted that the victim's jewelry had not been removed. Upon turning the body over, Det. Ramsey saw a wound near the back of the victim's head, but no blood on the ground underneath. Based on the leaves and debris under the victim's jacket, the position of her clothes and arms, the disturbance of the leaves and debris in an area leading toward the body, as well as the absence of bullets and shell casings on the surrounding ground, Det. Ramsey concluded that the victim had "been killed somewhere else and taken there and . . . dragged there and dumped."
3

Det. Ramsey unzipped the victim's jacket and saw that she was wearing a Royal Farms store smock with a name tag that said "Gina." While Det. Ramsey was conducting his investigation, he received a call from the Baltimore City Police Department instructing him to contact the city's Homicide Unit. Upon doing so, Det. Ramsey was informed that the city police were "investigating a missing girl from Baltimore City." Eventually, the Baltimore City Homicide Squad arrived at the crime scene, along with "a subject . . . who identified the victim as Gina Marie Neuslein." Geraldine Neuslein, Gina's mother, testified that she last saw Gina on Saturday, January 9, 1993, when Gina left to walk to work at around 3:30 p.m. At about 4:10 p.m., Geraldine received a call from Gina's employer, stating that Gina never arrived. During Det. Ramsey's investigation, he received "information over the radio that there was an individual who might have some information relative to the crime." Det. Ramsey sent an officer to interview that witness, Barbara Clay. At trial, as a witness for the State, Clay testified that at approximately 3 p.m. on January 9, 1993, she and her son went to the archery club at Gunpowder State Park. As they were leaving the parking area around 4:40 p.m., she saw a black Ford pickup truck coming down the road with its headlights on. When the truck turned into the parking area, it passed parallel to Clay's vehicle, about four feet away. With her window down, Clay raised her hand, "yelled and [] said hi." The driver of the truck "[s]lowly looked at [her] full face" but did not respond. Clay identified the driver as Kulbicki.
4

After passing the truck, Clay drove about one third of a mile down the road and parked, hoping to see some deer. After waiting approximately fifteen minutes, Clay left with her son. She did not see the truck leave, nor did she see any other vehicles enter the area. The next morning, Clay heard information from a television news program that prompted her to call the Baltimore County Police Department.2 Upon calling the authorities, Clay relayed information that was not provided on the news. Specifically, she told an officer that she "had seen a white male in his mid-thirties driving a Ford longbed pickup truck" at the archery range parking lot at Gunpowder State Park. Clay added that the driver had dark hair and "was wearing a dark jacket with a contrasting lighter shirt." On the evening of January 13, 1993, Clay saw a television broadcast showing a man in shackles being arrested. Because of the man's "very distinctive profile, [and] very distinctive nose," Clay "without doubt, [] knew that was the man that [she] saw at Gunpowder State Park." Thus, Clay called the police and told them that she "recognized that man that they had arrested . . . as being the man that [she] saw." Shortly after Det. Ramsey concluded his investigation at the park on January 10, 1993, he received information that prompted him to visit the home of James Kulbicki, a

Although Clay did not provide details about the news program because it was hearsay, it is presumed that she heard information about a body being found at Gunpowder State Park.
5

2

sergeant of the Baltimore City Police Department, to ask questions about Gina. Det. Ramsey was accompanied by his partner, Detective Robert Capel. Kulbicki told the detectives that "he did know Gina and has been friends with her for about four years." Without prompting, Kulbicki added that he and Gina were "very good friends, although they've never had a sexual relationship." Kulbicki stated that he last saw Gina at around 3:30 p.m. on Friday, January 8, 1993, when he picked her up close to her house and drove her to work. Kulbicki also stated that he last spoke to Gina when she called him on "Friday night at midnight into early Saturday morning." When Det. Capel informed Kulbicki that Gina's body was found in Baltimore County, Kulbicki said he suspected that was the case, because the detectives admitted they were from the Homicide Squad. Kulbicki did not ask where and how Gina was killed. According to Det. Capel, Kulbicki "just said he didn't have anything to do with it." The detectives asked Kulbicki about an upcoming paternity hearing scheduled for the following Wednesday as well as genetic tests indicating that Kulbicki was the father of Gina's 18-month old child. In response, Kulbicki said: Well, that's absolutely impossible that I'm the father. I don't believe in genetic tests. And the only reason why they'd even be closest, because we're both Slavic. . . . I've never had sex with her. When the detectives first interviewed Kulbicki, his black Ford pickup truck was parked outside the house. The following day, the police returned with a warrant. They
6

seized, among other things: Kulbicki's pickup truck, which had not been moved since the detectives' prior visit; a denim jacket taken from a hall closet; and a fully loaded .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with a two-inch barrel and its leather holster. Detective Patrick Kamberger, a Crime Lab mobile technician with the Baltimore County Police Department, processed Kulbicki's truck on January 11, 1993. Det. Kamberger testified that the truck, a 1988 Ford F250, had a "filthy" exterior, but "inside the truck appeared to be clean." The first thing he noticed when he opened the door was "a smell [of] household cleaner." According to Det. Kamberger, there was no surface dust on the dashboard or around the steering wheel, and the floorboard underneath the driver's floor mat was damp, although the mat itself was dry. Det. Kamberger noticed that a piece of red plastic molding was missing from the rear passenger-side window, revealing a rubber strip that had metallic marks. Beneath the rubber strip, Det. Kamberger noticed "an impact area" or "i[n]dentation." Subsequent chemical testing of the rubber strip established that the rubber was struck by something made of lead. A piece of red plastic fitting the damaged molding area was found in the truck bed. Inside the cab, there was no blood visible to the naked eye. Preliminary examination of the truck using ultraviolet light, however, indicated the possibility that blood stains were present. Therefore, Det. Kamberger requested the assistance of a serologist from the Maryland State Police Department.
7

The serologist, Matthew Abbott, was accepted by the circuit court as an expert in the area of forensic serology. He testified that fourteen blood stains were found on seven areas of the truck, including the driver's side door, floor mat, seat belt, bench seat, rear bench seat, rear floor mat, and underneath the rear floor mat. According to Abbott, the stains found on the cloth seat belt, the seat belt's plastic cover and tags, bench seat, underneath the bench seat, and underneath the rear floor mat were human and bore genetic markers consistent with the victim's blood and inconsistent with Kulbicki's. Additional stains on the seat belt, seat belt patch, bench seat, back of the bench seat, rear bench seat, and rear floor mat indicated human blood, but further testing was not possible. Similarly, due to the small samples found on the driver's side door and floor mat, Abbott was able to detect the presence of blood on those areas, but could not conclude anything further. The denim work jacket seized from Kulbicki's hall closet had what appeared to be blood stains clearly visible on the left sleeve. Det. Capel testified that when Kulbicki had reviewed the list of property being taken, he asked, "The jacket that you're taking, is that my jean work jacket?" Kulbicki did not ask about any of the other items. Linda Watson, a Forensic Chemist Supervisor in the Biology DNA Unit at the Maryland State Police Crime Laboratory, stated that she extracted DNA from the blood stain found on the jacket. After processing the sample, she concluded that "the DNA type obtained from the blood stain on the jacket matche[d] the DNA profile developed from the blood of Gina Marie Neuslein." According to Watson, the probability of a random match
8

in the Caucasian population was one in seven million. Assistant Medical Examiner James Locke testified that he had performed an autopsy on the victim at 9 a.m. on January 11, 1993. Locke stated that the victim, a twenty two-year-old white female, died of "a contact gunshot wound to the head," and that the manner of death was homicide. According to Locke, the abrasions on the victim's body and the condition of her clothing were consistent with having been dragged over the ground. Although the time of Gina's death could not be precisely determined, Locke stated that a time of "four or [five] o'clock in the afternoon, January the 9th of 1993, is [] consistent" with his findings. Locke testified that the fatal bullet traveled diagonally, from front to back and left to right, through Gina's head. The entrance wound had a "keyhole fracture," indicating that "the bullet entered at a very sharp angle and not directly perpendicular to the skull or to the scalp." Therefore, "a portion of the skull entered into the brain and, also, a portion of the skull may have exited from the body." There was also an exit wound from which "a piece of bone . . . or a piece of the bullet had exited from the scalp." A fragment of the bullet was recovered from one side of the brain. Locke added that evidence of burning on the margin of the entrance wound indicated that the barrel of the gun was placed directly against the victim's head. Extensive bleeding and bruising under the scalp on the right side indicated that Gina's head had hit a hard surface. According to Locke, evidence from the autopsy was
9

"consistent with the passenger of the car being shot by a driver." When police searched Kulbicki's vehicle, they found a small object near the rear passenger seat. Subsequent testing established that its major components were calcium and phosphorus, the major components of bone. The fragment also contained "some lead." While vacuuming the truck, the police found three other bone chips and a smaller bone fragment. Dr. Douglas Owsley, a curator and division head for the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, examined the larger bone fragment using a "stereo zoom microscope" and determined that it was part of the outer layer of a human skull. According to Dr. Owsley, fractured edges indicated that "a tremendous amount of traumatic force . . . caused the evulsion of this bone fragment." In addition, the presence of embedded lead and carbon deposits was "consistent with a contact gunshot wound." Testing of the smaller bone chips also revealed metallic particles embedded in the bone, as well as soot deposits and evulsion fracturing. Karen Quandt, a senior molecular biologist who was admitted as an expert in DNA profiling, testified that she performed RFLP3 DNA testing on the skull fragment and PCR4

According to testimony presented by the State at trial, RFLP, or Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism, "is the DNA test that most of the public is familiar with." RFLP generates:
10

3

DNA testing on the three bone chips. Four of the seven band patterns revealed by the RFLP testing matched those of Gina. Because other bands could not be visualized due to sample degradation, Quandt testified only that Gina could not be excluded as the source of the bone fragment. PCR testing, which can be performed on smaller or more degraded samples, likewise indicated that Gina could not be excluded as the source of the bone chips. According to Quandt, the frequency of the PCR type found in the bone chips was 1 in 640 among Caucasians. The State also presented the testimony of Ernest Peele, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") who was admitted as an expert in bullet and lead pellet composition analysis, also known as Comparative Bullet-Lead Analysis ("CBLA").5 Peele explained that, by performing trace element analysis, CBLA allowed comparison of the bullet fragment recovered during the autopsy and the bullet fragment found in Kulbicki's

bands that you see on a piece of x-ray film. * * * The basis of RFLP testing is . . . looking at different areas of a person's gene, . . . or their DNA. When we look at a combination of different sites, [the presence of] more sites . . . indicates a strong probability or possibility of that person having deposited a specific biological fluid. PCR, or polymerase chain reaction "takes a small amount of DNA, amplifies it millions of time[s] over to a quantity that [is detectable]." The technique is sometimes referred to as "Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead." See United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Clemons v. State, 392 Md. 339, 365 (2006).
11
5 4

truck, as well as six unfired cartridges seized from Kulbicki's handgun. Peele testified that the bullet fragments from Gina's brain and Kulbicki's truck exhibited "the same amounts of each and every element . . . detected," and were thus "analytically indistinguishable." Peele added that the results were "what you'd expect if you were examining two pieces of the same bullet, they are that close, two pieces of the same source." After comparing one of the bullets from Kulbicki's handgun, labeled Q-6, to the bullet fragments, labeled Q-1 and Q-2, Peele concluded that the Q-6 bullet was "measurably different," but "unusually close in that that's not what you'd expect, unless there's some association between the two groups," such as "being made by the same manufacturer on or about the same time." Nonetheless, Peele opined that the Q-6 was "close enough that I have seen those differences, . . . but, certainly, they are also different enough that I can't really include [it] as well as I would Q-1 and 2 to each other." Peele further stated that although the composition of the six unfired cartridges, labeled Q-4 through Q-9, differed, "these differences are not very large." According to Peele, the differences "can be expected" as "there are usually a number of different compositions in one box." On cross-examination, defense counsel concentrated on differentiating the unfired cartridges from the bullet fragments. The following transpired: Q: [W]hen compared to Q-6, which was a bullet which was provided to you or a cartridge for your examination for comparison with Q-1 and Q-2, that, you've testified, is measurably different, correct?
12

A: Q:

Yes, sir. The amounts of arsenic and copper are slightly different. Well, slightly different, is that something else [than] measurably different? No, sir. The same. * * * However, you cannot state that samples Q-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are consistent with Q-1 and Q-2 as having come from the same box, correct? Q-6 is much more so than any of the rest. Q-6 is so close that, certainly, that could have been in the same box. It, it could have been? Certainly. But you're not sure of that, correct? No, sir, I'm not sure of that.

A: Q:

A:

Q: A: Q: A:

Joseph Kopera, an examiner with the Maryland State Police Firearms Unit, was presented as an expert in the field of firearms identification. Before he was admitted as an expert, he was asked a few qualifying questions, including the following: Q: Okay. Were you a graduate of this profession as a result of formal school? There are no colleges or universities here in the United States at all that offer a degree in the field of firearms identification for ballistics. All expertise is obtained through on-the-job training. I served an apprenticeship for five years with the Baltimore City Police Department and the FBI in obtaining this expertise. My educational background, my personal educational background is I hold a degree in engineering from Rochester Institute
13

A:

of Technology and, also, engineering degree from the University of Maryland here in the State of Maryland. I am on the Board of Directors for the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners, which is the certifying society of firearm examiners here in the United States. I'm also on the staff at several local colleges, did teaching in the area of forensic science and criminal justice. Q: And how many firearms-related cases do you examine per year, on the average? On the average for a 20-year period, I would examine anywhere between 1,000 to [1,200] cases, of which I would testify in court between 100 to 125 times per year. Have you had an occasion in the past to qualify as an expert in firearms identification? Yes, I have qualified in the [s]tate of Maryland, states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the Federal courts here in the United States.

A:

Q:

A:

After being accepted by the court as an expert, Kopera testified that the bullet fragment found in Kulbicki's truck had cannelures, or markings, consistent with "a large caliber" such as .38 or larger. Kopera also stated that damage to the rubber stripping inside Kulbicki's truck was caused by a bullet fragment. According to Kopera, the bullet only ripped the area, and did not create a hole, because it "was slowed down by hitting something else prior to hitting the rubber piece." On cross-examination, Kopera testified that Kulbicki's handgun "had been examined and found to be in the cleaned condition." The defense presented evidence that Kulbicki was running errands in his truck on the afternoon of January 9, 1993. Numerous witnesses testified to seeing Kulbicki at their
14

respective businesses sometime between 3 and 4 p.m. that day. All of those witnesses knew, had previously worked with, or were familiar with Kulbicki. In addition, Kulbicki's wife testified that Kulbicki was with her from 4:30 p.m. until he left for work at about 10:45 p.m. Kulbicki, who took the stand on his own behalf, denied killing Gina. During closing arguments, the prosecutor went over all of the evidence, "fill[ing] in the gaps" of the case with "forensic science." The State's argument, which spanned thirtythree pages of transcript, included the following two paragraphs regarding Peele's and Kopera's testimony: From that bullet fragment, you heard from . . . Mr. Kopera, who examined it and who . . . told you about the cannelures . . . that he saw on the bullet fragment retrieved from Gina's head which told him both of these fragments came from a .38 caliber bullet. And then from . . . Mr. Peele, the FBI Agent, we learn that compositionally when it is broken down to parts per million into that minute detail those two bullet fragments, the one from Gina's head, the one in the Defendant's truck, are the same, are the same. You can't tell one from the other. After deliberating, the jury convicted Kulbicki of first degree murder. In 2006, Kulbicki filed an amended petition for postconviction relief. The circuit court conducted a hearing on the petition from April 19 through 25, 2007. Kulbicki argued: He did not receive a fair trial because the State used inaccurate, misleading and unreliable scientific evidence. He did not receive a fair trial because the
15

State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of its Brady[6] obligations. He did not receive a fair trial because his defense attorneys failed to properly perform their duties as required by the Sixth Amendment[7] of the [C]onstitution. In particular, Kulbicki challenged "four pillars" of the State's case: (1) FBI Agent Peele's conclusions based on CBLA; (2) Kopera's testimony; (3) Clay's testimony; and (4) testimony regarding DNA and serology as to bone fragments and blood found in Kulbicki's truck. First, Kulbicki stated that Peele "testified extensively" about CBLA, which had since been "exposed as nothing more than a series of speculative and exaggerated claims." Relying on Clemons v. State, 392 Md. 339, 372 (2006), a case in which the Court of Appeals held that the conclusory aspects of CBLA are not admissible under the Frye-Reed test,8 Kulbicki argued that "the introduction of improper ballistics and firearms evidence in

6

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

7

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. "Frye-Reed is the test in Maryland for determining whether expert testimony is admissible. The name is derived from two cases, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), where this standard of general acceptance in the relevant scientific
16
8

this case is sufficient to warrant reversal of conviction." Second, Kulbicki averred that Kopera committed perjury at the trial "when he testified that he had attended the University of Maryland and the Rochester Institute of Technology," and when he "falsified documents in order to conceal and protect his lies." Moreover, Kulbicki alleged that Kopera's testimony "was inconsistent with his own reports and bench notes." Third, Kulbicki argued that "Clay's identification should have been suppressed because it was unreliable and it was based on improperly suggestive procedures." Fourth, Kulbicki challenged the validity of the DNA and serology testing that was performed. In addition to those four main contentions, Kulbicki argued that trial counsel's failure to preserve issues for appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. At the postconviction hearing, Kulbicki presented the testimony and affidavits of experts in the fields of metallurgy, chemistry, firearms and ballistics, visual science, and molecular biology. William Tobin, a former metallurgist for the FBI, testified that Peele had no scientific basis for his testimony linking bullet fragments to one another on the basis of their elemental composition. According to Tobin, Peele's testimony that the bullet fragments recovered from the autopsy and Kulbicki's truck were "analytically indistinguishable" was "not an accurate statement." Instead, Tobin opined that the bullet fragments' arsenic contents differed, and therefore should have been "declared analytically distinguishable or dissimilar."

community was first articulated, and Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364 (1978), where we adopted the Frye standard." Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575, 578 n.1 (2009).
17

Kulbicki next presented evidence, and the State stipulated, that Kopera had lied about his credentials at the trial.9 The evidence demonstrated that Kopera did not earn degrees in engineering, as he alleged, and had never been accepted to the University of Maryland or Rochester Institute of Technology. Rather, the University of Maryland transcript in Kopera's personnel file was a forgery. To further discredit Kopera's testimony, Kulbicki presented the testimony of John Nixon, who was accepted as an expert in firearms and ballistics. Nixon testified that, contrary to Kopera's opinion, "you wouldn't be able to say" what caused the damage to the rubber stripping on Kulbicki's truck window. In addition, Nixon noted that Kulbicki's handgun had a right-hand twist while the bullet fragment recovered during the autopsy had a left-hand twist. Moreover, using Kopera's measurements of the markings on the bullet fragment and Kulbicki's weapon, Nixon concluded that Kulbicki's handgun "did not fire that bullet." Citing the FBI ballistics database, Nixon testified that the bullet fragment was most likely fired from a .32 caliber weapon. Nixon added that, using Kopera's measurements, the database did not contain a single match for a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson. While Nixon was on the stand, Kulbicki introduced Kopera's bench notes into evidence. Contrary to Kopera's testimony that the bullet fragments from the autopsy and Kulbicki's truck came from a "large caliber" gun, Kopera's bench notes stated that the

Kopera could not be examined with regard to these issues, as he had committed suicide prior to the postconviction hearing.
18

9

caliber for the former was "medium" and that the latter "couldn't be determined." In addition, while Kopera testified that his caliber determination was based on the cannelures, his laboratory report stated that the cannelure marks had "no value for comparison purposes." Kopera's testimony that Kulbicki's handgun had been "in the cleaned condition" was also contradicted by his notes, which stated that the gun was "dirty" with "residue" in the barrel and cylinder. Dr. Christopher Palenik, who was admitted as an expert in microscopy and chemistry, testified that Kopera improperly conducted the test that led to his conclusion that damage to Kulbicki's window was caused by a bullet fragment. Dr. Palenik explained that, by failing to apply hydrochloric acid, Kopera did not properly complete the test for the presence of lead. Kopera's claim that he did not use hydrochloric acid because the Maryland State Police protocols did not require its use in 1993 was contradicted by the text of the protocols. Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, who was admitted as an expert in molecular biology and forensic DNA profiling, testified that the methodology used by the State's laboratory made it impossible to conclude that the DNA samples that were tested had been retrieved from Gina's body or from the bone fragments in the truck. Dr. Johnson opined that the bone fragments were improperly stored and handled, and the State's technicians failed to properly clean them prior to testing. As a result, Dr. Johnson believed that the State should have deemed the results "inconclusive." During the postconviction hearing, Kulbicki called both of his trial counsel to
19

testify, but neither could recall specific events from the trial or their preparation, and the case file no longer existed. Patricia Hall, the lead defense counsel in Kulbicki's 1995 trial, testified that she had originally sat in a second chair capacity as defense counsel in Kulbicki's 1993 trial. John Franke, a 1988 law school graduate, assisted Hall in the 1995 trial. Franke stated that he had previously handled other criminal jury trials, but none of them involved the charge of murder in the first degree. Franke testified that at the time of the trial, he was not "familiar with the practice of expert witnesses [preparing] bench notes in addition to their official report produced at trial." The State presented testimony from one witness, Michael Thomas, a firearms identification examiner with the Baltimore County Police Department, who was accepted by the circuit court as an expert in firearms identification. Thomas "couldn't conclude an awful lot" from the bullet fragment recovered from the autopsy because it was "very mutilated and deformed." He was, however, able to say that "it didn't come from a small caliber firearm." In addition, Thomas could not rule out a .38 or .32 caliber weapon. With regard to the window stripping from Kulbicki's truck, Thomas testified that he tested the rubber-like strip using hydrochloric acid, and found that it tested positive for the presence of lead. On cross-examination, Thomas acknowledged that the FBI database did not list a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver as being capable of firing the bullet recovered during the autopsy. Thomas based this conclusion on a comparison of his own measurements to the database. Thomas also testified that the bullet "might have a slight left twist." By opinion and order dated January 2, 2008, the circuit court denied Kulbicki's
20

petition for postconviction relief. With regard to the issues raised on appeal, the court ruled as follows: The Uniform Post-[C]onviction Procedure Act applies only to limited categories of error. Not all discoveries or developments after conviction that shed new light on the trial provide a basis for relief. Most significantly, the question of guilt or innocence is beyond the purview of post-conviction relief, as the proceedings do not serve as a substitute for appeal or a motion for a new trial. Of equal importance, claims of newly discovered evidence also provide no basis for post-conviction relief. . . . Thus, in addressing the Petitioner's claims, this Court is limited to allegations of constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other matters clearly governed by the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief statute. Arguments of guilt or innocence, and concerns regarding newly discovered evidence and changes in science and technology within the intervening years are simply not a proper avenue for relief. * * * Plainly, Mr. Kopera committed perjury at trial. He testified to a degree and to credentials that were patently false. . . . It is equally clear that this perjury was unknown to the prosecution at the time of trial. . . . Under the current case law in Maryland, perjury that was not known to the prosecution at the time does not provide a basis for post-conviction relief. However, this Court believes that the Maryland appellate courts would likely follow the line of cases that find that knowledge of the falsity of a statement by a state law enforcement witness is, in effect, imputed to the State. Nevertheless, there must then be a showing [of] materiality of the falsity in order to warrant relief. In analyzing the question of materiality, the issue is the likelihood that the truth would have produced a different outcome, not that knowledge that the witness was committing perjury would have impacted the outcome. This distinction is critical. Mr. Kopera's academic credentials were essentially meaningless. He was not conducting testing that required an academic degree. His professional training and experience qualified him as
21

an expert, regardless of his academic pedigree. . . . There simply is no likelihood that the jury's determination would have been influenced by the fact that Mr. Kopera did not have the academic credentials he claimed. * * * Petitioner's primary focus in this claim is the introduction of evidence of [CBLA] at trial. However the challenge to this evidence does not fit into any recognized category for post-conviction relief. * * * CBLA . . . has actually not been adequately tested to demonstrate that conclusions drawn regarding the relatedness of batches of metal can support conclusions that specific fragments came from the same bullet or batches of bullets. The Court of Appeals reached essentially this conclusion in Clemons, supra. However the studies that shed light on these conclusions were not available at the time this case was tried. At the time of both the original trial [and] the re-trial, it was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community that CBLA was valid and reliable science. There is nothing to suggest that the State presented expert testimony that it knew was not sound. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that defense counsel was ineffective at the time of trial by failing to anticipate this scientific development. . . . There simply is no basis under the post-conviction laws that accords relief under these circumstances. Generally, such claims are handled . . . through a Motion for a New Trial based upon newly discovered evidence. . . Clearly the bullet analysis was central to the theory of the prosecution. . . However this is not before the Court on a motion for new trial. * * * Petitioner's primary claim for ineffective assistance is based upon his argument that trial counsel essentially ceded the field of scientific evidence to the State. . . . [I]t is important to note that Ms. Hall was an experienced criminal defense attorney who served as second chair at the Petitioner's original trial, and then was lead counsel at the re-trial. Mr. Franke also was an experienced criminal defense attorney. * * * With CBLA, ineffective assistance is not a legitimate argument. The questions concerning the reliability of that science didn't even surface until long after Mr. Kulbicki's trial. . . .

22

In looking at the balance of the scientific evidence, counsel was faced with a difficult strategic decision concerning the blood and bone analysis. While evidence at this post-conviction hearing demonstrates that one could have conducted more extensive cross-examination, particularly in the DNA arena, there still is strong evidence that could be linked to the victim. . . Defense counsel was faced with a strategic decision whether to challenge multiple independent links to Ms. Neuslein, or to challenge agency. Clearly counsel opted for the latter strategy. The defense essentially acknowledged in opening that the shooting occurred in Mr. Kulbicki's truck. The focus of their strategy was evidence of alibi, time of death, and that the truck and other items from the Kulbicki home were not in his exclusive control, suggesting others with access to those items had motive. These were strategic decisions. They were based upon the multiple areas of science that would likely establish a link between the truck and the death. These were reasoned decisions made by experienced counsel who had already seen this evidence play out once before at trial. While you might generate some question concerning a specific scientific link, the collective weight of all of those links would nevertheless be compelling. Counsel's approach was not ineffective. (Footnotes and internal citations omitted). Discussion Kulbicki's argument is threefold. First, he alleges that the use of unreliable evidence, such as CBLA, is a violation of due process cognizable under the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act ("UPPA"). Second, Kulbicki avers that the State's use of "perjured, false, and misleading expert ballistics testimony" denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial. Third, Kulbicki argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. In response, the State contends that Kulbicki's claim regarding the admission of CBLA evidence at his trial "[is] not cognizable" under UPPA and, "in any event, [is]

23

unfounded." Next, the State argues that Kulbicki's perjury claim does not afford him a ground for postconviction relief, particularly because the prosecutor was unaware of the perjury. Finally, the State argues that Kulbicki "failed to meet his burden of establishing his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance." On appellate review of a decision by a postconviction court, we will not disturb the court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Lopez v. State, 205 Md. App. 141, 154 (2012) (citing Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524, 551 (2009)). Although we review the court's factual determinations under the clearly erroneous standard, "we make an independent determination of relevant law and its application to the facts." Arrington, 411 Md. at 551 (citation omitted). Based upon the relevant case law, we uphold the circuit court's ruling. I. CBLA Evidence The Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act "applies to a person convicted in any court in the State who is . . . confined under sentence of . . . imprisonment." Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol.),

Download 2940s07.pdf

Maryland Law