## Facts

- Troy Don Brown was convicted in Nevada state court of two counts of sexual assault arising from the January 1994 sexual assault of a nine-year-old girl in her trailer bedroom.
- The victim was home with her younger sister while their mother was at a bar and their stepfather was working the night shift.
- Earlier that evening, the victim called a bar seeking her mother; Brown answered and said he would relay the message.
- The victim had difficulty identifying her attacker and initially identified Brown’s brother as the assailant; alternative suspects included Brown’s brothers.
- The prosecution relied heavily on DNA evidence presented through a state expert who testified in statistical terms suggesting near-certainty that Brown was the perpetrator.
- In later proceedings, an expert report explained that the trial testimony committed the “prosecutor’s fallacy” by converting a random-match statistic into a probability that Brown was the source, and it also minimized the possibility that a close relative could match.
- On direct review, the Nevada Supreme Court vacated a child abuse count but affirmed the sexual-assault convictions.
- In state post-conviction litigation, the State and warden conceded that without the faulty DNA testimony the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, but relief was denied.
- In federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district court expanded the record with the expert report, found the DNA testimony misleading, and granted relief; the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether due process was violated because, once the misleading DNA testimony is properly discounted, the remaining evidence was insufficient for any rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under *Jackson v. Virginia*.
2. Whether, under AEDPA, the state court’s sufficiency determination was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law in light of the corrected meaning of the DNA statistics and the weakness of the remaining proof.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of habeas relief.
- The court held that the DNA testimony was critical, inaccurate, and misleading, and its presentation materially distorted the probative value of the DNA evidence.
- The court concluded that, without the tainted DNA presentation, the remaining evidence was constitutionally insufficient under *Jackson*.
- The court further held that the state court’s decision upholding the convictions was an unreasonable application of *Jackson* under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

## Legal Principles

- Due process bars a conviction supported by evidence that is insufficient for any rational factfinder to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia*.
- In federal habeas, a state-court sufficiency ruling may be set aside only if it is an unreasonable application of *Jackson* under AEDPA.
- Misstating DNA statistics by equating a random-match probability with the probability that the defendant is the source can materially mislead the factfinder and distort the evidentiary basis for a conviction.
- Where the prosecution’s case depends on misleading scientific proof and remaining corroboration is weak, the corrected evidentiary record can render the conviction constitutionally infirm.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed habeas relief because the prosecution’s core DNA proof was presented in a materially misleading way, and once that distortion was removed the remaining evidence did not permit a rational finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the state court’s contrary sufficiency determination was unreasonable under AEDPA.


Brown v. Farwell, 525 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2008)