Paul D. Carr v. Jeff Macomber, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Paul Carr was 61 years old in 2017**wlien he was sentenced to Life without Parole. His attorney, who had-never defended a homicide case -at trial, did not investigate nor consult with ballistics or crime scene reconstructionists, critical to Carr's defense, the . importance of destroyed physical evidence due to the failure of police to keep the crime scene secured was not properly developed by/trial counsel. This became even more critical at trial when the jury was presented with a severely flawed bullet trajectory diagram, (BTD),’ that improperly skewed the’ shot pattern and firing sequence m the prosecution's favor. In essence, the heart of Carr's defense was torn out by- the destruction of physical evidence, a severely contaminated crime scene, and the flawed findings by police investi­ gators based on the tainted evidence. The jury also heard altered 911 call evidence at trial that improperly attacked Carr's character. Carr s trial counsel also failed' tb contest* the perjured testi­ mony of multiple prosecution witnesses. Most critically, trial, cpunsel “ailed to realize that he was engaged in a credibility contest at trial. Subsequently, Carr was forced to prove his claims of IAC, Giglio/Napue errors and numerous Brady violations in the state and federal habeas proceedings. This included proof of evidence tampering of digital media by the prosecution. The questions presented in Mr. Carr!'s petition for certiorari are:

1. Does this court's decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S.170; 131 S.CT. 1388 (2011), permit an exception whereby federal courts may consider newly developed evidence when the failure to develop that evidence in state court was a result of inade­ quate-legal representation and the constrained process that hampers the development of the factual record?

2. Does this court's decision in Slack v. McDaniel. 529 U.S'. 473; 120 S.CT. 1595 (2000), be permitted to allow a "safety Valve." from Pinholster's ban on evaluating hew evidence under Slack^*s clause that the issues presented are "adequate to deserve en­ couragement to proceed! further" with the appellate process?