E f f ect i ve J ul y 31, 2013, A t t orney Sw art zf agerr es i gned hi s pos i t i on as D i r ect orof the 1 M i s s i s s i ppi O f

f i ce of C api t al Post
- C onvi ct i on C ouns el ; how ever , he not i f i ed thi s C our tthat he w i l l r emai n as couns el o f r ecor d on a pr o bono bas i s as w el l as the s pons or i ng l ocal cou nsel of r ecord for Teresa L
. N orr i s.

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

NO. 2 0 1 1 - DR- 0 0 0 2 8 - S CT ERIC M OFFETT
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 16/ 2010 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR P E T I T I ONE R: OF F I CE OF CA P I T AL P OS T
- CO NVI CT I ON RELI EF B Y : L O U WL Y N N WI L L I A MS GLEN N S. SW AR TZFAGER 1 T E R E S A L
. N O R R IS AT T OR NE YS F OR RE S P ONDE NT S : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : JA S O N L
. D A V IS M ARVI N L. W HI TE , J R. N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: 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 I S D E N I E D - 04/ 24/ 2014 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. RAN DO LPH, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### 2

¶1. E r i c M of

f ettw as c onvi ct ed of

c api t al murde ra nd s ent ence d t o de ath by a j ury. T he ju ry d e ter m in e d th a t th e m u rd e r o f a fiv e -y e a r-o ld c h ild w a s: (1 ) c o m m itt e d w h ile M o ffe tt
w as enga ged i n fel on i ou s abuse an d/orbatt ery o f a ch il d; and (2) es pecial l y h ei no us,
a tro c io u s, o r c ru e l. ¶2. M of

f ett ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence w er e af f i r m ed by thi s C our t on di r ect appea l , and h is m o tio n fo r r e h e a ri n g w a s s u b s e q u e n tly d e n ie d
. Mo ffe tt v. S ta te , 49 S o. 3d 10 73 (M i ss. 2 0 1 0 ). M o ffe tt so u g h t re lief in th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt b y w a y o f a p e tit io n fo r w rit
o f c e rt io ra ri , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d o n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 1 1
. Mof f ett v. Mis s is s i

ppi , ___U
. S. ___, 132 S. C t . 127, 181 L
. E d. 2d 49 ( 2011). M off etthas pr es ent ed a mot i on, an amended mot i on,
an d a su p p lem en tal m o ti o n see k ing p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. ¶3. M of

f ett w as convi ct ed of a s avage s exual as s aul t on a f i ve- year - ol d gi r l , cul m i nat i ng i n h e rd e a th
. Co mp e l l i n g e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g c o n c l u s i v e DNA
e v id e n c e , e y e w itn e s s te s tim o n y , a n d a c o n fe s s io n , in te ra lia
. M of f e t tpr i mar i l y i s f

oc us ed on i nef f ect i ve-as s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m s , w hi ch w e ca t egor i ze i nt o thr ee pa r t s : ( 1) i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

A ndr e’ de G ruy and D an W
. D uggan, J r . , tr i al couns el , ( 2) i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

de G ruy and A l l i s on R
. St ei ner , appel l at e coun sel , and ( 3)
cu m u lat ive e rror. F ind ing n o m eritin an y o f M o ffett ’s claim s, w e d en y reli ef. S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶4. T he f

ol l ow i ng factual and p rocedu ral back groun d is gleaned fr om thi s C ourt ’ s opi ni on
o n d ire c t ap p e a l.

### 3

Fel i ci a G r i f

f i n w as s exual l y abus ed, [ FN 1] batt ered, [FN 2] and murde r ed dur i ng the ea r l y m orni ng hour s of D ece m ber31, 1994. F el i ci a l i ved i n J acks on w ith h e r tw o sis ter s; m o th e r, P e n n ie G riffin ; an d , P e n n ie’ s b o y frie n d , M o ffe tt. O n D ece mber30 , 19 94 , M of f e t t , Pe nn i e , a nd the thr e e gi r l s w e r e a thom e. M of f ettl ef tthe hous e atappr oxi m at el y 9: 45 p. m . w hi l e Penni e w as pr epar i ng to g o to w o rk
. P e n n ie e x p e c ted M o ffe tt’s m o th e r, F lo re n c e M o ffe tt P o w e ll, to a rriv e so o n to tak e h e r to w o rk . W h e n P o w e ll d id n o t t im e ly a rriv e , P e n n ie w en t to a ne arb y ga s st ati o n t o ph o n e h er em p loy er an d P o w ell. P e n n ie ch ec k ed o n the c h il d ren be fore l ea v ing , an d l o ck ed th e d o o r an d b u rglar b ars as s he depa r t ed. A f

t ergoi ng by Penni e’ s hom e, Pow el l pi cked up Penni e atthe gas s t at i on and p roceeded t o t ake Penni e t o w ork. I tw as di s put ed attr i al w hetherPow el l w as al one w hen she arr i ved att he gas s t at i on, orw hethers he w as acc om pani ed by herdaught er , Sher i tha M of f ett . Sher i tha t es t i f

i ed thats he had ac compani ed Pow el l and had obse r ved Pow el l ent ert he hous e l ooki ng f or Penni e. Pow el l di d nott es t i f y, as s he di ed bef

or e tr i al
. T he j ury hear d evi dence t hatM of f e t tr e turne d t o the h ou s e a f e w h ou r s l a t e r , t oo k Fe l i c i a i nt o t he bedr oom he s har ed w i th Fel i ci a’ s m other , abuse d F el i ci a, and sa vagel y r aped h e r w ith h is fin g e rs a n d fist. FN 1. T he per i neum had be en s avage l y r i pped ort orn, r es ul t i ng i n open c o m m u n ica tio n o f th e e x c re to ry o p e n in g o f th e a lim e n tar y c a n a l w ith hergeni t al or i f

i ce. F N 2. S he had brui s es on herneck, f ace , and l ef

tl eg; and pet echi al hemorrhages on herf

ace . M of f ettr eport ed Fel i ci a’ s death vi a a 911 c al l and aw ai t ed the arr i val of o ffi ce rs from the J ac k so n P o li ce D ep artm en t ( JP D ). A ft er the p o li ce o ffi ce rs arr i ved, M of

f ettexhi bi t ed ange rand bega n t o behave s tr angel y. H i s behavi or e s c a la te d t o t h e p o in t th a t h e w a s “ o u t o f c o n tr o l” a n d “ th ro w in g fu rn itu re ,” a c c o rd in g to th e te stim o n y o f p o lice o ffic e rs. F o u r o ffic e rs s u b d u e d M o ffe tt. H e w as handcuf

fed an d arr es t ed. Fr om hi s arr es ton D ece m ber31, 1994, M o ffe ttrem aine d inca rce rated u n ti l Se p tem b er 7 , 1 9 9 5 , w h en a g ran d jury re tu rn e d n o tru e b ill . M o ffe tt w a s re le a s e d th e sa m e d a y . H e h a d b e e n in cust od y 2 50 day s. Y ear s l at er , a JPD col d- cas e uni tre vi ew ed the f i l e and submi tt ed i t s f

i ndi ngs t o the di s tr i ctatt orney. M of f ettw as i ndi ct ed i n A pr i l 2002. M of f ettw as tr i ed, con vict ed, and r ece i ved a de ath s ent ence i n February 2006. Subst ant i al evi de nc e w a s pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l , i nc l ud i ng the l i ve t e s t i mony o f nu mer ous w i tnes s es . W i tnes s es i ncl uded, butw ere notl i m i t ed t o, Penni e G r i f f i n;

### 4

L aQ u an d ia G ri ffi n , the v ict im ’s si ster; D o n ald D av is, a p rison inm ate; M ary E s therPear s on, a nur s e pr act i t i oner ; H um a N as i r , a f or ens i c D N A anal ys tf

or a p ri v ate D N A labo ratory ; and D etec ti v e R o d E ri k sen , a JP D o ffi ce r. L aQ uandi a t es t i f

i ed thats he w as s even ye ar s ol d atthe t i m e of the murde r . T he ni ghtof the cr i m e, Penni e hel ped herand hers i s t er s , J es s i ca a nd Fel i ci a, get re a d y fo r b e d a n d c h e c k e d o n th e m b e fo re sh e lef t fo r w o rk . T h e th re e g irls w er e sl eepi ng on a pal l eti n a room acr os s t he hal l f r om the bedr oom s har ed by Penni e and M of

f ett . L i ght s w er e o n i n the gi r l s ’ bedr oom , the hal l w ay, and bathr oom . L aQ uandi a w oke up a nd s aw M of f etts t andi ng i n the doorw ay of the g irls’ b e d ro o m . S h e sa w M o ffe tt p ick u p F e licia , w h o w a s sle e p in g c lo se st to the door
. H e t ook Fel i ci a t o hi s bedroom
. H e di d notcl os e the door s al l the w ay, s o s he coul d s ee hi m . H e pl ace d Fel i ci a dow n on the bed a nd s t art ed to u c h in g a n d ru b b in g o n h e r c h e st a n d sto m a c h a re a s. S h e h e a rd F e licia m ak ing “a ll k ind o f pa infu l cries. ” S h e then d o ze d o ff, o n ly to b e a w o k en lat er. She s a w s omeo ne [ FN 3] i n the ha l l w a y g oi ng i nt o Pe nn i e ’ s be dr oo m. She r emem ber ed l ooki ng i nt o the bedr oom a nd s eei ng Fel i ci a “l ayi ng i n the bed and the cove r s w er e r eal bl oody. ” A f t erthe pol i ce a rr i ved, M of f ettappr oache d h e r, h u g g in g a n d a ttem p tin g to re a ss u re h e r. S h e re c a lled se e in g M o ffe tt “thr ow a f

i t , . . . he w as . . . yel l i ng and scr eami ng, . . . pi cki ng up chai r s and

. . . thr ow i ng thi ngs a s i f he ca r ed. ” She s aw the par amedi cs t ake Fel i ci a aw ay on a s tr et cher
. She w as nots ur e w hatshe t ol d t he pol i ceman w ho ques t i oned h e r a b o u t th e m u rd e r, bu t sh e d id re c a ll b e in g a fra id to tell h im a b o u t M o ffe tt, as he w as s t i l l i n the hous e atthe t i m e. FN 3. T hi s per s on w as l at erdet erm i ned t o have be en a pa r amedi c. D o n a ld D a v is, a n in m a te w ith M o ffe tt d u rin g th e 1 9 9 4 -9 5 c o n fin e m e n t, t es t i f i ed. D uri ng hi s t es t i m ony, he r ead a s t at ementhe had w r i t t en on Sept ember15, 1995, [ FN 4] w hen he w as i nt ervi ew ed by a J PD of f i ceratthe H in d s C o u n ty D e ten tio n C e n ter . M o ffe tt h a d c o n fe ss e d th e c rim e to D o n a ld D avi s ata B i bl e s tudy on Sept ember3, 19 95. T he conf es s i on had i ncl uded gr aphi c det ai l s of

the cr i m e and M of

f ett ’ s att emptt o s eek f

or gi veness by i nf l i ct i ng i nj ury upon hi m s el f ( s m as hi ng hi s hand i n a s t eel dooratthe d eten ti o n ce n ter). FN 4. T hi s w as af

t erthe no- bi l l r eportof

the Sept ember1995 gra nd j ury. M ary E s therPear s on t es t i f i ed thats he w as a nur s e pr act i t i onerw ho pr ovi ded m edi cal s ervi ces t o inm at es atthe det ent i on cent erw her e M of f ettw as inca rce rated
. S h e test if

ied that sh e tr ea ted M o ffettin M arc h 1 9 9 5 for a n injury

### 5

t o the mi ddl e and [ f

our th] f i nger s of hi s r i ght hand. M of

f ettt ol d herhe had “ m a s h e d [h is fi n g e rs ] in a d o o r.” H um a N as i rt es t i f

i ed aboutD N A t es t s per f orm ed on l abor at ory s ampl es t aken a tt h e e me r g e n c y r o o m, a ta u t o p s y , a n d a tth e mu r d e rs c e n e , a s we l l a s k n o wn s ampl es dr aw n f

r om M of f ett . She s t at ed thatthe vagi nal s w ab, vagi nal w as h, an d an al sw ab w ere all p o sit ive fo r sem en o n the p resu m p ti v e te st, b u t w ere negat i ve f

ors perm cel l s on the conf i r m at ory t es t , i ndi cat i ng thatther e w er e no “ p h y sic a l sp e rm c e lls” re m a in in g in th e s e m e n s a m p les . S h e tes tified a t len g th ab o u t D N A t ests do n e o n cu tt ing s fr o m th e b ath to w el fou n d in the b ed w h ere Fel i ci a had been f

ound by par amedi cs . T he t ow el w as pos i t i ve f ors emen and e p ith e lial c e lls, b u t w a s n e g a tiv e fo r b lo o d . T h e re w e re tw o sta in s o n th e to w e l. T he f i r s tw as a s emen s t ai n and t he otherw as a m i xed st ai n, i ncl udi ng s emen a n d e p i th e l i a l c e l l s . [ F N5 ] T h e s e me n s t a i n wa s f o u n d t o ma t c h M o f

f e t t ’ s DNA o n a ll fifte e n m a rk e rs. N a sir te stifie d th a t th e re w a s le ss th a n o n e c h a n c e in f i ve tr i l l i on, ni ne hundr ed bi l l i on ( 5, 900, 000, 000, 00 0) [ FN 6] thatthe s emen had come f

r om anyone o t herthan M of f ett . A s f orthe mi xed s t ai n, nei ther M o f f e t tn o rF e l i c i a c o u l d b e e x c l u d e d a s th e s o u r c e o f th e two s e t s o f

DNA fo u n d th e re . T h e re w e re m a tch e s o n fo u r fo c i an d six a lle les , w h ich N a sir des cr i bed as “w eak” al l el es. She s t at ed that , f r om thi s evi dence , m or e than 9 9
. 9 % o f

th e p o p u l a t i o n c o u l d b e e x c l u d e d a s p o s s i b l e d o n o r s o f th e two component s , thus , ther e w as l es s than one chanc e i n a thous and thatanyone el s e contr i but ed t o the mi xed s t ai n. FN 5. E pi thel i al cel l s i ncl ude mucous, s al i va, vagi nal s ecr et i ons , and s ki n, butnotsem en. B l ood nor m al l y w oul d be i ncl uded i n the epi thel i al por t i on, butnother e, as the t ow el w as f ound t o be nega t i ve f orbl ood. FN 6. T hi s i s m or e than ni ne hundr ed t i m es the es t i m at ed popul at i on of th e e n tire w o rld in 2 0 0 6 . P o p u latio n R e fe re n c e B u re a u , 2 0 0 6 W o rld P o p u la tio n F a c t S h e e t 5 (c h a rt ), h ttp ://w w w .p rb .o rg /p d f 06 /0 6w o rld da ta sh e e t. pd

f (l ast v isi ted S ep tem b er 4 , 2 0 1 0 ). P e n n ie te stifie d tha t, on th e m o rn in g o f D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 4 , sh e a n d M o ffe tt had an a r gum enta nd thathe hi the r“ ups i de the hea d. ” She s t at ed that , atthat p o in t, sh e d e c id e d to e n d th e rela tio n sh ip w ith M o ffe tt an d th a t sh e w ro te h im a l ett ert el l i ng hi m thati tw as over . Pol i ce Li eut enantRod E r i ks en t es t i f i ed that the l ett er , w hi ch he s aw as es t abl i s hi ng a pos s i ble m oti ve, w as f ound i n the bedr oom w her e Fel i ci a w as f ound. T he j ury v i ew ed a vi deot ape, t aken a s

### 6

E r i ks en and the cr i m e- s cene i nves t i gat orcarr i ed outthei ri nves t i gat i on of the s cene . T he j ury s aw , i nt eral i a, E r i ks en di s cover i ng the l ett eratthe s cene . Sever al otherw i tnes s es t es t i f i ed, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, a n emer gency r oom phys i ci an; an emer gency med i cal t echni ci an; J PD of f i cer s , i ncl udi ng detect i ves and cri m e scene invest i gator s; and pathol og i st s. Mo ffe tt , 49 So. 3d at1077- 79. A ddi t i onal f act s ar e pr ovi ded w hen r el evantt o the di s cus s i on of eac h i s s ue i nf

r a. ¶5
. M of

f e t t f i l e d hi s M ot i on f

or Lea ve t o Pr oc e e d i n t he Tr i a l Cour t w i th a Pet i t i on f or Post
- C onvi ct i on R el i ef on D ece m ber7, 2011. O n D ece m ber22, 2 011, M of f ettf i l ed an amended m ot i on f

orl eave. T hi s C our tl at erent er ed a s t ay of M of f ett ’ s pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs t o al l ow hi s e xpert s a cce s s t o M of f ettf ora ment al eval uat i on. M of f ettw as then p e rm itt e d to file a su p p lem e n tal m o tio n o n A p ril 8 , 2 0 1 3 . T h e S tate h a s re sp o n d e d to M off et t ’s m oti on s. I S S UES ¶6. “The p rocedu ral b ars o f w ai ver , di f

f er enttheor i es , and r es j udi cat a as w el l as the
e x c e p tio n s th e re to c o n tain e d in M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (1 )-(5 ) a re c lea rly a p p lica b le to death pe nal ty pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef app l i cat i ons . ” P o w e rs v. S ta te , 945 So. 2d 386, 395 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). M o ffe tt ca rrie s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra ting tha t h is c laim s a re n o t p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. Id
. ( ci t i ng M i ss. C od e A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 6) )
. I f s ucce s s f ul , he then mustm ake a
su b stan ti al sh o w ing o f th e d en ial o f a state or fed era l ri g h t. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -27 (5). ¶7. W i th r egar d t o tr i al couns el , M of f ett cl ai m s he re cei ved inef fect i ve ass i s t ance f

r om de G ruy a nd Dugga n, a s s e r t i ng the y f a i l e d t o ob

j e c tt o: c omm e nt s b y the p r os e c ut or s ; t he

### 7

admi s s i on of

pr i orcons i s t ents t at ement s i nt o evi dence ; t es t i m ony r egar di ng w hetherthe
v ictim ’s in

ju rie s w e re h e in o u s, a tro c io u s a n d c ru e l; t e stim o n y b y th e v ictim ’s f a m ily
m ember s r egar di ng hi s s ent ence , and port i ons of the St at e’ s cl os i ng ar gum entdur i ng the
se n ten c in g p h a se . H e a lso a ss e rts th e y w e re in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to : p e rfo rm a n a d e q u a te pr etr i al i nves t i gat i on; arr ange f orM of f ettt o have a m ent al
- heal th eval uat i on; and r enew the d e fe n se ’s m o tio n fo r a “ c o o lin g o ff” p e rio d b e tw e e n the g u iltan d se n ten c in g p h a se s o f tria l. ¶8. M o ffetta lso c o m p lai n s tha t his a p p ell ate co u n sel , de G ruy and S t eine r, w ere i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o r ai s e s om e of

the af or ement i oned i nef

f ect i ve- tr i al
- couns el cl ai m s on di r ectappea l
. H e now ass ert s t hatt hos e i s s ues shoul d have bee n r ai s ed as pl ai n err orgi ven the f actthathe w as r epr es ent ed on appe al by one of the s ame at t orneys w ho t r i ed hi s cas e. F in a lly , h e a s s e rt s th a t h e is e n title d to re lie f d u e to c u m u la tiv e e rr o r. A N A L Y S IS ¶9. T he tes tfor i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c ouns el i s w el l
- s ett l ed. “The benchmar k f or j ud ging any cl ai m of i neffec ti v eness [ of coun sel ] m ustbe w hethercou nsel ’s con du ctso underm i ned the pr operfunc t i oni ng of the adver s ar i al proc es s t hatt he tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr oduced a j us tr es ul t . ” Str i ckland v. W as hington , 46 6 U
. S. 6 68 , 6 86 , 10 4 S. C t . 20 52 , 20 64 , 80 L
. E d. 2d 67 4 (198 4). In or der t o prevai l on such a cl ai m , M off et tm ust demonstr at e t o thi s C our tthatcounse l ’ s per 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 nles s a defendan tm akes bo th sho w i ng s, i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe c onvi ct i on ordeath s ent ence r es ul t ed f r om a br eakdow n i n the

### 8

adver s ary pr oces 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 , 4 6 6 U
. S
. at 68 7 ). ¶10. “I n any case pr es ent i ng an i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m , the per f orm ance i nqui ry m us tbe
w hetherc ouns el ’ s a s s i s t ance w as r eas onabl e cons i der i ng a l l the ci r cumst ance s . ” Str ingerv. S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477( M i s s . 1984) ( ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 4 66 U. S. a t6 88 , 1 04 S. Ct
. at 2 0 6 5 ; State v. T

okm an , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ))
. Ju d icia l sc ru tin y o f c o u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e m u st b e h ig h ly def er ent i al
. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. . . A f ai ras s es s m entof

att orney per f orm ance r equi r es thate very e f f or tbe made t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng ef

f ect s of hi nds i ght , t o r econs tructt he ci r cumst ance s of couns el ’ s chal l enged c onduct , and t o evalua t e the conduc t f r om couns el ’ s per s pect i ve atthe t i m e. B ecaus e of the d if fi cu l t i es i nh erenti n m aking t he ev al uati on , a cou rtm ust in d u lg e a stro n g p re su m p tio n th a t co u n se l’s c o n d u c t fa lls w ith in the w i de r ange of

r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal a s s i s t ance ; thati s , the def endantm us tover com e t he pr es um pt i on that , underthe ci r c ums t a nc e s , the c ha l l e nge d a c t i on “ mi gh tbe c on s i de r ed s o u n d tr ia l s tr a te g y .” St ri nger a t 4 7 7 ; Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. at 2 0 6 5 . In sh o rt, d e fe n s e c o u n s e l is p re s u m e d c o m p e te n t. J o h n so n v . S ta te , 476 So. 2d 1195, 1 2 0 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); W

a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 6 2 0 S o . 2 d 9 6 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 )[; G ra y so n v. S ta te , 1 1 8 S o . 3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 7 (M is s . 2 0 1 3 )]. Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). ¶1 1. Fur t her m or e , e ve n w he r e p r of e s s i on a l e rr ori s s ho w n, thi s Cour tm us t det er m 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 the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ” Mo h r v. S ta te , 5 84 S o. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991)
. W hen r evi ew i ng ac api t al
- m ur derc as e, the m os ti m por t anti nqui ry i s “w hether th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty tha t, a b se n t th e err o rs, th e se n ten c e r -- in c lu d in g a n a p p e llate

### 9

court , t o the ext enti ti ndepende nt l y r ew ei ghs the evi dence - - w oul d have concl uded thatthe bal ance of

a ggr avat i ng a nd mi t i gat i ng c i r cumst ance s di d notw arr antdeath. ” Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S. at695. I f

M of f ett ’ s i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- cou nsel cl ai m s f ai l on ei therof

the Str i c kl and p ro n g s , h is c la im s m u s t f a il. Fo ste r v . S ta te , 68 7 S o . 2 d 1 12 4, 11 29 -30 (M i ss. 1 9 9 6 ). T ri al C ounsel 1. F ai l ure t o conduct a m ent al - heal t h eval uat i on ¶1 2. T hi s i s s ue f

r om M of f e t t ’ s s up pl e ment a l mot i on i s di s c us s e d f i r s t be c a us e , i f i thad
m er i t , i tw oul d be pot ent i al l y di s pos i t i ve of thi s mat t er . M of

f ettc l ai m s thatde G ruy and D uggan w er e i nef

f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o “ade quat el y i nv est i gat e, . . . ens ur e an a ccur at e and th o ro u g h m e n ta l h e a lt h e v a lu a tio n , . . . re b u t th e p ro s e c u tio n [’ s ] tria l a rg u m e n ts , a n d
. . . a d e q u a tely p re se n t m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e in th e se n ten c e p h a se o f h is c a p ital tria l.” T h is
ar gum entm er ges w i t h M off et t ’ s cl ai m thatcouns el f ai l ed t o per f

orm an ade quat e pr etr i al i nves t i gat i on, w hi ch i s di s cus s ed i n the nexti s s ue. H avi ng r evi ew ed M of f ett ’ s s uppl ement al iss u e , w e fin d it i s w ith o u t m e rit. ¶1 3
. M o ffe tt u rg e s tha t they fai led to co n d u c t a p ro p e r in v e stig a tio n in to a v a ilab le
m i t i gat i on evi dence , s peci f i cal l y hi s ment al he al th, a nd f ai l ed t o pr es entthi s evi dence t o the ju ry , th e re b y p re v e n tin g th e ju ry fr o m re a c h in g a re a s o n e d d e c is io n o n s e n te n c in g . ¶14. M of

f etthas pr es ent ed thi s C our tw i th the af f i davi t s of Tor a B r aw l ey, Ph. D
. , a cl i ni cal p sy c h o lo g ist fro m S o u th C a ro lin a ; D o n n a M . S c h w a rt z -W a tts, M .D ., a fo re n sic p sy c h o lo g ist;

### 10

an d o n e o f his tr ial att o rne y s, d e G ruy . M o ffettalso p rov ided a c o p y o f D r. B ra w ley ’s
n e u ro p sy c h o lo g ica l ev a lu a tio n o f M o ffe tt. T o r a B r a wle

y , P h
. D. ¶1 5. D r . Br a w l e y e va l ua t e d M of f e t to n O c t ob e r1 6, 2 01 2, near l y ei ght een ye ar s af t er Fel i ci a’ s m ur der
. A ccor di ng t o D r . B r aw l ey’ s re por t , M of f ettt ol d her : he has a hi s t ory of heavy a l cohol and mar i j uana us e and onc e had a thr ee- t o- f our - m onth pe r i od w hen he us ed
coca i ne on a da i l y bas i s ; he deni ed havi ng s ei zur es , heada ches , orotherneur ops ychol ogi cal di f f i cul t i es ; he r eport ed bei ng “daz ed” f r om a bl ow re cei ved i n m art i al art s s parr i ng; he now
s uf f er s f r om hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e f orw hi ch he t akes m edi cat i on; he now has m i l d i ncr eas es i n de pr e s s i on , a nx i e ty, a nd i rr i t a bi l i ty i n r e a c t i on t o hi s s i tua t i on ; h i s mat e rna l u nc l e had a stro k e ; an d the re w a s n o rep o rte d h isto ry o f n e u ro lo g ica l orp sy c h o lo g ica l diffic u lti e s in h is f ami l y. ¶16. W hi l e eval uat i ng M of f ett , D r . B r aw l ey per f

orm ed num er ous t es t s . S he opi ned that the ca us e of

M of f ett ’ s m i l d depr es s i on and anxi ety m os tl i kel y w as pas tdrug and al cohol ab u se. D r. B raw ley fu rth er stated that thes e c o n d it ion s li k ely h av e im p rov ed sinc e M o ffett ’s in c a rc e ra tio n b e c a u se h e n o lo n g e r h a s a c c e ss to th e se su b sta n c e s. T h e re su lts re p o rte d in D r . B r aw l ey’ s as s es s m ents how M of f ettt o have a W A I S- I V Ful l Scal e I Q of 86 ( verbal compre hens i on 95, per ceptual r eas oni ng 82) , pl aci ng hi m i n the l ow aver age r ange of in telle c tu a l fu n c tio n in g . S h e sta ted th a t “te stin g res u lt[ s] re v e a led th e p re se n c e o f m u lti p le
s c a tte re d c o g n itiv e d e fi c its s u g g e s tiv e o f o rg a n ic ity .” Do n n a M. Sc h wa r t

z - Wa t t s , M. D.

### Moff ett prov idedtwo dif

fe re nt a ff idavit s f rom de Gr uy. Oneis an e xhibit to the 2 

### am ende d appl ic ation f

or l eave, and the other

is an e xhibit to thesuppl em ent alfi ling. 11 ¶17. D r . Schw art z- W att s s t at ed i n heraf f i davi t , dat ed February 4, 2013, thats he eval uat ed M o ffetto n O ctob er 4 , 2 0 1 2 , an d rev iew ed D r. B raw ley’s re p o rt . Iti s D r. S ch w artz-W att s’s opi ni on t hatM of

f etts uf f er s f r om a l i f e- l ong anxi ety di s or der , char act er i zed by e xces s i ve
a n x iety a n d w o rry . S h e a ttribu tes th is d iso rd e r to h is d ru g a n d a lc o h o l u s e , sta tin g th a t, i n
o rd e r to e a se h is s y m p to m s, M o ffe tt se lf-m e d ica ted w ith d ru g s a n d a lco h o l. ¶18
. D r. S chw art z-W at t s st at ed that M off et t has m em ory and m otor-sk il ls i m pairm ents . Fur ther , ther e ar e s tr ong i ndi cat i ons thathe ha s be en expos ed t o a bnor m al l evel s of l ead or otherheavy met al s . She opi ned thatM of f ettsuf f er s fr om a cogni t i ve di s or der , w hi ch ca us es i m pai rm ent s i n behavi or , emot i on and i m pul s e contr ol , j udgm ent , pr obl em-s ol vi ng and
m emory. Fi nal l y, s he opines thatthes e condi t i ons exi s t ed atthe t i m e of M of f ett ’ s i ni t i al
arr es t , w hi ch w as D ece m ber31, 1994, and atthe t i m e of t r i al i n 2006. She opi ned that M o f f e t t ’ s i mp a i r me n t s c o u l d h a v e c o n tr i b u t e d t o h i s f a i l u r e t o c ry a n d h i s a n g e ra tth e c r i me
s cene . A f f i davi tof A ndr e’de G r uy ¶19. T he f

ol l ow i ng i s an exc erptf

r om the af

f i davi tof de G ruy. H i s af

f i davi tw as pr ovi ded
w ith M o ffe tt’s su p p lem e n tal m o tio n f o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief, b u t itfa ils to su p p o rt th is
c l a i m. 2 A s addr es s ed i n m y pr i oraf f i davi t , I w as s ol el y r es pons i bl e f orthe mi t i gat i on i nv e s t i ga t i on , p r e pa r a t i on , a nd p r e s e nt a t i on i n s e nt e nc i ng . I h a ve b een a capi t al def

ens e couns el f

r om the i ncept i on of

m y l egal car eeri n Sept ember

### 12

1990. I am fa m i l i arw i th the s t andar ds of p ract i ce i n the f

i el d, i ncl udi ng the A m er i can BarA s s oci at i on’ s G ui del i nes fort he A ppoi ntm entand Per f orm ance of C ouns el i n D eath Penal ty C as es , w hi ch w er e f i r s tpubli shed i n 1989 and r evi s ed i n 2003. I d id n o t a s s ig n a m itig a tio n s p e c ia lis t to M r. M o ff e tt’ s c a s e . I used s t udent in te r n s to c o n du c t so m e in te r v ie w s a n d c o n du c te d

o th e rs my s e lf. I di d nots eek orob t a i n a ment a l he a l th e va l ua t i on . I i nt e r vi e w e d M r . M of f e t tnu mer ous t i m es and had hi m moved t o the dow nt ow n j ai l t o a l l ow f orf r equentvi s i t s by m e a n d th e in te rn s . I did n ot see m en tal healt h issues as an issue in th e case . I kn ew p ri o r t o tr ial that the p rose cu ti o n inten d ed to rely o n ev iden ce o f M r. M of f ett ’ s i nt er act i on w i th pol i ce of f i cer s atthe cr i m e s cene t o ar gue co n scio u sn ess o f gu il t. T h e p rose cu tor also m ad e this clea r ev en d u ri n g jury se lec tio n w h e n sh e sa id th a t n o law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs h a d e v e r se e n h im cry. I di d notcons i der t he poss i bi l i ty thathi s r eac t i on coul d be expl ai ned by a m ent al he al th expert , al though w e d id ex a m in e w itn e ss e s a n d a rg u e th a t h is r e a c tio n s w e r e n o t in d ic a tiv e o f g u ilt. H avi ng revi ew ed the l i m i t ed ment al heal th evi dence curr entcouns el has pr ovi ded I s t i l l do notbel i eve hi s r eac t i ons c o u ld b e e x p lain e d b y a m e n tal h e a lth e x p e rt.

. . . A f t erdi s cover i ng the chi l d brut al l y as s aul t ed and ki l l ed [ M of f ett ] pl ace d p h o n e c a lls, talk e d to p e o p le a n d e v e n tu a lly g o t an g ry . H e e x p lain e d h is eventual angeras f

rus tr at i on beca us e the pol i ce di d notappea rt o be conc erned a b o u tf i n d i n g th e p e rp e tr a t o rb u ti n s t e a d we r e q u e s t i o n i n g h i m. Pr i ort o tr i al , I w as aw ar e thatM r . M of f etthad a hi s t ory of

drug and al cohol us e and cont act s w i th the cr i m i nal j us t i ce s ys t em. I w as notaw ar e thathe had b ee n “d az ed ” fro m a b low to the h ea d in a m arti al arts sp ar[r] ing m atch
. M r. M off et tand his fam i l y m em bers w ere f ull y coo perat i ve w i th m e. T he d efense tea m d isc u ss e d w ith E ri c a n d h is fa m ily E ric ’s in v o lv e m e n t in fo o tb a ll, pos s i bl e chi l dhood abus e, acci den t s he had a nd the ext entof hi s drug and al coh ol use. I don’trecal l any m enti on of hi s i nv olvem ent i n m art i al art s. I cannot s ay t hat i f I had th e m en tal heal

th evidence t

hat cur r ent counse l h a s p r o v ide d

m e I w o u ld h a v e a tte m

p te d to u s e it in m itig a tio n . I tdoes not

### In Skipper , the de fe ndant atte mpt ed to off

er te stim ony in mitigati on to s how that he 3 

### shoul d be spared the de ath penalt y bec aus e hewould pos e no unduedange r to his jail er s or fellowpriso ners andco uldleada usefu l life beh indb ars if senten ced to life impriso nment, cons is te nt with themiti gation s trat egy e mpl oyed by the de fe nsein t he c as e sub judic e . See Skipper v . Sout h Carol ina , 476 U. S. 1, 106 S. Ct . 1669, 90 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986)
.

13 a p p e a r to b e stro n gm iti

g a tio n a n d

a p p e a rs inc o n sis ten t w ith a n d p o ss ib ly in con f l i ctw i th the theo ry of

defense andthe Ski

pp er [ ] m i t igat i on.

3 (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶ 2 0
. A g a in , th is C o u rt “ . . . is to d e te rm in e w h e th e r c o u n s e l e x e rc ise d re a so n a b le pr of es s i onal j udgm enti n conduct i ng i t s i nv es t i gat i on bas ed on an a s s es s m entof the pr evai l i ng pr of

es s i onal norm s , i ncl udi ng a cont ext - dependent consi derat i on of the cha l l enged
c o n d u c t a s s e e n f

ro m c o u n s e l’ s p e rs p e c tiv e a t th e tim e .” I d. at 21 7 (i n terna l qu o tes o m itted). T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “[j]u d icia l sc ru tin y o f c o u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e m u st b e h ig h ly de f e r ent i al
. . . , ” (Str i c kl

and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 ) a n d c o u rts h a v e rig h tly “uphel d deci s i ons nott o puton mi t i gat i ng e vi dence w her e the deci s i on r es ul t ed f r om a s ound tr i al s tr at egy. ” H

a v a rdv. S ta te , 988 So. 2d 322, 334 ( M i s s . 2008)
. Fur ther , “[ j ] udi ci al
s crut i ny of

couns el ’ s per f

orm ance m us tbe hi ghl y def er ent i al
. . . . A f

ai ras s es s m entof att orney per f

orm ance r equi r es thatevery ef f or tbe made t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng ef f ect s of h in d sig h t, t o re c o n stru c t th e circ u m sta n c e s o f co u n se l’s c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, an d to e v a lu a te the conduc tf

r om couns el ’ s pe r s pect i ve atthe t i m e. ” Fo ste r v . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1130 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). ¶21. M off

et t ’s co un sel ini t i at ed a m i t i gati on invest i gati on in w hi ch he part i ci pat ed. Fur ther , the def

ens e el ect ed t o pr es enta Ski pper appr oach i n mi t i gat i on. A f t erourr eadi ng

### 14

o f d e Gru y ’ s a f

f i d a v i ta n d e v a l u a t i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s c o n d u c tf r o m th e i rp e r s p e c t i v e , we fin d tha t M o ffe tt faile d to c a rry h is b u rd e n to e sta b lish th a t th e fa ilu re to c o n d u c t a m e n talheal th eval uat i on w as due t o over s i ghtorder el i ct i on. I tw as a cons ci ous deci s i on. N ei ther of the aff

i dav it s fro m M off

et t ’s psych ologi st s off

ers suff i ci ent evi den ce that w arr ants a f i ndi ng of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el
. Such evi dence i n m i t i gat i on w oul d have gone
a g a in st th e g ra in o f th e m iti g a tio n c a se th a t w a s p re se n ted . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th is c laim of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el does nots at i s f y the Str i c kl

and st and ards. 2. F ai l ure t o perf

orm an adequ at e pret ri al i nves t i gat i on ¶2 2
. M o ffe tt as se rts th a t n o m iti g ati o n i n v esti g ator w as as sign ed t o his c a se a n d a ll
m i t i gat i on i nves t i gat i on w as l ef tt o s t af f
. D e G ruy’ s af

f i davitb el i es thi s cl ai m . A l though
s t af f
- as s i s t ed, an i nves t i gat i on i nt o m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s w as conduct ed. T he f actthat
s tudenti nt erns w er e partof the def ens e t eam i s noti n and of i t s el f def i ci entper f

orm ance by the d efense t eam . D e G ruy al so st at ed thathe personall y con du ct ed som e of the int ervi ew s. ¶2 3. M of

f et tf ur t heras s er t s tha td e Gr uy and D uggan f ai l ed t o conducta pr oper i nves t i gat i on and t o pr es enta vai l abl e m i t i gat i on e vi dence , ther eby pr event i ng the j ury f r om
r eac hi ng a r eas oned dec i s i on on s ent enci ng. “[ T ] he f ai l ur e t o pr es enta ca s e i n m i t i gat i on d u ri n g th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f a c a p ita l t ri a l is n o t, per se , in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l.” W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 722 So. 2d 447, 450 ( M i s s . 1998)
. I n Cra w fo rdv. S ta te , 867 So. 2d 196 ( M i s s . 2 00 3) , thi s C our thel d that“a c our ti s t o det erm i ne w hethercouns el exer ci s ed
r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal j udgm enti n conduct i ng i t s i nves t i gat i on base d on an as s es s m entof the pr evai l i ng pr of

es s i onal norm s , i ncl udi ng a cont ext - depende ntcons i der at i on of the

### 15

c h a lle n g e d c o n d u c t a s s e e n fr o m c o u n s e l’ s p e rs p e c tiv e a t th e tim e .” I d. at217 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion s o m itted). ¶24. M of

f ett w as r epr es ent ed at tr i al by de G ruy and D an W
. D uggan, Jr
. ; de G ruy has
s erved as capi t al def

ens e couns el si nce the i ncept i on of hi s l egal car eeri n 1990. A l though
couns el di d nothi r e a mi t i gat i on i nves t i gat or , an i nves t i gat i on w as per f orm ed by couns el and
s ta ff
. ¶2 5
. M o ffett furthe r asse rt s that d efe n se co u n sel w as un aw are that fam il y m em b ers w ere
w i l l i ng t o t es t i f

y on hi s behal f

, and as a r es ul t , the dec i s i on nott o cal l f ami l y m ember s cannot b e c o n s id e re d s tra teg ic. T o p re v a il o n th is c laim , M o ffe tt m u st s h o w th a t, ha d th e a ffia n ts been c al l ed t o t es t i f

y, ther e w as a r eas onabl e p robabil i ty thatthe r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng
w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

fe re n t. S p ice r v . S ta te , 973 So. 2d 184, 191 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Mohr , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 0 ).

“ T o a ss e ss th e p rob ab il ity [of a d if feren t ou tcom e u n d er Str i c kl and] , we cons i derthe t ot al i ty of

t he avai l abl e mi t i gat i on evi dence

— both thatadduce d a t trial, an d th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d in th e h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g
— a n d re w e ig h it agai ns tthe evi dence i n aggr avat i on. ” Sears v. U pton , _

__ U .S . _
__ , 1 3 0 S . C t. 3259, 3266, 177 L
. E d. 2d 1025 ( 2010)
. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas sta ted tha t th e re “is n o p re ju d ice w h e n the n e w m iti g a tin g ev id e n c e ‘w o u ld b a re ly h a v e a lte re d th e s e n te n c in g p ro fi le p re s e n te d ’ to th e d e c is io n m a k e r. .

. . ” Id
. at3266. Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 5 5 S o . 3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 4 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). ¶2 6
. D e G ruy stat es in h is affidav it that h e “.
. . w as aw are that M r. M o ffett h a d fa m ily
m ember s i n the l ocal ar ea[ , ]
. . . di d notpr epar e any of them t o t es t i f

y i n or dert o s eek mer cy
o n [M o ffe tt’s] b e h a lf in se n ten c in g [,]
. . . [an d n o w a lle g e s h e ] kn e w th a t [h e ] ha d e rre d in

### Aff idavits weretaken f

rom : J eremy Moff

ett, brother ; Sharima

Moff ett, cous in; 4 

### Sh eritha M offett, sister (testifiedduringguilt p hase); James M offett, matern al un cle; Jackie Moff ett, Jam es Moff

ett’ s wi fe ; and Paul etteMoff ett Mye rs , c ousin (da

ughte r of Jame s and Ja cki e Mof

fe tt). 16 this rega rd b efo re the p rose cu ti o n ’s closin g stat em e n ts w e re ev en co m p let ed
. ” D e G ruy ’s
a ff id a v it d o e s n o t sta te th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a m iti g a tio n stra teg y o r c laim th a t h e fa iled to in ter v iew a n im p o rta n t w itn e ss o r c o n d u c t an inv e stig a tio n , o n ly tha t he se c o n d -g u e ss e d h is
o w n stra teg y a s th e c a se w a s u n fo ld in g . F u rth e r, th e a ffid a v its fr o m M o ffe tt’s fa m ily
m ember s pr ovi de mi ni m al m i t i gat i on evi dence
. ¶ 2 7
. T h e a ffid a v its o f M o ffe tt’s fa m ily m e m b e rs re a d es se n tially the sa m e : 1 ) th a t M o ffe tt i s of good char act er ; 2) they have m emori es of good t i m es s pentw i th M off et t ; an d 3) the
a ffia n ts w e re w ill in g to b e g the jur y fo r m e rc y o n M o ffe tt’s b e h a lf h a d the y b e e n as k e d to t es t i f y ats ent enci ng. T hey s t at ed thatthey w er e notappr oache d by def ens e couns el t o of

f er 4
m i t i gat i on t es t i m ony. A l though def ens e couns el di d notcal l M of f ett ’ s f ami l y m em bers as
m i t i gat i on w i tnes s es , they di d pr epar e and pr es enta ca s e i n m i t i gat i on. ¶ 2 8
. Ja m e s E v a n s A ik e n , p re sid e n t o f a p riso n c o n su lti n g firm , w a s c a lled a s a n e x p e rt in
corr ect i ons and cl as s i f

i cat i on of

i nm at es . A i ken des cr i bed f orthe j ury w hat l i f

e i n pr i s on underm axi m um s ecur i ty w oul d be l i ke. H e t es t i f i ed thathe i nt ervi ew ed M of f ettand w as abl e t o r evi ew r ecor ds of M of f ett ’ s i ns t i tut i onal behavi orf orthe per i od M of

f ettw as in c a rc e ra ted . M o ffe tt h a d fa irly m in o r v io latio n s d u rin g th a t tim e . A ik e n a lso tes tified th a t, if h e w e re th e w a rd e n su p e rv isin g M o ffe tt, h e w o u ld h a v e n o c o n c e rn s fo r th e sa fe ty o f h is
s t af f oranyone e l s e. Speci f i cal l y, A i ken t es t i f

i ed thatM of

f ettw oul d be atthe “l ow es tend

### 17

of t he pr obabi l i ty s c a l e ” t o h a r m ot he r s bu ta tthe “ hi gh e s tl e ve l of pr ob a bi l i ty s c a l e t o be
a ttac k e d o r in

ju re d o r a v ic tim o f v io len c e fro m o th e r in m a te p o p u latio n .” W h e n a sk e d if there w as a reco rd o f vio lenc e b y M o ffettw h il e in jail , A iken said there w as n o t, an d there
w as no r ecor d of hi m bei ng vi ct i m i zed e i ther
. I tw as A i ken’ s t es t i m ony thatpr i ori ns t i tut i onal behavi orw as a bett erp redi ct or of w hatf utur e i ns t i tut i onal behavi orw oul d be, as oppos ed t o a per s on’ s behavi ori n the comm uni ty. A i ken opi ned thatM of f ettcoul d be m anage d i n a pr i s on envi r onm entf

orthe r emai nderof

hi s l i f e. ¶29. A i ken’ s t es t i m ony of f er ed the j ury a gli m pse fr om an i ndepende nt w i tnes s of w hat p ri s o n lif e lik e ly w o u ld b e lik e fo r M o ff e tt, i
. e. , M off

et t ’s l i fe i n p ri son w ou l d n ot be easy if h e w ere all o w ed to li v e. F u rth er, A iken o ffered ind ep en d en t t estim o n y o f M o ffett ’s b eh av ior as a n o n v iolen t perso n to influe n ce the ju ry to c o n side r th e p o ssibil ity o f l if e
w i thoutpar ol e. ¶ 3 0
. W e a re lef

t w ith the q u e stio n w h e th e r th e re w a s a rea so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t th e re su lt of the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f f er enthad the f

ami l y m em ber s been c al l ed as
w itn e s s e s . Spi cer , 97 3 S o. 2d at19 1. A ssum i ng , arguen do , that M off et tsat i sf i ed the f i rs t prong , w hich he d i d n ot, w e con cl ud e that the resul tw ou ld n o t hav e been dif fer ent. T hu s, M of f etthas f ai l ed t o s how pr ej udi ce. Pl us , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas “expl ai ned thatther e i s no pr ej udi ce w hen the new m i t i gat i ng evi dence ‘w oul d bar el y have a l t er ed the
s e n te n c in g p ro fi le p re s e n te d ’ t o t h e d e c is io n m a k e r, Str i c kl and , supra , at 7 0 0 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2052. ” Sears v. U

pton , _

__ U .S . _
__ , 1 3 0 S . C t. 32 5 9 , 3 2 6 6
. M o ff e tt fails to m e e t h is bur den t o s at i s f

y Str i c kl and st and ards.

### The prose cutors in t his ca sewere Rebec ca

Mans el l and Stan Ale xande r. 5 

### 18 3. F ai l ure t o obj ectt o com m ent s m ade by t he pros ecut i on ¶ 3 1
. M o ffe tt as se rts th a t d e G ru y a n d D u g g a n w e re in e ff e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to o b

jec t to stat em en ts m ad e b y the p rose cu ti o n to the jury v en ir e. M o ffettalso asse rt s tha t th ey w ere 5 i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ectt o s t at ement s thathe al l eges “vouch[ ed] f orthe cr edi bi l i ty of th e [S ]ta te ’s c a s e a n d p ri m a ry w itn e s s .”

( a) Pro s e c ut or ’ s c om m e nt s on t he de at h pe nal t y i n H i nds C o u n ty ¶32. M of

f ett ci t es comm ent s m ade by M ans el l dur i ng the pr el i m i nary openi ng s t at ement t o the veni r e: I t ’ s been s i x year s s i nce w e’ ve s oughta dea th penal ty her e i n H i nds C ounty. T his i s a very i m po rt ant cas e. W e hav e kep tyo u h ere u n ti l alm o st8:00 l ast F ri d ay n igh t. W e’v e g o t a l o t o f yo u he re ag ain, an d w e m ay h av e to b e h ere agai n l at e aga i n t oday. It’s v e ry im p o rta n t, b e c a u se I w a n t y o u to liste n , a n d I’ m g o in g to b rie fly tell y o u , I’m ju st g o in g to to u c h o n so m e o f th e h ig h lig h ts, b e c a u se th is is ju st a m i ni openi ng s t at ementr i ghtnow . B utI ’ m goi ng t o t el l you w hy the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi i s s eeki ng the dea th penal ty i n thi s cas e. ¶3 3. A f

t e rg i vi ng a d e s c r i pt i on of w hatt he St at e i nt ended t o pr ove, t he pr os ecut or
c o n c lu d e d b y sa y in g : “. . . at th e e n d o f th is c a se I’m g o in g to a sk y o u to im p o s e a d e a th
s e n te n c e . If

I h a v e e v e r s e e n a c a s e th a t d e s e rv e s it, th is o n e d e s e rv e s it.” ¶34. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , M ans el l s t at ed: I have be en doi ng thi s f

or11 year s . I have ne ver , s een a n i nj ury t o a chi l d l i ke that, nev er. N ever, nev er, nev er. A nd I do this fora l i ving. I do the g ross d isg u stin g th in g s th a t n o b o d y e lse w a n ts to d o . I se e th e h o rrib le c rim e in

### 19

H i nds C ounty. I s ee w hatpeopl e do t o chi l dr en. I ’ ve neve rs een a n i nj ury l i ke thatt o a chi l d. ¶35
. M off

et tfurther com plai ns that M ansel l sai d, “[ w ] e w ou l d n ot have y ou up here un l ess
w e w e re 1 0 0 p e rc e n t c o n v in c e d th a t [M o ffe tt] w a s g u ilty . W o u ld n ’t d o it. I’m n o t g o in g to
w as t e yourt i m e. ” Fur ther , s he s t at ed, “I br i ng cas es t o j uri es t hat I am 100 per cent convi nced thatthe def

endanti s gui l ty, t hatthe phys i cal evi dence as w el l as the w i tnes s es
su p p o rt th a t fac t th a t th a t de fe n d a n t i s g u ilty b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” T h e se sta tem e n ts drew no obj ect i on s. ¶ 3 6
. M o ffe tt a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u to r’s co m m e n ts o n th e ra ri ty o f s e e k in g th e d e a th penal ty i n H i nds C ounty and herexper i ence amount ed t o i nvoki ng herpos i t i on as the governm ent ’ s a t t orney and thus , de G ruy a nd D uggan w er e i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ect t o these com m ents . H e ci t es Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). ¶37. I n Hol

land , the def

endantal l eged thatthe pr os ecut ori m pr oper l y i nvoked hi s pos i t i on as th e g o v ern m en t’ s att o rne y w h en h e stated: “I’m the c h ief l aw en forc em en t offi cial for a t hree- count y ar ea. I t ake my j ob s er i ous l y. ” Id
. a t3 47
. H e l a t e rs t a t e d, “ I h a d the j ob of
c h a rg in g th is c rim e . T h a t h a s b e e n re v iew e d , an d w e ’re h e re in c o u rt to d a y b e c a u se th is is one of thos e r ar e ca s es . ” I

d. ¶ 3 8
. O n re v iew , this C o u rt sta ted : O n th e m e rits, itis i m p ro p e r fo r a d istric t atto rn e y , in a rg u m e n t to th e ju ry , to u se h is p o sitio n o r fu n c tio n a s a b a sis fo r c o n v ictin g o r m o re se v e re ly s ent enci ng a def

endant
. M or e s peci f

i cal l y, a pr os ecut ormay notc om m enton th e fa c t th a t h e h a s o n ly so u g h t d e a th in r a re in sta n c e s s u c h a s th is o n e . T h is ar gum enti m pl i es thatt he di s tr i ctat t orney has m ade the j udgm ental r eady a nd thathi s deci s i on s houl d be bi ndi ng and per s uas i ve t o the j ury.

### 20

I d. at347 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. H ow ever , thi s C our tw enton t o s ay th a t [ t ] hi s err ordoes notaut om at i cal l y r es ul ti n r ever s al
. T hi s s t at ementi s r evi ew ed t o s ee the m agni tude of

pre j udi ce, t he ef

f ect i venes s of

the cur at i ve i ns truct i on, a n d the stre n g th o f th e e v id e n c e o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt
. U n itedS tates v. G o

ff , 8 4 7 F . 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 6 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), c e r t. d e n ie d , Kunt z e v. U . S. , 488 U
. S. 932, 109 S. C t . 324, 102 L
. E d. 2d 341 ( 1988)
. T he tr i al cou rtand the pr os ecut or to ld th e ju ry th a t it w a s th e ju ry ’s d e c isio n to d e ter m in e H o llan d ’s p u n ish m e n t. T he pr os ecut ort ol d j ury “i t ’ s j us ty ou rdeci s i on. ” A s s uch, err or , i f any, w as c u re d
. State v. B ey , 610 A
. 2d at816 (N
. J
. 1992)
. T he El eventh C i r cui tf ound this i nf orm at i on s uf

f i ci entt o l es s en the magni tude of pr ej udi ce t o a l evel b e lo w th a t r e q u ir in g re v e rs a l. B r ooks , 7 6 2 F . 2 d a t 1 4 1 3 -1 4
. Id
. ¶39. I n the i ns t ant cas e, the comm ent s m ade by M ans el l dur i ng her pr el i m i nary openi ng
s t at ementw er e made t o the ent i r e j ury veni r e, pr i ort o i ndi vi dual voi rdi r e. T he St at e ar gues thatthi s w as nothi ng more than the pr os ecut or ’ s a tt emptt o c om m uni cat e t o thos e pot ent i al j ur or s the magni tude of thei rs ervi ce a nd the s er i ous nature of the case. Fol l ow i ng the
c o m p lain e d -o f co m m e n ts m a d e in th e p re lim in a ry o p e n in g sta tem e n t, M a n se ll w e n t o n to
s ay: B u t if y o u k n o w in y o u r h e a rt y o u c a n n o t d o it, y o u c a n n o t d o it, y o u n e e d to l etus know
. B eca us e the onl y w ay thatw e can s t artthi s c as e i s w e have t o get 1 2 p eo p le i n that b o x . B u t w h en it ’s all o v er, an d itp rob ab ly w il l t ak e u s -- i t’ s goi ng t o t ake us a w eek t o get t his j ury i n the box. A nd I appr eci at e your p a t i e n c e . I k n o w i t ’ s t i r i n g , a n d I k n o w y ’ a l l a r e p r o b a b l y , e s p e c i a l l y n o w, r eal l y notw ant i ng to be her e. A nd i t ’ s goi ng t o pr obabl y t ake a w eek of t es t i m ony. ¶40. Si m i l ar t o Hol

land , af t ert he j ury w as sel ect ed, M ans el l unequi vocal l y st at ed t o the j ury: A s I t ol d you i n ourge ner al voi rdi r e, i t ’ s be en s i x year s s i nce w e s oughtthe death penal ty. W e obvi ous l y under s t and the magni tude of thi s cas e. B utthe

### 21

one thi ng I t ol d you dur i ng gener al voi rdi r e, and I ’ m goi ng t o t el l you agai n, I w i th the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi and St an A l exande rw i th the St at e of M is s is s ip p i, w e w antyou to bas e yourverdi ct on the ev i dence
. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶41. A f

t err evi ew i ng the ent i r ety of the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s , i ti s qui t e appa r entthat the pr os ecut orw as s eeki ng t o gai n the j ury’ s appr eci at i on f orthe t as k athan d. S he made no di r ectcomm entthatshe has soughtt he death penal ty onl y i n rare i ns t ance s s uch as thi s one. A s w i l l be di s cus s ed i nfr a , t he j ury w as prope r l y i ns truct ed by t he tr i al cour tt hatthe dec i s i on
o n M o ffe tt’s g u ilt w a s e x c lu siv e ly th e ju ry ’s. F u rth e rm o re , the p ro se c u to r re p e a ted ly
r emi nded the j ury thatthe dec i s i on w as thei r s t o m ake, bas ed on the evi dence
. ¶42. W i th r egar d t o s t at ement s m ade by the pr os ecut ordur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , i t cannot be s ai d thats he i m pl i ed thatherdeci s i on s houl d be bi ndi ng o n t he j ury. D ur i ng cl os i ng
ar gum ent , M ans el l t ol d the j ury: I abs ol ut el y r es pectthe j ury s ys t em. I thi nk i tw orks
. I have ne vernotagr eed w i th the j ury s ys t em becaus e I be l i eve i n i t . So t he ques t i on i s w hati s j us t i ce. J u s tic e is in y o u r h a n d s . You get t o deci de w h a t ju s tic e is in th is c a s e . You get t o deci de and y ou ge tto tel lEri c Mof f et twhathe di d w as w r ong, oryou can le t h im g o . B u t w h a t e v e r y o u d o , w e w antyou to m ake a de cis i on . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶4 3. M of

f et t of f e r s thi s i s s ue a s a c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ou ns e l
. A s s umi ng,
ar guendo , th a t M o ffe tt’s c o u n se l w a s d e fic ien t fo r n o t o b jec tin g , th e iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit i n l i ghtof

the f ul l cont extof the pr os ecut i on’ s r emar ks , and M of f ettf ai l s t o s how pr ej udi ce. (b) C om m en ts on M off ett ’s si l en ce an d l ack of rem orse

### 22

¶44. I f a pr os ecut or comm ent s on a def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o t es t i f

y, he vi ol at es the cr i m i nal d e fe n d a n t’ s F if

th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t a g a in s t s e lf -i n c ri m in a tio n . G riffin v. Ca lifo r n ia , 380 U
. S. 609, 611, 85 S. C t . 1229, 1231, 14 L
. E d. 2d 106 ( 1965)
. M of f ettas s ert s thatthe pr os ecut or s made r emar ks a bouthi s l ack of r emors e. H e compl ai ns that“.
. . the pr os ecut i on di d s o r epea t edl y, begi nni ng i n the openi ng s t at ement s w hen M ans el l i nf orm ed the j ury that M o ffe tt ‘[h]a s n o t cr ied o n c e ’ a n d in v ited th e ju ry to ‘w a tch h im th ro u g h th is tria l’ to s e e if he w oul d cry. ” M of

f ettof f er ed thi s s nippetof

M ans el l ’ s openi ng r emar ks
. A f ul l r eadi ng i s as f oll ow s: A nd you ar e goi ng t o hearf r om the scene o ff

i cer s thatw er e ther e. A nd the in ter e stin g th in g th e y ’re g o in g to tell y o u a b o u t t h a t, th e y n e v e r sa w E ric M of f ettcryi ng. H e l i ved w i th thi s w om an f orthr ee ye ar s a nd he rthr ee baby gi r l s , buthe neve rcr i ed abouti t . N otonce. Y ’ al l w at ch hi m thr ough thi s tr i al , l et ’ s s ee i f they -
- w e’ l l s ee. H as notcr i ed on ce. N o o ff

i cer w i l l tes t i fy that they ev er saw an y t ears co m e o ut of hi s eyes, notone dr op. ¶4 5
. T h e fu ll text rev ea ls th at M an sell w as p rev iew ing the S tat e’s c ase reg ard ing M o ffett ’s demeanoratthe cr i m e s cene . Such evi den ce is n ot onl y perm i s s i bl e; i ti s r el evant . “The d em ea n o r, ac ts an d co n d u ct of a n ac cu sed at th e ti m e a n d su b se q u en t t o the c ri m e a re admi s s i bl e. H ow ever , thi s s houl d be l i m i t ed t o a s t at ementof the fact s by the w i tnes s or
w i tnes s es , l eavi ng the j ury f r ee t o f orm i t s ow n concl us i ons . ” D a v is v. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 643, 654 ( M i s s . 1996) ( quot i ng H a rr e lso n v . S ta te , 6 5 S o . 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 ( M i s s . 1 9 5 3 ) )
. T h u s , we f i n d n o me r i ti n th i s c l a i m.

### 23

¶4 6
. M o ffettalso take s issue w ith the p rose cu ti o n ’s c o m m e n ts m ad e d u ri n g the S tat e’s
c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, w h e n A lex a n d e r sa id , “A n d e v e n th o u g h h e ’s sittin g o v e r th e re a ll s m ug to d a y w ith h is c o u n se l su rro u n d e d b y p e o p le th a t are g o in g to te ll y o u ab o u t th e g o o d n e ss in h is h e a rt . . . . ” (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) D u rin g th e se c o n d h a lf o f c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts, M a n se ll
s ai d: I hope w hi l e M r . D uggan w as l ovi ng up on E r i c M of f etty’ al l atl eas tl ooked at him , b ec au se I h av en ’tb ee n ab le t o loo k a t him d u ri n g this tri al. B u t eve ry t i me I ’ v e l o o k e d a th i m a l l h e ’ s d o i n g i s s t i l l s ma c k i n g o n th a tg u m. H e ac t s l i ke thi s i s no bi g deal
. H ave you s een a ny ounce of anythi ng outof hi m thats how s thateven maybe perhaps t hi s w as a bad thi ng thathappene d [ ?] Y ’all co u ld se e h im th e en ti re t im e. H as h e b ee n sm ac k ing o n g u m the e n ti re t i m e[ ?] I s thats om eone thathas no r emors e[ ?] ¶47
. T h is C o u rth as h eld itis im proper forthe p rosecut i ng at t orney to cal l th e jury ’s att ent i on t o the f

actthatthe def

endantsati n the courtr oom and s how ed no emot i on, the im p lic a tio n b e in g th a t, f o r t h a t r e a s o n , h e m u s t b e g u ilty
. R e e d v. S ta te , 197 So. 2d 811, 815-16 (M i ss. 1967). I n D a v is v . S ta te , 684 So. 2d 643 ( M i s s . 1996) , dur i ng cl os i ng
ar gum ent s of

the s ent enci ng phase, the pr os ecut ors t at ed, “I haven’ ts een r emors e. ” I d. at 6 5 4 . T h is c o m m e n t d re w a n o b jec tio n o n th e g ro u n d s th a t itc o n c e rn e d D a v is’s fa ilu re to te s tif y . I d. D a v is a s k e d th a t th e ju ry b e in s tru c te d to d is re g a rd it a n d m o v e d fo r a m is tr ia l. I d. T h e tri al co u rtd id ad m o n ish the j u ry to d isr eg ard th e statem en t b u t den ied th e m o ti o n for a
m is tr ia l. I

d. In it s an alys is of D a v is , thi s C our tdi s cus s ed H ar r el s on , and i n doi ng s o, s t at ed: T he demeanor , act s and conduc to f an accus ed atthe t i m e and s ubs equentt o the cr i m e ar e admi s s i bl e. H ow ever , thi s s houl d be l i m i t ed to a st at em ent of the fact s by the w itn ess o r w i tnesses, l eavi ng the j ury f

r ee t o f orm i t s ow n concl us i ons . T he admi s s i on

### 24 of the opi ni on of

the of f i cers w ho i nves t i gat ed the ki l l i ng that the appe l l ants how ed no si gns of gr i ef , overthe obj ect i on of

the a p p e llan t, w a s im p ro p e r a n d h ig h ly p re ju d icia l. H a rr e lso n v. S ta te , 217 M i s s . 887, 891, 65 S o. 2d 237, 239 ( 1953) ( al l ow i ng of f i cer s t o t es t i f

y thata de f

endants how ed no s i gns of gr i ef )
. W e r ever s ed the c o n v ic tio n o f H a rr e ls o n b e c a u s e h e d id n o t r e c e iv e a fa ira n d im p a rt ia l tr ia l. Id . “ The [H ar r el s on ] opi ni on s i m pl y r ecogni zed the unf ai rnes s of

s ubj ect i ng a d efe n d an t t o an o b

jecti v e ‘g ri ev ing test . ’ Fla n ag in v. S ta te , 4 73 S o. 2d 482, 487 ( M i s s . 1985)
. ” “Thi s i s s t i l l a good rul e of l aw . ” K o lb v. S ta te , 542 S o. 2d 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). D a v is , 684 So. 2d at654. T he D a v is C o u rtult im ately fou n d th at th e ad m o n it ion o f th e c o u rt
s u ff ic ie n tly c u re d th e e ff

e c t o f t h e s ta te m e n t. I

d. ¶48
. In t he instantcase, M off et t ’s co un sel d i d no to bjectto the prosecuti on ’s com m ents , a n d n o a d m o n ish m e n t w a s s o u g h t. T h e iss u e w a s n o t ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, an d h a d it b e e n , it w o u ld h a v e b e e n p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d b y w a iv e r. See D o ss v. S ta te , 709 So. 2d 369, 4 0 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ) ( T h e fa ilu re o f d e fe n se to c o n tem p o ra n e o u sly o b jec t to im p ro p e r c o m m e n ts f r om pr os ecut orr egar di ng, among ot herthi ngs , the def endant ’ s l ack of

r emors e, w as pr ocedur al l y barr ed on di r ectappea l
. )
. M off et tas s ert s thathi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f or fa ili n g to o b

jec t to th e im p e rm iss ib le c o m m e n tar y o n h is la c k o f re m o rse d u rin g th e trial. ¶49. A s a gen eral rul e, pr os ecut i ng att orneys s houl d r ef r ai n f r om comm ent i ng upon the appea r ance of

a def endant
. W e have re vi ew ed the cl os i ng ar gum ent s by the pr os ecut i on, and i n cont extof

the ent i r e ar gum ent , the f l eet i ng com m ent s compl ai ned of have a de m i ni m us
e ffe c t. H a d w e b e e n as k e d to a d d re ss this cla im o n d ire c t ap p e a l, th e li k e ly o u tco m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n h a rm les s e rro r in li g h t of the o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e . T h e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n ts
a b o u t M o ffe tt’s d e m e a n o r d u rin g th e tria l w e re m a d e to a ju ry th a t h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to

### 25

p e rso n a lly v iew h is d e m e a n o r fo r th e m se lv e s. T h e ju ro rs h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to fo rm th e ir
ow n opi ni ons and w er e notre qui r ed t o re l y on the pr os ecut or ’ s opi ni ons . M of f ettnow r ai s es the i s s ue i n hi s pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on as a c l ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el
. E ven i f w e w er e t o as s um e thatd ef ens e couns el s houl d have obj ect ed t o the comm ent s , w e f i nd thatther e i s not“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 the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ” Mohr , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d at 4 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ).

“ U n les s a d e fe n d a n t m a k e s b o th sh o w in g s, it ca n n o t b e s a id th a t th e c o n v ictio n o r d e a th
se n ten c e re su lted fro m a b re a k d o w n in th e a d v e rsa ry p ro c e ss th a t re n d e rs th e re su lt
unr el i abl e. ” Str inger , 454 So. 2d at477 ( M i s s . 1984)
. T hi s a s s i gnm entof e rr or i s w i t hout
m e rit. ( c) P ers onal at t acks on def ens e couns el ¶ 5 0
. M o f

f e t ta s s e r t s th a tth e St a t e e n g a g e d i n p e r s o n a l a t t a c k s o n d e f e n s e c o u n s e l
. He
r el i es on E dw a rds v . S ta te , 737 So. 2d 275 ( M i s s . 1999)
. I n thatcas e, thi s C our tnot ed that “[ i ] nappr opr i at e ori m pr operpr os ecut or i al r emar ks ar e notnece s s ar i l y r ever s i bl e err or . ” I d. at300. T he t es t , agai n, i s “.
. . w hetherthe natur al and pr obabl e ef f ectof the pr os ecut i ng att orney’ s i m pr operar gum entcr eat ed un j us tpr ej udi ce a gai ns tthe ac cus ed r es ul t i ng i n a deci s i on i nf

l uenced by pr ej udi ce. ” I d. ( quot i ng D u n a w a

y v. S ta te , 55 1 S o. 2d 16 2 (M i ss. 1 9 8 9 )). ¶51. I n E dw ar ds , th e p ro se c u to r m a d e th e fo llo w in g c o m m e n ts d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t: B ut , i ns t ead, l adi es and gent l emen, he made a n ar gum entthat , qui t e hones t l y, I don’ thave s ym pathy as I thoughtI w oul d f orhi m , b ecause I can’ tbel i eve

### 26

thatanybody coul d getup her e w i th a str ai ghtf ace and ar gue t o you the thi ngs th a t h e h a s ju s t a rg u e d
. . . . Q ui t e hones t l y, l adi es and gent l emen, i tboggl es m y m i nd as t o how anybody coul d ar gue s uch a r i di cul ous pr opos i t i on, otherthan t he f actI r eal i ze they have a j ob t o do and they have t o come up w i th s om ethi ng. B uti ti s s t i l l m i nd boggl i ng how anybody ca n s t and her e w i th a s tr ai ghtf ace i n f r ontof you and s a y w e h a v e n ’tp ro v e n th a t. . . . N ow , t ha tdo e s t e e me of f , l a di e s a nd ge nt l e men, f orthe de f

e ns e l a w ye r , t he m an w h o is rep rese n ti n g the m an w h o m ad e tho se m ag g o ts i n fest th at m an ’s head, thatm an overther e i s def endi ng t he di gni ty of Tony R obert s by t el l i ng you tha tthe ph ot og r a ph s tha ts ho w the bu l l e tho l e s i n h i s he a d d on ’ ts how s o m e th in g im p o rt a n t in th is c a s e ?
. . . I d. T his C ou rtfound tho se com m ents t o b e “egregious” and found i tt o b e on e of fi ve err ors,
w hi l e s t at i ng thatthe “e rr oral one may ormay notha ve r es ul t ed i n r ever s i bi l i ty. ” I d. at301. A lex a n d e r’s c lo sin ga rg u m e n t. ¶ 5 2
. M o ffe tt co m p lain s th a t A lex a n d e r, in a n ticip a tio n o f w h a t th e d e fe n se m ig h t ar g u e in cl os i ng, t ol d the j ury thatdef ens e couns el m i ght“ turn f l i ps and ca r tw heel s ” i n r es pondi ng t o the Stat e’s evidence. T he co m m ent com plai ned of r eads i n ful l as f oll ow s: W h e n w e sta rte d th is e n tire p ro c e d u re R e b e c c a to ld y o u th a t w e d o n ’t h a v e to pr ove w hatcol or shoe s t he def endantw as w ear i ng. W e don’ thave t o pr ove w hatcol orof

shir th e w as w ear i ng. W e have t o pr ove t o you thathe comm i t t ed the cr i m e, thathe murde r ed and ki l l ed Fel i ci a G r i f f i n w hi l e i n the comm i s s i on of

s exual ba t t ery orc hi l d a bus e. That ’ s w hatw e’ ve gott o pr ove. W h at co lor cloth es h e w as w ea ri n g h as n o thing to d o w ith itw h atso ev er. N ow , they mi ghtgetup her e and t urn f l i ps a ndca rt

w heels and t al k a boutthe cl othes , butw hen you r ead thos e i ns truct i ons , r ead them, because t hat ’ s the l aw yo u’ve go tt o fol l ow . If yo u see an ythi ng i n ther e abo ut cl othes i n those i ns truct i ons aboutw hatw e have t o pr ov e, l ethi m go. A nythi ng aboutthe c lo th e s .

### 27

T h o se c o m m e n ts c a n h a rd ly b e co n sid e re d p re ju d icia l, p e rso n a lly d e ro g a to ry , o r e sp e c ially egregi ou s. ¶ 5 3
. M o ff

e tt a ls o c la im s th a t A le x a n d e r r e fe rr e d t o d e f e n s e a r g u m e n ts a s “ ri d ic u lo u s .” T hi s i s notent i r el y accurat e. U nl i ke the att orney i n E dw ar ds , A lex a n d e r p re se n ted h is por t i on of

cl os i ng ar gum entbef

or e the def

ens e pr es ent ed i t s ow n. W i th r egar d t o w hether M of f ett ’ s m otherhad e xc ul pa t ory e vi de nc e a tthe t i me M of f e ttw a s arr es t ed, A l exande ras ked the j ury t o cons i derw hy M of f ett ’ s m otherdi d notgo t al k t o the pol i ce w hen r eques t ed t o do
so. A l exan der r em i nd ed the j ury t hat s he h ad a ca r. H e sugg est ed thatshe did no tgo becau se
s he w oul d notl i e f

orhers on. Fol l ow i ng thatconcl us i on, A l exande rhypothes i zed: I gues s i f i tw as t he def

ens e, [ the pol i ce] w er e suppos ed t o go dow n t her e and h a n d c u ff h e r a n d ta k e h e r d o w n to w n a n d m a k e h e r g iv e a s ta te m e n t. T h a t’s r i di culous . T

h a t’s r id icu lo u s, a n d

e a c h o f yo u kn o w it. A l exande r ’ s comm entdoes notcompar e t o the devi at i on f r om pr of es s i onal i s m t hatoccurr ed i n E dw ar ds , 737 So. 2d at301. ¶54. A tanotherpoi nti n A l exande r ’ s c l os i ng a r gum ent , the def ens e obj ect ed t o hi s ar gui ng
m att ers o u tsi d e o f th e e v iden ce . A ft er the o b jecti o n w as o v erru led, A lexa n d er stated : “I’m g o in g to te ll y o u th e tru th . A n d th e y c a n sa y w h a t th e y w a n t w h e n I fin ish .” M o ffe tt as se rts thatA l exande rw as i m pl ying thatthe def ens e w oul d nott el l the truth. Fi nal l y, A l exande r
c o n c lu d e d h is a rg u m e n t b y c o m m e n tin g th a t M o ff e tt w a s “ ru n n in g fr o m ju s tic e .” ¶ 5 5
. T h e a rg u m e n t h e re , a g a in , is w h e th e r c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to o b jec t to th e re m a rk s b y th e p ro se c u to r. T h e se c o m m e n ts d o n o t c o m p a re to th e p re ju d icia l co m m e n ts
s how n i n E dw ar ds , 737 So. 2d at301. T hes e comm ent s l ack the egr egi ous cont entand

### 28

d ero g atory n ature o f E dw ar ds
. Id
. T h u s, co u n se l w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to o b jec t. F u rth er, M o ffettd o es n o t pa ss th e p rejud ice p ron g o f Str i c kl and , e v e n if th e C o u rt w e re to
a s s u m e , a rg u e n d o , th a t o b je c tio n s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n m a d e . Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S. at687. Ma n se ll’s c lo sin ga rg u m e n t. ¶56. M of

f ettnextcompl ai ns of

M ans el l ’ s f

i nal cl os i ng re m ark, re s pondi ng t o the def ens e: “A nd l et ’ s be s o di s r es pect f ul t o a mot herthatl os the rc hi l d a nd w ad hers t at ementup i n the garbage. ” M off

et tfurthercompl ai ns aboutM ans el l ’ s f i nal r emar ks w her e s he s t at ed: “[ L aQ uandi a, the vi ct i m ’ s ol dersi s t er , ] gave a s t at ementt o the C A SA peopl e 11 days af t er thi s happene d. A nd they w antt o s ay w el l , s he had a cce s s t o the pol i ce r eport s. W el l , you k n o w th a t’s w h a t de

fen se a tto rn e

y s [s ic] do . T

h e y tu rn th in gs a ro u n d

a little b it. ” (Q u o tatio n s a d d e d .) M o ffe tt m a in tain s th a t th e se c o m m e n ts w e re c le a rly irre lev a n t to h is g u il t bu t w ere inten d ed to p rom p t th e ju ry to q u esti o n the v era city o f de fen se c o u n sel’s
ar gum ent s . M of

f ettr el i es on U

. S. v. V acca ro , 115 F. 3d 1211 ( 5th C i r . 1997) , i n w hi ch the F if th C ir c u it c o n s id e re d a s im ila r c o m m e n t b y th e p ro s e c u tio n , y e t a ff ir m e d
. T he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ementthatdef ens e l aw yer s “muddl e the i ssues ” w as cl ear l y i m pr oper . T he pr os ecut orw as s eeki ng t o “dr aw the cl oak of r i ght eous nes s ar ound the pr os ecut ori n hi s per s onal s t atus as governm ent a tto rn e y a n d im p u g n [ ] th e in teg rity o f d e fe n se c o u n s e l.” U nited States v. Fr a s c o ne , 747 F. 2d 953, 957- 58 ( 5th C i r . 1984)
. T hi s courthas been c l ear that“[ n] o pr os ecut or. . . m ay i m pugn t he i ntegr i t y of a part i cul arl aw yeror th a t o f la w y e rs in g e n e ra l, w ith o u t b a sis in fa c t, as a m e a n s o f im p u tin g g u ilt t o a def endant
. ” U

n itedS ta tes v. McD o n a ld , 6 2 0 F
. 2 d 5 5 9 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 0 ). N everthel es s , w her e s uch an e xces s i ve s t at ementcomes i n the heatof a cl os i ng ar gum enti n a har d- f

oughtcas e, i s obj ect ed t o and i m m edi at el y s us t ai ned, and s ubj ect ed t o an i ns t antcaut i onary i ns truct i on t o di s r egar d i t , i tdoes notw arr ant re v e rs a l. Fra s c one , 747 F. 2d at958.

### 29

I d. at1218. ¶ 5 7
. L ik e m o st o f M o ffe tt’s o th e r a ss e rtio n s o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l re late d to th e p ro sec u tors’ st atem en ts, th ere w as n o co n tem p o ran eo u s objecti o n or req u est f o r a caut i onary i ns truct i on. T he t es tthi s C our tm us tappl y t o det erm i ne the under l yi ng i s s ue of
w hetherthe comm ent s r equi r e r ever s al i s s t i l l “.
. . w hethert he natur al and pr obabl e ef f ect of t he pr os ecut i ng att orney’ s i m pr operar gum entcr eat ed unj us tpr ej udi ce a gai ns tthe ac cus ed

. . . . ” E dw ar ds , 737 So. 2d at300. T he com m ents d i d no tr i s e t o a pr ej udi ci al l evel of i mp u g n i n g th e i n t e g r i ty o f th e d e f e n s e t e a m. ¶5 8
. E v e n if th is C o u rtw ere t o assu m e tha t M o ffett ’s co u n sel sho u ld ha v e o bjec ted to
every comm entcompl ai ned of , M of f ettst i l l m us tshow t hat“.
. . the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng
w oul d ha ve b een d i f

f er ent . ” Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991)
. T he
o v erw h elm ing w eigh t of e v iden ce (ey ew itn ess testi m o n y , D N A ev iden ce , an d M o ffett ’s
c o n fe ss io n ) b e lies th e p ro p o sitio n th a t u n ju st p re ju d ice in flu e n c e d h is c o n v ictio n . M o ffe tt fail s o n the s ec o n d p ron g o f Str i c kl and , even i f

m ember s of

thi s C our ts houl d agr ee that obj ect i ons w er e w arr ant ed. Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S. at687. ¶59. Fur ther , thi s C our thas hel d thati m pr operr emar ks m ade dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s can b e h a rm le s s e rr o r w h e re th e e v id e n c e o f g u ilt is o v e rw h e lm in g . D a n c e r v . S ta te , 721 So. 2d 583, 590 ( M i s s . 1998). T he evi dence i n t hi s cas e i s overw hel m i ng, and i f one as s um es err or fo r t h e s a k e o f a rg u m e n t, it is h a rm le s s .

( d) P ros ecut or’ s expres s i ons of pers onal opi ni on

### 30

¶60. M of

f ettcompl ai ns thatthe pr osecuti on m ade com m ent s i n cl os i ng ar gum ent s that
w er e bas ed on per s onal know l edge out s i de the evi dence i n t he cas e. “The st andar d of r evi ew thatappel l at e court s m us tappl y t o l aw yerm i s conductdur i ng openi ng s t at ement s orcl os i ng
a rg u m e n ts is w h e th e r th e n a tu ra l an d p ro b a b le e ffe c t o f th e im p ro p e r a rg u m e n t is to c re a te unj us tpr ej udi ce a gai ns tt he acc us ed so a s t o r es ul ti n a dec i s i on i nf l uence d by the pr ej udi ce
s o cr eat ed. ” Sh e

p p a rdv. S ta te , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 1 (¶ 7 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). ¶61. Speci f

i cal l y, M of

f ett compl ai ns that the prosecut or i nj ect ed her ow n opi ni on about how l ong semen w oul d re m ai n “f r es h semen. ” M ans el l st at ed i n cl os i ng ar gum ent : “W hat [ the def ens e] can’ tgetoveri s R od E r i ks en i n hi s ow n r eport11 year s a go puti n ther e i tw as f r es h s emen. I ’ ve s een f r es h s emen. I know w hatf r es h s emen l ooks l i ke. ” She then s t at ed th a t sh e w a s su re the m e m b e rs o f th e jur y k n e w w h a t fres h se m e n loo k s lik e . M a n se ll fo llo w e d : N o w , c a n I te ll y o u h o w th a t se m e n o n th e to w e l g o t th e re [?] N o . I k n o w it c a m e o u t of

the p e n is o f th a t m a n . T h a t’s th e o n ly w a y it g o t th e re . C a n I te ll y o u if h e m a stu rb a ted b e fo re o r af ter [?] N o . H e o b v io u sly m a stu rb a ted sh o rtly bef or e the pol i ce c ame becaus e i tw as s t i l l w etand s hi ny. A t t orneys o n b oth si des are general l y aff orded b road l at i tud e du ri ng cl osi ng argum ents . W rig h t v. S ta te , 958 So. 2d 158, 161 ( M i s s . 2007)
. I n B re w e r v . S ta te , 7 04 S o. 2d 70 (M i ss. 1997) ( quot i ng Clem o n s v . S ta te , 320 So. 2d 368, 371- 72 ( M i s s . 1975) ) , thi s C our ts t at ed: [ s ] o l ong as couns el i n hi s a ddr es s t o the j ury ke eps f ai r l y w i thi n the evi dence and the i s s ues involve d, w i de l at i tude of di s cus s i on i s al l ow ed; butw hen he d e p a rts e n tirely fro m th e e v id e n c e in h is a rg u m e n t o r m a k e s s tate m e n ts i nt ended s ol el y t o exci t e the p ass i ons orpr ej udi ces of the j ury, orm akes i nf l amm at ory and damagi ng s t at ement s of f actnotf ound i n the evi dence , the trial ju d g e sh o u ld in ter v e n e to p re v e n t u n fa ir a rg u m e n t.

### 31

I d. at72. G i ven the l at i tude w hi ch couns el i s t o be af f or ded, and cons i der i ng the cont entof th e sta tem e n ts, sh e w a s w ith in th e p e rm iss ib le b o u n d s o f c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, fo r th e sta tem e n ts
w er e s uppor t ed by the evi dence adduce d. ¶62. M off

et tal so com pl ai ns thatM ans el l i nj ect ed per s onal opi nions abo ut a defense
w i tness’ s t es t i m ony by compar i ng f orthe j ury M of

f ett ’ s m other ’ s i nact i on w i th w hats he per s onal l y w oul d have done i n a s i m i l ars i tuat i on. M ans el l s t at ed: N ow , yo u kn ow , they w ant t o tal k ab ou t , yo u k no w , there are tw o w i tnesses, o r o n e w itn e ss th a t su p p o se d ly th e m o th e r w e n t in sid e th e h o u se th a t co u ld exoner at e hi m s ayi ng, you know w hat , the doorw as open. H ow c an you r econc i l e that
. She w as al i ve. W e hea r d f r om 1994, D ece m ber 3 1 st, ’9 4 . W e k n o w sh e ’s a liv e u n til 1 9 9 9 . H o w d o y o u re c o n c ile th a t. I a m a m o th e r. I h a v e a so n . If my so n g o t in tro u b le, e v e n a t sc h o o l, I w o u ld be the f i rs tone ther e to s ay l et

m e t el lyou at

l eas tmy ve rs i on. I

w ould be at the pol i ce s tat i on. If

the doors w er e l ocke d I would s i ton the s t eps unt i lthey o p e n e d it s o I c o u ldg o in a n d

te ll th e m w h a t h a

p p e n e d
.

. . . T hey tr i ed tw i ce t o gethert o come i n. She s ai d I ’ m com i ng i n and s he neve r s how ed up.

. . . I f thatmot herha d i nf

orm at i on thatw oul d exoner at e herchi l d, s he w oul d have gone up t o the pol i ce s t at i on and gi ven a s t at ement . W e al l k now that
. She d id n ’t. ( E m phas i s added. ) M ans el l w as of f er i ng ar gum entf

r om w hi ch i nf

er ence s f ai r l y coul d be d raw n b ase d o n the e v id e n ce p rese n ted. W h en co n side red in co n text, h er a rgu m en ts w ere

### 32

notdes i gned “t o cr eat e unj us tpr ej udi ce a gai ns tthe ac cus ed s o as t o r es ul ti n a dec i s i on i nf l uence d by the pr ej udi ce s o cr eat ed. ” Sh epp ard , 777 So. 2d at661. ¶6 3
. M o ffe tt n e x t c o m p lai n s that M an sell arg u ed fac ts n o t in ev iden ce . P rose cu tors are perm i t t ed t o ar gue anythi ng i n the St at e’ s cl os i ng ar gum entthatw as pr es ent ed as evi dence
. H a n n e r v . S ta te , 465 So. 2d 306, 311 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng Zant v. Ste phe ns , 462 U
. S. 862, 1 0 3 S . C t. 27 3 3 , 7 7 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 5 (1 9 8 3 )). “ In g e n e ra l, pa rties m a y c o m m e n t u p o n a n y fa c ts i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence , and may dr aw w hat e ve rde du c t i on s a ndi nf e r e nc e s tha ts e e m pr oper f r om the f act s . ” R o ss v. S ta te , 9 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 6 8 , 1 0 0 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 6 4
. P rio r to d isc u ss in g D o n a ld D a v is’s tes tim o n y w ith th e ju ry , M a n se ll m a d e sta tem e n ts lik e “ [p ]red a to rs w a n t th e c h ild to c o m e to th e m .” D e fe n se c o u n se l o b jec ted w h e n M a n se ll
s t at ed, “The perpetr at ora nd pr edat orw anti tt o be the chi l d’ s f aul t . T he chi l d w ant ed i t . T he chi l d came t o m e – . ” The def ens e ar gued thatM ans el l w as out s i de the r ecor d, and the obj ect i on w as overrul ed. M ans el l l at err eturned br i ef l y t o thi s l i ne of

ar gum entw i thout dr aw i ng anotherobj ect i on f r om the def

ens e. ¶ 6 5
. E x a m in in g M o ffe tt’s c laim u n d e r th e sta n d a rd fo r in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, he ca nnots how t hatcounse l ’ s per f or m ance w as def

i ci entbeca us e def

ens e couns el l odged an obj ect i on. Fur ther , i ti s w or th r epea t i ng thatthi s C our thas hel d thati m pr operr emar ks m ade dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s can be harm l es s err orw her e the evi dence of gui l ti s overw hel m i ng. D ancer , 721 S o. 2d at589. G i ven the overw hel m i ng evi dence agai ns tM of f etti n thi s cas e, it ca n n o t b e sa id th a t M a n se ll’s co m m e n ts c re a ted u n ju st p re ju d ice a g a in st M o ffe tt so a s to
r es ul ti n a dec i s i on i nf

l uence d by the pr ej udi ce c l ai m ed.

### 33

¶66. M of

f ett next as s ert s that M ans el l m ade i nf l amm at ory ar gum ent s w i th no bas i s i n f act thatM of f etthad s el ect ed the vi ct i m beca us e “s he w as n’ thi s col or . ” T he St at e count er s that th e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n ts w e re in fe re n c e s d ra w n fr o m th e e v id e n c e . S p e c ifica lly , D o n a ld D avi s ’ s t es t i m ony i ncl uded, “[ M of f ett ] s t at ed he di dn’ tknow w hy he di d i t . H e w as n’ tdrunk
orhi gh on drugs , buthe f el tl i ke thatFel i ci a w ant ed i tdone t oo beca us e they, the ki ds at
s chool , al w ays m ade f

un of F el i ci a sa yi ng she w as a w hi t e man’ s baby. H e, M of f ett , s t at ed th a t h e re lie v e d h e r o f h e r p a in s .” ¶ 6 7
. W ith re g a rd to c lo sin g arg u m e n ts, th is C o u rt h a s sta ted th a t th e a tto rn e y ’s “
. . . fu n c tio n is to d ra w c o n c lu sio n s a n d in fe re n c e s fr o m e v id e n c e o n b e h a lf o f h is c lien t in
w ha t e ve rh e d e e ms pr op e r , s o l on g a s h e d oe s n otb e c ome a bu s i ve a nd go out s i de the conf i nes of the r ecor d. ” B ro w n v. S ta te , 690 So. 2d 276, 296 ( M i s s . 1996)
. Fel i ci a’ s m i xed
ra c e w a s in tro d u c e d th ro u g h th e tes tim o n y o f D a v is. G iv e n th e b ro a d latitu d e p e rm itt e d in cl os i ng ar gum ent s , i tw as w i thi n bounds f orM ans el l t o com m enton M of f ett ’ s conf es s i on as t o w hy he comm i t t ed the atr oci t i es agai ns tFel i ci a. ¶ 6 8
. M o ffe tt rais e s e a c h o f th e se iss u e s u n d e r th e c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l,
assert i ng that hi s defen se coun sel shou l d h ave o bject ed to the p rosecut or’ s com m ents . H o w ev er, as m en tio n ed ab o v e, de fen se c o u n sel d id o b ject t o so m e o f th e p rose cu tor’s arg u m e n ts an d w as o v erru led. T h is C o u rtm u st m aintain th e p resu m p ti o n that co u n sel’s conductf al l s w i thi n the w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance . M of f etthas f ai l ed to sh o w tha t co u n se l w a s d e fic ien t. F u rth e r, ev e n if w e w e re to a ss u m e th a t co u n se l sh o u ld h a v e o b jec ted to e v e ry a rg u m e n t, M o ffe tt h a s n o t sh o w n re late d p re ju d ice . A c c o rd in g ly , h is

### 34

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

- couns el cl ai m s do notpass t he st andar d setforth i n Str i c kl and , 466 U .S . a t 6 8 7
. (e) P ro sec u tor ’s vo u ch ing for th e cr ed ibil it y o f a S tate

w i tness ¶6 9. M of

f e t tc ompl a i ns tha tthe p r os e c ut i on p e r s on a l l y vouched f ort he cr edi bi l i t y of Do n a l d Da v i s a n d p u tth e i mp r i ma tu ro f th e g o v e rn me n ta n d th e p r o s e c u t i o n b e h i n d h i m. M any of the pr os ecut i on’ s co m m ents t hatM of f ettcompl ai ned of

above a r e r ear gued. H ow ever , beca us e they have been cons i der ed, t he f ocus of thi s anal ys i s w i l l be l i m i t ed t o the
com m ents regar ding D on al d D avis
. ¶ 7 0
. “ A p ro se c u to r is forb idd en from interj ec ti n g h is pe rson al be li efs reg ard in g th e v e ra c ity of w i tnes s es dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent . ” Fo ste r v . S ta te , 639 So. 2d 1263, 1288 ( M i s s . 1994) ( ci t i ng U

nite d State s v. Y

oung , 470 U
. S. 1, 5, 20; 105 S. Ct
. 1038, 1041, 1048- 49; 84 L
. E d. 2 d 1 , 6 , 1 5 (19 8 5 )). I n G arza , . . . the F if

th C ir cu ith eld th at th e p rose cu tor’s ex p ression o f a personal opi nion t hat he beli eved the w itn esse s forthe U
. S
. ov er def ense w i tnes s es “s oughtt o us e the s t atus and i nfl uence of the ent i r e governm ent al in v e stig a to ry a p p a ra tu s to b o lste r th e b e liev a b ili ty o f h is c a se . It i s im p o ss ib le t o i m agi ne thi s s tr at egy di d nothave s ubs t ant i al i nf l uence on the j ury. ” Id
. ( quot i ng U

n ited S tates v. G arza , 6 0 8 F . 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ))
. ¶71. W hen di s cus s i ng G arza , the Fos terCourtf ound the pr osecutor’ s com m ents t o be im p rop er. T he cl os i ng ar gum enti n G arza i s str i ki ngl y opprobr i ous . T he def endantr ai s ed a n a lib i d e fe n s e , c a llin g a n u m b e r o f w itn e s s e s to te s tif y . G arza , 608 F. 2d at 661. T he ca s e f

orthe U
. S. rest ed pri m ar i l y on the t es t i m ony of a c. i
. and a D .E .A . a g e n t. Id
. T he pr os ecut or pepper ed hi s cl os i ng w i th comm ent s t o the

### 35

ef f ectthat( 1) he bel i eved the U
. S. w i tnes s es overthe def ens e w i tnes s es ; ( 2) thath e w oul d nothave c al l ed the U
. S. w i tnes s es i f he di d notbel i eve they w er e t el l i ng the truth; ( 3) the U
. S. w i t nesses ha ve no r eas on t o l i e; ( 4) that n e ith e r h e n o r t h e U .S . G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld f ra m e th e d e fe n d a n t. [ G arza , ] 608 F. 2d at661- 663. Fos ter , 639 So. 2d at1288, ( n1) ¶7 2
. M o ffettco m p lai n s ab o u t nu m ero u s co m m en ts m ad e b y M an sell
. D u ri n g p reli m inary
o p e n in g sta tem e n ts, M a n se ll t o ld th e p o ten tial ju ro rs th a t D o n a ld D a v is m a y b e re fe rre d to by the def

ens e as a “jai l hous e s ni t ch, a r at , a w hat ever. . . ” buts he as s ur ed the veni r e that

“ [h] e g o t n o thing , no de al w h atso ev er. N ev er ha s. ” T h is co m m en t d o es n o t refle c t a per s onal opi ni on of

D avi s ’ s ver aci ty. ¶73. N ext , M of

f ettcompl ai ns M ans el l s t at ed: A nd the thi ng abo ut D on al d D avis , the inm at e, I don’tl i ke u si ng j ai l ho use s ni t ches
. I’ ve been doi ng thi s 11 year s . T he f i r s tt i m e I ’ ve eve rus ed one. A n d y o u w a n t to k n o w w h y [? ] B e c a u se h e ’s te lli n gthe tru th
. W hathe w r i t es

- - he w r ot e a s t at ementouti n 1995. T her e i s abs ol ut el y no w ay he c oul d have k n o w n th e th in g s h e k n e w w ith o u t -- h e w a s e ith e r th e re o r th is d e fe n d a n t to ld hi m w hathappene d. ( E m phas i s added. ) I ti s cl earthatM ans el l w as givi ng the j ury a f actual bas i s t o acc ept D avi s ’ s t es t i m ony, bas ed on s t at ement s he ga ve m or e than a de cade ear l i er . T he tr ans cr i pt
r evea l s t hatM ans el l al s o par aphr as ed the t es t i m ony thats he expe ct ed D onal d D avi s t o gi ve. T h is si tuation i s qu it e d if feren t f rom that o f G arza o r Fos ter , beca us e M ans el l di r ect ed the j ury’ s att ent i on t o evi dence they sh o u ld lo o k fo r. M a n se ll sp e c ifica lly to ld th e ju ry th a t D a v is ei ther had t o h ave b een p res ent duri ng the cri m e o r M off et th ad t o hav e tol d him the det ai l s, bas ed on hi s 1995 w r i t i ng. M ans el l ’ s others t at ement s m i l i t at e agai ns tj ury r el i ance on her

### 36

orthe governm ent ’ s opi ni on of t he vera ci ty of D avi s , f

ordur i ng thi s s ame openi ng
s t at ement , M ans el l s ai d, “ I’ m goi ng t o t el l you t hi s now and I ’ m goi ng t o t el l you agai n on
m y fu ll o p e n in g , a n d I’ m g o in g to te ll y o u a g a in o n c lo s in g . I w antyou t o bas e yourverdi ct
on the evidence. I

don ’t w an tyou t o b ase i ton anything el se .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) M a n se ll fu rth e r sta ted d u rin g h e r o p e n in g sta tem e n ts m a d e a fte r th e p e titju ry w a s s e a ted : A n d I to ld y o u w h a t [M o ffe tt] d id . A n d th e re a so n w e k n o w h e d id it i s beca us e he conf

es s ed t o an i nm at e. A nd I’ m s ur e w e’ r e goi ng t o have a l l ki nds of w el l , he’ s a j ai l hous e s ni t ch, he’ s a r at , he’ s a - - I can’ tthi nk of al l the w or ds you can c al l hi m . Y ou know , he’ s gott o be a l i arbecaus e he’ s an i nm at e. W e ll, you gett o ju d

g e h is c re d ib ili ty and you gett o deci de is D o n a ld D a v is ly in g . W h a t d id h e g a in , if an y th in g , fro m th is c o n fe ss io n th a t E ric M o ffe tt gave hi m [ ?] A n d th e in ter e stin g th in g -- a n d th a t’s w h y I’m tellin g y o u I w a n t you t of ol l ow the ev i dence . L o o k a t th e p iec e s o f th e p u z z le. W h e n D o n a ld D a v is g iv e s th is s t at ementback i n 1995 -
- I w antyou t o thi nk a boutthi s . Fr om ’ 95 unt i l 2006, w ay dow n her e al m os t12 year s l at er , I w anty ’a ll to th in k a b o u t th is , d id

h is statem ent chan ge o ne b i ti n 1 2 yea rs . T he ans w eri s abs ol ut el y not . N otone th i n g h a s c h a n g e d , n e v e r , n o th i n g , n o h o w. ( E m phas i s added. ) T he s t at eme nt com pl ai ned of i s har dl y a r i ngi ng endor s ementby the g o v ern m en t of D av is’ s v era city . A d d it ion all y , M an se ll c o n ti n u ed w ith co n stan t r em ind ers t o the j ur or s thatthey det erm i ne cr edi bi l i ty. ¶74. M of

f ett ’ s compl ai nt s r el at ed t o M ans el l ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent s cont i nued t o w her e s he
r emi nded the j ury of

evi dence thatD avi s ’ s s t at ementaboutM of f ett ’ s conf

es s i on h ad not change d i n m or e than el even ye ar s . She s t at ed: I t ’ s neverchange d. I t ’ s neverchange d.

### 37

A n d n o w th e y ’re g o in g to sa y w e ll, M s. M a n se ll, y o u k n o w , h e ’s u p fo r p a ro le i n a yea r . I betyou she’s goi ng t o w r i t e hi m a l ett er . M r . D avi s t ol d you I have c ons i s t ent l y turned hi m dow n. I’ ve b een d oing this 12 years. I hav e never used an i nm at e i n o ne o f m y cases. Ne v e rh a v e I p u ta n i n ma t e o n th e s t a n d , b e c a u s e g e n e r a l l y I d o n ’ tl i k e th e m. D onal d W ayne D avi s , af t ert al ki ng t o hi m a nd l ooki ng a thi s s t at ement , i tw as c re d ib le. H e m a y b e a n in m a te b u t h e s till d e se rv e s y o u to w e ig h h is cr edi bi l i t y l i ke eve ry otherw i tnes s thatt o the s t and. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) M a n se ll, w h e n p o sitin g th a t D a v is w a s c re d ib le , p o in ted to m a tters in
e v id e n c e a n d to ld th e ju ry h is c re d ib ili ty w a s in th e ir h a n d s . S h e a rg u e d th a t cr e d ib le
e v id e n c e s h o u ld n o t b e d is m is s e d s im p ly b e c a u s e th e w itn e s s w a s a n in m a te . ¶7 5. L i ke the othe ri s s ue s b e f or e , M of f e t tr a i s e s thi s i s s ue u nd e ra 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 ectt o the pr os ecut i on’ s comm ent s . I n or dert o f i nd that
couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ectamount s t o def i ci entper f

orm ance , M of

f ettm us tf i r s ts how thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s w er e obj ect i on abl e. A s di s cus s ed supra , they di d notw arr antan obj ect i on. H ow ever , ass um i ng f orthe s ake of

ar gum entthatthe def ens e s houl d have
o b jec ted , M o ffe tt stil l m u st s h o w p re ju d ice , w h ich h e c a n n o t d o . T h e n a tu ra l a n d p ro b a b le
e ffe c t o f M a n se ll’s c o m m e n ts d id n o t “c re a te u n ju st p re ju d ice a g a in st th e a c c u s e d s o a s to
r es ul ti n a de ci s i on i nf

l uence d by the pr ej udi ce s o cr eat ed. ” See Sh epp ard , 777 So. 2d at661 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). ( f

) C um ul at i ve ef

f ect ¶76. M o ffe tt c lai m s th a t th e c u m u lativ e e ffe c t o f th e p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n ts d e n ied h im a fai r tri al and that de G ruy and D ug gan shou l d h ave o bject ed t o im proper argum ents .

### 38

Ho we v e r , h e h a s n o ts h o wn th a th i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l p e r f

o r me d d e f

i c i e n t l y , n o rh a s h e s h o wn pr ej udi ce, even i f

thi s C our tw er e t o as s um e thatcounse l shoul d have obj ect ed. T her ef or e, havi ng cons i der ed ea ch cl ai m , M of f ettf ai l ed to ov ercome t he Str i c kl and s t andar d on any
c laim a n d h a s n o t sh o w n , cu m u lativ e ly , tha t d e G ru y a n d D u g g a n w e re in e ffe c tiv e in th e ir
r epr es ent at i on. 4. F ai l ure t o pursue M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 801 i s s ue on app eal ¶77. T he St at e of

f er ed the pr i or, 1 99 5 st at em ent of D onal d D avi s i nt o evi dence dur i ng D avi s ’ s t est i m ony. Pr i orcons i s t ents t at ement s ar e contr ol l ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E v id e n c e 8 0 1 (d )(1 )(B ). C o u n se l fo r M o ffe tt o b jec ted to th e sta tem e n t, a d e q u a tely pr es ervi ng the i s s ue f

orappea l
. M of

f ettnow compl ai ns thathi s a ppel l at e couns el abandone d th e iss u e o n d ire c t ap p e a l. ¶ 7 8
. On d i r e c ta p p e a l , M o f f e t t ’ s c o u n s e l p r e s e n t e d n i n e t e e n i s s u e s f o rth i s Co u r t ’ s r e v i e w. A ppel l at e couns el as s i gned t o pr os ecut e an appeal f r om a c r i m i nal c onvi ct i on does nothave
a c o n s titu tio n a l d u ty to ra is e e v e ry n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e re q u e s te d b y d e fe n d a n t. Fos terv. S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1138 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng Jones v. B ar nes , 463 U
. S. 745, 749, 103 S. C t . 3308, 3311, 77 L
. E d. 2d 987 ( 1983) ) ( A n i ndi gentdef endantdoes nothave a
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o compel appoi nted co uns el t o pr es s nonf r i vol ous poi nt s r eques t ed by t he cl i ent , i f

couns el , as a mat t erof pr of es s i onal j udgm ent , deci des nott o pr es enttho se p o in ts .) ¶79. W hen the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t hel d that a St at e m us t pr ovi de couns el f oran i ndi gentappel l ant as of r i ght , i t“r ecogni zed the s uper i orabi l i ty of tr ai ned couns el i n the

### 39

‘ exami nat i on i nt o the r ecor d, r es ear ch of the l aw , a nd mar s hal l i ng of a r gum ent s on [ the ap p ell an t’ s] b eh alf. ’ D o u g la s v . Ca lifo rn ia , 372 U
. S. at358, 83 S. C t . at817. ” Jones v. B ar nes , 4 6 3 U .S . 7 4 5 , 7 5 1 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 3 3 0 8 , 3 3 1 3 (1 9 8 3 ). E xper i ence d advoca t es s i nce t i m e beyond mem ory have e m phas i zed the i m por t a nc e o f

wi nn owi ng o utwea ke ra r gu ment s o n a pp e a l a nd f oc us i ng on one cent ral i s s ue i f

pos s i bl e, oratm os ton a f ew key i s s ues . J us t i ce J acks on, af t erobs ervi ng appel l at e advoc at es f orm any yea r s , s t at ed: O ne of the f i r s tt es t s of

a di s cr i m i nat i ng advoca t e i s t o s el ectthe ques t i on, orques t i ons , thathe w i l l p r es entor al l y. L egal cont ent i ons , l i ke the curr ency, depr eci at e thr ough over
- i s s ue. T he m i nd o f

an appe l l at e j udge i s habi tual l y r ece pt i ve t o the s ugges t i on thata l ow erc our tc om m i t t ed an err or . B ut rec ep ti v en ess d ec lin es a s the n u m b er o f assign ed erro rs in c re a s e s . M u ltip lic ity h in ts a t la c k o f c o n fi d e n c e in a n y o n e . .

. . [ E ] xperi ence on t he benc h convi nces m e thatm ul t i pl yi ng a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rro r w ill d ilu te a n d w e a k e n a g o o d c a se a n d w ill n o t s a v e a b a d o n e . J a c k s o n , A dvo cacy B ef ore the S u

prem e C ou rt , 25 T empl e L. Q
. 115, 119 (19 5 1 ). Ju sti ce Jac k so n ’s ob serv ati o n ec h o es th e a d v ice o f co u n tl ess a d v o ca tes b efo re him and si nce. A n au tho ri t at i ve w ork on app el l at e pract i ce ob serves: M os tcas es pr es entonl y one, tw o, or thr ee s i gni f i cantques t i ons

. . . . U s ual l y, . . . i f

you cannotw i n on a f

ew m aj orpoi nt s , the other s ar e notl i kel y t o hel p, and t o att emptt o deal w i th a gr eat m a n y in th e lim ited n u m b e r o f p a g e s a llo w e d fo r b rie fs w ill m ean thatnone may r ecei ve adequat e att ent i on. T he ef f ectof addi ng w eak a r gum ent s w i l l be t o di l ut e the f or ce of the s tr onger on es. R
. S tern, A p p ell ate P rac ti ce in the U n it ed S tat es 2 6 6 (19 8 1 ). Jones v. B ar nes , 463 U
. S. at751- 52, 103 S. C t . at3314.

### 40

Forj udges t o s econd- gues s r eas onabl e pr of es s i onal j udgm ent s and i m pos e on appoi nt ed couns el a duty t o r ai s e eve ry “col or abl e” cl ai m sugges t ed by a c l i ent w oul d di s s erve the very goal of vi gor ous and ef

f ect i ve advoc acy thatunder l i es A n ders
. N othi ng i n the C ons t i tut i on o r our i nt erpr et at i on of thatdocument r equi r es s uch a s t andar d. Id . at754. ¶80. A ppel l at e couns el i s not i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o r ai s e every pos s i bl e i s s ue. C ouns el i s pr es um ed compet ent , and couns el ’ s deci s i ons on w hati s s ues t o pr es enton di r ectappea l
w e re c o n sis ten t w ith ap p rop ri ate a p p ell ate p rac ti ce . W e re v iew e d M o ffe tt’s u n d e rly in g c laim

— w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n overrul i ng M of f ett ’ s obj ect i on t o the i ntr oduct i on of D avi s ’ s pri orconsi s t entst at ementi nt o evi dence
. W e f i nd thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterrby
o v e rr u lin g th e o b

je c tio n . See M
. R
. E
. 801. B eca us e the under l yi ng as s ert i on of err orhas no
m e rit, co u n se l ca n n o t be fau lted fo r n o t raisin g the issu e o n d ire c t ap p e a l. T h u s, th is c laim h a s n o m e rit. 5. F ai l ure t o obj ectt o t est i m on y regardi ng w het her t he cri m e w as hei nous, at roci ous, and cruel ¶8 1
. M o ffettco m p lai n s th at on e o f th e S tat e’s m ed ica l ex p e rts te stifie d th a t F e licia’s i nj ur i es w er e hei nous , atr oci ous , and cruel
. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M of f ett ’ s expert , A i ken, al s o t es t i f

i ed thatFel i ci a’ s i nj ur i es w er e hei nous , atr oci ous , and cruel
. M of f ettass ert s that hi s couns el w er e i nef

f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ectt o thi s t es t i m on y becaus e a medi cal p ro fe ss io n a l an d a p riso n -a d a p tat ion ex p ert w ere p erm itted to g ive leg al co n c lu sio n s. M o ffe tt f ur theras s ert s thathi s couns el w er e i nef f ect i ve on appeal becaus e, despi t e nothavi ng been

### 41

pr es erved by an obj ect i on, thi s amount ed t o pl ai n err orand s houl d have be en r ai s ed on di r ect
a p p e a l. ¶82. T he St at e m ai nt ai ns thatthi s Court , on di r ect appea l , addr es s ed M of f ett ’ s cl ai m that the hei nous , atr oci ous , and cruel aggr avat ors houl d nothave been subm i t t ed t o the j ury. Mo ffe tt , 49 So. 3d at11 15
. R egar di ng thi s i s s ue, the C our tengage d i n the f ol l ow i ng analysi s: ¶14 3. T he jury foun d tw o ag gravat i ng ci rcum st ances: ( a) The c api t al of

f ens e w as c om m i t t ed w hi l e the def endantw as engage d i n the comm i s s i on of

f el oni ous abus e and/ orbatt ery of a chi l d; (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 o r c ru e l. ¶144. M of

f etti ncorpor at es hi s ar gum enton I s s ue X V I i nt o the ar gum entthat the “e s peci al l y hei nous , atr oci ous , orcruel ” aggr avat or ( “H A C ”) s houl d not have b een subm i t t ed t o thi s j ury. H e then adds the f ol l ow i ng ar gum ent s : ( 1) cons i der i ng I s s ue X I I I , i ns uf f i ci entevi dence support s t he j ury’ s H A C f i ndi ng; ( 2) the l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on r egar di ng H A C w as uncons t i tut i onal l y vague; ( 3) s ubm i s s i on of

the chi l d- abus e aggr avat or , a l ong w i th H A C , f ai l s t o narr ow the c las s o f d e a th -e lig ib le d e fe n d a n ts; a n d (4 ) th a t th is C o u rt s h o u ld re c o n sid e r its hol dings thatan under l yi ng cr i m e may be us ed as a capi t al i zerand an aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . ¶ 1 4 5 . T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t App rendiand Ringd o n o t ap p ly to M is s is s ip p i’ s c a p ita l- s e n te n c in g s c h e m e . B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 933 So. 2d 930, 955 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). M is s is s ip p i’ s m a x im u m p e n a lty fo r c a p ita l m u rd e r i s d e a th
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 101( 1) ( R ev. 2007)
. A s the dea th penal ty i s not beyond the s t atut ory m axi m um f orM of f ett ’ s c r i m es , r el i ance on A ppr endiand Ringis m is p la c e d
. B e n n e tt , 933 So. 2d at955. ¶ 1 4 6
. M o f

f e t ta r g u e s th a ti n s u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s th e j u ry ’ s HAC f i nd i ng , c on s i de r i ng the r e qu i r e menttha te a c h a gg r a va t i ng c i r c ums t a nc e be p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See W h ite v . S ta te , 532 So. 2d 1207, 1220 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t i ng J

a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 443 U
. S. 307, 324, 99 S. C t . 2781, 2791, 61 L
. E d. 2d 560 ( 1979) )
. W hen thi s C our tcons i der s s uf f i ci ency of

### 42

evi dence , “the r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o t he pros ecut i on, any r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d have f ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” Roche v. S ta te , 913 So. 2d 306, 314 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Jacks on , 443 U
. S. at315, 99 S. C t . 2781)
. T he j ury hear d t es t i m ony re gar di ng Fel i ci a’ s atr oci ous i nj ur i es and the abhorr entm annerof herdeath. ¶147. T hi s C ou rthas hel d r epea t edl y thats i m i l ari ns truct i ons m eet cons t i tut i onal s t andar ds , as they “na rr ow [ ] the a ggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance of ‘ hei nous , atr oci ous orcruel ’ and ther eby cha nnel [ ] the j ury’ s sent enci ng di s cr et i on i n a pr i nci pl ed w ay. ” B en n ett , 933 So. 2d at955- 56 ( quot i ng Mc G ilb e rr

y v. S ta te , 8 4 3 S o . 2 d 2 1 , 2 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 )) (c iti n g se v e n c a se s w ith the “ ex ac t narro w ing instruction ”). ¶1 4 8
. F elon iou s c h il d a b u se is an u n d erlying felon y , as w ell as a n ag g rav ator, in M is s is s ip p i’ s c a p ita l- s e n te n c in g s c h e m e . See M i s s . Code A nn. §§ 99-3- 1 9 ( 2 ) ( f ) , 9 9
- 1 9
- 1 0 1 ( 5 ) ( d ) ( Re v . 2 0 0 7 )
. F e l o n i o u s c h i l d a b u s e a n d th e HAC a g g r a v a to r h a v e d is tin c t e le m e n ts . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 97- 5- 39( 2) ( a) ( R ev. 2 0 0 6 ), 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 1 (5 )(h ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); B e n n e tt , 933 So. 2d at954. W e have af f i r m ed ca s es i n w hi ch both f el oni ous c hi l d a bus e and H A C ha ve been f ound b y a ju ry . Id . ( ci t i ng S tev e n s v . S ta te , 80 6 S o. 2d 10 31 , 10 45 , 1 06 0 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ); B ro w n v. S ta te , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 8 1 , 5 0 1 -03 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶ 1 4 9
. Th i s Co u r th a s h e l d ma n y t i me s “ th a te v i d e n c e o f a n u n d e r l y i n g c r i me can pr op e r l y be u s e d bo th t o e l e va t e the c r i me t o c a pi t a l mur de ra nd as an agg ravat i ng ci r cumst ance . ” See R oss , 95 4 S o. 2d at10 14 (ci t i ng fi ve cases). T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas hel d t hatuse of an under l yi ng f

el ony as a n a g g ra v a to r i s n o t a c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r. See Tu ila e p a v. Ca lifo rn ia , 512 U
. S
. 9 6 7 , 9 7 1 -72 , 1 1 4 S
. C t. 2 6 3 0 , 2 6 3 4 -3 5 , 1 2 9 L
. E d
. 2 d 7 5 0 (19 9 4 ); L ow en field v. Phel

ps , 4 84 U. S. 2 31 , 2 33 , 1 08 S. Ct
. 5 46 , 5 48 , 9 8 L. Ed. 2d 5 6 8 (19 8 8 ). ¶150. M of

f ett ’ s ar gum ent s ar e w i thoutm er i t . W e f i nd t hathe i s due no r el i ef o n this assign m en t of erro r. Mo ffe tt , 49 So. 3d at1115- 16. ¶83. M of

f ett i s now att empt i ng t o r el i t i gat e the s ubm i s s i on of the hei nous , atr oci ous , and
cru el ag g rav ator, an issu e tha t i s b arred b y the d o ctri n e o f r e s ju d ic a ta , onl y thi s t i m e under

### 43

the g u ise o f i n effec ti v e a ssist an ce o f co u n sel. T h e S tate a rg u e s tha t M o ffett ’s claim s are
m e ritles s, b e c a u se th is C o u rt a lre a d y h a s d e ter m in e d o n d ire c t a p p e a l th a t th e a g g ra v a to r in q u esti o n w as p rop erly su b m itted to the jury an d th e “ju ry h ea rd testi m o n y rega rdin g F eli cia’s atr oci ous i nj ur i es and the abhorr entm annerof herdeath. ” I

d. a t 1 1 1 5 . F u rthe r, this C o u rt hel d thatthe j ury w as pr oper l y i ns truct ed on thi s i s s ue. ¶ 8 4
. R es j udi cata no tw i ths t andi ng , R ul e 704 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence pr ovi des:

“ T e stim o n y in th e fo rm o f a n o p in io n o r in fe re n c e o th e rw ise a d m iss ib le is n o t o b jec tio n a b le b e c a u se item b ra c e s a n u lti m a te iss u e to b e d e c id e d b y th e triero f fa c t.” T h e “ C o m m e n t” to R ul e 704, how ever , s t at es that“[ t ] he abol i t i on of the ul t i m at e i s s ue rul e does notre s ul ti n the admi s s i on of

al l opi ni ons . I ti s an abs ol ut e r equi r ementunderR ul es 70 1 and 702 that
o p i n i o n s mus tbe he l p f

u l t o a de t e r mi n a t i o n of

t h e c a s e be f

o r e th e y a r e a d mi s s i b l e . ” M
. R. E. 7 0 4 c m t. E very expertopi ni on embra ci ng the ul t i m at e f acti s notpers e admi s s i bl e, h o w e v e r. T h e o p in io n s till m u s t b e h e lp fu l to th e tr ie r o f f a c t. “ Q ues t i ons w hich si m

ply allow the w i tness to tel lthe jury w ha tresul tt o reach are i m perm issi ble , as ar e ques t i ons aski ng the w i tnes s f ora l egal

conclus i on .” “[ T ] he t as k of

s epar at i ng i m perm i s s i bl e ques t i ons w hi ch ca l l f oroverbr oad or le g a l r e s p o n s e s fr o m p e rm is s ib le q u e s tio n s is n o t a fa c ile o n e .”

. . . . [ A] n opi ni on w hi ch cov ers f act s w i thi n the com m on know l edge orexpe r i ence o f la y p e o p le w ill n o t b e h e lp

fu l a n d th e r e fo r e [is ] in a dm is s ib le
. ( ci t at i ons o m itted) (em p h asis su p p li ed ). H a rt v. S tate , 63 7 So. 2d 1329, 1339 ( M i s s . 1994) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng May v. S ta te , 5 2 4 S o . 2 d 9 5 7 , 9 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )).

### 44

¶ 8 5
. O u tsid e th e p re se n c e o f th e jur y , th e p ro se c u tio n as k e d the S tate ’s m e d ica l ex p e rt if he w oul d c ons i derthe i nj ur i es s uf f er ed by Fel i ci a t o be hei nous , atr oci ous , and cruel
. H e w as b eg inning t o answ er w hen coun sel f or the defense object ed, s t at i ng that that w as a det erm i nat i on f

orthe j ury. T he pr os ecut i on r es ponded thatthe j ury w as notpr es ent . T he trial c o u rt, h o w e v e r, o v e rru led th e o b jec tio n , sta tin g th a t th e m e d ica l ex p e rt w a s a fo re n sic p a th o lo g ist. ¶86. D ur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e of tr i al , the m edi cal expertw as c al l ed t o the s t and and, agai n, as ked i f

the i nj ur i es s uf

f er ed by Fel i ci a w er e hei nous , cruel and atr oci ous . W hen
a sk e d if F e licia ’s in

ju ry w a s h e in o u s, h e re sp o n d e d th a t itw a s “ d e sp ica b le.” W h e n a sk e d if i tw as cruel , he r es ponded “i f you def i ne cruel i n partas pai nf ul , I w ou l d. If

it ’s w ant on – [.] ” W h e n as k e d if it w a s a tro c io u s, h e res p o n d e d , “ If it’s w a n to n , w ith o u t re m o rs e , y e s , I
w oul d def

i ne i tas that
. ” H e w as as ked aga i n i f he w oul d cons i derFel i ci a’ s i nj ury atr oci ous and he r es ponded af

f i r m at i vel y. ¶87. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, the pr os ecut i on s how ed A i ken a phot o of Fel i ci a G r i f f i n and
as ked hi m i f

i tw as hei nous . H e r es ponded, “Forany human bei ng t o s ay i t ’ s not , s om ethi ng is v e ry w ro n g .” W h e n as k e d if it w a s c ru e l, he re sp o n d e d , “O b v io u sly .” A n d w h e n a sk e d if it w a s a tr o c io u s , A ik e n s a id , “ V e ry m u c h s o .” ¶8 8. W i t h b oth w i tne s s e s , i n the p r e s e nc e o f the j ury, thi s l i ne o f

q ue s t i oni ng dr ew no obj ect i ons f

r om the def

ens e. O ne ea s i l y coul d concl ude thati tw as str at egi c t o abs t ai n f r om obj ect i ng. Fi r s t , obj ect i ng chanc es thatthe j ury w oul d gi ve gr eat erw ei ghtt o the t es t i m ony. Second, g i ven the evi dence pr es ent ed, the def ens e r i s ks l os i ng cr edi bi l i ty w i th the j ury.

### 45

Fi nal l y, the tr i al c our ta l r eady had overrul ed a s i m i l arobj ect i on made out s i de the pr es ence of the j ury. A ccor di ngl y, i tcannotbe s ai d tha tcouns el ’ s per f orm ance w as def

i ci ent , and M of f ett ’ s cl ai m does notover come t he s t andar d s etf or th i n Str i ckland
. A d d iti o n a lly , this C our tal r eady ha s hear d and det erm i ned on di r ectappeal t hatt he j ury w as pr es ent ed evi dence to s u p p o rtth e a g g ra v a to r a n d th a t th e ju ry w a s p ro p e rl y in s tru c te d
. Mo ffe tt , 49 So. 3d at 1115- 16. Forthe f

or goi ng r eas ons , i tcannotbe sa i d t hatappel l at e couns el w as i nef f ect i ve fo r fa ili n g to a ss e rt th a t th e tes tim o n y a m o u n ted to p lain e rro r o n d ire c t ap p e a l. 6. F ai l ure t o renew m ot i on f or “cool i ng- of

f ” p eri od bet w een t he t ri al and sent enci ng ph as es ¶8 9. O n di r ectapp e a l , M of f e t t ’ s s i xt e e nth i s s ue br ou gh ti nt o q ue s t i on w he the rthe t r i al
co u rterr ed b y p roceeding t o the sent encing p hase of the tr i al i m m ediat el y aft er the jury
r eturned a gui l ty ver di ct . I n i t s anal ys i s , thi s C our tpoi nt ed outthatM off et tsubmi t t ed a pr etr i al m ot i on r eques t i ng a tw enty- f our - hourcool i ng- of

f peri od bef

or e begi nni ng the sent encing p hase. T he tri al courtdeferred a decis i on unti l tri al , st at i ng “T he C ou rtw i l l j ust
m ake the bestj ud gm en t i t ca n b ase d u po n the exi st i ng st atus of the tr i al
. ” T his C ou rtal so p o inted o ut that “M off

et tdid not obj ectt o p roceeding, renew his m oti on fora coo l i ng -off per i od, s eek a r ece s s or conti nuance, m ove t o m ake a n i nqui ry of the j ury, orr eportt o the tr i al j udge thatei therhe orhi s att orneys w er e t oo t i r ed orotherw i s e notr eady t o pr ocee d” fo llo w in g re tu rn o f t h e g u ilty v e rd ic t. Mo ffe tt , 4 9 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 1 2 . T h e C o u rt u lti m a tely h e ld thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterr , and i t“w as w i t hi n i t s br oad di s cr et i on t o pr ocee d w i thout

### 46

compl ai ntorobj ect i on of the part i es , thei rcouns el , orthe j ury. ” I d. at1114. T he i s s ue has b ee n an alyz ed an d rejected b y this C o u rt , an d itis ba rred b y the d o ctri n e o f re s ju d ica ta . ¶90. M of

f ettnow as s ert s thatde G ruy and D uggan w er e i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o r enew the
m ot i on f ora cool i ng -of

f per i od. T he l ack of

an obj ect i on by def

ens e couns el w as butone fa c to r in d e n y in g r e lie f o n th is is s u e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. T h e m e ri ts a ls o w e re d is c u s s e d
. R es ju d ica ta n o tw ith stan d ing , M o ffettm u st de m o n str ate to this C o u rtthat h is co u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e fi c ie n t a n d th a t th e d e fi c ie n c y p re ju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S
. at 68 7
. A s ev iden ce of th is claim for ine ffecti v e a ssist an ce o f co u n sel, M o ffetto ffers th e a ffid a v its o f h is tria l co u n se l. ¶9 1. E ven a s s umi ng , f or the s a ke of a r gu ment , tha t M of f e t t ’ s c ou ns e l w e r e de f

i c i e ntf or f ai l i ng t o r eca l l the mot i on f ora cool i ng- of

f per i od orr eques ta re ces s , t he af f i davi t s do not poi ntt o any s peci f

i c err ororpr ej udi ci al conductthatar os e f r om thatdef

i ci entper f

orm ance . M of f ettal s o f ai l s t o poi ntouthow he w as pre j udi ced by suc h a f

ai l ur e. A n as s ert i on thatthe j ury’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e the dea th penal ty r esul t ed f r om vot i ng i n the hea tof pas s i on or from b eing ex h au sted b y lat e-n igh t delibera ti o n s, w ith o u t m o re, i s m ere sp ec u lat ion
. T h ere i s not hi ng i n the r e c or d tha ti nd i c a t e s M of f e t t ’ s c ou ns e l , the j ury, o rthe c ou r th ad any dif fi cult i es conti nu i ng w i th the proceedings. ¶92. Fur ther , he has f ai l ed t o carry his bu r den and s how that the tr i al court w oul d have g ran ted a co o li n g -off p eriod if the re q u est h ad b ee n ren ew ed
. T h ere is no m an d atory
s ta tu to ry c o o lin g -o ff

p e ri o d b e tw e e n th e g u ilt a n d s e n te n c in g p h a s e s o f t ri a l in th is s ta te . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 1 (1 ) sta tes , in p a rt:

### 47

U pon convi ct i on oradj udi cat i on of gui l tof a def endantof

capi t al m ur deror othercapi t al off

ens e, t he courts hal l conducta s epar at e s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e d efe n d an t sho u ld b e se n ten c e d to d ea th, l if e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutel i gi bi l i ty f or par ol e, orl i f

e i m pr i s onm ent . T he p roc ee d ing sh all b e c o n d u cted b y the tri al j u d g e b efo re the tr ial jury a s s oon a s p ra c tica b le
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 101( 1) ( R ev. 2007) ( emphasi s a dded)
. Fur thers t i l l , thi s C our thas f ound no err orw her e a j ury has had as l i t t l e as f i f t een mi nut es betw een the gui l tand
s e n te n c in g p h a s e s o f t ri a l. See McG il ber r y v. State, 7 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 9 4 , 9 1 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ); Co n ley v. S ta te , 79 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 3 , 7 9 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ) (I n li g h t of McG il berry, deni al of tw el vehourcool i ng- of

f per i od uphel d w her e atl eas tthi r ty m i nut es t o tw o hour s and thi r ty m i nut es l aps ed betw een the gui l ta nd s ent enci ng pha s es of a c api t al
- m ur dertr i al
. ) M of f etthas f ai l ed to m ee t ei ther p ron g o f Str i c kl and , an d th e a p p lica tio n fo r le a v e sh o u ld b e d e n ied o n th is i s s ue. 7. F ai l ure t o o bj e c t t o t e s t i m ony of f am i l y m em bers regar di ng opi ni on o f ap p ro p riate sen ten ce for M o ffett ¶ 9 3
. M o ffe tt c o n ten d s th a t his tria l c o u n s e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ilin g to o bje c t to sta tem e n ts m a d e b y the v ictim ’s f a m ily re g a rd in g th e a p p ro p ria te s e n ten c e th e y fe lt M o ffe tt des er ved
. In i t s r es pons e, the St at e corr ect l y poi nt s outthatthi s C our tcons i der ed and
re je c te d th e u n d e rl y in g is s u e o f v ic tim -i m p a c t s ta te m e n ts o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Mo ffe tt v. S ta te , 49 So. 3d 1073, 1105- 08 ( M i s s . 2010) ( “N otw i ths t andi ng the w ai ver , w e f i nd no evi dence that the ju ry w as a ffected b y p assio n o r pre jud ice a s a re su lto f th is l im it ed test im o n y . ”). ¶94. T hi s C ou rtw i l l n ot consi der an i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m w hen the
u n d e rl y in g iss u e w a s c o n s id e re d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l a n d fo u n d to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. Spi cerv.

### 48

S ta te , 973 So
. 2d 18 4, 197 ( M i ss. 200 7). “T he do ctri ne o f res j ud i cata sh a ll ap p ly to a ll i s s ues , both f

actual and l egal , de ci ded attr i al a nd on di r ectappea l
. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 3 9 -2 1 (3 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e u n d e rly in g iss u e h e re is b a rre d a n d s h a ll n o t b e c o n sid e re d a g a in
u n d e r th e g u is e o f i n e ff

e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Fo ste r v . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1229 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ). 8 . F a il u re to o b jec t to p o rtion s of th e p ro sec u ti o n ’s closin g a rg u m en ts d u ri n g the sen tenci n g p h ase ¶95. A l though att orneys ar e not al l ow ed t o us e unf ai r m eans w hen ar gui ng t o a j ury, they
a re p e rm itte d b ro a d la titu d e . T h e re is n o d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th e la titu d e g iv e n b y th is C o u rt w ith re g a rd to cl os i ng ar gum ent s dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e as compar ed t o the gui l tphas e. W e lls v. S ta te , 903 So. 2d 739, 742- 43 ( M i s s . 2005)
. A t t orneys ar e af f or ded a w id e latitu d e in a rg u in g th e ir c a se to th e ju ry , b u t th e y a re n o t allo w e d to e m p lo y tac tics w h ich a re in fla m m a to ry , h ig h ly p re ju d icia l, orre a s o n a b ly c a lc u la te d to u n d u ly in fl u e n c e th e ju ry . Sh e p p a rdv. S ta te , 777 So. 2d at661. T h is C o u rt w ill re v e rse a c o n v ictio n b e c a u se o f l a w y e r m isc o n d u c t if it concl udes thatthe natur al a nd pr obabl e ef f ectof the i m pr operar gum entw as t o cr ea t e u nj us tp r e

j ud i c e a ga i ns tthe a c c us e d a nd was l i ke l y t o r e s ul ti n a d e c is io n in fl u e n c e d b y th e p re ju d ic e so c re a te d
. Id
. Fur therm or e, al l eged i m pr op e rp r os e c ut or i a l c omm e ntmus tb e c on s i de r e d i n c on t e xtwi t h t he c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f t h e c a s e . A h m a d v. S ta te , 6 0 3 S o . 2d 8 4 3 , 8 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). I n thi s cas e, the C our tm us tr evi ew the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s i n conj unct i on w ith th e “ o p e n in g s a lv o ” f ro m d e fe n s e c o u n s e l. E dw a rds v . S ta te , 737 So. 2d 2 7 5 , 2 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). S p ice r v . S ta te , 9 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 8 4 , 2 0 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶96. A s w i t h M of

f et t ’ s fi r s ti s s ue di s cus s e d a bo ve , he c on t i nu e s t o a s s e r t i ne f f ect i ve
as s i s t ance of

couns el f

orfa i l i ng t o obj ectt o cert ai n ar gum ent s m ade by the St at e dur i ng the
se n ten c in g p h a se . S im ilar a rg u m e n ts m a d e b y th e p ro se c u tio n d u rin g th e g u iltp h a se o f tria l,

### 49

di s cus s ed supra , w er e m ade aga i n atsent enci ng. F orthe s ame r eas ons , thi s i s s ue i s w i thout
m e rit. ( a) B i bl i calref ere nces by t he pros ecut i on ¶97. M of

f ett expands hi s ar gum ent i n thi s cl ai m by chal l engi ng the pr os ecut i on’ s bi bl i cal
r ef er ence s . I n Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 929 So. 2d 885 ( M i s s . 2006) , how ever , thi s C our thel d: [ W ] e f i nd thi s clai m h as no mer i tbeca us e thi s C our thas f ound B i bl i cal or s cr i ptur al r ef

er ence s i n cl os i ng ar gum ent s t o be w i t hin t he broa d l at i tude a ffo rd e d a t trial. T hi s C our thas cont i nual l y hel d thatcouns el i s af f or ded br oad lat itu d e in c losing arg u m en t. T h is l ati tud e, set ou t by the C o u rt i n N e l m s & B lum Co. v. Fink , 159 M i s s . 372, 382- 383, 131 So. 817, 820 ( 1930) , h as been r ef err ed t o i n the cont extof capi t al cas es . I n Ne l

ms , w e s t at ed that“ [ c] ouns el may draw upon l i t er atur e, hi s t ory, s ci ence , r el i gi on, and phi l os ophy f orm at er i al forhi s ar gum ent . ” Id . a t 3 8 2 -3 8 4 , 1 3 1 S o . 8 1 7
. See Hanse n v. S ta te , 592 So. 2d 114, 139- 140 (M i s s . 1991) [ otherci t at i ons o m itte d ]. B e rr y v. S ta te , 703 So. 2d 269, 281 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 655 So. 2d 824, 853 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. Consi der i ng the mer i t s of thi s i s s ue, M anni ng f ai l s t o demonstr at e pr ej udi ce r egar di ng the S t at e’s s cr i ptur al r ef er ence s or par ol e ar gum entdur i ng cl os i ng argum entof the s ent enci ng phas e of M a n n in g ’s tria l. W e th u s fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. I d. a t 90 6
. H a v in g rev iew e d the b ib lica l refe re n c e s M o ffe tt c o m p lain s o f, t h e y a re w ith in
w hatt hi s Courth a s a pp r ov e d. The r e f or e , M of f e t tc a nn ots ho w tha th i s c ou ns e l w as ineffec ti v e fo r fail ing to o b ject t o the p rose cu tor’s closing arg u m en ts on this m att er. ( b) C om par i ng t he pl i ght of t he vi c t i m wi t h t he l i f

e of t he de f e ndant

### 50

¶98. M of

f ettal s o cl ai m s thathi s cou nsel w as i neff ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ectw hen the pr os ecut i on com pared t he pl i ghtof the vi ct i m t o the l i f

e of M of f ettdur i ng the s ent enci ngphas e cl os i ng ar gum ent s . Speci f i cal l y, M of

f ettt akes i s s ue w i th M ans el l ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent
w her ei n s he s t at ed: D i d he – and t hey, w el l , pl eas e s how hi m m er cy. D i d he s how thi s gi r l m er cy. I f you thi nk -
- i f

you can go ba ck ther e and s ay, you know w hat, h e show ed hers om e mer cy, then s how hi m m er cy and gi ve hi m a l i f e s ent ence . T h e y w a n t t o sa y , o h , life im p riso n m e n t i s so b a d
. I am su re P e n n ie G riffin w o u ld a p p re c iate it i f h e r d a u g h terw a s still h e re a n d in c a rc e ra ted , sh e w o u ld pr obabl y appr eci at e the f actt hatshe coul d atl eas tgo vi s i therdaught er . Y ou know w her e s he get s t o go, t o a grave thatd oes n’ teven ha ve a t om bs t one. T hat ’ s w her e s he get s t o go t o. ¶ 9 9
. M o ffe tt as se rts th a t it w a s im p ro p e r a rg u m e n t to c o m p a re th e p lig h t o f th e v ictim w ith the l i f e of the def endanti n pr i s on. M of

f ettr el i es on opi ni ons f

r om otherj ur i s di ct i ons , ci t i ng
n o au tho ri ty from this C o u rt . M o ffettalso asse rt s th at i t w as im p erm issi b le t o ask the ju ry t o s how the s ame am ountof m er cy t ow ar d M of

f ettas he s how ed hi s vi ct i m . A gai n, he ci t es no contr ol l i ng a utho r i ty. Further , j us tm i nut es bef or e the pr os ecut or ’ s r emar ks , M of f ettas ked the j ury f orm er cy. ¶1 00
. I n Spi cer , def

ens e couns el be gg e d the j ury t o h a ve mer c y o n the de f e nd a nt . T he prosecuti on res po nd ed in turn as f oll ow s: H e is e ith e r g o in g to d ie in p riso n , w h ich is a d e a th p e n a lty , an d th e S tate is go i ng t o sup po rthim [ for ] the ne xt 50 y ears un t i l he d i es, w i th o ur t ax d oll ars , orhe w i l l di e s oo ne r . Ei the rw a y, i t ’ s a de a th p e na l ty. A nd I s ub mi tt o y ou, w hy s houl d he be a l l ow ed t o si tfort he next50 year s and w at ch TV and have f r i ends hi ps and t o have a s s oci at i ons and t o have hope and t o have a l l the thi ngs thatl i vi ng peopl e have w hen [ the vi ct i m ] i s dead?

### 51

Spi cer, 973 So. 2d a t203. Spi cerar gued thathi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ect t o the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s . Fi ndi ng no m er i tt o hi s cl ai m , thi s C our thel d: E ven i f w e w er e t o as s um e, forthe s ake of ar gum ent , thatcouns el w as i nef f ect i ve forf

ai l i ng t o obj ectt o the St at e’ s comm ent , the natur al and probab l e eff

ecto f the argum ent by the p rosecut i on w as not t o creat e an u njust pr ej udi ce a gai ns tSpi cerr es ul t i ng i n a dec i s i on i nfl uence d by thatpr ej udi ce. I d. T he p r os e c ut or ’ s c omm e nt s wer e i n r e s po ns e t o M of f e t t ’ s p l e a f

ormer c y, a nd the
c o m p a ri so n o f th e v ictim ’s p lig h t w ith M o ffe tt’s life w a s n o d iffe re n t th a n th e c o m m e n ts
m ade by the pr os ecut ori n Spi cer , w i th w hi ch this C our tdi d notf i nd err or . T her ef

or e, M of f etthas nots how n thathi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o objectt o the p ro s e c u to r’ s c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts o n th is m a tte r.

( c ) E m o ti on al app eals b ased on the p rose cu tor ’s ci rcum s t ances ¶ 1 0 1
. M o f

f e t tc o mp l a i n s o f

r e f e r e n c e s Ma n s e l l m a d e t o t h e j u r y , r e g a r d i n g h e r o wn d a u g h ter , w h ich M o ffe tt cla im s w a s a n im p e rm iss ib le a rg u m e n t o n th e g o ld e n ru le. M a n se ll
s t at ed: I k n o w y ’a ll h a v e h e a rd I ju st h a d a b a b y fo u r m o n th s a g o , a li ttle b a b y g irl. A nd yo u kn ow w ha tI h a ve h a d t o f a c e s i nc e I ’ ve b e e n a th ome w i t h heron m at erni ty l eave [ ?] K now i ng I had t o come and try thi s cas e w i th thatm an. A nd every t i m e I changed m y baby’ s di aper , you know w hatI l ooked at [ ?] H er v a g in a . A n d I th o u g h t to m y se lf, h o w in th e w o rld c o u ld so m e b o d y d o th a t to a b a b y g irl. H o w is th a t p o ss ib le th a t so m e o n e is th a t -- so m e th in g w ro n g w ith them t o the poi ntt hatt hey getpl eas ur e - - and w e know he gotpl eas ur e outof it[ ? ] H e m a stu rb a ted . H e g o t p lea su re o u t o f d o in g th is to a little g irl. ¶102. I n s uppor tof

thi s cont ent i on, M of

f ettr el i es on W

e lls v. S ta te , 69 8 S o. 2d 49 7 (M i ss. 1997) , w her ei n the f

ol l ow i ng di al ogue occ urr ed:

### 52

[ B Y Pr os ecut or : ] Y ou know , thi s cas e hi t s ki nd of cl ose to h om e t o m e. I ' ve g o t a th irtee n y e a r o ld . G o t an o th e r o n e th a t’s n o t m u c h o ld e r th a n th a t. B Y [D e fe n se C o u n se l] : I a m g o in g to o b jec t to th a t fo rm o f a rg u m e n t. B Y T H E C O U R T : O verrul ed. B Y [D efe n se C o u n sel] : I t i s ce rt ainly im p rop er. B Y T H E C O U R T : O bj ect i on overrul ed. B Y [P ro se c u to r]: I c a n ’t im a g in e a se t of circ u m sta n c e s w h e n so m e b o d y c o u ld come i nt o my house w hi l e m y c hi l d i s s i t t i ng on the couch w at chi ng t el evi s i on or asl eep, s t ab them seventeen t i m es– B Y [D e fe n se C o u n se l] : Y o u r H o n o r, c o u ld I h a v e a c o n tin u in g o b jec tio n to th a t li n e o f a rg u m e n t? B Y T H E C O U R T : Y es , you have a n obj ect i on, w hi ch i s overrul ed. B Y [P ro se c u to r]: L e a v e h im o n th e flo o r to b lee d to d e a th , an d th e n th ro w h im i n a s hal l ow gr ave, and ca l l thats el f
- def ens e. I coul dn’ tcal l thatanythi ng but capi t al murde r , a nd I w oul d ve ntur e t o say thati f i tw as yourchi ld, you cou ldn ’t call i tanything el

se ei ther. B Y [D e fe n se C o u n se l] : Y o u r H o n o r, th a t i s o b v io u sly im p ro p e r, p re ju d icia l. T h e D istric t A tto rn e y w e ll k n o w s it. W e o b jec t to it. B Y T H E C O U R T : O verrul ed. B Y [Pro sec u tor] : I f yo u an d I– B Y [Se co n d D efe n se C o u n se l] : Y o u r H o n o r, w e w o u ld li k e to m o v e fo r a m istria l, also , b a se d o n th a t. B Y T H E C O U R T : M ot i on i s overrul ed. B Y [ Pr os ecut or ] : I f

you and I ex pectthe l aw t o pr ot ectourchi l dr en or a n y b o d y e ls e ’s c h ild re n , th e n it h a s g o t to s ta n d u p fo r G a ry W e lls , to o . . . . I d. at 50 6 -07 (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### 53

¶103. T he W

e lls C our t s t at ed: “W her e a prosecut or has m ade an i m pr oper ar gum ent , the ques t i on on appea l i s ‘ w hetherthe natur al and pr obabl e ef f ectof the i m pr operar gum entof the pr os ecut i ng att orney i s t o cr eat e an unj us tpre j udi ce aga i ns tt he ac cus ed as t o r es ul ti n a deci s i on i nf

l uence d by the pr ej udi ce s o cr eat ed. ’ ” I d. at507 ( quot i ng D a v is v. S ta te , 530 So. 2d 694, 701 ( M i s s . 1988) )
. T he C our tthen hel d thatthe j ury’s verdi ctl i kel y w as not i nf l uence d by any pr ej udi ce thatmi ghtha ve r es ul t ed f r om the di s tr i cta t t orney’ s i sol at ed

“ g o ld e n ru le ” a rg u m e n t in lig h t o f t h e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e a g a in s t W e lls
. I d. ¶104. M a n s e l l ’ s c o mme n t s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m W e lls , as they w er e nota “gol den rul e” argum ent. S he d i d n ot “as k[] the j urors t o pu tthem sel ves i n the place of one of the p art i es.

. . . ” Ch iso lm v. S ta te , 5 2 9 S o . 2 d 6 3 5 , 6 3 9 -40 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). F u rth er, give n this C o u rt ’s hol di ng i n W

e lls on thi s i s s ue, e ven i f w e w er e t o a s s um e f

orthe s ake of

a rgum ent that M ans el l ’ s comm ent s w er e pr ej udi ci al , they pal e i n compar i s on t o thos e made by the pr os ecut or i n W

e lls , and they w er e harm l es s i n the over al l cont extof the ca s e. T her ef

or e, M o ffettcan n o t sh o w that h is co u n sel w ere ineffec ti v e fo r fail ing to o b ject t o the p rose cu tor’s
c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts o n th is m a tte r.

( d) I nj e c t i ng r ac i al b i as i nt o t he pr oc e e di ngs wi t h no e v id e n tia r y b a sis ¶ 1 0 5
. T h is iss u e w a s d isc u ss e d in M o ffe tt’s c laim 2 (d ) a s it p e rta in e d to c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts dur i ng the gui l tphas e. M of f ettadmi t s i n hi s b ri ef thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s r emar ks w er e not
r epeat ed du ri ng the s ent enci ng phas e buthe f el t“i tbear s r epea t i ng” her e. I tm ay bea r
r epea t i ng thatthe pr os ecut i on i s perm i t t ed t o dr aw i nf er ence s f r om the evi dence i n cl os i ng

### This is sueappe ar s in Moff ett’ s PCR a s hi s f

if th is sue , cl aiming that t

he unde rlying 6 

### claims raised inhis issu es 1-4 sho uldhav e beenraised as p lain erro r. 54 ar gum ent s . T her e w as t es t i m ony fr om D onal d D avi s t hatM of f etthad t ol d hi m Fel i ci a w as
m ocked by otherchi l dr en bec aus e s he w as of m i xed r ace and M off

et t“rel i eved he rof

her pai n. ” Ther ef

or e, M of f ettcannots how thathi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ect t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent s on thi s m att er . M of f etthas f ai l ed t o of

f erany evi dence th a tr a c i a l b i a s i n f

e c t e d th e s e p r o c e e d i n g s . Th e r e i s n o me r i tt o th i s c l a i m.

A ppel l at e C ounsel 9. F ai l ure t o rai s e i s s ues of pl ai n error on di rec t appeal ¶ 1 0 6
. In this c laim , M o ffe tt a ss e rts tha t h is ap p e llate c o u n se l w a s ine ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to
ra ise th e u n d e rly in g c laim s in iss u e s 3 , 4 , 7 , a n d 8 d isc u ss e d a b o v e o n d ire c t ap p e a l. Itis 6 i m por t antt o not e that one o f M of f ett ’ s tr i al couns el and appe l l at e couns el w er e the s ame. “[ I ] ti s abs ur d t o f

ant as i ze that[ a] l aw yerm i ghtef f ect i vel y or e thi cal l y l i t i gat e the i s s ue of hi s ow n i nef

f ect i venes s . ” P itch

fo rdv. S ta te , 45 So. 3d 216, 232 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng L ynch
v. S ta te , 9 5 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 1 -5 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ); R e a d v. S ta te , 43 0 S o. 2d 83 2, 83 8 (M i ss. 1 9 8 3 )). ¶10 7. R ule 22(b) of

the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of A pp el l at e P rocedu re pr ov i des: I s s ues w hi ch may be r ai s ed i n pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs may al s o be r ai s ed on di r ectappea l i f

s uch i s s ues ar e bas ed on f act s f ul l y appar entf

r om the r ecor d. W her e the appel l anti s re pr es ent ed by couns el w ho di d notr epr es ent th e a p p e llan t at tria l, th e fa ilu re to ra ise su c h iss u e s o n d ire c t ap p e a l sh a ll cons t i tut e a w ai verbarr i ng cons i der at i on of the i s s ues i n post -convi ct i on proceed i ng s.

### 55

M
. R
. A
. P. 22( b)
. B eca us e de G ruy r epr es ent ed M of f etta ttr i al a nd on appea l , the i s s ues M o ff e tt n o w ra is e s , th o u g h m e ri tle s s , h a v e n o t b e e n w a iv e d
. ¶1 08
. M of

f et t co nt e nd s tha t the a l l e ge d i mpr op e r pr os e c ut or i a l a r gu ment s s e t f orth a bo ve
s houl d have be en r ai s ed as pl ai n err orby hi s counse l on di r ectappea l
. H e f ur theras s ert s that th e fa ilu re to d o so w a s in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f a p p e llate c o u n se l. ¶109. A s pr evi ous l y s how n, ther e w as no obj ect i on t o the al l eged e rr or s . T her ef or e, i f err or i s f ou nd , i tm ustbe p l ai n err or. H ow ever, “[ this C ou rtdo ] es no trecog nize pl ai n err or unles s the err orr es ul t ed i n a mani f es tm i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” B u rdette v . S tate , 11 0 S o. 3 d 296, 304- 05 (M i s s . 2013) ( quot i ng Co n n e rs v. S ta te , 92 So. 3d 676, 684 ( M i s s . 2012) ) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). P reju d ice o fte n is la c k in g w h e n th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a g a in st a d e fe n d a n t is o v e rw h e lm in g . Con n ers , 9 2 S o . 3 d a t 6 8 4 . ( s ee al s o Sm ith v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 2 9 0 , 3 0 0 -0 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); Cla rk v. S ta te , 891 So. 2d 136, 141 ( M i s s . 2004) )
. G i ven the
o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f M o ffe tt’s g u ilt , th e re h a s b e e n n o m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e e v e n if thi s C our tw er e r es ol ved t o f i nd thaterr orhad occ urr ed. ¶ 1 1 0
. I n r e g a r d t o th e 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 s s e r t i o n a t t a c h e d wi th th i s c l a i m, the ea r l i erdi s cus s i on of thes e i s s ues r evea l s thatno e rr oroc curr ed. T hus , c ouns el w as not d e f i c i e n t , a n d e f

f o r t s o n d i r e c ta p p e a l t o p e r s u a d e th i s Co u r tth a tth e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i ms
am o u n ted to p lai n erro r w o u ld h av e b ee n futi le. M o ffettfail s o n b o th p ron g s o f Str i c kl and
. 10. C um ul at i ve E rror ¶111. M of

f ett ar gues that he w as deni ed a f ai r tr i al due t o the cumul at i ve err or s of hi s tr i al
c o u n s e l. H e fu rt h e r a rg u e s th a t th e c u m u la tiv e e rr o rs , in g e n e ra l, d e n ie d h im a fa irtr ia l. A

### 56

c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n t is n o t e n title d to a p e rf e c t tr ia l, o n ly a fa irtr ia l. Mc G ilb e rr y v. S ta te, 843 So. 2d 21, 33 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng S a n d v. S ta te , 4 6 7 S o . 2 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 )). M o ffe tt fa ile d to s u p p o rth is c o n te n tio n th a t h e d id n o t r e c e iv e a fa irtr ia l. ¶1 12
. “Thi s Courtmay r e ve r s e a c on vi c t i on a nd / ors e nt e nc e b a s e d upon the cumul at i ve eff ectof errors that do no ti nd epen den t l y requir e a revers al
. Iti s true that i n cap i t al cases, alth o u g h n o erro r, stan d ing alon e, req u ir es re v ersa l, the a g g re g a te e ffect of v ariou s erro rs
m ay cr eat e an a tm os pher e of bi as , pas s i on and pr ej udi ce thatthey ef f ect i vel y deny the def endanta f

undament al l y f

ai rtr i al
. ” W

ilch e r v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 776, 836- 37 ( M i s s . 2003) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons a nd c i t at i ons omi t t ed)
. A f t era compr ehens i ve r evi ew of the r ecor d, the b rie fs, a n d the arg u m e n ts, w e fin d n o in d iv id u a l er ro rs w h ich re q u ire re v e rsa l, an d th e re is no aggr egat e col l ect i on of m i norerr or s thatw oul d, as a w hol e, m andat e a r ever s al of e i ther th e c o n v ictio n o r th e se n ten c e . T h u s, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 1 3
. W e d e n y a ll rel ief req u ested i n M o ffett ’s M o ti o n , A m en d ed M o tio n fo r L e a v e to Pr ocee d i n the Tri al C our tw i th a Pet i t i on f orPost
- C onv i ct i on R el i ef and hi s s uppl ement th e re to . ¶ 1 1 4
. PET I TI ON FOR POST- CO NVI CTI ON RELI EF I S DENI ED
. W AL LE R, C. J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND CO LEM AN, J J . , CO NCU R. DI CK I NSON, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.