1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 0 6 - DR- 0 1 1 6 1 - S CT J EFFRE Y KEITH HAVARD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 19/ 2002 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. F ORRES T A. J OHN S ON, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ADA M S COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M I SS I SS I PP I OFFI CE O F CAPI TAL POSTCO NV I CTI ON CO UN SEL BY : RO BE RT M . RY AN TH O M A S C. LEV I D I O TI S L O U WL Y N N V A N Z E T T A WI L L I A MS AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: P AT M c NAM ARA M ARVI N L. W HI TE , J R. DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: RO NN I E LEE HA RPER CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON DI S P OS I T I ON: P E T I T I ON F OR P OS T
- CO NVI CT I ON R E L I E F D E N I E D - 05/ 22/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . J ef

f r ey K ei t h H avar d w as f ound gui l t y of

c a pi t al m ur der( m ur derdur i ng t he
comm i s s i on of

s exual batt ery) of

s i x- m onth- ol d C hl oe B r i t t . T he s ame j ury al s o f ound that Ha v a r d s h o u l d s u f

f e rth e p e n a l t y o f

d e a th
. Co n s i s t e n twi th th e j u ry v e r d i c t , th e Ad a msW e g le a n th e re le v a n t fa c ts fr o m o u r d e c is io n in H a v a rd ’s d ir e c t a p p e a l. H avar d v. 1 S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 , 7 7 8 -79 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). 2 C ounty C i r cui tC ourti m pos ed the death s ent ence upon H avar d. H i s convi ct i on and s ent ence
w e re a ff ir m e d b y th is C o u rto n d ir e c t a p p e a l. H a v a rdv. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). H av ard ’s m o ti o n for reh ea ri n g su b seq u en tl y w as d en ied. T o d ay ’s ca se c o n ce rns H av ard ’s A ppl i cat i on ForL eave t o Pr ocee d in t he T r i al C our tand M ot i on f orO therR el i ef

f i l ed p u rsua n t t o the M issi ssipp i U n if o rm P o st- C o n v ict ion C o ll ateral R eli ef A ct, an d m o re sp e c ifica lly , M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). F in d in g n o m e rit in H av ard ’s claim s, w e d en y h is r eq u est for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT 1 ¶ 2 . In e a rly 2 0 0 2 , H a v a rd w a s liv in g in A d a m s C o u n ty w ith h is g irlfrien d , R e b e c c a B ritt (B ri tt ), the m o ther o f th e v ict im , si x -m o n th-o ld C h loe B ri tt . H av ard w as n o t C h loe' s fathe r. H a v a rd a n d B ritt ha d b e e n d a tin g fo r a fe w m o n th s w h e n B ritt an d C h lo e m o v e d in w ith H a v a rd
. ¶3. O n February 21, 2002, at appr oxi m at el y 8: 00 p. m . , H avar d gav e B r i t t s om e money and as ked hert o getsupperfr om t he gr ocery s t or e. W hen B r i t tr eturned home, s he f ound that C hl oe had be en bathed and w as as l eep. H avar d t ol d B r i t the had gi ven C hl oe herbath and puthert o bed. H avar d had al s o s tr i pped the s heet s of f the bed a nd t ol d B r i t the w as w as hi ng them. A ccor di ng t o B r i t t , bef or e thatni ght , H avar d ha d ne verba thed C hl oe orchange d her di aper . B r i t tchec ked on C hl oe and s he appe ar ed f i ne. H avar d then i ns i s t ed t hatB r i t tgo back outt o the vi deo s t or e t o r ents om e movi es . W hen B r i t tr eturned, H avar d w as i n the3

bathr oom w i th the doors hut
. B r i t tw entt o c heck on C hl oe and di s cover ed thatC hl oe w as bl ue and no l ongerbre athi ng. B r i t tat t empt ed t o re s us ci t at e C hl oe by C PR bef or e B r i t tand H av a r d d r ov e Chl oe t o Nat c he z Com muni ty Hos pi t a l , w he r e Br i t t ' s mothe rw orke d. The
c h ild w a s p ro n o u n c e d d e a d a t th e h o sp ital la terth a t n ig h t. ¶4. T he pathol ogi s tw ho pr epar ed C hl oe' s aut ops y reporttes t i fi ed attr i al thats om e of C hl oe’ s i nj ur i es w er e cons i s t entw i th pe netr at i on of the r ectum w i th a n obj ect . C hl oe’ s other i nj ur i es i ncl uded abr as i ons a nd brui s es i ns i de hermout h. T he baby al s o had i nt ernal bl eedi ng i ns i de hers kul l thatw as consi s t entw i th shake n baby syndr om e. C hl oe had anal i nj ur i es that
w er e obs erved by both the hos pi t al s t af f and the s her i f

f
. N o one atC hloe' s dayca r e ce nt er had eve rnot i ced brui s es orm arks on C hl oe. N o anal i nj ur i es oranythi ng unus ual aboutthe chi l d' s r ectum w as not i ced by the dayc ar e s t af f ear l i eron the day of

C hl oe’ s death. ¶5. H avar d w as l at erchar ged w i th capi t al m ur derw i th s e xu a l ba tt e ry b e i ng the unde r l yi ng f el ony. T w o days af

t erC hl oe’ s death, H avard gave a vi deot aped s t at ementi n w hi ch he deni ed comm i t t i ng s exual batt ery on C hl oe. H avar d cl ai m ed thathe ac ci dent al l y dr opped C hl oe aga i ns tthe comm ode af t ergi vi ng hera bath, s hook he ri n a pani c, and then rubbed her dow n w i th l avende rl ot i on bef or e putt i ng hert o bed. ¶6. D N A evi dence c ol l ect ed f r om the bed s heet s mat ched the D N A of both H avar d and C hl oe. A s exual as s aul tki tt es t i ng f orany of H avard' s D N A i n C hl oe' s r ectum orvagi na p r o d u c e d n e g a t i v e r e s u l t s . T h e o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d b y H a v a r d r e g a r d i n g C h l o e 's i nj ur i es w as thathe pos s i bl y w i ped herdow n t oo vigorousl y w hen pr epar i ng herf orbed. H a v a rd w a s in d ig e n t an d h a d a p p o in ted c o u n se l at tria l an d o n d ire c t ap p e a l.4 S UM M ARY OF I S S UES I. In e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l fo r fa ilu r e to a d o p t d e fe n se s tr a te g y d u r in g g u ilt phase. A) Failure to obtain D N A evidence. B ) Fa ilu re to se c u re a p a th o log ist. C) Failur e to inc lude a le s s e r- of f e ns e ins tr uc tion. I I . I ne f

f e c t i ve as s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l f

or f ai l ur e t o i nve s t i ga t e , de ve l op a nd pr e s e nt m i t i gat i on evi dence duri ng penal t y phase. I I I . I ne f

f e c t i ve as s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l f

or f ai l i ng t o de ve l op a nd pr e s e nt c om pe l l i ng ev ide n ce o f H a v a rd ’s ch il d h o o d a n d fam il y li fe in m it iga ti o n o f p u n ishm en t. IV . In effec ti v e a ssistan ce o f co u n sel for fail ing to d ev elop a n d intr o d u ce H a v a rd ’s su cc essfu l ad a p tation a t C a m p S h elb y a s m it iga ti n g ev ide n ce d u rin g the p en a lt y phase. V . I nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l f

or f ai l i ng t o as k pot ent i al j urors “reve rs eW it hers poon ” quest i ons duri ng voi r di re. V I . I nef

f ect i ve ass i st an ce of

counse l duri ng cl os i ng argum ent at t he penal t y phase. V I I . P ros ecut ori al m i s conduct duri ng cl os i ng argum ent at t he gui l t phase. V I I I . V i ct i m i m pact t es t i m ony. I X . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t i m pr ope r l y r e s po nd e d t o a que s t i on f r om t he j ur y dur i ng t he s ent enci ng ph as e. X . Li m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i on o f e s pe c i al l y he i nous , at r oc i ous , or c r ue l aggr ava t i ng ci rcum s t ance. X I . F ai l ure of

t he i ndi ct m ent t o charge a deat h- penal t y- el i gi bl e of f ens e. X II. Ju ry co n si d erati on of agg rav ati n g circum st an ces. X II I. C o m p e te n c y o f tr ia l co u n se l. X I V . C um ul at i ve er ror.5 DI S CU S S I ON I. Ineff

ecti ve a ssi stan ce o f coun selfor f ail u re to ad op t defense s t rat egy duri ng gui l t phase. ¶ 7 . Ha v a r d a s s e r t s th e f o l l o wi n g th r e e s u b
- c l a i ms o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l : ( A) tr ial c o u n sel fail ed to se cu re e x p ert assist an ce to d ev elop ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe d efe n se’s t heo ry of

the ca s e; ( B ) tr i al couns el f ai l ed t o r es ear ch ca s e l aw s uppor t i ng thei rdefense theory i n or dert o obt ai n r el i ef dur i ng tr i al i n the f

orm of a n appr opr i at e expe r tw i tnes s and/ or pr es erve the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of an expe r tfordi r ectappea l ; and ( C ) tr i al couns el , havi ng ad o p ted th e the o ry th at no sex u al ba tt ery o cc u rred , fail ed to se ek a jury instruction to su p p o rt the theo ry. O n di r ectappea l , H avar d cl ai m ed thathe r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
cou nsel du e t o co un sel s’ fai l ure t o ad equ at el y sup po rtthe d efense strateg y . H av ard al so
r ai s ed the thr ee s ub- cl ai m s l i s t ed above
. ¶8. T he theory of def ens e w as that no sexual bat t ery occurr ed, ther eby el i m i nat i ng the
u n d e rly in g fe lo n y to th e c a p ital m u rd e r c h a rg e . If th is d e fe n se h a d p ro v e d su c c e ss fu l, H avar d w oul d have a voi ded the dea th penal ty. O n di r ectappea l , H avar d ar gued thattr i al
couns el s houl d have pr es ent ed r ebutt al evi dence , and he r el i ed on the pos t - tr i al af f i davi tof D r . J ames Laur i ds on t o off ert he poss i bi l i ty of

di s pr ovi ng, thr ough the us e of D N A t es t i ng, th e s ta te ’s th e o ry th a t s e x u a l b a tte ry h a d o c c u rr e d
. See H a v a rdv. S ta te, 928 S o. 2d 771, 787- 88 ( M i s s . 2006)
. H avar d al s o cl ai m ed thattr i al couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f orfa i l i ng t o s ecur e, oradequa t el y pr epar e a mot i on t o sec ur e, a pathol ogi s tt o i nves t i gat e the cas e and de vel op6

a defense strat egy ; and that hi s coun sel w as i neff ect i ve for f

ai l i ng to i nclude a les ser -of fense in s tru c tio n o n m u rd e r o r m a n s la u g h te r. I d. at788- 91. ¶9. W hen addr es s i ng thes e i s s ues on di r ectappea l , thi s C our tdet erm i ned thati tw oul d not
c o n s id e r D r. L a u ri d s o n ’ s o u ts id e -t h e -r e c o rd a ff id a v it. I d. at787- 88 n. 6. T he s t at e now ar gues thatH avar d i s att empt i ng t o r el i t i gat e the cl ai m s al r eady pr es ent ed on di r ectappea l
an d tha t th e issue is b arred fro m p o st- co n v ict ion p roc ee d ing s b y the d o ctri n e o f re s ju d ica ta p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). See al s o W iley
v. S ta te , 7 5 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ); Fo ste r v. S ta te , 68 7 S o. 2d 11 24 , 11 29 (M i ss. 1 9 9 6 ); W iley v. S ta te, 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). ¶ 1 0 . A s w e e x p lain e d m o re fu lly in H a v a rd ’s d ire c t ap p e a l, th e v e rsio n o f M iss iss ip p i R u le of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 22( b) ef f ect i ve att he t i m e of

H avar d’ s di r ectappeal , l i ke the curr ent
v e rsio n , sta ted : (b ) P o st- c o n v ict io n iss u e s r a ise d o n d ire c t a p p e a l. I s s ues w hich may be ra is e d in p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e e d in g s m a y a lso b e ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l if such is sues are ba sed on f acts f u ll y a pp arent f

rom the reco rd
. W her e the a p p e llan t is re p re se n ted b y c o u n se l w h o d id n o t re p re se n t th e a p p e llan t at tria l, the f ai l ur e t o r ai s e s uch i s s ues on di r ectappea l s hal l const i tut e a w ai verbarr i ng con si derat i on of the is sues i n p ost -convict i on proceed i ng s. M is s is s ip p i R u le o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 2 2 (b ) ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at783. H ow ever , as w e not ed i n H ava rd , th e v e r s i o n o f

Ru l e 2 2 ( b ) i n e f

f e c ta tth e t i me o f H a v a rd ’s tr ia l d id n o t c o n ta in th e w o rd s th a t a p p e a r i n ita lic s a b o v e . I d. n. 5. T he amendm ent addi ng the i t al i ci zed w or ds t o R ul e 22( b) t ook ef f ectFebruary 10, 2005. T heT o be abunda nt l y cl ear , t he “I s s ue I I ” on di r ectappea l w as w hethertr i al couns el 2 r ender ed i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance by f

ai l i ng t o as k “r ever s e- W ithers poon ” q u e s tio n s d u ri n g v o ir di r e. I n ourdi s cus s i on of I s s ue I I , w e addr es s ed an “ out s i de- the- r ecor d” j ur oraf f i davi tand f ound that“[ t ] he ut i l i zat i on of af f i davi t s i s bett ers erved i n the pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ocee di ngs al l ow abl e by s t atut e. ” H avar d, 928 So. 2d at786 ( compl et e di s cus s i on of I s s ue II is f o u n d a s fo llo w s: H

avar d, 9 2 8 S o . 2 d at 78 2 -87 ). H o w ev er in d iscu ssing Issu e IV (w h ethe r H av ard w as d en ied in effec ti v e a ssist an ce o f co u n sel d u e to tri al co u n sel’s fail u re t o adequa t el y s uppor tthe def ens e s tr at egy) , w e adopt ed by r ef er ence ourr eas oni ng s etout in Iss u e II in d e ter m in in g th a t D r. Ja m e s L a u rid so n ’s “ o u tsid e -th e -re c o rd ” a ffid a v it sh o u ld l i kew i s e notbe cons i der ed on di r ectappea l , buti ns t ead w as bett ers ui t ed f orcons i der at i on 7 C ou rtagreed w i th H avard t hat the p ri or vers i on w as contr oll i ng on dir ectapp eal
. A ft er a th o ro u g h a n a ly sis , w e d e ter m in e d th a t [ i ] tw oul d i ndeed be danger ous her e f orus t o begi n a pr ece dentof cons i der i ng on di r ectappea l s pos t - tr i al a f f i davi t s by af

f i ant s w ho have notbeen s ubj ect ed to c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . T h e u til iza tio n o f af fid a v its is be tter s e rv e d in th e p o stco n v ict ion reli ef p roc ee d ing s all o w ab le by statu te. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -1 ets eq. ( R ev. 2000)
. H avi ng r ai s ed thi s i s s ue w i th di f f er entcouns el on di r ect appea l , H avar d has pr es erved hi s r i ghtt o r ai s e thi s i s s ue, s up po rt ed by a ff id a v its , in fu tu re p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f p ro c e e d in g s . I d. at7 86 . T he C our tpr ocee ded t o di s cus s H avar d’ s i s s ues abs entcert ai n pos t - tr i al aff i dav i t s. ¶11. In consi deri ng t he i s s ue s ub j udi ce o n d ire c t ap p e a l, th e C o u rt sta te d th a t, “
. . . co n sist en t w ith o u r discu ssion o f Issue II, su p ra, w e c o n side r th is i ssu e, ab sen t D r. L aur i ds on’ s af

f i davi t . ” I

d. at78 7. T he C ou rtthen con si dered this issue o n the m eri t s. U nl i ke H a va r d’ s I s s ue I I a s di s c us s e d i n Hava r d’ s di r e c ta pp e a l , thi s Courtdi d n ot sp e c ifically st ate th at H av ard ha d pres erv ed his r igh t to raise th e instan t issue i n p o stconvict i on -r el i ef pr oceed i ng s . H ow ever , the C ourt ’ s r eas oni ng f orpr es ervi ng H avar d’ s I s s ue I I on di r ectappea l f

orpos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs appl i es t o the i ns t anti s s ue. 2d u ri n g p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f p ro c e e d in g s . I d. at787. 8 ¶12. T he onl y di f

f er ence i n the i nst ant i ssue as itis p res ented her e i n pos t - convi ct i on p ro c e e d in g s a n d its p re se n tatio n o n d ir ec t app ea l i s th a t D r. L a u rid so n ’s a ffid a v its a n d re p o rts
a re n o w p ro p e rly b e fo re th e C o u rt. T h e re fo re , the iss u e a n d its su b -iss u e s a re c o n sid e re d to d eterm ine if th e a ffid a v its a n d rep o rt s p rov ide s u p p o rtfor H av ard ’s claim s, w h ich w ere p re v io u sly c o n sid e re d to b e w ith o u t m e rit. ¶13. T he t es tf

ori nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c ouns el i s w el l -s et t l ed. “T he b enchm ark f or j ud ging any cl ai m of i neffec ti ven ess [ of coun sel ] m ustbe w hethercou nsel ' s cond uct s o underm i ned the pr operf unct i oni ng of

the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed
on as havi ng produc ed a j us tr es ul t . ” Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U . S. 668, 686, 104 S
. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984)
. I n or dert o pr evai l on thi s c l ai m , H avard m ust demonstr at e thathi s couns el s ’ pe r f orm ance w as def

i ci entand thatthe def

i ci ency pr ej udi ced the def ens e of the ca s e. I

d. at687. “U nl es s a def endantm akes bot h s how i ngs , i tcannotbe sai d that the con vict i on or death s entence r esul t ed fr om a breakd ow n in the ad versary p rocess thatr ender s the r es ul tunr el i abl e. ” S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984) ( ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U . S
. at 68 7 ). ¶ 1 4 . D e fe n s e c o u n s e l i s p re s u m e d c o m p e te n t. W a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 62 0 S o. 2d 96 6 (M i ss. 1993)
. H ow ever , even w her e pr of es s i onal err ori s show n, a re vi ew i ng cour tm us tdet erm i ne
w hetherther e i s “a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcouns el ' s unpr of

es s i onal err or s , the
r es ul tof t he procee di ngs w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ” Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 4309

(M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). W h en rev iew ing a c ase inv o lving the d ea th p en alty , the m o st i m p o rt an t i n q u iry i s “w hetherther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty t hat , abse ntt he err or s , the s ent ence r– i ncl udi ng an appe l l at e court , t o the ext enti tinde pendent l y r ew ei ghs the evi dence – w oul d have concl uded thatthe bal ance of aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ances d i d notw arr ant death. ” Str i ckland, 466 U . S. at695. I f H avar d’ s pos t - convi ct i on appl i cat i on f ai l s on ei ther of the Str i c kl

and p ro n g s , th e p ro c e e d in g s e n d
. F o s te rv . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1129- 30 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). ( A) Failure to obtain D N A evidence. ¶15. A s w e al ready hav e n oted, co un sel s’ theory o f def ens e w as thatH avar d di d not
c o m m it a s e x u a l b a ttery , a n d th u s h e c o u ld n o t b e g u ilty o f c a p ital m u rd e r. H a v a rd a ss e rts thathi s tr i al counse l w er e i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o s ecur e an e xpertt o per f orm i ndepende nt D N A anal ys i s t o ai d i n di s cr edi t i ng the s t at e’ s pr oof thata s exual batt ery occurr ed. ¶ 1 6 . H a v a rd sta rts b y p o in tin g o u t th a t o n ly o n e w itn e ss w a s p re se n ted b y th e d e fe n se to
es t abl i s h thata r ape ki tw as pe r f orm ed and thats ampl es w er e t aken f r om H avar d. H e next p o ints ou t th a t, o n cro ss-ex am ination o f th e state’s w itn ess, M issi ssipp i C ri m e L ab o ratory For ens i c B i ol ogi s tA m y W i nt er s , def ens e couns el es t abl i s hed thatD N A t es t i ng coul d have been pe r f

orm ed on the s exual as s aul tki tdone on C hl oe B ri t t . W i nt er s t es t i f i ed thats he conduct ed s er ol ogi cal anal ys i s of an or al sw ab, vagi nal s w ab, vul vars w ab and r ect al s w ab,
eac h t aken f

r om C hl oe B r i t t . T he r es ul t s of W i nt er s ’ s anal ys i s of the s w abs w er e nega t i ve. W i n t e r s e x p l a i n e d th a tth e t e s t s w e r e f o rth e p r e s e n c e o f

s e m e n a n d n o tf

o rDNA. T h ro u g h o u t c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, d e fe n se c o u n se l m a d e th e a rg u m e n t th a t D N A tes tin g c o u ld10

have be en done, a nd the s t at e’ s f ai l ur e t o t es tf

orD N A w as e vi dence thatther e w as no s exual batt ery. ¶17. H avar d acc us es hi s def ens e couns el of

be i ng i ne f

f e c t i ve be c a us e the y “f

ai l ed t o r eal i ze or t o act upo n clear l y est abli shed law i n thi s Stat e that gave h i s cli en t access t o ‘al l these D N A peopl e, ’ orm or e pr eci s el y t o i ndepende ntD N A eval uati on an d t he s ervi ces of other expertw i tnes s es ats t at e expe ns e. ” H avar d r el i es on R ich a rdso n v. S ta te , 767 So. 2d 195 (M iss
. 2 0 0 0 ), t o su p p o rt th is c laim , a n d h e c o rre c tly a ss e rts th a t R i char ds on s t ands f orthe p ro p o sitio n th a t, ev e n w h e re th e sta te d o e s n o t p re se n t D N A re su lts to a ju ry , a d e fe n d a n t still
m ay have a r i ghtt o have the evi dence t es t ed ats t at e expe ns e. “The f actthatthe St at e di d not pr es entD N A r es ul t s bef or e the j ury does notdeny the def endantthe r i ghtt o have the evi dence t es t ed. T he def endantshoul d be per m i t t ed t o i ns pectt angi bl e evi dence thatm i ght be us ed aga i ns thi m orw hi ch mi ghtbe us ef ul i n hi s def

ens e. ” I d. at199 ( ci t i ng Arm s tr ong
v. S ta te , 2 1 4 S o. 2d 58 9, 59 6 (M i ss. 19 68 ))
. T he “d et erm i nati on of w hetherthe S t at e m ust p a y fo r a n e x p e rtw itn e s s fo r a n in d ig e n t d e fe n d a n t m u s t b e m a d e o n a c a s e b y c a s e b a s is .” I d. ( quot i ng D a vis v. S ta te , 3 7 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 7 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 )). H o w ev er, H av ard ’s
r el i ance on R i char ds on i s m i s pl ace d. ¶1 8 . E v en if

co u n sel h ad su cc essfu ll y p roc u red an ind ep en d en t D N A ex p ert an d that ex p ert had t es t i f i ed thatH avar d’ s D N A w as notpr es enton the r ape ki ts ampl es t aken f r om C hl oe, th a t d o e s n o t ex o n e ra te H a v a rd o f th e se x u a l b a ttery c h a rg e , as th is C o u rt p re v io u sly
e x p la in e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at788. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 3- 95 def

i nes s exual batt ery as se xual penetr at i on w i th a cl as s of vi ct i m s . Sexual11

penetr at i on, as def

i ned by s t atut e, m ay be by “ i ns ert i on of any obj ecti nt o the geni t al oranal openi ng of anotherper s on’ s body. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 97 (Rev. 2006)
. T her ef or e, the
a b s e n c e o f H a v a rd ’s D N A d o e s n o t e x c lu d e h is u s e o f “ a n y o b je c t.” ¶1 9 . D r. L au ri d so n ’s affi d av itdo es n o t l en d su p p o rtto H av ard ’s claim
. D r. L au ri d so n ’s
a ffid a v it state s th a t it is h is o p in io n th a t “ . . . th e re is a p o ss ib ili ty th a t C h lo e M a d iso n B ritt
w as nots exual l y as s aul t ed. ” N othi ng i n hi s af f i davi ti s r el at ed t o the pr es ence orabs ence of H av ard ’s D N A o n the ra p e k itsam p les t ak en from C h loe B ri tt . A s w il l be d iscu ssed m o re fu lly i nfr a , D r . L aur i ds on’ s r eports t at es t hatno s emen w as found i n s ampl es t aken f r om the vi ct i m . T hi s i s cum ul at i ve of t he t es t i m ony of A m y W i nt er s . T her ef or e, f orthe purpos es of H a v a rd ’s c laim th a t co u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo r n o t su c c e ss fu lly p ro c u rin g a n e x p e rt to in d e p e n d e n tly tes t fo r D N A , D r. L a u rid so n ’s a ffid a v it p ro v id e s n o a d d iti o n a l su p p o rt. H avar d’ s cl ai m does notpas s the s t andar d s etf or th i n Str i c kl

and a n d is w ith o u t m e rit. (B ) Fa ilu re to se c u re a p a th o log ist. ¶20. Forp urpo s e s o f pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , H avar d agai n cl ai m s t hatcouns el w as ineffec ti v e in fa il ing to rese arc h c ase law , w h ich h e asse rt s w o u ld h av e insu red h im an ex p ert
w i tnes s t o a i d i n hi s de f

ens e. H avar d f

ur theras s ert s thatcouns el f ai l ed t o pr es erve thi s i s s ue f ordi r ectappea l
. H avar d r el i es on H a rr iso n v. S ta te , 635 So. 2d 894, 901 ( M i s s . 1994) as d id th is C o u rto n d ir e c t a p p e a l. H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at788- 89. ¶ 2 1 . O n d ire c t a p p e a l, H a v a rd c laim e d th a t h is trial c o u n se l w e re in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to
s ecur e a pa thol ogi s tt o i nves t i gat e the ca s e and de vel op a def ens e s tr at egy. I tw as m ade c l ear thata def

endant ’ s r i ghtt o de f

ens e f unds f orobt ai ni ng s uch an experti s condi t i oned upon aS im o n s also state d in h is affi d av itthat h e w as c o -co u n sel for the d efe n se o f H en ry 3 L ee H arr i son, report ed as H a rr iso n v. S ta te , 635 So. 2d 894 ( M i s s . 1994) j us tci t ed above
.

12 s how i ng of

need of the expe r ti n or dert o pr epar e a de f ens e and w i l l depend on the f act s and
c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f e a c h c a s e . I d. ( ci t i ng H

ar r is on, 635 So. 2d at901)
. H avar d’ s tr i al couns el
m ade the r eques tbas ed on the nee d f oras s i s t ance i n i nt erpr et i ng the aut ops y r eport s . T he tr i al courtdeni ed the r eques t . T hi s C our thel d t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d notabuse i t s di s cr et i on and thatdef

ens e couns el ’ s ef

f or t s di d notr i s e “t o s uch a l evel so as t o of f end Str i c kl

and .” H ava rd , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 9 . ¶22 . A l so w orth n oti ng i s an af f i davi tf r om on e of H avard’s def ense at t orneys, G us S erm os,
w ho s t at ed thathe bel i eves a pathol ogi s tcoul d have a s s i s t ed w i th the ca s e but he ha d no fu n d in g fo r th is p u rp o se a n d d id n o t co n su lt w ith o n e . H e a lso sta ted th a t h e d id c o n su lt w ith
a r egi s t er ed nur s e. A l though w e i n no w ay thr ough d icta i nt end t o s ugges tthata r egi s t er ed
n u rse w ill su ffic e w h e n a d e fe n d a n t in a c rim in a l c a se re q u e sts a p a th o lo g ist, w e s im p ly n o te thatcouns el ’ s cons ul t at i on w i th a r egi s t er ed nur s e does evi dence couns el ’ s di l i gence w hen the r eques tf

ori ndepende ntpathol ogi s tf undi ng w as deni ed. ¶23. T he t es tpr ovi ded by Str i ckland and i t s pr ogeny i s tw o- f ol d. H avar d m us t s how that
c o u n se ls’ p e rfo rm a n c e w a s d e fic ien t. Id . 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 . S e c o n d , if th e first p ro n g is m e t, H avar d m us ts how thatcounse l s ’ def i ci entper f

orm ance w as pre

j udi ci al t o H avar d’ s def ens e. I d. I n thi s pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ng, H avar d pr es ent s the af f i davi tof A t t orney R os s Parker S im o n s, w h o sta ted tha t he (S im o n s) h a s p ra c tice d law in M iss iss ip p i fo r m o re th a n tw e n ty year s w i th ext ensi ve death- penal ty exper i ence . Si m ons s t at ed i n hi s af f i davi tthathe w as 3(H av ard ’s E x h ibit1 6 , at ¶ 3 ). 13

o f th e o p inion that H av ard ’s co u n sel w ere ineffec ti v e w ith in the m ea n ing o f Str i c kl and beca us e they r ecogni zed the need f orexpertas s i s t ance w i th the def ens e, as evi dence d by thei rr eques ti n t he tr i al cour t , butt hey f ai l ed i n t hei rduty t o m ake a pr opers how i ng of need t o the tr i al court . B eca us e of thi s , Si m ons f

ur theropi nes thatH avar d’s tr i al couns el f ai l ed to s e c u re a n e x p e rto r m a k e a n a d e q u a te re c o rd to p re s e rv e th is is s u e o n a p p e a l. ¶24. A s pre vi ous l y st at ed, t hi s C our tconsi der ed thi s i s s ue on the mer i t s , i n depth, on di r ect ap p ea l. W e d ec ided that the tri al co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n b y d en y ing the d efe n se’s
re q u e s t f o r a n in d e p e n d e n t e x p e rt . H ava rd , 928 So. 2 d at788- 89. T hi s C our tdeci ded that H avar d’ s tr i al couns el w er e noti nef f ect i ve. W i th al l due r es pect , the af fi dav i to f Si m ons am o u n ts t o n o thing m o re th an h is l eg al op inion , an d this C o u rtw il l no t sub sti tute S im o n s’s opi ni on f ori t s ow n s i m pl y beca us e Si m ons re s pect f ul l y di s agr ees w i th t hi s C our tconce rni ng ourStr i c kl

and an alys is ba sed o n the re co rd w ith w h ich w e a re p rese n ted. H av ard ’s
c o n ten tio n th a t trial c o u n se l fa iled to p re se rv e th is iss u e fo r d ire c t ap p e a l is w ith o u t m e rit b e c a u se th is m a tter w a s ra ise d a n d d isc u ss e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. ¶2 5 . H av ard h as fa il ed to m ee t th e b u rde n o f S trick lan d ’s fi rst p ron g , thu s, th e iss u e is
w ith o u t m e ri t, a n d th e C o u rtis n o t r e q u ir e d to p ro c e e d to th e s e c o n d p ro n g . Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 9 -30 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). ¶26. H ow ever , as s um i ng ar guendo that H avar d di d pr evai l on the f i r s t pr ong by s how i ng thatcouns el ’ s per f

orm ance w as def

i ci ent , he i s unabl e t o s how thathi s def ens e w as14

p re ju d ice d . H a v a rd a g a in p re se n ts th e a ffid a v its a n d re p o rts o f L a u rid so n , w h o o p in e d in h is af f i davi t“t hat t here i s a p o ss ib ili ty th a t C h lo e M a d is o n B ri t w a s n o t s e x u a lly a s s a u lte d .” T aking t his st at em ent t o it s l og i cal co nclusi on , thi s l eaves o pen the p ossi bil i ty thatshe w as. D r. L au rid so n ’s r e p o rt a lso is s o m e w h a t cu m u lativ e w h e n c o m p are d w ith D r. S teve n H ay n e’s t es t i m ony r egar di ng the abs ence of t ear i ng of

the ana l s phi nct er . D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed as fol l ow s: Q
. [ by defense cou nsel ] If there w ere any t ears dow n there i n yo u r rep o rt w hen you put a contusi on of the an us i s noted, I pr esum e yo u w ou l d h ave als o w ritten tea rs w e re n o tice d a lso ; is th a t co rre c t? A
. [ by D r . H ayne] I f

I ha d s een them, I w oul d putdow n l ace r at i on. I di d not se e it i n th is c a se , an d I d id n o t ex c lu d e it, b u t I d id n ’t se e it. D r . L aur i ds on’ s r eporti s al s o cumul at i ve of A m y W i nt er s ’ s t est i m ony thatno s emen w as f o u n d o n th e r a p e k i ts wa b s t a k e n f r o m th e v i c t i m. ¶ 2 7 . Dr . La u r i d s o n ’ s r e p o r t s d o , h o we v e r , d i f f e rf r o m e x p e r tt e s t i mo n y a ttr i a l i n s o me i ns t ance s . Fi r s t , D r . L aur i ds on as s ert ed thatD r. H ayn e w as i ncorr ecti n hi s t es t i m ony that rig o r m o rtis c a u se s c o n tra c tu re o f m u sc le s a fte r d e a th , w h ich D r. H a y n e e x p lain e d c o u ld pr eventhi m f

r om di s cover i ng a s l i ghtt ear . D r . L aur i ds on’ s i ndi cat i on thatD r . H ayne w as i ncorr ecti s i ncons equent i al t o the poi ntof D r . H ayne’ s t es t i m ony. B oth doct or s agr eed that they di d notdi s covera t ear . D r . L aur i ds on al s o bel abor ed the po i nt thatD r . H ayne w as i ncorr ectr egar di ng the contr actur e of the ana l s phi nct erm us cl e by as s ert i ng t hatphot ogr aphs of the vi ct i m ’ s anus t aken i n the emer gency r oom compar ed t o phot ogr aphs t aken dur i ng au top sy rev ea led th e sa m e a m o u n t of an al relax ati o n . Itis diff icult t o u n d erstan d h o w D r.15

L aur i ds on r eac hed thi s concl us i on, beca us e he a dm i t t ed thatno sca l es w er e use d i n ei thers et of phot ogr aphs
. Fur ther , every doct orand/ or nurs e pr es enti n the emer gency r oom w ho t es t i f i ed atH avar d’ s tr i al t ol d t he j ury t hatt he aut ops y phot ogr aph of C hl oe’ s r el axed a nus d id n o t do justi ce to th e d il ated an u s th ey eac h de scribe d as be ing op en ab o u t “the si ze o f a qu art er. ” A gain, bo th d octor s agreed that there w as no tear i ng of the an us. ¶28. D r . L aur i ds on al s o as s ert ed: [e] x p erien ce d m ed ical ex am iners c o m m o n ly e n c o u n terd ilate d a n a l sph incter’s [ s i c] dur i ng pos tm or t em exam i nat i ons . E xper i ence as w el l as the medi cal l i t er atur e r ecogni zes thatthi s f i ndi ng does noti m pl y anal s exual abus e. Studi es of

thi s phenomenon, i n f

actha ve s how n thatchi l dr en w ho have di ed o f b ra in in

ju ri e s h a v e a n in c re a s e d lik e lih o o d o f h a v in g a d ila te d a n u s . D r. L auri dson con cl ud ed h i s r epo rtst at i ng , “P ost m ort em anal di l ati o n i n inf ants i s a c o m m o n ly re c o g n ize d a rtifa c t th a t d o e s n o t sig n ify se x u a l a b u s e .” H o w e v e r, as th e sta te poi nt s out , C hl oe’ s di l at ed ana l s phi nct erw as di s cover ed w hi l e C hl oe w as i n t he emer gency
r oom and s t i l l al i ve. ¶29. Fur ther , D r . Laur i ds on’ s concl us i on w as notonl y contr ary t o thatof D r . H ayne, i t w as con tr ary t o the sw orn t est i m on y fr om exp eri enced em ergency -r oo m do ct ors and n urses . A ngel G odbol d, a r egi s t er ed nur s e f orel even ye ar s w i th ei ghtyear s exper i ence i n the
e me r g e n c y r o o m, t e s t i f

i e d t h a tCh l o e ’ s a n u s wa s v e ry “ u n u s u a l ” f o ra n i n f a n ta n d th e tr a u ma s he obs erved to Chl oe’ s anus l ed hert o l at ers eek c ouns el i ng. She al s o des cr i bed s eei ng tears. P atri cia M u rph y , a reg ist ere d n u rse o f n ea rl y thirty y ea rs, tw en ty y ea rs o f w h ich w ere s p e n t in th e e m e rg e n c y ro o m , te s tif ie d th a t C h lo e ’s re c tu m w a s “ n o t n o rm a l b y a n y m e a n s ,” thats he had s een s exual tr auma bef or e, thats he w as of

the opi ni on thatthe i nj ur i es s us t ai ned16

b y C h loe w ere the re su lto f sex u al trau m a, an d that itw as th e w o rstsh e h ad e v er s ee n . D r. L aur i e Patt er s on, an emer gency- r oom phys i ci an w ho tr eat ed C hl oe, t es t i f i ed thatw hats he
saw of C hl oe’ s a nus w as notnorm al a nd w as i ndi cat i ve of s exual pe netr at i on. She als o t es t i f i ed thats he obs erved a t earof the anus
. D r . A yes ha D ar , C hl oe’ s pedi atr i ci an, al s o tr i ed t o s ave Chl oe i n the emer gency r oom . She t es t i f i ed thatthe i nj ury t o C hloe’ s r ectum w as f r om s exual abus e cons i s t entw i th a f or ei gn obj ectbe i ng f

or ci bl y i ns ert ed. D r . D art es t i f i ed thatC hl oe w as bl eedi ng fr om the anus and s he obs erved a t ear . R ever end J ames E. L ee, the dul y el ect ed A dams C ounty cor oner , t es t i f i ed thathe obs erved C hl oe and not i ced s om ethi ng
w as t err i bly w rong. H e st at ed thati tapp eared that s om ething had pen etrat ed the bab y’s anus. ¶30. A ddi t i onal l y, D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed that ther e w as a contus i on i n the vict i m ’s r ectum
m eas ur i ng appr oxi m at el y one i nch. D r . H ayne f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatthe contus i on “w oul d be
cons i s t entw i th penetr at i on of the r ectum w i th an obj ect . . . . ” D r . L aur i ds on st at ed that“[ t ] he l i ni ng of the anus and r ectum i s a del i cat e t i s s ue and c an ea s i l y be i nj ur ed, pr oduci ng a contus i on i f

a f or ei gn obj ecti s i ns ert ed. ” H e then r emi nded thi s C our tthata therm om et er
w as i ns ert ed dur i ng r es us ci t at i on. H e off ered thi s f

orthe expl anat i on of

w hy D r . H ayne di s cover ed a c ontus i on dur i ng the aut ops y, yetD r . L aur i ds on di s agr eed i n hi s nextr eportthat there w as a co n tusion
. “T h ere is no h ist o log ic ev iden ce for contus i on , orl ace r at i on of the
s u rf a c e s o f t h e a n a l p e ri a n a l o r c o lo n ic tis s u e s .” ¶31. A gai n, as s um i ng ar guendo that H avar d’ s couns el w as def i ci ent , H avar d has notm et the s ec o n d p ron g o f Str i c kl and in th a t D r. L a u rid so n ’s re p o rts a n d a ffid a v its d o n o t co n tain evi dence thatw oul d cr eat e a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcou nsel ’ s def

i ci ent17

per f or m ance , the out come of H avar d’ s tr i al w oul d have be en di f f er ent . H avar d’ s cl ai m thus does notpas s the s t andar d s etf or th i n Str i ckland. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ( C) Failur e to inc lude a le s s e r- of f e ns e ins tr uc tion. ¶32. H av ard asse rt s that h is tr ial co u n se l w ere ineffec ti v e for fail ing to inclu d e a lesse ro ffe n se ins tru c tio n . T h is issu e w a s ra ise d an d fu lly ad d re ss e d in d e p th o n th e m e ri ts . See H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at789- 91. T hi s cl ai m w as cl ear l y di s cernabl e f r om the r ecor d bef

or e the C our ton di r ectappea l , and H avar d di d notof f erout s i de- the- r ecor d evi dence as he di d on the othertw o pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed s ubi s s ues . Fur ther , H avar d does notpr es entanythi ng other than the r ecor d thatw as bef or e us on di r ectappea l
. T her ef or e, unl i ke the otheri s s ues f ound t o be pr es erved f

orpos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs , thi s s ub- i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed by the d o ctri n e o f res jud icata. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -21 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶33. I n L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ), th is C o u rt c o n s id e re d th e p o stconvi ct i on appl i cat i on of C ar l D ani el L ockett , w ho l i ke H avar d, w as convi ct ed of capi t al
m ur derand s ent ence d t o death. W hen as ked t o re cons i deri s s ues t hatw er e di s cus s ed on di r ect appea l , thi s C our ts t at ed: T he pr ocedur al bar s of w ai ver , dif

f er enttheor i es , and re s ju d ica ta and the ex ce p ti o n there to as d efine d in M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -21 (1-5 ) are a p p lic a b le in d e a th p e n a lty P C R A p p lic a tio n s . Ir v in gv. S ta te , 498 So. 2d 305 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); E v a n s v . S ta te , 485 So. 2d 276 ( M i s s . 1986)
. R ephr as i ng di r ect appea l i s s ues f

orpos t - convi ct i on purpos es w i l l notdef eatthe proc edur al bar o f re s ju d ica ta . Ir v in gv. S ta te , 4 9 8 S o . 2 d 3 0 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); R ide o u t v. S ta te , 4 9 6 S o . 2 d 6 6 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 44 6 S o . 2d 59 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). T he Pe t i t i on e rc a rr i e s the b ur de n of d e mons tr a t i ng tha th i s c l a i m i s not p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (6 ) (S u p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Cabel lo v. S ta te , 524 So. 2d 313, 320 ( M i s s . 1988)
. H ow ever , ‘ an al l eged e rr ors houl d be r evi ew ed, i n s pi t e of

any pr ocedur al bar , onl y w her e the cl ai m i s s o novel that18

i thas notpr evi ous l y been l i t i gat ed, or, perhaps , w her e an appel l at e courthas su d d en ly rev ers ed it sel f on an issue p rev iou sly tho u g h t set tl ed
. ’ Ir v in gv. S ta te , 4 9 8 S o . 2 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). L o c k e tt , 614 So. 2d at893. ¶ 3 4 . H a v a rd h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted a n o v e l cla im o r a s u d d e n rev e rsa l of law re lativ e to th is i s s ue w hi ch w oul d exem pti tfr om t he pr ocedur al barof r es j udi cat a pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 39- 21( 3) ( R ev. 2007)
. T hi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. I I . I nef

f ect i ve ass i s t ance of

coun s elfor fai l ure t o i nves t i gat e, devel op and p res ent m i t i gat i on evi dence duri ng penal t y phase. I I I . I ne f

f e c t i ve as s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l f

or f ai l i ng t o de ve l op a nd pr e s e nt c o m p e lli n g e v id e n c e o f H a v a r d ’s c h ild h o o d a n d fa m ily life in m it iga ti o n o f p u n ishm en t. ¶35. I s s ues I I and I I I both i nvol ve cl ai m s of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar i s i ng f r om the as s ert i on thattr i al couns el f ai l ed t o i nves t i gat e, de vel op, a nd pr es entmi t i gat i on evi dence
. T h e re fo re , th e s e is s u e s w ill b e d is c u s s e d to g e th e r. ¶36. O n di r ectappea l , H avar d a r gued thattr i al c ouns el w er e i nef f ect i ve f ornot devel opi ng and pr es ent i ng compel l i ng evi dence i n m i t i gat i on of puni s hm ent . I n W

ig g in s v . Sm ith , 539 U. S
. 5 1 0 , 5 2 5 , 1 2 3 S. Ct
. 2 5 2 7 , 2 5 3 7 , 1 5 6 L. Ed
. 2 d 4 7 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our ts t at ed that“any r eas onabl y compet entatt orney” w oul d r eal i ze the val ue i n pu r s ui ng l eads “nece s s ary t o m aki ng an i nf or m ed choi ce a m ong pos s i bl e def ens es . ” Id
. I n w hatthe C our tcal l ed a “ hal f

- heart ed” m i t i gat i on c as e, tr i al c ouns el i n W i gg ins p rese n ted o n e e x p ert
w itn e s s b u t d id n o t p re s e n t th e d e fe n d a n t' s lif e h is to ry o r s o c ia l d e ta ils
. Id
.19

¶37. T hi s C our thas hel d that“[ i ] ti s cr i t i cal thatm i t i gat i ng evi dence be pre s ent ed at capi t al
s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs . ” L e a th e rw o o d v. S ta te , 4 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 6 4 , 9 7 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ). T h is C our tr ecogni zed i n State v. T okm an , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ), th a t “c o u n se l h a s a d u ty t o i nt ervi ew pot ent i al w i tnes s es and t o m ake a n i ndepende nti nves t i gati on of the f act s and ci r cumst ance s of

the ca s e. ” Id
. at1342. A ddi t i onal l y, [ i ] n Str ingerv. Jacks on , 8 6 2 F .2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 6 (5 C ir. 1 9 8 8 ), th e F ifth C irc u it th hel d that“the f

ai l ur e t o pr es enta ca s e i n m i t i gat i on dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e of a capi t al tr i al i s not , pers e, i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l
. ” W e have i n the pastrecogni zed the Str ingerru le
. See G r ay [ v. S ta te ] , 887 So. 2d [1 5 8 ,] a t 1 6 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). See al s o W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 722 So. 2d 447, 450 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng W

ill ia m s v . Ca in , 1 2 5 F .3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 7 (5 C ir . 1 9 9 7 )) . W e th have r el i ed on Str ingeri n cas es bef or e us on di r ectappea l
. “The f ocus of the in q u iry m u st b e w h e th e r co u n se l' s a ss ista n c e w a s re a so n a b le c o n sid e ri n g a ll the ci r cumst ance s . ” J

o n e s v . S ta te , 8 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ) (l if e i m pr i s onm ents ent ence f ol l ow i ng m ur derconvi ct i on)
. “Thi s courthas of t en uphel d deci s i ons nott o puton m i t i gat i ng evi dence w her e the dec i s i on r es ul t ed f r om a s tr at egi c choi ce. ” Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 853 So. 2d 781, 799 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Str inger , 862 F. 2d a t1116) ( death s ent ence f ol l ow i ng capi t al m ur der co n v ict ion ). H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at795. ¶ 3 8 . H a v a rd su b m itt e d se v e ra l af fid a v its o n d ire c t ap p e a l fro m frie n d s a n d fa m ily , as w e ll
as f r om a s oci al w orkerw ho revi ew ed H avar d’ s l i f e hi s t ory. A gai n, beca us e the f or m er M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 22 w as f ou nd t o be contr ol l i ng atthe t i m e of H av ard ’s direc t app ea l, this C o u rtco n side red the issu e a b sen t th e o u tsi d e-the -reco rd
a ff id a v its , b u t a ls o h e ld th a t H a v a rd p re s e rv e d th e is s u e fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p ro c e e d in g s . Id
. ¶39. I n r evi ew i ng the i s s ue on di r ect appea l , the C our t rul ed adver s el y t o H avar d, f i ndi ng that , “[ g] i ven the t es t i m ony pr ovi ded i n m i t i gat i on and w hati tdi d s how t he j ury about20

H avar d’ s l i f

e and t endenci es , w e s i m pl y cannotf i nd .
. . pr ej udi ci al def i ci ency i n tr i al
couns el ’ s per f

orm ance . ” I

d. T h e C o u rt is n o w a sk e d to re v isit th is iss u e in c o n ju n c tio n w ith the a ffi d av it s o f H av ard ’s fam il y , fri en d s, an d the s o cial w o rke r. ¶40. J us tas on di r ectappeal , H avar d agai n ar gues t hathe r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el beca us e tr i al couns el cal l ed onl y tw o w i tnes s es i n mi t i gat i on, a nd he al l eges that
coun sel di d notpr epar e the tw o w i tnes s es f ortr i al ori nves t i gat e otherpot ent i al m i t i gat i ng evi dence
. T he s t at e poi nt s outt hat , duri ng the exa m i nat i on of C heryl H arr el l , s he w as as ked to “ d e sc rib e ” h e r re latio n sh ip w ith H a v a rd . S h e w a s a sk e d a b o u t H a v a rd ’s r e latio n sh ip w ith h is s te p fa th e r, G o rd o n H a rre ll. C o u n se l as k e d h e r a b o u t H a v a rd ’s r e latio n sh ip w ith h is bi ol ogi cal f

ather
. C ouns el al s o as ked H arr el l t o t el l the j ury w hy H avar d shoul d notr ece i ve th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h e se o p e n -e n d e d q u e stio n s a llo w e d th e ju ry to lea rn th a t H a v a rd a n d h is
m other“have al w ays been c l os e; ” thatH avar d m oved i n w i th hi s gr andpar ent s w hen he w as thi r t een be caus e of

somet hi ng he had see n happen a ts chool ; thatH avar d vi s i t ed hi s m other
e v e ry c h a n c e h e g o t; th a t H a v a rd w a s b o rn o u t o f w e d lo c k a n d th a t h e d id n o t m e e t h is b iolog ical fath er u n ti l h e w as sixtee n ; an d th at H av ard ’s f athe r nev er h ad a p lace in h is l if e and neve rs uppor t ed hi m . C heryl H arr el l al s o des cr i bed hers on as a “ki nd, t ender
- l ovi ng per s on” and di s cus s ed hi s l ove f orchi l dr en. She t ol d t he j ury abouthow H avar d came t o the def ense of h i s ni ece , a chi l d af f l i ct ed w i th D ow n’ s Syndr om e, w hen s he w as r i di cul ed by other s , and how H avar d car ed f orhi s youngerhal f

- br otherw hen he w as young. ¶41. T he s econ d mi t i ga t i on w i tne s s c a l l e d b y the def ens e w as H avar d’ s gr andmot her , R uby H avar d. She w as as ked s i m i l aropen- ended que s t i on s, an d t he j ury w as t ol d abouthow21

H av ard all o w e d R e b e c ca B ri ttan d C h loe to m o v e in w ith h im ; abo u t ho w h ard H av ard
w o rk e d a t h is jo b ; an d a b o u t H a v a rd h a d to ld h e r th a t h e p lan n e d to a sk R e b e c c a B ritt t o
m arry h im so that he cou l d take care of her and C hloe. S he tol d the j ury that H avard i s a l ovi ng per s on and thathe l oves chi l dr en. She expl ai ned thatH avar d had tw o pi ctur es of C h lo e in h is b illf

o ld a n d h o w H a v a rd “ d e a rl y lo v e d th a t b a b y .” ¶42. T he s t at e ar gues thatthe af f i davi t s a r e cumul at i ve of t es t i m ony the j ury he ar d, and that
m os tof them “cont ai n m or e damni ng evi dence than pr ai s i ng. ” I n the af fi dav i tof M ar i l yn C o x , H a v a rd ’s a u n t, sh e sta ted tha t H a v a rd ’s g ra n d fa th e r, W ill iam H a v a rd , u se d to h it H avar d’ s mot hera nd unc l e w hen they ar gued w i th hi m a s c hi l dr en and thatW i l l i am once br oke R uby’ s nos e. M ar i l yn a l s o c oncl uded thatH avar d’ s s t epf ather , G or don H arr el l , beat H avar d beca us e R uby t ol d M ar i l yn of brui s es f ound on H avar d’ s body. M ar i l yn s t at ed that
s he, t oo, f

ound brui s es on H avar d’s b ack and behi nd. M ar i l yn nevers t at ed thats he s aw H avar d bei ng be at en orthats he had any otherf i r s thand know l edge. I n the s ame par agr aph i n w hi ch s he conc l uded thatH avar d w as bea t en, M ar i l yn s t at ed thatC heryl w as w orr i ed aboutH avar d a nd a gr eed thathe s houl d go l i ve w i th hi s gr andpar ent s . I r oni cal l y, C heryl and R uby, w ho both t es t i f

i ed attr i al and now as s ert ed i n thei raf f i davi t s thatco un sel never in ter v iew e d th e m , d id n o t p a in t th e s a m e p ictu re a s M a rily n . C h e ry l sta ted in h e r a ffid a v it that H av ard w en t t o li v e w ith h is gran d p are n ts be ca u se o f th e v iolen ce in the sch o o ls w h ere he w as l i vi ng. T hi s i s cons i s t entw i th hertr i al t es t i m ony and R uby’s tr i al t es t i m ony. M ar i l yn’ s af

f i davi tadds nothi ng t o the t es t i m ony hear d by the j ury excepth ears ay of H av ard ’s ab u se b y h is st ep fathe r.22

¶43. W i l l i am H avar d s t at ed i n hi s af f i davi t that H avar d w as l i ke a son t o him
. W i l l i am sta ted th a t h e “ k n e w ” G o rd o n w a s “ w h ip p in g o n ” H a v a rd . A g a in , n o th in g in th e a ffid a v it
s t at ed thathe e verw i tnes s ed thes e event s . H e di d s t at e thatG or don ha d a t empe r and G o rdo n o n ce k icke d in W il li am ’s fron t do o r, forcing W il li am t o call the p o li ce . W il li am ’s af f i davi tthen t ook a tur n and negat i vel y des cr i bed hi s r el at i ons hi p w i th H avar d. W i l l i am e x p lain e d h o w h e b o u g h t H a v a rd a tru c k “ so h e c o u ld g e t to a n d fro m w o rk , b u t Je ffre y q u it
as s oon as he goti t . ” H e s t at ed thatH avar d caus ed pr obl ems, s uch as st ayi ng outl at e. H a v a rd w o u ld n o t li ste n to h is g ra n d fa th e r a n d w o u ld g e t in to a rg u m e n ts b e c a u se H a v a rd d id notl i ke bei ng t ol d w hatt o do. I n fa ct , W i l l i am expl ai ned how he s om et i m es had t o cal l the pol i ce t o “ cal m hi m dow n. ” H avar d’ s gr andpar ent s had t o as k a nei ghbort o cal l the pol i ce b ec au se H av ard w o u ld n o t l et his g ran d p are n ts ge t t o their ph o n e. W il li am p rov ided H av ard
w ith a tra iler u p th e s tre e t. R u b y H a v a rd te stifie d a t tria l th a t th e y p ro v id e d th e tra iler, p a id the u ti li ti es a n d p art of the g roc eries. W il li am furthe r st ated in h is affi d av itthat H av ard
w o u ld h av e p eo p le o v er u sing d rug s, a n d tha t W il li am an d R u b y d id n o t app rov e o f H av ard ’s drug ac t i vit i es. ¶44. D ani el Bra ds haw , H avar d’ s f r i end s i nce chi l dhoo d, w ent t o the Y ou t h C hall enge Pr ogr am at C amp S hel by w i th H avar d. H e des cr i bed how H avar d’ s f ami l y di d notatt end H avar d’ s gr aduat i on fr om C amp S hel by, s o H avar d w entt o l unch w i th D ani el ’ s f ami l y. D ani el di s cus s ed how H avar d came t o l i ve w i th hi m and hi s w i f e, A us tr al i a. D ani el tr ai ned H avar d t o w ork on boat s . D ani el s t at ed thatH avar d s t art ed “us i ng a l otof drugs , hangi ng23

o u t w ith the w ron g cro w d
. ” D an iel stat ed that H av a rd lo v e d ch il d ren an d w o u ld tak e c are o f th e ir so n w h e n D a n iel a n d A u stra lia w e n t o u t. ¶4 5 . A u str ali a B rad sh aw , also H av ard ’s ch il d h o o d fri en d , d esc ri b ed h o w sh e m et H av ard
a t c h u rc h a ft e r h e m o v e d in w ith h is g ra n d p a re n ts . S h e d e s c ri b e d h im a s “ h a p p y g o lu c k y .” She corr obor at ed D ani el ’ s af f i davi taboutH avar d and D ani el bei ng t ogetheratC amp S hel by
an d h o w H av ard ca m e to live w ith them w h en H av ard h ad p rob lem s w ith h is gr a n d fathe r. She des cr i bed H avar d’ s gr andf athergett i ng angry w i th H avar d w hen H avar d st ayed outl at e. She s t at ed thatH avar d w oul d s ay “hurt f ul w or ds t o hi s gr andf

ather
. ” She al s o w i tnes s ed
w hen the pol i ce ca m e t o t he house of H avar d’ s gra ndf athera coupl e of

t i m es w hen they “ha d got t en i nt o i tb ecause J ef f r ey w oul d r ace ar ound i n hi s truck and s cr eec h hi s t i r es . ” She des cr i bed H avar d and hi s gr andf atheras “s tubborn. ” She al s o t ol d of H avar d w at chi ng her
s on. ¶ 4 6 . E tta W h ite, H a v a rd ’s co -w o rk e r, d e sc rib e d h im a s “ su p e r, h e h a s a g re a t p e rso n a lity and i s a good w ork col l eague . ” She t ol d of H avar d s t oppi ng by t o of f erhel p w hen he s aw E t t a outw orki ng i n the yar d. ¶47. C heryl H arr el l ’ s a f f i da vi tr es t at ed hertr i al t es t i m ony butal s o of f er ed new i nf

orm at i on thats he di d nott el l the j ury dur i ng H avar d’ s s ent enci ng h eari ng. She des cr i bed herf ather f i ght i ng and gett i ng phys i cal w i th herbr other s w hen they w er e young, butdi d notm ent i on thats he w as beat en as des cr i bed b y M ar i l yn. C heryl des cr i bed herf atheras thi nki ng that Je ffre y w a s s e n t b y th e L o rd to re p lac e h e r b ro th e r a fte r h is d e a th , an d W ill iam b ro u g h t “lo ts of gi f t s w hen J ef

f r ey w as born. ” W i l l i am and R uby l etC heryl a nd J ef f r ey l i ve w i th them for24

a y ea r un ti l C h ery l m et he r hu sb an d , G o rdo n . C h ery l st ated th at i t w as h ard raisi n g H av ard and he di d get“s panki ngs . ” A s pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, s he s t at ed thatH avar d w ent t o l i ve
w ith h is gran d p are n ts be ca u se o f th e “v iolen ce i n th e sch o o ls. ” W h en sp ea k ing o f H av ard ’s g r a n d p a r e n t s , C h e ry l s t a t e d , “ J e f f r e y wa s a l wa y s r e wa r d e d b y th e m a n d n e v e rp u n i s h e d
. He
w as thei rf

avor i t e, they w oul d do thi ngs f orhi m thatthey w oul dn’ tdo f ort he o t her gr andchi l dr en. ” I r oni cal l y, C heryl neverdi s cus s ed H avar d bei ng abus ed by hi s s t epf ather attr i al ori n heraf

f i davi t . N one of

the otheraf

f i ant s s t at ed thatthey w i tnes s ed i torthat H avar d evert ol d them t hathe w as abus ed. ¶48 . R u by H avard’s aff i dav i tpl aced blam e f

or H avard’s problem s w i th h is step fathe r,
w hom s he des cr i bed as ha vi ng a t emper . She s t at ed thatG or don be atH avar d, bu tdid not
s t a t e th a ts h e e v e rwi tn e s s e d o rwa s t o l d o f th e s e b e a t i n g s . S h e r e me mb e r e d Ha v a r d c a me t o vi s i tonce, and he w as bl ack and bl ues w i th brui s es . She then s t at ed thatC heryl w as c o n c e rn e d w h e n H a v a rd w a s g ro w in g u p b e c a u se sh e w a s w o rrie d H a v a rd w o u ld sta rt to fig h t b a c k a g a in st G o rd o n a n d c a u se m o re tro u b le. R u b y n e v e r m e n tio n e d a n y o f th is a t trial. She t es t i f i ed thatH avar d a s ked i f he c oul d go l i ve w i th hi s gr andpar ent s beca us e “[ h] e l i ked th e sc h o o ls.” In h e r a ffid a v it, R u b y th e n d e sc rib e d h im a s d ro p p in g o u t o f h ig h sc h o o l, att endi ng the Y outh C hal l enge Pr ogr am, and gett i ng hi s G E D . H avar d w as off er ed a j ob as a pee rment ori n the pr ogr am, and W i l l i am and R uby boughthi m a truck s o he coul d tr avel t o hi s j ob. She s t at ed thatH avar d us ed drugs , and w hen conf r ont ed abouti t , he “w oul d s ay
u g ly th in g s lik e h e w ish e d h e h a d n e v e r c o m e to liv e w ith u s.” T h e y n e v e r h a d a c h a n c e to puni s h H avar d beca us e he w oul d geti n hi s truck and l eave .25

¶4 9 . A d ria n D o rsey K idd , a so cial w o rke r w h o w as ask ed b y p o st- co n v ict ion co u n se l to
rev iew H a v a rd ’s s o cial hist o ry re co rd a n d n o tes o f m it igation interview s w ith H av ard ’s fa m ily a n d f

ri e n d s, c lea rly n o ted th a t sh e n e v e r p e rso n a lly in ter v iew e d H a v a rd o r a sin g le fam i l y m em ber or f

ri end
. M s. K i dd ’s af

fi dav i tam ou nted t o a com pil at i on of schoo l recor ds,
r ecor ds f r om the Y outh C hal l enge Pr ogr am atC amp Shel by, i nt ervi ew not es f r om thos e w ho personall y int ervi ew ed H avard, aff i dav i t s f rom H av ard’s fam i l y m em bers and fr i end s, interview n o tes from tho se w h o i n terview ed H av ard ’s fam il y m em b ers a n d fri en d s, H av ard ’s
em ploym ent r ecords, and i ncidentreport s f rom vari ou s sher i ff

s’ dep artm ents . ¶50. M s . K i dd spec ul at ed thatH avar d suf f er ed f r om a “at t achmentdi s or der ”and pr ovi ded a l engthy, gener al des cr i pt i on of t he ef f ect s of the di s or der
. M s . K i dd r eac hed the conc l us i on that the d i sordercaused H avard t o h ave p robl em s developing l ov i ng and secure att achm ents . A s the st at e p oint s ou t , thi s con cl usi on is in con fl i ctw i th the aff i dav i t s of f

am i l y an d fr i end s,
w h o d e s c ri b e d H a v a rd a s a lo v in g a n d g o o d p e rs o n fo r w h o m th e y w o u ld d o a n y th in g . A
rev iew o f M s. K idd ’s affi d av itrev ea ls a recitat ion o f va ri o u s rec o rds a n d stat em en ts of o thers amount i ng t o l i tt l e more than s pecul at i on. ¶51. T he af

f i davi t s pr es ent ed i n thi s pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ng cont ai n i nf orm at i on that is c u m u lativ e o f th e tes tim o n y g iv e n a t tria l. T h e s ta tem e n ts p ro v id e d in th e a ffid a v its
r egar di ng H avar d’ s abus e do noteven a m ountt o hear s ay. N one of the af f i ant s s t at ed that they w itn esse d an y ab u se o r th at H av ard ev er told th em that h e h ad b e e n a b u se d . H av ard hi m s el f di d notm ent i on abus e i n hi s ow n af f i davi t . T he r emai nderof the s t at ement s i n the aff i dav i t s r efl ect ed n egati vely on H avard’s char act er. T he sum of these aff i dav i t s pai nts a26

pi ctur e of

H avar d bei ng rai sed by gr andpar ent s w ho pr ovi ded opportuni t i es f orhi m , but H avard cho se t o t ake drugs, argue an d say h urt ful things t o those w ho had his besti nter est atheart– oft en r es ul t i ng i n l aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s havi ng t o be ca l l ed t o cal m hi m dow n. ¶ 5 2 . H a v a rd ’ s c o u n s e l a r e p r e s u m e d c o m p e te n t. W a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 620 So. 2d 966 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ). A s a lre a d y n o ted , the a ffid a v it o f D o n E v a n s, a n in v e stig a to r h ire d to i nves t i gat e mi t i gat i on evi dence , i s t el l i ng of couns el s ’ ef

f or tt o i nves t i gat e. C ouns el cal l ed tw o w i tnes s es w ho ga ve i nt el l i genta nd s peci f i c mi t i gat i on t es t i m ony. N otcal l i ng w i tnes s es
w h o w ill tes tify n e g a tiv e ly fo r a c lien t o r w h o w ill tes tify to m a tters c u m u lativ e in n a tu re is
n o td e f i c i e n tp e r f

o r ma n c e b y c o u n s e l
. Ad d i t i o n a l l y , e v e n i f th i s Co u r twe r e t o a s s u me
ar guendo th a t H a v a rd ’s c o u n se l w e re d e fic ien t, H a v a rd h a s fa iled to sh o w th a t h e w o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a d if

fe re n t s e n te n c e . S tr ic k la n d , 466 U . S. at687. “U nl es s a def endantm akes b o th s h o wi n g s , i tc a n n o tb e s a i d th a tth e c o n v i c t i o n o rd e a th s e n t e n c e r e s u l t e d f r o m a br eakdow n i n t he adver s ary proc es s thatr ender s the r es ul tunr el i abl e. ” S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984) ( ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687). T hi s i s s ue i s w i thout
m e rit. I V . I nef

f e c t i ve as s i s t anc e of

c ouns elf

or f ai l i ng t o devel op and i nt roduce H av ar d’ s s uc c e s s f

ul ada pt at i on a t C am p Shel by as m i t i ga t i ng evi dence duri ng t he penal t y phase. ¶53. I n hi s nexti s s ue, H avar d as s ert s thatcouns el w er e i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o devel op
m i t i gat i ng evi dence thatH avar d appl i ed f orand w as ac cept ed t o the Y outh C hal l enge Pr ogr am atC amp S hel by. H e of f er s the af f i davi tof D ani el B r ads haw , w ho s t at es thathe w as a f el l ow cade tw i th H avar d i n the pr ogr am atC amp S hel by and thatH avar d thr i ved i n the27

a rd u o u s a n d h ig h ly re g im e n ted a tm o sp h e re . H a v a rd a lso o ffe rs th e a ff id a v it o f h is gr andf ather , w ho s t at ed thatH avar d w as s uch an e xempl ary cade tthathe w as off er ed a j ob at C am p S h elby to a ss ist o th e r y o u ths. I t i s H av ard ’s co n tention that the a d ap tabili ty o f a
c a p ital d e fe n d a n t to a n in stitu tio n a l se tti n g is p o w e rfu l m itig a tio n e v id e n c e b e c a u se it pr ovi des a j ury w i th an al t ernat i ve t o the dea th s ent ence . ¶54. H avar d r el i es on Ski pp e rv. Sout

h Car ol ina , 476 U . S. 1, 106 S. C t . 1669, 90 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1986)
. I n Ski

pper , the pet i t i oners oughtt o i ntr oduce t es t i m ony of t w o j ai l er s and one

" r e g u l a rvi s i t o r " t o th e j a i l t o s h o w t h a th e h a d " ma d e a g o o d a d j u s t me n t " d u r i n g h i s t i me s penti n j ai l
. The tr i al c our trul ed thatunde rthe Sout h Car ol i na Supr eme C ou rt ' s pre vi ous deci s i on i n State v. K

oon , 278 S
. C
. 528, 298 S. E . 2d 769 ( 1982) , s uch evi dence w as i rr el evant
a n d in a d m is s ib le . S k ip p e r w a s s e n te n c e d to d e a th , a n d h e a p p e a le d
. Ski pper , 4 76 U . S
. at 3. T he Supre m e C our tof South C ar ol i na r ej ect ed Ski pper ' s cont ent i on and hel d thatthe tr i al j udge pr oper l y r ef

us ed t o admi tthe evi dence of hi s f utur e adapt abi l i ty t o pr i s on l i f e, ci t i ng K oon , s u p r a . Id . ¶55. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t gr ant ed cert i or ar i t o cons i der Ski pper ’ s cl ai m that th e S o u th Ca r o l i n a S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s ru l i n g wa s i n c o n f l i c twi th p r i o rUn i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our tdeci s i ons i n L o ck ett v. O h io , 438 U . S. 586 ( 1978) , and E ddin gs v. Ok la h o ma , 455 U .S . 1 0 4 (1 9 8 2 ). I

d. a t 4 . See Ski

pp e rv. Sout

h Car ol ina , 474 U . S. 900, 106 S. C t . 270, 88 L. Ed
. 2 d 2 2 5 ( 1 9 8 5 )
. Th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Su p r e me Co u r tr e v e r s e d th e S o u th Ca r o l i n a S u p r e me C our t ’ s rul i ng i n Ski

pper , hol di ng that28

T her e i s no di s put i ng t hat t his C our t ' s deci s i on i n E ddings re q u ire s th a t in capit al c ase s "' the sentencer .
. . no tbe p recl ud ed fr om con si deri ng , as a m i t i gat i ng f

act or , a ny a s pectof

a de f endant ' s char act erorr ecor d and any of the circu m stan ce s o f th e o ffen se th at th e d efe n d an t pro ffers as a b asis for a sent ence less than death. ' " E ddings , s upr a, at110 ( quot i ng L o c k e tt , supra , at 6 0 4 (p lu ra lity o p in io n o f B U R G E R , C . J.)) (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). E q u a lly cl eari s the cor ol l ary rul e thatthe s ent ence rm ay not r efuse t o cons i derorbe pr ecl uded f

r om co nsi der i ng "a ny r el evantm i t i gat i ng evi dence
. " 455 U
. S. , at 114. Ski pp e rv. Sout

h Car ol ina , 4 7 6 U . S
. 1 , 4 , 1 0 6 S
. C t. 1 6 6 9 , 1 6 7 0 -71 (U
. S
. 1 9 8 6 ). ¶56. T he i s s ue i n Skipper and the i s s ue s ub j udi ce ar e qui t e di f f er ent , beca us e i n Ski

pper , th e p e titio n e r’ s c o u n s e l a tte m p te d to a d m it th e e v id e n c e a n d it w a s re fu s e d
. I d. at3. T he i s s ue as s ert ed by H avar d i s w hetherhi s couns el w er e i nef f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o devel op e v id e n c e o f h is p a rt ic ip a tio n in th e p ro g ra m a t C a m p S h e lb y a n d p re s e n t it to th e ju ry . ¶57. T he s t at e ar gues t hat H avar d’ s r el i ance on Ski pper i s m i s pl ace d and f ocus es on the d i s s i mi l a r i t i e s b e twe e n b e i n g i n s t i tu t i o n a l i z e d i n a p r i s o n a n d th e Yo u th Ch a l l e n g e P r o g r a m. W e fi n d th a t th e s ta te ’s fo c u s is m is p la c e d
. Ski pperspeci fi cal l y st at es:

" ' [T ]h e s e n te n c e r . . . [ m a y ] n o t b e p re c lu d e d fr o m c o n s id e ri n g , as a m i t igat i ng f actor , a ny a s pectof

a de f endant ' s c har act erorr ecor d a nd a ny of the circu m stan ce s o f th e o ffen se th at th e d efe n d an t pro ffers as a b asis for a sent ence l ess than death. ' " E ddings , s upr a, at110 ( quot i ng L o c k e tt , s upr a, at 6 0 4 (p lu ra lity o p in io n o f B U R G E R , C . J .)) (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l)
.

. . . . E qual l y c l eari s the cor ol l ary rul e thatthe s ent ence rm ay notr ef us e t o cons i der o r b e p re c lu d e d f

r o m c o n s id e r in g " a n y r e le v a n t m itig a tin g e v id e n c e ." 4 5 5 U .S ., a t 1 1 4 . I d. at4. H ow ever , even i f thi s C our tw er e t o cons i der , f orthe s ake of

ar gum ent , that H avar d’ s couns el w er e def i ci enti n f

ai l i ng t o devel op and pr es entthi s evi dence , H avar d has
no tshow n thatthe o utcom e of hi s senten ce w o u ld have been dif fer ent. H avard m ust29

demonstr at e thathi s couns el ’ s per f orm ance w as def

i ci enta nd thatthe def

i ci ency pr ej udi ced the def ens e of the ca s e. Str i c kl

and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 . ¶5 8 . H av ard d id n o t p rese n t an y affidav it s o ther th a n th o se o f h is fam il y an d fri en d s. In Ski pper , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdi s cus s ed South C ar ol i na’ s cont ent i on thatthe jai ler’s test im o n y w o u ld be m ere ly cu m u lat ive o f th e testi m o n y th e jury alr ea d y ha d h ea rd f r o m t h e p e titio n e r’ s fa m ily a n d fr ie n d s . I d ., 4 76 U. S. a t7
- 8. The Su pr e me Cou r td i d not
acc eptthi s ar gum ent . I n i t s anal ys i s , the Ski pperC our ts t at ed: Fi nal l y, the St at e s eems t o s ugges tthatexcl us i on of the proff

er ed t es t i m ony w as pr operbeca us e the t es t i m ony w as m er el y cumul at i ve of the t es t i m ony of pet i t i onerand hi s f

orm erw i f

e thatpet i t i oner ' s behavi ori n j ai l aw ai t i ng tr i al w as s at i s f

act ory, an d o f

pet i t i oner ' s t es t i m ony that , i f s ent ence d t o pr i s on r ather than t o death, he w oul d att emptt o us e hi s t i m e p roduc t i vel y and w oul d not caus e tr oubl e. W e thi nk, how ever , thatchar act er i zi ng the exc l uded evi dence as c u m u lat ive a n d it s ex clus ion a s h arm less is im p laus ible o n the fac ts be fore u s . The evi dence pet i t i onerw as al l ow ed to pr es ent on the is s ue of

his conduct i n j ai lw as the s or tof

evi dence thata j ur

y natur al l

y w ould t end t o dis count as se lf-se rv in g . T

h e tes tim o ny o

f m o r e d isin ter e ste d

w itn e ss e s -- a n d

, in p a rtic u la r, o

f ja ilers w h o w o u ld

h a v e h a d

n o p a rtic u la r r e a so n to b e fa v o ra b ly predis pos ed tow ar d one of

thei rchar

ges - - w ould qui t e natur al l y be gi ven m uch gr eaterw ei

ghtby the j ur

y. I d. at 8 (e m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 5 9 . T h e a ffid a v its p re se n ted b y H a v a rd in s u p p o rt o f th is iss u e , p a rticu lar ly th o se o f h is gr andf ather , W i l l i am H avar d, a nd hi s f r i end, D ani el Bra ds haw , a r e the ki nd of evi dence the U ni t ed St at es Suprem e C our tdes cr i bed i n Skipper as “ the s o rto f ev iden ce that a jury natur al l y w oul d t end t o di s countas s el f
- s ervi ng. ” F orthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , H avar d cannot pas s the s t andar d s etf

or th i n Str i c kl

and . 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.30

V . I nef

f ect i ve ass i s t ance of counsel f or fai l i ng t o as k po tent i al j urors “reve rs e- W

ithers poon ” quest i ons duri ng voi r di re. ¶60. O n d ire c t ap p e a l, H a v a rd arg u e d tha t his co u n se l w e re in e ffe c tiv e b y im p e rm iss ib ly f ai l i ng t o as k “r ever s e- W ithers poon ” q u e stio n s, o r ra th e r, w h e th e r th e ju ro rs w o u ld
a u to m a tic a lly v o te fo r th e d e a th p e n a lty
. Ir v in gv. S ta te , 498 So. 2d 305, 310 ( M i s s . 1986) ( ci t i ng W

ith e rs p o o n v. Illin o is , 3 9 1 U. S
. 5 1 0 , 8 8 S
. Ct
. 1 7 7 0 , 2 0 L . E d
. 2 d 7 7 6 ( 1 9 6 8 ) )
. As di s cus s ed i n H avar d’ s f

i r s tpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s s ue supra , the i ns t anti s s ue w as r ai s ed by H avar d on di r ectappea l as hi s I s s ue I I . T he C our tr ef us ed t o cons i deron di r ectappea l the af f i davi tof j ur ornum bertw enty- ni ne, W i l l i e Thom as ( w ho w as sel ect ed as a mem berof the tr i al j ury as j ur ornum berei ghti n t he or derof s el ect i on)
. Forr eas ons pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, this C ou rtheld that H avard h ad p res erved t he is sue forpo st -convict i on proceed i ng s. ¶61. I n addr es s i ng thi s i s s ue on the mer i t s , abs entT hom as ’ s af f i davi t , the C our thel d: C ons i der i ng the " r ever s e- W ithers poon " i s s ue, abs entthe j ur oraf f i davi t , the exac tas s i gnm entof

err orher e i s thatdef

ens e couns el w as i nef

f ect i ve by f ai l i ng t o as k "r ever s e- W ithers poon " qu e s t i on s , mea ni ng de f e ns e couns el sh o u ld h a v e as k e d w h e th e r th e jur o rs w o u ld a u to m a tica lly v o te f o r th e d e a th p e n a lty
. I

r v ing , 4 9 8 S o . 2 d a t3 1 0 . Un d e rth i s ru l e , th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rt h e ld th a t a ju ro r m u st b e ex c u se d if h is o r h e r v iew s o n th e d e a th p e n a lty w o u ld u n fa ir ly a ff

e c t th e o u tc o m e o f t h e ju ry v e rd ic t. W ithers poon , 391 U . S. at520. T r i al couns el di d notas k "r ever s e- W ithers poon " que s t i ons , butt he tr i al c o u rt d id . T h e trial ju d g e as k e d if a n y p o ten tial ju ro r w o u ld a u to m a tica lly v o te f orthe dea th penal ty. C onver s el y, the j udge al s o as ked i f any pot ent i al j ur or w o u ld au tom ati ca ll y v o te ag ains t th e d ea th p en alty
. T h e tri al co u rtthere fore c on du c t e d bo th a " W

ithers poon " e xami nat i on and a " r ever s e- W ithers poon " ex am ination
. W o rth no ti n g is th at th e tri al j u d g e d id stri k e a t l ea st nine v en ir e m em bers f

orcaus e atthe r eques tof the St at e bas ed on W ithers poon cons i der at i ons . N ei therthe St at e norde f ens e couns el chal l enged Thom as f or cause orper empt or i l y. T he pr operques t i ons w er e as ked by the courtand couns el and w er e ans w er ed by the pot ent i al j ur or s . T he tr i al j udge ques t i oned th e ju ro rs o n the ir ab ili ties o r in a b ili ties , b o th as a g ro u p a n d in d iv id u a lly , to31

cons i dera dea th s ent ence . T he tr i al j udge al s o re ques t ed thatt he att orneys not be r edundanti n t hei rvoi rdi r e exam i nat i on, keepi ng i n m i nd the voi rdi r e the c o u rt h a d c o n d u c ted . H o n o rin g th is re q u e st, d e fe n se c o u n se l, du rin g th e v o ir di r e, s t at ed t o the veni r e, "I ' m notgoi ng t o ask you anythi ng thatthe J udge or [ couns el f

orthe s t at e] as ked you unl es s w e r eal l y ne ed t o. " A gai n, w e ca nnot f i nd thattr i al couns el ' s s i l ence dur i ng thi s phase of voi rdi r e cons t i tut ed r ever s i bl e e rr or , w he n c on s i de r i ng the t ot a l i ty o f the vo i rdi r e e xa mi na t i on co n d u cted b y the tri al j u d g e an d the a tt o rne y s. S u cc inctly stated , all n ec essa ry ques t i ons w er e pr opounded t o the ven i re dur i ng the w hol e of voi rdi r e. D e f e ns e c ou ns e l , havi ng hear d the ques t i ons and the r es pons es f r om the veni r e, and havi ng observed the j ur or s ' demeanorthr oughoutthe voi rdi r e, w as then fr ee t o cho ose not t o repeatthe qu est i on s. W e canno tf ai rl y say defense c ou ns e l ' s pe r f

ormanc e w a s de f

i c i e nta nd pr e

j ud i c e d the de f

e ns e . The r e f

or e, thi s i s s ue f

ai l s underthe Str i c kl

and tes t, an d is th u s w ith o u t m e rit. H ava rd , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 6 -8 7 . T h e iss u e is n o w b e fo re th is C o u rt a g a in , a lo n g w ith T h o m a s ’s a ff

id a v it. ¶62 . M i ssi ssi pp i R ules o f E vidence, R ule 606 , C om petency of Juror as W i tness, provides: (b ) I n q u iry I n to V a li d it y o f V er d ict or In d ictm en t. U p o n a n in q u iry in to the val i di ty of

a ver di ctori ndi ctm ent , a j ur orm ay nott es t i f y as t o any mat t er ors t at ementoccurr i ng dur i ng the cour s e of the j ury' s del i ber at i ons ort o the ef f ectof anythi ng upon hi s orany otherj ur or ' s m i nd orem ot i ons as i nf l ue nc i ng h i m t o a s s e ntt o ord i s s e ntf r om the v e r di c to ri nd i c t mentor conce rni ng h i s ment al pr oces s es i n connec t i on ther ew i th, exce ptthata j ur or m ay t es t i f

y on the ques t i on w hetherextr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf orm at i on w as i m pr oper l y br oughtt o t he j ury' s at t ent i on or w hetherany out s i de i nf l uence w as im p ro p e rl y b ro u g h t to b e a r u p o n a n y ju ro r. N orm ay his af

f i davi torevi dence of any s tat em ent

by hi m conce r ni ng a m at t eraboutw hi ch he would be precl ud ed fr om t est i

f yi ngbe received f

or these pu rposes. (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶ 6 3 . T h e a ffid a v it o f W ill ie T h o m a s d o e s n o t m e e t th e e x c e p tio n to R u le 6 0 6 (b ), a n d it sh o u ld ag ain b e ex clud ed fro m o u r co n side rati o n . N o tw ith stan d ing R u le 60 6 (b), T h o m as’s32

affidav itd o es n o t offer m eritto H av ard ’s claim
. P ara g rap h s three an d fou r of T h o m as’s af f i davi ts t at ed: I bel i eve thatthe dea th penal ty i s the appr opr i at e puni s hm entf orM r . H avar d. I thi nk a per s on s houl d be pr epar ed t o gi ve w hatthey t ake. I f you t ake a l i f

e, a l i f e i s r equi r ed. I th in k th e sa m e p u n ish m e n t sh o u ld b e g iv e n to e v e ry o n e w h o k ill s. I fe lt th is w a y b e fo re I se rv e d o n th e ju ry a n d I s til l fe e l th is w a y to d a y . I w o u ld fe e l th is w a y ev e n if it w e re m y o w n so n o n tri a l. If p e o p le k n e w the y w o u ld p a y w ith thei rl i ves , ther e w oul d be l es s ki l l i ng. (H a v a rd ’s E x h ib it 1 5 , at ¶ ¶ 3 -4 ). T h is a ffid a v it sim p ly sh o w s th a t T h o m a s s u p p o rts th e d e a th penal ty. N othi ng i n thi s af f i davi ts t at es thatT hom as w oul d aut om at i cal l y vot e f ori m pos i t i on of the deat h penal ty i n every cas e w i thoutf i r s tcons i der i ng the f

act s of the part i cul arcas e, i ncl udi ng any mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . A s the s t at e poi nt s out , the ques t i on i s notw hether T hom as bel i eves i n the dea th penal ty, butw hetherhe ca n f ol l ow the l aw . N othi ng i n the
a ffid a v it state d th a t T h o m a s w o u ld d isre g a rd th e trial c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s a n d a rb itrar ily i m pos e the dea th penal ty i n every cas e r egar dl es s of t he fact s. T hom as ’ af f i davi tdoes not
a d d m e ri t to H a v a rd ’s c la im
. ¶64. H avard als o o ff ers t he aff

i dav i tof N atm an Schaye, w hom H avard asser t s i s a nat i onal l y r ecogni zed c api t al l i t i gat or . T he s um m at i on of M r . Schaye’ s a f

f i davi ti s thathe i s of t he op i ni on tha tH a va r d’ s de f e ns e c ou ns e l w e r e de f

i c i e nti n f

a i l i ng t o a s k q ue s t i ons d u rin g v o ir d ire to d e ter m in e th e o p in io n s a n d a ttitud e s o f th e v e n ire re g a rd in g th e d e a th penal ty. H e f

ur therbel i eves t hatH avar d w as pre j udi ced by couns el ’ s def i ci entper f

orm ance a s e v id e n c e d b y ju ro r W ill ie T h o m a s’s a ffid a v it.33

¶65. O urpr evi ous di s cus s i on supra re gar di ng t hi s i s s ue r evea l s t hatboth W ithers poon and

“ r ever s e- W

ithers poon ” ques t i ons w er e as ked by the tr i al court . T he tr i al courtthen i ns truct ed couns el f

orthe s t at e and the def

ens e nott o r epea tques t i ons al r eady a s ked of the veni r e pane l
. T hi s C our tconcluded thatthe pane l w as adequa t el y ques t i oned dur i ng the
w hol e of the voi rdi r e exami nat i on. M r . S chaye ’ s af f i davi ti s notper s uas i ve t o the contr ary. H a v a rd ’s c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l still d o e s n o t p a ss the sta n d a rd se t fo rth i n Str i c kl

and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V I . I ne f

f e c t i ve as s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt at t he p e n a lt y p h a s e . ¶66. H avar d asser t s t hat he w as den i ed eff ect i ve ass i s t ance of

couns el dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum entof t he s ent enci ng phas e of the tr i al
. D ef

ens e couns el s t at ed, “I m ean, i t ’ s been obvi ous l y document ed her e thatthi s young c hi l d di ed a tr agi c dea th ata very young age of
s ix m o n th s . T h a t is a n a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e , a n d M r. R o s e n b la tt e x p la in e d th a t to y o u .” O n di r ectappea l , H avar d a r gued thatthi s hi s couns el conce ded the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance of C hl oe’ s t enderage and f ai l ed t o ar gue mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . H avar d now r ai s es the
sam e argum ents via these po st -convict i on -r el i ef pr oceed i ng s. ¶ 6 7 . T h is iss u e w a s p re se n ted to th is C o u rt o n d ire c t ap p e a l an d fo u n d to b e w ith o u t m e rit. H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at798. T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed by the doctr i ne of
r es j udi cat a pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 39- 21( 3) ( R ev. 2007) , w hi ch
s t at es : “The doctr i ne of

r es j udi cat a s hal l appl y t o al l i s s ues , both f actual and l egal , deci ded
a t tr ia l a n d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l.”34

¶ 6 8 . H a v a rd h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted a n o v e l c laim o r a su d d e n re v e rsa l o f la w re lativ e to th is i s s ue w hi ch w oul d exem pti tfr om t he pr ocedur al barof r es j udi cat a pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). See al s o L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 614 So. 2d 888 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng R ide o u t v. S ta te , 4 9 6 S o . 2 d 6 6 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 446 So. 2 d 5 9 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ))
. V II . P r o se c u to r ia l m isc o n d u c t d u r in g c lo sin g a r g u m e n t a t th e g u ilt phase. ¶69. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , t he pr os ecut ors t at ed, “N ow , I ’ m notm aki ng any acc us at i ons . I don’ tknow i f anythi ng had eve rhappene d w i th thatchi l d befor e, butthat
n ig h t h e g o t ca rrie d a w a y o r so m e th in g , an d h e h u rt th a t ch ild m o re th a n h e in ten d e d to in th is s e x u a l b a ttery .” H a v a rd a rg u e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l th a t th e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n ts
su g g e ste d to th e ju ry th a t H a v a rd h a d p re v io u sly se x u a lly a ss a u lted C h lo e a n d a m o u n ted to pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct
. T his C ourtnot ed thatdef ens e couns el f

ai l ed t o obj ectand that H avar d w as notr ai s i ng the i s s ue undera c l ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el f

orf ai l i ng t o obj ect . T he C our tf

ound the i s s ue t o be ba rr ed but , none thel es s , di s cus s ed the i s s ue on the
m er i t s . T hi s C our thel d: L ooki ng atthe r ecor d of the ent i r e tr i al , w e cannotfi nd thatthe ac t i ons of the St at e const i tut ed pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct
. A ddi t i onal l y, cons i der i ng the t otal i ty o f the record, even i f w e w ere t o som eho w fi nd err or i n these s t at em ent s , s uch err orw as unques t i onabl y harm l es s . L as t l y, the j ury w as pr oper l y i ns truct ed thatcomm ent s f r om t he att orneys w er e nott o be r egar ded as evi dence w hen the j ury del i ber at ed on i t s ver di ct . A ccor di ngl y, thi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit. H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at791.35

¶ 7 0 . H a v a rd h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted a n o v e l c laim o r a su d d e n re v e rsa l o f la w re lativ e to th is i s s ue w hi ch w oul d exem pti tfr om t he pr ocedur al barof r es j udi cat a pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). See al s o L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 614 So. 2d 888, 897 (M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng R ide o u t v. S ta te , 4 9 6 S o . 2 d 6 6 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 446 S o . 2 d 5 9 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )). V I I I . V i ct i m - i m pact t es t i m ony. ¶7 1 . D u ri n g the s en tenc ing p h ase o f H av ard ’s tri al, the s tat e c all ed L il li an W atso n , C h loe’s
m at ernal grandm other
. W at son tes t i fi ed as fol l ow s: I am not a venge f

ul per s on. M y f

atherw as a mi ni s t erand I w as al w ays t aught an eye f oran eye as I know m os tof you w er e. I a m nother e f orr evenge f

or [ C hl oe] , butI am her e f orJ us t i ce f

or[ C hl oe]
. J us t i ce means herl i f e w as t aken, and ther e i s onl y one w ay thatw e can f i nd j us t i ce f

or[ C hl oe]
. A l i f

e f or a l i f e. ¶72. H avar d as s ert s thatW at s on ’s tes t i m on y w as highl y prej ud i ci al and exc eede d the bounds of

al l ow abl e vi ct i m - i m pactt es t i m ony. A gai n, thi s C our ti s pr es ent ed w i th an i s s ue on pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef thatcl ear l y w as di s cus s ed i n dep t h on di r ectappea l and dec i ded
a d v e rs e ly to H a v a rd
. H ava rd , 928 So. 2d at791-93. T oday, H avar d pre s ent s nothi ng novel in h is a rg u m e n t b e fo re th e C o u rt n o r d o e s h e a rg u e a su d d e n re v e rsa l in th e law re late d to th is i s s ue. T he i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed by the doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); L o c k e tt , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 7 . I X . W het her t he t ri al court i m properl y res pond ed to a quest i on f rom t he j ury duri ng t he s ent enci ng ph as e.36

¶ 7 3 . D u rin g ju ry d e lib e ra tio n a t th e s e n ten c in g p h a se o f H a v a rd ’s trial, th e ju ry s e n t a n o te t o the tr i al j udge as ki ng the courtt o def i ne l i f e w i thoutpar ol e and w hetherthe l aw coul d be change d t o al l ow par ol e f orH avar d i n the f

utur e. W i th the agr eementof def ens e couns el and the p rose cu ti o n , the C o u rtreturn ed a re sp o n se w h ich s tat ed : “ L if e w ith o u t paro le m ea n s li fe in p ri s o n w ith o u t elig ib ili ty fo r p a ro le o r e a rly re lea se . It w o u ld b e u p to th e leg isla tu re to
m ake a ny f

utur e cha nges of

the l aw . ” H

ava rd , 928 So. 2d at799. ¶74. J us t as on di r ect appea l , H avar d now ar gues that the tr i al court ’ s r es pons e pr ej udi ced the j ury by i nf

err i ng that , i f

H avar d w er e gi ven a l i f e- w i thout
- par ol e s ent ence , he coul d be
r el eas ed i n the f

utur e. H e ar gues , as bef or e, thatthe tr i al c our t ’ s r es pons e t o the j ury m ade
a life s e n ten c e les s fe a sib le in th e m in d s o f th e ju ro rs. W ith o u t p re se n tin g a n y th in g n o v e l to
su p p o rtthis clai m o r a sh o w ing o f a su d d en rev ersa l i n th e law rel ated t o th is i ssu e, H av ard ’s
c laim is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); see al so L o ck ett
v . S tate , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 7 . X. L i m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i on of es peci al l y hei nous, at roci ous, or cruel aggravat i ng ci rcum s t ance. ¶7 5 . In th is c laim , H av ard asse rt s that the tr ial co u rt ’s li m it ing instruction o f es p e c ially h e in o u s, a tro c io u s, o r c ru e l ag g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b e c a u se it w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a lly v a g u e . T h is C o u rt c o n sid e re d th is iss u e o n d ire c t ap p e a l,
a n d th e d e c isio n w a s a d v e rse to H a v a rd . “T h is C o u rt h a s re p e a ted ly h e ld th a t th e ' e sp e c ially hei nous , atr oci ous orcruel ' pr ovi s i on of M i ssi s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 19- 101( 5) ( h) i s nots o vague a nd overbr oad as t o vi ol at e the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” H a v a r d , 928 So.37

2d at800 ( ci t i ng S tev e n s v . S ta te , 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 6 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ))
. See al s o Craw ford
v. S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); M h o o n v. S ta te , 4 6 4 S o . 2 d 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ); Co lem a n v. S ta te , 3 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). ¶76. H avar d has pr es ent i ng nothi ng novel t o s uppor tthi s c l ai m norhas he made a s how i ng o f a s u d d e n re v e rsa l in th e law re late d to th is iss u e . T h e re fo re , H a v a rd ’s c laim is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). See al s o L o c k e tt , 614 So. 2 d a t 8 9 7 . X I. F ai l ure of t h e i n d i ctm en t t o ch arg e a d eath-pe n alt y-el i gibl e off ens e. ¶77. H avar d as s ert s thathe has bee n deni ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o not i ce a nd j ury tr i al guar ant ees under t he S i xt h A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. T hi s i s s ue w as
r a is e d o n H a v a rd ’s d ir e c t a p p e a l a n d d e c id e d a d v e rs e ly to H a v a rd
. H ava rd , 9 28 So
. 2 d at 8 0 0 -8 0 2 . H a v a rd h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted a n o v e l c laim o r a s u d d e n re v e rsa l o f la w re lativ e to thes e i s s ues w hi ch w oul d e xempt a s i ngl e one of thes e cl ai m s f

r om the pr ocedur al barof r es j ud i cat a. I n f

act , H avar d agai n r el i es on A ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 5 30 U. S. 4 66 , 4 76 , 120 S .C t. 2 3 4 8 , 2 3 5 5 , 1 4 7 L .E d .2 d 4 3 5 (2 0 0 0 ), j u s t a s h e d id o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. I d. a t 8 0 1 . T h is C our tpr evi ous l y f

ound the i s s ue t o be w i thoutm er i t . T he i s s ue i s now barr ed. M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); s ee al s o L o c k e tt , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 7 . X II. Ju ry co n si d erati on of agg rav ati n g circum st an ces. ¶78. H avard’s ent i re ar gu m ent on t his i ssue i s r est at ed, verbat i m , as f oll ow s: 27 7. T he tr i al j ury based M r. H avard’s death sentence of [ si c] tw o fact ors, namel y:38

( a ) T hatthe c a pi t a l of f e ns e w a s c omm i t t e d whi l e the de f e nd a ntw as engage d i n the comm i s s i on of , orat t em pt t o comm i t , s exual batt ery; and (b ) T h e c a p ital o ffe n se w a s e sp e c ially h e in o u s, a tro c io u s, a n d c ru e l. 278. T hi s f

i ndi ng w as e rr oneous i n tw o w ays . Fi r s t , these t w o par t i cul ar aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s cannotbe s ubm i t t ed w her e “s exual batt ery” w as an el ementof

the of f ens e. R . 26, 31. 279. T he tr i al courtr ecogni zed that[the] “es peci al l y hei nous ” aggr avat or f ul l y encompas s ed the “s exual batt ery” aggr avat or . W her e one aggr avat orf

ul l y s ubs um es anothe r , the y c a nnotboth be s ubm i t t ed t o the ju ry . Jo ne s v. U

. S. , 52 7 U . S
. 3 7 3 (1999 ) at39 9. In w ei gh i ng st at es, s uch as M i s s i s s i ppi , thi s err ordemands thatthe dea th s ent ence be v a c a te d
. Str ingerv. B lack , 5 0 3 U . S
. 2 0 0 2 (1 9 9 2 ). A cc o rdin g ly, M r. H a v a rd is e n title d to re lie f o n th is g ro u n d
. ¶79. O n di r ectappeal , t hi s C our tfound H avar d’ s i dent i cal i s s ue t o be barr ed becau se no c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b

jec tio n w a s ra ise d a t trial, an d H a v a rd d id n o t su p p o rt h is c la im w ith
a u th o rity . D e sp ite th e p ro c e d u ra l ba rs, th e C o u rt e n g a g e d in a fu ll d isc u ss io n o n th e m e rits
o f H a v a rd ’s c laim , an d fo u n d n o n e . T h is C o u rt fo u n d th e T e n th C irc u it to b e h e lp fu l d u e to its a b u n d a n c e o f c a s e la w s u rr o u n d in g th is is s u e . H ava rd , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 2 . “U nderourc as es , one a ggr avat i ng c i r cumst ance i s i m pr oper l y dupl i cat i ve of anotheronl y i f

the f i rs taggr avat or' nece s s ar i l y s ubs um es ' the other
. ” P atton v. Mu llin , 425 F. 3d 788, 809 ( 10 Ci r . 2005)
. “ T he f actthattw o aggr avat i ng th ci rcum st ance s r el y on s om e of the s ame evi dence does notr enderthem dupl i cat i ve. ” I

d. T h e c o n c e rn is th a t th e a g g ra v a to rs a re n o t d u p lic a tiv e . I d. W h e n th e y a r e n o td u p l i c a t i v e , t h e Te n th Ci r c u i ta l l o ws u s e o f th e s a me e v id e n c e to su p p o rtd if

fe r e n t a g g ra v a to rs . I

d. T he t es tf

ordet erm i ni ng w hen aggr avat i ng f

act or s i m perm i s s i bl y over l ap and a r e dupl i cat i ve i s w hetherone a g g ra v a tin g fa c to r n e c e ss a rily su b s u m e s th e o th e r, n o t w h e th e r c e rta in e v id e n c e is re le v a n t to b o th a g g ra v a to rs . Fiel ds v. G ibs on , 277 F. 3d 1203, 1 2 1 8 -19 (10 C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ).

th I d.39

¶ 8 0 . S p e c ifica lly n o tew o rth y is th is C o u rt’s h o ld in g o n d ire c t ap p e a l th a t: [o ]f th e tw o a g g ra v a to rs o n w h ich H a v a rd fo c u se s, o n e d o e s n o t n ec essa rily s u b s u me the other
. The j ury coul d have f ound f r om the evi dence pr es ent ed at trial th a t H a v a rd w a s e n g a g e d in th e c o m m iss io n o f se x u a l b a ttery w h ile co m m itti n g the a cts o n C h loe w h ich led to h er d ea th . A d d it ion all y , the ju ry co u ld h av e fo u n d this cri m e to m ee t the [he ino u s, atr o ciou s, o r cru el] stan d ard b e c a u se o f fa c to rs o th e r th a n th e se x u a l b a ttery , su c h a s th e re latio n sh ip betw een H avar d and C hl oe’ s m otherorC hl oe’ s age. H a v a r d , 928 S o. 2 d at802- 03 ( emphasi s added)
. A ddi t i onal l y, i n L o de n v. S ta te , 971 So. 2d 548, 570 (M i s s . 2007) , thi s C our thel d that“[ t ] he f actthataggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s s h a re re le v a n t e v id e n c e d o e s n o t m a k e th e m d u p lic a tiv e . See Jones v. U nited States , 527 U .S . 3 7 3 , 3 9 9 -4 0 0 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 2 0 9 0 , 1 4 4 L . E d . 2 d 3 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ).” ¶81. Itis als o w or th not i ng thati n Jones , on w hi c h H a va r d no w r e l i e s f or hi s a r gu m ent b e fo re th is C o u rt, th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted : W e have neve rbef

or e held thataggr avat i ng f actors could be dupl i cat i ve s o as to re n d e r th e m c o n stitu tio n a lly in v a lid , n o r h a v e w e p a ss e d

o n th e “ do u b le count i ng” theor

y thatthe Tenth C i r cui tadvance d i n McCullah a n d th e F ifth C i r cui tappea r s t o have f ol l ow ed her e. W hatw e have s ai d i s thatthe w ei ghi ng pr oces s m ay be i m perm i s s i bl y s kew ed i f the s ent enci ng j ury cons i der s an in v a lid fa c to r. See Str inge rv. Blac k , 503 U . S. 222, 232, 117 L . E d. 2d 367, 1 1 2 S . C t. 1 1 3 0 (1 9 9 2 ). Jones v. U

nited States , 5 2 7 U .S . 3 7 3 , 3 9 8 (U .S . 1 9 9 9 ) (fo o tn o te o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis in
o ri g inal). ¶ 8 2 . Be c a u s e Ha v a r d d o e s n o t p r e s e n t a n o v e l c l a i m o r a s u d d e n r e v e r s a l o f r e l e v a n tl a w, th is iss u e is b a rre d b y re s ju d ica ta. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); see al so L o c k e tt , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 7 .40

X II I. C o m p e te n c y o f tr ia l co u n se l. ¶83. In t his n ext i ssue, H avar d as s ert s thatR obertE . C l ark, one of H avard’ s defense att orneys , w as i ncompet entt o pur s ue l egal r el i ef on H avar d’ s behal f

. Iti s H avar d’ s f

ur ther
as s ert i on t hatC l ark w as i nt oxi cat ed dur i ng H avar d’ s tr i al , beca us e i n a new s papercl i ppi ng des cr i bi ng C l ark’ s arr es t , the C oncor di a Par i s h Sher i f f , R andy M axw el l , s t at ed, “W e’ ve bee n
w o rk in g o n th is a w h ile .” W e s le y S te c k le r a n d K a tie S ta llc u p , A t t or ney Arr es t ed on D r ug C h a r g e s , T h e N a tc h e z D e m o c ra t, J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , a t 1 A a n d 3 A
. ¶84. I r oni cal l y, H avar d st at es i n hi s af f i davi tt hathe saw C l ark us e mar i j uana, ecs t acy, and
c r a c k
- c o c a i n e t h e f

i r s tt i me Ha v a r d me tCl a r k a r o u n d Nov e mb e ro f 2 0 0 1 . Be twe e n th a tt i me an d the tim e C lark w as a p p o inted as H av ard ’s c o u n sel, H av ard states th at h e w en t t o C lark’s hom e tw o orthr ee mor e t i m es t o hang outand us e drugs . T he l as tt i m e w as tw o w eeks bef or e H avar d w as arr es t ed. B y H avar d’ s ow n admi s s i on, he knew and bel i eved hi s couns el t o us e drugs . A ny conce rns H avar d m ay have had r egar di ng hi s cou nsel ’ s drug us e w as c e rta in ly c a p a b le o f b e in g ra ise d a t trial o r o n d ire c t ap p e a l, an d th e iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b arred
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 - 21 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶85. N otw i ths t and i ng t he procedur al bar , H avar d’ s as s ert i on that C l ark w as i nt oxi cat ed dur i ng hi s tr i al i s s pecul at i on atbes tand w i thoutm er i t . H avar d s t at es i n hi s af f i davi tthathe bel i eves hi s f

ami l y t ol d the j udge thathe w as notc om f or t abl e havi ng C l ark as hi s att orney

“ b u t I d o n ’t th in k th e y w e n t in to g re a t d e tail a s to w h y I fe lt th a t w a y . I d o b e liev e th a t is
w hy G us Serm os w as a ppoi nt ed t o r epr es entme as w el l
. . . . ” H avar d f ur thers t at es thathe
w as conc erned d rugs w ere af fect i ng C l ark’ s perf

orm ance bu td i d n ot s ay an ythi ng becau se41

he “w as i n enough tr oubl e w i th the murde rchar ge and w as a f r ai d thata dm i t t i ng I us ed drugs
w ith C la rk , m ig h t m a k e m y s itu a tio n w o rs e .” ¶86. H avar d h as present ed no t hing to t hi s C our tthus f arthathas s how n an i ndi ci a of
un fai rness or prej ud i ce atH avard’s tri al
. A dd i t i on al l y, A t t orney G us S erm os al so
r epr es ent ed H avar d attr i al
. Fi nal l y, each an d every cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el , orotherw i s e, al l eged by H avar d on di r ectappea l and i n thes e pos t - convi ct i on p ro c e e d in g s, h a s b e e n fo u n d to b e w ith o u t m e rit. T h is iss u e is, like w ise , w ith o u t m e rit. X I V . C um ul at i ve er ror. ¶87. H avar d m akes a gener i c ar gum ent that the al l eged pr ece di ng err or s , i n the aggr egat e, fa tally co m p ro m ise d h is c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec ted rig h t t o a fa ir trial. T h e sta n d a rd fo r th is C o u rt ' s rev iew o f an ap p ea l f rom a c ap it al m u rde r co n v ict ion a n d d ea th se n tenc e is clea r. C onvi ct i ons upon i ndi ctm ent s f orcapi t al murde ra nd s ent ence s of de ath mustbe s ubj ect ed t o "heightened scrut i ny . " B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 598 So. 2d 731, 739 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng Sm ith
v. S ta te , 4 9 9 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); W e st v. S ta te , 4 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). U nd er this st and ard of r eview , al l do ub t s ar e t o b e res olved i n favor of the acc used b ecause "w hatmay be ha r m l es s err ori n a ca s e w i th l es s ats t ake be comes r ever s i bl e err orw hen the pen al ty is death. " I

d. ( quot i ng Ir v in gv. S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 3 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 ))
. See a l so Fish e r v . S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ). ¶88. I n B

y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836 ( M i s s . 2003) , thi s C our thel d: W h a t w e w is h to c lar ify h e re to d a y is th a t u p o n a p p e llate re v iew o f c a se s in w hi ch w e f

i nd harm l es s err ororany err orw hi ch i s notspec i f i cal l y found t o be r ever s i bl e i n and of

i t s el f , w e s hal l have the di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne, on a cas e-42

by- cas e bas i s , as t o w hethers uch err ororerr or s , al though notr ever s i bl e w hen st and i ng al on e, m ay w he n con si dered cu m ulat i vely r equ i re r eversal becau se o f th e re su lti n g c u m u lativ e p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. Id . a t 8 4 6 -4 7 . ¶89. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the r ecor d s uppor t s no f i ndi ng of err or , harm l es s orotherw i s e, upon the partof

the tr i al court . W e thus fi nd ther e i s no pr ej udi ci al cumul at i ve ef f ectand no
a d v e rse im p a c t u p o n H a v a rd ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to fa ir trial. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶90. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, H avar d’ s pet i t i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s deni ed. ¶ 9 1 . P ET I TI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF DE NI ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y . D I A Z , P .J ., DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.