Where a defendant sentenced to death after he robbed a bank and killed a security guard appealed the district court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion, the judgment denying the motion is affirmed because the defendant did not show that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to obtain an independent ballistic expert, for failing to object to an instruction on the pecuniary-gain factor, or for not obtaining the opinion of a third psychologist or trauma expert.
Judgment is affirmed.
Holder v. U.S. (MLW No. 65346/Case No. 10-1304 – 32 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Melloy, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Webber, J. (Joseph Luby, Kansas City, Missouri, argued for appellant; Michael J. Gorla appeared on the brief) (Steven E. Holtshouser, St. Louis, argued for appellee; Joseph M. Landolt and John M. Bodenhausen appeared on the brief).