[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 53 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cv -2 46 24 -MGC

TIMOTHY SNEED,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

vers us
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Resp on de nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 7, 2 01 2)

Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 1 of 17Tim ot hy Sn eed , a Fl or id a st at e pr is on er, ap pe al s pr o se fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of hi s 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 ha be as pe ti ti on

. He arg ue s t ha t t he st at e co ur t erre d

in reject in g hi s cl ai m s th at : (1 ) hi s am en de d in fo rm at io n was in va li d; (2 ) hi s sp eed y

tri al rig ht s were vi ol at ed ; (3 ) hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly

ob ject to th e St at e’s us e of pe rem pt or y st rik es to rem ov e bl ack pr os pe ct iv e juro rs an d

fai li ng to pr es erv e th e is su e fo r ap pe al ; (4 ) hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng

to ob ject to th e ex cl us io n of ho m os ex ua ls fro m th e ve ni re an d pe ti t jury; (5 ) hi s tri al

co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly in ve st ig at e juro r m is co nd uc t; (6 ) hi s

tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject to th e St at e’s im

pr op er cl os in g

arg um en t; (7 ) hi s co nt in ue d in carc erat io n is il le ga l du e to th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of hi s

tri al co un se l’s erro rs ; an d (8 ) hi s ap pe ll at e co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se

cert ai n a rg um en ts on ap pe al . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm

.
W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al or gr an t of a § 2 2 5 4 h a b e as pe ti ti on de

n o v o

. McNa ir v. Cam

pb el l, 41 6 F.3 d 12 91 , 12 97 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). W e rev i e w

qu es ti on s of la w a nd m ix ed qu es ti on s of la w a nd fact de no vo , a n d f i n d in gs of fact

fo r cl ear e rro r. Ny la nd v. Mo or e, 21 6 F .3d 12 64 , 12 66 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ). A d is tri ct

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n reg ard in g th e su ffi ci en cy of an in di ct m en t is a qu es ti on of la w

su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w. Uni te d St at es v. Ndi ay e, 43 4 F.3d 12 70 , 12 80 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 06 ). A cl ai m fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l is rev ie wed de no vo as a m ix ed

2 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 2 of 17qu es ti on of la w an d fact

. Rh od e v. Hall , 58 2 F.3 d 12 73 , 12 79 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). The

pl ead in gs of a pro se l it ig an t m us t b e co ns tru ed li be ral ly. Pu gh v. Sm it h, 4 65 F.3 d

12 95 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

Pu rs ua nt to th e Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct of 1 99 6,

An ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ o f h a b e a s co rp us on be ha lf of a pe rs on in

cu st od y pu rs ua nt to th e jud gm en t of a St at e co ur t sh al l no t be gr an te d wit h res pe ct to an y cl ai m th at was ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts in St at e
co ur t p ro ceed in gs un le ss th e ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m
-- (1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , or i nv ol ve d an
un reas on a b l e ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by the Su pr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or
(2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba s e d o n an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e
co ur t p ro ceed in g.

28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). So , al th ou gh we rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

ab ou t whe th er a st at e co ur t reas on ab ly ap pl ie d fed eral la w or de te rm in ed th e fact s, we

owe de fere nc e to th e fin al st at e ha be a s ju d gm en t. Hall v. Tho m as , 61 1 F.3 d 12 59 ,
12 84 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). Thi s de fere nc e ap pl ie s whe ne ve r a cl ai m was ad jud ic at ed “ on

th e m eri ts .” Log gi ns v. Th om as , 65 4 F .3d 12 04 , 12 18 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ).

Fo r § 22 54 pu rp os es , a cl ai m is pr es um ed to be ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts if th e

fed eral cl ai m is pr es en te d to th e st at e co ur t an d th e st at e co ur t has de ni ed rel ie f. Id

.

at 12 19

. W e ha ve he ld th at a s t a t e c o u r t ’s su m m ary reject io n of a cl ai m , wit ho ut

3 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 3 of 17d i s c us si on , qu al ifi es as an ad jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts un de r § 22 54 (d ), an d, th u s ,

warra nt s de fere nc e. W rig ht v. Sec’y fo r th e Dep ’t of Co rr., 27 8 F.3 d 12 45 , 12 53 -5 4
(1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). W e reas on ed th at th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e on ly req ui red “ a
reject io n of th e cl ai m on th e m e r i t s , no t an ex pl an at io n.” Id

. at 12 54 -5 5.

Acco rd in gl y , al th ou gh th e st at e co ur t’s Mar ch 20 10 or de r on ly di sc us se d on e gr ou nd

in de ta il , it can be co ns id ered an ad jud ic at io n on th e m eri ts of th e ot he r te n gr ou nd s

in cl ud ed in th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) be cau se th e or de r m en ti on ed th at

th e co ur t h ad pre vi ou sl y

de ni ed th os e cl ai m s.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s cl ari fie d th at th e ph ras e “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d” in §

22 54 ( d) (1 ) refe rs to th e ho ld in gs , as op po se d to th e di ct a, of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s

de ci si on s at th e t i me of th e rel ev an t st at e co ur t de ci si on

. Loc kyer v. And rad e, 53 8

U.S. 63 , 71 (2 00 3)

. Thu s, “ cl earl y e s t a bl is he d Fed eral la w” m ean s th e Su pr em e

Co ur t’s go ve rn in g le ga l pr in ci pl es at th e ti m e th e st at e co ur t ren de rs it s de ci si on

. Id

.

a t 71 -7 2. A st at e co ur t de ci si on is “ co nt rary to ” es ta bl is he d la w: (1 ) if th e st at e

arri ve s at a co nc lu si on op p o s i t e t o th at reac he d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t on a le ga l

qu es ti on ; or (2 ) if a st at e co ur t co nf ro nt s fact s th at are “ m at eri al ly in di st in gu is ha bl e”

fro m rel ev an t Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t , b u t a r riv es at an op po si te res ul t fro m th at

arri ve d at by th e Su pr em e Co ur t. W il li am s v. Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 36 2, 40 5- 06 (2 00 0)

.
I f n o Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t is on po in t, a st at e co ur t’s co nc lu si on can no t be

4 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 4 of 17co nt rary to cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w as de te rm in ed by th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t.

W as hi ng to n v. Cro sb y , 32 4 F.3 d 12 63 , 12 65 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). A st at e co ur t de ci si on

“ un reas on ab l[y] ap pl i[e s]” cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w if t h e st at e co ur t un reas on ab ly

ap pl ie s t he est ab li sh ed law t o t he fact s o f a cas e. W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 07

.
Sect io n 22 54 (d ) rev ie w as ks on ly if “ th ere is no po ss ib il it y fai rm in de d juri st s

co ul d di sa gr ee th at th e s ta te co ur t’s de ci si on co nf li ct s wit h [th e Su pr em e] Co ur t’s

pr eced en ts .” Cav e v. Sec’y , Dep ’t of Co rr., 63 8 F.3 d 73 9, 74 4 (1 1t h Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d) , cert

. de ni ed , 13 2 S. Ct

. 47 3 (2 01 1)

. Thu s, “ a st at e pr is on er m us t sh ow th at

th e st at e co ur t’s rul in g o n t he cla im be in g p res en te d i n fe de ral co ur t was so lac ki ng

in jus ti fic at io n th at th ere was an erro r well un de rs to od an d co m pr eh en de d in ex is ti ng

la w be y on d an y po ss ib il it y fo r f a irmind ed di sa gr eem en t.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.
To ov erco m e th e de fere nc e owe d to st at e co ur t fact ua l de te rmi na ti on s, a pe ti ti on er

m us t pr es en t cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at th e st at e co ur t’s fact ua l fi ndi ngs were

un reas on ab le . Id. at 74 5; 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ).

I.

Fi rs t, we are un pe r s u a d e d by Sn eed ’s cl ai m th at th e st at e co ur t im pr op erl y reject ed hi s arg um en t th at hi s am en de d in fo rm at io n was in va li d (Gro un ds 4 an d 6 of

hi s p e t it io n)

. “ The su ffi ci en cy of a st at e in di ct m en t is an is su e on fed eral ha be as

co rp us on ly if th e in di ct m en t was so de fic ie nt th at th e co nv ic ti ng co ur t was de pr iv ed

5 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 5 of 17of juri sd ic ti on .” Heat h v. Jo ne s, 86 3 F.2 d 81 5, 82 1 (1 1t h Cir. 19 89 ). W e ha ve he ld

th at , “ [i]f an in di ct m en t sp eci fic al ly refe rs to th e st at ut e on whi ch th e c h arg e was

ba se d, [th at ] refe ren ce .

. . ad eq ua te ly in fo rm s th e de fen da nt of th e ch arg e.” Uni te d

St at es v. Fern , 15 5 F.3 d 13 18 , 13 25 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). “ Mo reo ve r, th e co ns ti tu ti on al

s t a n d a r d i s fu lfi ll ed by an in di ct m en t th at tra ck s th e wor di ng of th e st at ut e, as lo n g

as th e la ng ua ge set s fo rth th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he cri m e.” N di ay e, 43 4 F .3d at

12 99 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The el em en ts of se co nd de gr ee m ur de r un de r Fl or id a la w

as i t e x i s t e d in 19 98 were: (1 ) un la wfu l ki ll in g of a hu m an be in g; (2 ) whe n

pe rp et rat ed by an y act im m in en tl y da ng ero us to an ot he r an d ev in ci ng a d e p r a v ed

m in d reg ard le ss of hu m an li fe; an d (3 ) wit ho ut an y pr em ed it at ed de si gn to cau se

de at h. FLA. STAT. § 7 82 .04 (2 ) (1 99 8)

. Here, th e wor di ng of th e am en de d in fo rm at io n bo th pr ov id ed th e ci ta ti on to th e

sp eci fic st at ut es fo r th e of fen se an d us ed la ng ua ge ne arl y id e n t ic al to th e st at ut e,

whi ch co nt ai ne d al l th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e. Id

. The refo re, th e in di ct m en t

was co ns ti tu ti on al ly adeq ua te an d s uf fic ie nt ly info rm ed Sn eed of t he ch arg e. Fern ,
15 5 F.3 d at 13 25 ; Ndi ay e, 4 3 4 F

. 3 d at 13 04 -0 5. The st at e co ur t’s reject io n of th is

cl ai m was n ot co nt rary to o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Su pr em e Co ur t l aw.

II.

6 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 6 of 17W e al so fin d no m eri t to Sn eed ’s cl ai m th at th e st at e co ur t im pr op erl y reject ed

hi s s pe ed y tri al arg um en t (Grou nd 5)

. The re are th ree so ur ces of sp eed y tri al rig ht s

fo r cri m in al de fen da nt s: (1 ) th e Si xt h Am en dm en t to th e U

. S

. C o n st it ut io n; (2 ) th e

fed eral Sp eed y Tria l Act; an d (3 ) st at e sp eed y tri al r ul es

. The Si xt h Am en dm en t

pr ov id es th at “ [i]n al l cr im in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e accu se d sh al l en joy th e rig ht to a

sp eed y

. . . tri al .” U.S

. C o n s t

. a men d. VI. In de te rm in in g whe th er th e rig ht to a

sp eed y tri al was vi ol at ed , we co ns id er: (1 ) th e le ng th of th e de la y ; (2 ) th e reas on fo r

th e de la y ; (3 ) th e de fen da nt ’s as se rti on of hi s rig ht ; an d (4 ) pr ejud ic e to th e de fen da nt

.
Bark er v . W in go , 40 7 U.S. 5 14 , 53 0 (1 97 2) . W e h av e h el d t ha t i f th e st at e pu rs ue d

pr os ecu ti on wit h reas on ab le di li ge nc e, th en th e de fen da nt m us t sh ow act ua l pr ejud ic e

to pr ev ai l on a Si xt h Am en dm en t sp eed y tri al cl ai m

. Uni te d St at es v. Harri s, 37 6 F.3 d

12 82 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

“ The fir st f

a ct or se rv es a tri gg eri ng fu nc ti on ; un le ss so m e ‘pres um pt iv el y

pr ejud ic ia l’ pe rio d of de la y oc cu rred , we ne ed no t co n d u c t t h e rem ai nd er of th e

an al y si s.” Uni te d St at es v. Reg is te r, 18 2 F .3d 82 0, 8 27 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ A del ay

is co ns id ered pr es um

pt iv el y pr ejud ic ia l as it ap pr oa ch es on e y ear” fro m in di ct m en t

to tri al

. Uni te d St at es v. Sch le i, 12 2 F.3 d 94 4, 98 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ); se e al so Harri s,

37 6 F.3 d at 12 90 (an 18 -m on th de la y is pr es um pt iv el y pr ejud ic ia l). Diff

eren t weig ht s

are as si gn ed to di ffer en t reas on s fo r de la y

. Bark er, 40 7 U.S. at 53 1. A de li be rat e

7 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 7 of 17a t te m

pt to hi nd er th e de fen se is weig ht ed he av il y ag ai ns t th e St at e, ne gl ig en ce o r

ov ercr owd ed co ur ts are weig ht ed le ss he av il y , an d le gi ti m at e reas on s li ke a m is si ng

wit ne ss jus ti fy an ap pr op ria te de la y

. Id

. at 53 1, 53 4. Pret ria l de la y is of te n in ev it ab le

an d “ who ll y jus ti fia bl e” be cau se th e St at e m ay ne ed t i me to , in te r al ia , co ll ect

wit ne ss es ag ai ns t th e accu se d. Dog ge tt v. Unit ed St at es , 50 5 U.S. 64 7, 65 6 (19 92 ).

The fed eral Sp eed y Tria l Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 31 61 -3 17 4, do es no t ap pl y to st at e

co u r t p r o c e e di ng s. See Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 83 3 F.2 d 27 2, 27 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 87 ).

In st ead , as a Fl or id a pr is on er, Sn eed ’s rig ht s were go ve rn ed by Fl or id a’s sp eed y tri al

ru le s. See Fl a. R

. C rim. P. 3.1 91

. The se ru le s are no t co nt ro ll in g, ho wev er, be cau se

th ey are no t ba se d on cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral l a w , ha vi ng be en pr om ul ga te d by

Fl or id a an d no t th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). In de ed , qu es ti on s

of st at e la w rare ly rai se is su es of fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al si gn ifi can ce an d, th eref or e,

“ [a] st at e’s in te rp ret at io n of it s own la ws or ru le s pr ov id es no ba si s fo r fed eral ha be as

co rp us rel ie f, si nc e no qu es ti on of a co ns ti tu ti on al na tu re is in vo lv ed .” Carr iz al es v.

W ai nwr ig ht , 69 9 F.2 d 10 53 , 10 55 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 83 ). A vi ol at io n of Fl or id a’s sp eed y

tri al ru le s do es no t “ go to th e fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s of th e tri al ” so th at it is co gn iz ab le

in a § 2 25 4 p et it io n. Dav is v. Wain wrig ht , 54 7 F .2d 26 1, 2 64 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7)

. 1

I n Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to October 1, 1981.

8 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 8 of 17Here, th e cen tra l qu es ti on is whe th er th e de te rm in at io n by th e Fl or id a co ur t th at

Sn eed was no t dep riv ed of th e ri gh t t o a sp eed y tri al was c on tra ry

to or i nv ol ve d an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w. To th e ex te nt th at Sn eed

al le ge d a vi ol at io n of Fl or id a’s sp eed y tri al ru le s, th at type of cl ai m is no t co gn iz ab le

on fed eral ha be as rev ie w bec au se it on ly in vo lv es st at e p ro ced ur al rul es rat he r th an

erro rs of f

ed eral co ns ti tu ti on al di m en si on

.
To th e ex te nt th at Sn eed ’s pe ti ti on , li be ral ly co ns tru ed , as se rte d a vi ol at io n of

hi s fed eral sp eed y tri al rig ht s, hi s cl ai m st il l fai ls

. As no te d ab ov e, th e fed eral Sp eed y

Tria l Act do es no t ap pl y to st at e co ur ts , so Sn eed ha s to rel y on th e Si xt h Am en dm en t

as ex pr es se d in th e Bark er fact or s. Bu t ev en as su m in g arg ue nd o t h a t t wo Bark er

fact or s -- th e le ng th of th e de la y an d pr ejud ic e -- weigh ag ai ns t th e St at e, Sn eed ha s

no t sh own th at th e rem ai ni ng two fact or s -- whe n th e de fen d a n t a s s ert ed hi s rig ht
(n earl y f o u r ye a rs aft er th e am en de d in fo rm at io n was fil ed ) an d th e reas on fo r th e

de la y (u nc le ar fro m th e reco rd )

-- w e i gh in hi s fav or

. As a res ul t, Sn eed ha s no t

sh own th at “ th ere is n o p o s si bi li ty fai rm in de d juri st s co ul d di sa gr ee th at th e st at e

co ur t’s d e c i si on co nf

li ct s wit h [th e Su pr em e] Co ur t’s pr eced en ts .” Cav e, 63 8 F.3 d

at 74 4 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.
III.

9 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 9 of 17Nor do we ag ree wi th Sn eed ’s cla im th at th e st at e co ur t erre d i n re jecti ng hi s

arg um en t th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ob ject to th e

St at e’s us e of pe rem

pt or y st rik es to rem ov e bl ack pr os pe ct iv e juro rs an d fai li ng to

pr es erv e th e is su e fo r ap p e a l ( G r o u nd s 9 an d 10 ). The Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

pr ov id es th at in “ al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e accu se d s h al l en joy th e rig ht

. . . to

ha ve th e Ass is ta nc e of Co un se l fo r hi s de fen [s e].” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. To m ak e

a su cces sf

ul cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, a d efen da nt m us t s ho w th at :
(1 ) co unse l’ s pe rf

orm an ce was de fic ie nt ; an d (2 ) th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ice d

hi s de fen se

. St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7 (1 98 4)

. Bo th pa rts of th e

t e s t m us t be m et , t hu s, if a de fen da nt can no t sa ti sf y th e pe rfo rm an ce pr on g, a c o u r t

do es no t ne ed to ad dr es s th e pr ejud ic e pr on g, an d vi ce ve rs a. Mi ch ael v. Cro sb y , 43 0

F.3 d 1 31 0, 1 31 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.
In de te rm in in g whe th er co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic i en t, “ co un se l is

st ro ng ly pr es um ed to ha ve ren de red ad eq ua te as si st an c e a n d made al l si gn ifi can t

de ci si on s in th e ex erci se of reas on ab le pr of es si on al jud gm en t.” St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S.

at 69 0. “ The te st fo r reas on ab le ne ss is no t whe th er co un se l co ul d ha ve do ne

s o met h i n g m or e or di ffer en t; in st ead ,” th e pe ti ti on er m us t sh ow th at co un se l’s

pe rfo rm an ce fel l ou ts id e th e “ wid e ran ge ” of pr of es si on al ly co m

pe te nt as si st an ce.
Payne v

. All en , 53 9 F.3 d 12 97 , 13 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Co ur ts

10 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 10 of 17ap pl y a “ do ub ly” de fere nt ia l st an da rd in th e in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce co nt ex t th at ta ke s

in to acco un t § 22 54 ’s de fere nc e to st at e co ur ts an d th e or di na ry de fere nc e to co un se l,

affi rm in g if “ th ere is an y reas on ab le arg um en t th at co un se l” act e d pu rs ua nt to

pr ev ai l i ng pr of

es si on al st an da rd s as se t fo rth in co nt ro ll in g la w. See Harri ng to n v.

Ri ch te r, 56 2 U.S. _

_, _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . 77 0, 7 88 (20 11 ).

To es ta bl is h pr ejud ic e, th e pe ti ti on er ha s th e bu rd en to sh ow m or e th an th at th e

erro r ha d “ so m e co nc ei va bl e effe ct on th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in g.” Mar qu ard v.
Sec’y fo r Dep ’t of Co rr., 42 9 F.3 d 12 78 , 13 05 (1 1t h Cir. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

“ Rat he r, th e p et it io ne r m

us t s ho w t ha t th ere is a rea so na bl e p ro ba bi li ty tha t, b ut for

co un se l’s un pr of

es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en

di ffer en t.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W he n ev al ua ti ng pr ejud ic e, we lo ok at th e “ en ti re

ev id en ti ary pi ct ur e.” Aga n v . Sin gl et ary, 12 F.3d 10 12 , 10 19 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ).

The Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se pr oh ib it s St at es fro m de nyin g “ to an y pe rs on

wit hi n it s juri sd ic ti on th e eq ua l pro te ct io n of the la ws.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. XIV, §

1. The Su pr em e Co ur t h as he ld th at a pr os ecu to r’s us e of pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es to

ex cl ud e Afri can Am eri can s fo r race -rel at ed reas on s fro m ser vi ng on a jury v io la te s

th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se

. Bat so n v. Ken tu ck y , 47 6 U.S. 79 , 89 (1 98 6)

. W e ha ve

in te rp ret ed Bat so n su ch th at “ cri m in al de fe n d a n t s a nd ex cl ud ed juro rs al ik e are

11 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 11 of 17de ni ed eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la ws whe n th e tri al jury is co ns tru ct ed in a raci al ly

di sc riminat or y

m an ne r.” Eag le v. Lin ah am , 27 9 F .3d 92 6, 9 43 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

Bat so n req ui res a co ur t to un de rta k e a th ree- st ep an al y si s to ev al ua te eq ua l

p r o te ct io n ch al le ng es to a pr os ecu to r’s us e of pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es

. 47 6 U.S. at

96 -9 8; McGa he e v. Alab am a Dep ’t of Co rr., 56 0 F.3d 12 52 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ).

F i r s t, a de fen da nt m

us t m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng of pu rp os efu l di sc rimin a t i o n

ba s e d u po n a pr oh ib it ed gr ou nd

. Bat so n, 47 6 U.S. at 96 -9 7. A pr im a faci e cas e is

es ta bl is he d whe re a de fen da nt sh ows th at “ he is a m em be r of a co gn iz a b le raci al

gr ou p an d th at th e rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces rai se an in fere nc e th at th e pr os ecu ti on ha s

ex erci se d pe rem

pt or y ch al le ng es to rem ov e fro m th e ve ni re m em be r s of hi s race .”

Bu i v. Hale y , 32 1 F.3 d 13 04 , 13 13 (1 1t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( q uo ta ti on an d al te rat io ns

om it te d) . Upo n s uc h a sh owi ng , th e b ur de n o f pr oo f sh ift s t o t he Sta te to pro vi de a

race -n eu tra l ex pl an at io n fo r ex cl ud in g th e juro rs

. Bat so n, 47 6 U.S. at 97

. Fi na ll y , in

li gh t of th e pa rti es ’ su bm is si on s, th e tri al co ur t ha s th e d u t y t o de te rm in e if th e

de fen da nt est ab li sh ed pu rp os efu l d is cri m in at io n. Id . at 9 8.

W he n ass es si ng th e cred ib il it y of th e pr os ecu to r’s pr of fere d reas on s, the tri al

co ur t m ay lo ok to th e pr os ecu to r’s de m ean or , th e reas on ab le ne ss or im pr ob ab il it y of

th e reas on s, an d whe th er th e reas on is gr ou nd ed in pr op er tri al st rat eg y

. Mi ll er-El v.

Co ck rel l, 5 37 U.S. 32 2, 3 38 -3 9 (2 00 3) . Like wis e, th at th e p ro se cu to r’s reas on s fo r

12 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 12 of 17st rik in g a juro r ap pl y eq ua ll y as well to an ot he rwis e si m il ar juro r of a di ffer en t cl as s

is ev id en ce of pu rp os efu l di sc riminat io n. See Mi ll er-El v. Dret ke , 54 5 U.S. 23 1, 24 1
(2 00 5)

. The im

pl au si bi li ty of a reas on m ay ev id en ce pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. See

Co ck rel l, 53 7 U.S. at 33 9. The ul ti m at e bu rd en of p e r s u a s i on reg ard in g im pr op er

m ot iv at io n res ts wit h, an d n e v e r sh ift s fro m , th e pa rty ch al le ng in g th e pe rem pt or y

st rik e. Pu rk et t v . Elem , 51 4 U.S. 7 65 , 76 8 (1 99 5)

.
In th is cas e, we can no t sa y th at th e Fl or id a st at e co ur t’s jud gm en t was co nt rary

to , or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w, sp eci fic al ly th e

Su pr em e Co ur t’s ho ld in g in B a t s o n

. As fo r th e St at e’s st rik e of th e fir st bl ack

pr os pe ct iv e juro r, th e in te ract io n be twee n th e pa rti es an d th e st at e co ur t (wh ere, up on

be in g ch al le ng ed , t h e St at e rev eal ed th at it wis he d to st rik e th is juro r be cau se two

pr os ecu to rs ha d se en he r sl eep in g du rin g th e jury se le ct io n pr oc es s, an d th e tri al co ur t

th en m ov ed on to th e ne xt juro r) was ad eq ua te un de r Bat so n, so tri al co un se l was no t

in effe ct iv e in th at res pe ct

. See Hig ht owe r v. Terry, 45 9 F.3 d 10 67 , 10 72 n.9 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 06 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at a tri al jud ge can im pl ic it ly fin d a pr os ecu to r’s pr of fere d

reas on s cred ib le ). Mo reo ve r, e v e n a s s u m in g th at Sn eed ’s co un se l erre d by no t

m ak in g fu rth er effo rts to pr es erv e a Bat so n ch al le ng e fo r ap pe al , Sn eed di d no t sh ow

pr ejud ic e; i.e., be cau se hi s Bat so n cl ai m wou ld ha ve be en m eri tl es s, it wou ld no t ha ve

ha d a reas on ab le pro ba bi li ty of su cces s o n a pp eal . Stri ck la nd , 46 6 U.S. at 68 7.

13 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 13 of 17As fo r th e St at e’s st rik e of th e se co nd bl ack pr os pe ct iv e juro r, th e reco rd

in di cat es th at Sn eed ’s c ou ns el di d no t ob ject to th e s tri ke

. Bu t ev en if co un se l was

de fic ie nt fo r fai li ng to ch al le ng e th e St at e’s st rik e pu rs ua nt to Bat so n, Sn eed co ul d

no t es ta bl is h th e pr ejud ic e pr on g of St ric kl an d. In de ed , S n e e d h as no t sh own th at ,
ha d co un se l ob

jecte d, hi s ch al le ng e wou ld ha ve be en su c c e s s fu l, no r is it cl ear th at

th e se co nd pr os pe ct iv e bl ack juro r be in g on th e jury wou ld ha ve carr ie d a reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y

of c ha ng in g t he ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l. Ma rq ua rd , 42 9 F .3d at 1 30 5.

IV.

W e al so fin d no m eri t in Sn eed ’s rem ai ni ng arg u men t s on ap pe al , whi ch we

di sp os e of qu ic kl y

. As fo r hi s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce arg um en t ba se d on tri al co un se l’s

fai lu re to ob

ject to th e ex cl us io n of ho m os ex ua ls f r o m t h e v e ni re an d pe ti t jury
(Gro un d 17 ), Sn eed ha s pres en te d no ev id en ce con cern in g th e se xu al or ie nt at io n of

th e m em be rs of th e jury po ol or th e pe ti t jury, no r di d h e e s t a b l i sh ho w m an y

ho m os ex ua ls , if an y , w e r e am on g th e ve ni re or pe ti t jury. Bec au se he di d no t

d e mo n st rat e th at ho m os ex ua ls were un de rrep res en te d, he fai le d to m ak e hi s fa i r

cro ss -s ect io n cl ai m un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t an d hi s di sc riminat or y jury se le ct io n

c l a i m un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Dur en v.

Mi ss ou ri, 43 9 U.S. 35 7, 36 4 (1 97 9) ; Cas ta ne da v. Part id a, 43 0 U.S. 48 2, 49 4 (1 97 7)

.
Mo reo ve r, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ne ve r he ld th at ho m os ex ua li ty is a pr ot ect ed cl as s

14 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 14 of 17fo r pu rp os es of an al y zi ng di sc riminat io n in jury se le ct io n un de r Bat so n. See Uni te d

St at e s v

. Eh rm an n, 42 1 F.3 d 77 4, 78 1- 82 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Fu rth er, si nc e al l of

Sn eed ’s jury se le ct io n cl ai m s reg ard in g ho m os ex ua ls are wit ho ut m eri t, tri al co un se l

was no t in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se th em be fo re the st at e ha be as co ur t. Ch an dl er

v. Mo or e, 24 0 F.3 d 90 7, 91 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (co un se l i s n ot in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng

to rai se a no n- m eri to rio us ob jecti on ). Acco rd in gl y , th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on de nyin g

Sn e e d ’s c l a i m in th is reg ard was no t co nt rary to or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

cl earl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law.

As for Sn eed ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce clai m ba se d on tri al co un se l’s fail ur e to

ad eq ua te ly in ve st ig at e juro r m is co nd uc t (Gro un ds 7 an d 8) , th e st at e co ur t di d no t

cl earl y err by co nc lu di ng th at th e su bjec t of th e juro r n o t e s t h a t S ne ed fo un d in th e

tra sh can was no t rel ev an t to Sn eed ’s tr i a l, si nc e no th in g on th e pa pe rs refe rred to

Sn eed , t h e t r i a l , hi s race , or hi s se xu al or ie nt at io n. Bec au se th ere was no juro r

m is co nd uc t, th e st at e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at tri al co un se l w as no t in effe ct iv e fo r

fai li ng to fu rth er in ve st ig at e th e no te s co ul d no t ha ve be en co nt rary to or an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Su pr em e Co ur t l aw.

Nor was th e st at e co ur t’s reject io n of hi s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m ba se d on

tri al co un se l’s fai lu re to ob ject to th e St at e’s im

pr op er cl os in g arg um en t (Gro un d 15 )

c o n t rary to or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of Su pr em e Co ur t la w. As th e reco rd

15 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 15 of 17sh ows , th e rem ark s in th e pr os ecu to r’s cl os in g arg um en t -- th at Sn eed an d hi s co un se l

were “ ta lk in g ou t of bo th si de s of [th ei r] mo u t h [ s ], ” th at Sn eed ha d pu t on a

pe rfo rm an ce on th e st an d, an d th at Sn eed te st ifi ed aft er he ari ng ot he r wit ne ss es te st ify

-- were is ol at ed co m

m en ts th at di d no t te nd to m is le ad th e jury. Fu rth er, com pe te nt

ev id en ce li ke ly su pp or te d th e ve rd ic t be cau se juri es at two tri al s co nv ic te d Sn eed , an d

th ere t h u s w as no reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e ou tc om e m ay ha ve be en di ffer en t

ot he rwis e. Don ne ll y v. DeCh ris to fo ro , 41 6 U.S. 63 7, 64 2- 45 (1 97 4) ; Han ce v. Zan t,

69 6 F.2 d 94 0, 95 0 n.7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 83 ), ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s, Bro ok s v. Kem p,

76 2 F.2 d 13 83 (1 1t h C i r

. 19 85 ). In ad di ti on , t he Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ne ve r fo un d a

pr os ecu to r’s cl os in g arg um en t so i mp r o pe r th at it vi ol at ed th e de fen da nt ’s du e

pr oc es s rig ht s, so we can no t sa y th at th e st at e co ur t un reas on ab ly ap pl ie d fed eral la w

in de nyin g Sn eed ’s cl ai m fo r rel ie f. Ree se v. Sec., Fl a. Dep ’t of Co rr., 67 5 F.3 d 12 77 ,
12 87 -8 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.
As fo r Sn eed ’s cu m

ul at iv e erro r cl ai m (Gro un d 18 ), ne it he r erro r li st ed in hi s

in it ia l br ie f -- th e St at e’s us e of pe rem pt or y st rik es an d th e ex cl us io n of ho m os ex ua ls

fro m th e jury ve ni re an d pe ti t ju r y
- - ha s m eri t, as we’ve al read y di sc us se d.

Acco rd in gl y , th ere are no erro rs to accu m ul at e, an d th e st at e co ur t’s reject io n of th is

cl ai m was no t co nt rary to or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of Su pr em e Co ur t la w. See

Bo rd en v. A l l e n , 64 6 F.3 d 78 5, 82 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ Bec au se Bo rd en ha s no t

16 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 16 of 17su ffi ci en tl y pl ed fact s th at wou ld es ta bl is h pr ejud ic e -- cu m ul at iv e or ot he rwis e -- we

de cl in e to el ab or at e fu rth er on [a cu m ul at iv e-ef fect in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

cl ai m ] fo r fea r of

is su in g a n a dv is or y

op in io n o n a hypo th et ic al is su e.”).

Fi na ll y , th e st at e co ur t’s re j ec tio n of Sn eed’s ap pe ll at e-co un se l-i ne ffec ti ve ne ss

cl ai m was no t con tra ry to or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of Sup rem e Co ur t law. As

we’ve al read y di sc us se d, no ne of Sn eed ’s ch al le ng ed al le ge d erro rs , so far as th ey are

en co m pa ss ed in th e COA, are m eri to rio us ; as a res ul t, ap pe ll at e co un se l can no t be

de em ed in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ha ve rai se d th em on di rect ap pe al

. S e e C a rd v.
Dug ge r, 91 1 F.2 d 14 94 , 15 20 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 90 ) (h ol di ng th at ap pe ll at e co un se l is no t

req ui red to rai se m eri tl es s is su es on ap pe al ). Mo reo ve r, Sn eed was no t pr ejud ic ed by

co un se l’s fai lu re to rai se th os e is su es si nc e th e arg um en ts ha d no reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y

of s uc ces s. Eag le , 27 9 F .3d at 9 43

.
AFFIRMED.

17 Case: 11-15535 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 17 of 17