F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT AP RIL 18 , 201 2 JO HN LEY [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 25 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 4- cv -0 26 61 -CLS-HGD DAVID LEE ROBERTS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a - J as pe r

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 18 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Dav idRo be rts , an Al ab am a st at e p ris on er, ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’sde ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 h ab eas pe ti ti on ch al le ng in g h is co nv ic ti on for

cap it al m ur de r. W e is su eda Cert ifi cat e o f App eal ab il it y on th e fo ll owi ng th ree is su es : (1 ) whe th er Ro be rts ’s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d/ orpre se ntev id en ce t o s up po rt a n i ns an it y de fen se de sp it e en te rin g apl ea o f

“ no t g ui lt y

an d n otgu il ty by

reas on of i ns an it y ”; (2) whet he r th e tr ia l co urt im pr op erl y refu se d t o i ns tru ctRo be rts ’s jury on th e le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se of fel on y m ur de r; a nd(3) whet he r th e st at e co urt erredwhenitrev ers edRo be rts ’s de ath s en te nc e b utrem an de d t he cas e fo r a n ew pe na lt y -p ha se he ari ng be fo re the tri al co urt, n otbe fo re a jury . Rob ert s ar gu es th atth e st at e co urt’s re so lu ti on of 1 each of t he se is su es was c on trary to or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. I. BACKG ROUND Ro be rts was c on vi ct edinDecem be r 19 92 fortwo co un ts of c ap it al m ur de r an d fo ll owi ng th e co nc lu si onof t he pe na lt y ph as e h eari ng , th e jury reco m m en de d th athe be sen te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le by a m ajor it y vo te of s ev ento fiv e. Nearl y two y ears lat er i n M ay

19 94 , th e tr ia l co urt h el d asen te nc in g h eari ng an d reject edth e jury’ s re co m

m en da ti on , sen te nc in g R ob ert s t o d eat h. We also g rante d the COA on a f ourth issue, which Rober

ts does not addre ss in his brief, thus 1 we pr esume that he does not wish to pursue this claim and we deem it to have be en aba ndoned. 2The fact s o f th e o ffen se as r eco un te d b y th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt o n d ire ct ap pe al are as fol lo ws: Ro be rts ha d b een a ho us eg ue stof Wend el l Sa tt erfi el d. OnApri l 2 2, 19 92 , Sat te rfi el d’s g irl fri en d, An ne traJo ne s, was sl eep in g o n aco uc h in Sat te rfi el d’s d en . Rob ert s l efthi s jo b a ndwentto Sat te rfi el d’s res id en ce ar ou ndno on onth atday . He pac ke d h is be lo ng in gs , st ol e m on ey fro m th e v ic ti m ’s wall et , andsh othe r th ree t im es inth e h ead with a.22 cal ib er ri fle whi le sh e sl ep t. J on es di edwithi n s eco nd s. Ro be rts po ur edfla m

m ab le li qu idon he r bo dy andon th e fl oo r in th e de n, the n s etfir e to a pi ece o f pape r he ha d p la cedun de r th e co uc h. In th e b edro om

inwhi chRo be rts ha d s ta y ed , whi ch was i n the ba se m en t of Sat te rfi el d’s h ou se , Rob ert s s etan ot he r fi re, cau si ng m ajorda m ag e to th e ro om

an d s en di ng sm ok e th ro ug ho utth e h ou se . Rob ert s l eftth e ho us e, ta ki ng with h im

a va rie ty of it em s, s uc h a s t he m ur de r weap on an d o th er g un s. He h idth is ev id en ce, b utlat er l edth e p ol ic e to th e hi di ng pl ace. Law en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s que st io ne d R ob ert s an d h e g av e se ve ral st at em en ts . He admitt edsh oo ti ng Jo ne s an d s etti ng Sat te rfi el d’s ho us e o n fi re. Inhi s l as t s ta te m en t, Ro be rts sai d t ha t h e h adsetth e ho us e o n fi re t o g etba ckat S atte rfi el d fo r th reat en in g h is pa ren ts ; h e sa idth athe di d n otkn ow t ha t J on es wou ldbe at t he ho us e an d h e d id no t kno w why

he sh othe r. At the sen te nc in g h eari ng be fo re the jury, th e St at e p res en te d ev id en ce tha t Ro be rts ha d p rev io us ly been co nv ic te d o f se co nd de gr ee b ur gl ary an d fi rs t d eg ree t he ft, a ndth athe ha d b een on pa ro le fo r le ss th antwo m on th s wh enhe co m m it te d t hi s cr im e. Ro be rts ’s br ot he r, Terry, an d h is m ot he r, Bren da , tes ti fie d t ha t Ro be rts was ne rv ou s, s le ptpo or ly, an d h ada hi st ory of d ru g abu se . Terry

Ro be rts al so tes ti fie d tha t two d ay s b efo re the m ur de r, Sat te rfi el d m ad e wha t co ul d b e co ns tru edas ath reatag ai ns t the ir f athe r. At the sen te nc e h eari ng be fo re the co urt, Ro be rts tes ti fie d t ha t h e was so rry ab ou t wh atha d h ap pe ne d. He s ta te d t ha t an “ ol de r in di vi du al ” 3ha d t hr eat en edto ki ll hi s p aren ts , th atth e p res su re h adbu il t up o ve r

ti m e, th athe ha d n o o ne to tu rnto forhe lp , andth athe di d wh athe th ou gh t h e n eed edto do at t he ti m e. He al so tes ti fie d t ha t the “ ol de r in di vi du al ” to ldhi m

to bu rnth e h ou se an d t o s ho otAnn etra J on es . 2 Ro be rts ’s con vi ct io n was affi rm edon di rectap pe al , ho wev er, h is sen te nc e was rev ers edan d re m an de d b ecau se th e tr ia l co urt h adim pr op erl y ex cl ud ed cert ai n e vi de nc e dur in g t he sen te nc in g h eari ng . Upo n re m an d, the tri al co urt h el d 3 an ot he r se nt en ci ng he ari ng , witho uta jury, an d a ga in sen te nc edRo be rts to de ath. 4 Afte r fu rth er cl ari fic at io n, the tri al co urt’s s en te nc in g o rd er was affi rm edby bot h th e ap pe ll at e co urt, an d t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt. The Un it edSta te s Supr em e 5 6 Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari . 7 Ro be rts ti m el y

fil edhi s s ta te pe ti ti on forpo st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua ntto Ru le 32 of t he Alab am a Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e (“ Ru le 32 Pet it io n” ). Fo ll owi ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e st at e tr ia l co urt en te redanord er d en y in g 8 Roberts v. State, 735 So. 2d 1244, 1249–50 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). 2 I d. at 1266. 3 I d. 4 Roberts v. State, 735 So. 2d 1244, 1269–70 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). 5 Ex parte Roberts, 735 So. 2d 1270, 1280 (Ala. 1999). 6 Roberts v. Alabama, 528 U.S. 939 (1999). 7 The judg e who pr esided ove r Roberts’s tria l and who, contr ary to the jury ’s advisory 8 sentenc e, sente nced him to death, was the same judge who pre sided over Robe rts’s Rule 32 proce eding s and who de nied all of his post-conviction cla ims. 4rel ie f on ev ery cl ai m . Rob ert s ra is edon ly thre e cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f

co un se l o n app eal , whi ch were d en ie d b y th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt an d fo r whi ch a writof c ert io rari was n otgra nt ed . Rob ert s fi le d h is fed eral pe ti ti on forwritof habe as co rp us , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d, an d we g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

on th e is su es no te d abo ve .

II . STANDARD OF REVIEW Whe n re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o r de ni al of h ab eas rel ie f, we rev ie w it s co nc lu si on s o n l eg al qu es ti on s an d m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfactde no vo an d i ts fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r. W al ls v. Bu ss , 65 8 F .3d12 74 , 12 77 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . Und er the Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 19 96 , Pub . L. 1-4 -1 32 , 11 0 S ta t. 1 21 4 (“ AEDPA”), a fed eral co urt m ay no t g ran t habe as rel ie f un le ss th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on onth e m eri ts of t he pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m was “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y es tabl is he d F ed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t he requi rem en ts of § 22 54 (d ) as fol lo ws: Und er the “ co nt rary to” claus e, a fed eral habe as co urt m ay grantth e writif t he st at e co urt arriv es at aco nc lu si on op po si te to th atreac he d by thi s C ou rt o n aqu es ti on of l aw orif t he st at e co urt d eci de s a c as e di ffer en tl y

th anth is Co urt h as on a se t o f m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fact s. Un de r th e “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” claus e, a fed eral habe as 5co urt m ay gra ntth e wri t i f th e st at e co urt i de nt ifi es th e co rrec t go ve rn in g l eg al pri nc ip le fro m th is Co urt’s d eci si on s b ut un reas on ab ly app li es th atpri nc ip le to th e fac ts of t he pri so ne r’s cas e. W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 2- 13 (20 00 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON A. Inef fect iv e Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el Duri ng the Gu il t Pha se of T ri al Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f tri al co un se l was vi ol at edbe cau se hi s t ria l co un se l, EdOdu m , ass ert eda pl ea o f

“ no t g ui lt y

or n otgu il ty by

reas on of i ns an it y ” in th e p res en ce o f th e jury bu t fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te or t o p res en t an y ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th is pl ea. The st at e arg ue s t ha t the fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te m en ta l i ns an it y is pro cedur al ly defau lt ed . Und er AEDPA, a fed eral habe as pe ti ti on m ay no t b e g ran te d a s t o a ny clai m un le ss th e p et it io ne r ha s ex haus te d a va il ab le st at e co urt re m ed ie s re ga rd in g t ha t cl ai m . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b ), (c). “ [T]he fed eral cla im m us t b e fai rly pres en te d to th e st at e co urts so th atth e st at e co urts ha ve ha d the fir stop po rtu ni ty to h ear t he cl ai m so ug htto be vi nd ic at edinth e fed eral habe as pro ceed in g.” Ogl e v . Jo hn so n, 48 8 F .3d13 64 , 13 68 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . In o rd er t o d et erm in e whe th er a cl ai m ha s b eenex haus te d, we l oo k t o th e en ti re s ta te co urt re co rdan d n otjus t the st at e co urt’s o rd er, wh ic h m ay be si le ntas t o asp eci fic all eg at io n o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. See id . at 613 69 (“ [Pet it io ne r] pers ua si ve ly argu es th athe fai rly pres en te d s ev eral cla im s o f

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l thr ou gh hi s d ire cttes ti m on y , th e ex am in at io n o f hi s p os t-t ria l at to rn ey , th e en try of h is pr o s e m em or an du m in to ev id en ce, an d t he fil in g o f a p os t-h eari ng bri ef.”) . W e co nc lu de th atRo be rts fai rly pres en te d t o t he st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt anall eg at io n o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te th e affi rm at iv e d efen se of i ns an it y . Cou ntI of hi s R ul e 3 2 P et it io n was en ti tl ed“ Mr. Ro be rts W as Deni edEffect iv e Ass is ta nc e o f Co un se l Be fo re, Durin g, an d a fte r His Trial .” Insupp ort o f th atco un t, Ro be rts cit edto Str ic kl an d a ndto th e ci rcu it ’s la w th atde fen se co un se l h as a du ty to tho ro ug hl y in ve st ig at e th e St at e’s ev id en ce an d p laus ib le de fen se th eo rie s. He al le ge d t ha t Odum fai le d t o m eetwith h im

for

“ th e le ng th of t im e n eces sa ry to co nduc t ad equa te in ve st ig at io n o f th e St at e’s cas e, in ve st ig at e d efen se witne ss es , or t o a de qu at el y pre pa re a d efen se for

tri al .” Ro be rts als o a ll eg edth atOdu m was i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to pe ti ti on foran d ob ta in ex pe rt a ss is ta nc e to ass is t wi th tri al pre pa rat io n a ndth athe “ sh ou ldha ve hi redanin de pe nd en t p sychi atric ex pe rt t o e va lu at e Mr. Ro be rts ge ne ral ly for s ig ns of m en ta l i m

pa irment r el ev an t t o g ui ltan d m it ig at io n.” As wel l, h e al le ge d t ha t Odu m fai le d t o d ev el op a th eo ry of t he cas e an d s pe ci fic al ly w as in effe ct iv e fo r en te rin g apl ea o f no t g ui lt y by reaso n o f in sani ty andth enfai li ng to pre se ntan y

7ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th atth eo ry . Duri ng th e st at e co urt ev id en ti ary he ari ng ,

Ro be rts pre se nt edev id en ce, p rimaril y th ro ug h t he tes ti m on y

of Odum , th atOdu m fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te th e in sa ni ty defen se de sp it e o th er ev id en ce o f Ro be rts ’s m en ta l i ll ne ss . Fin al ly, Ro be rts ’s st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n app el la te bri ef as se rte d th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in ve st ig at e th e in sa ni ty defen se :

“ The Ru le 32 Pet it io n p oi nt edou t thi s l eadth e jury to b el ie ve in de edth atMr. Ro be rts was g ui lt y

by rais in g t ha t af

firm at iv e d efen se with n o e vi de nc e to pre se nt attri al . Odum

sai d p rio r to th e tr ia l h e h addo ne no sp eci al pre pa rat io n fo r rai si ng su ch pl ea.” We th eref

or e co nc lu de th atth is cla im is no t p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed , an d a cco rd in gl y , m

us t d eci de whet he r th e st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law i n d en y in g R ob ert s’s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l fo r fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te an d fa il ur e to pre se ntev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s de fen se of i ns an it y . Inad dr es si ng Ro be rts ’s cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, the st at e ap pe ll at e co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ Ro be rts co nt en ds th athi s t rai l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r en te rin g apl ea o f no t g ui lt y by m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectinfro ntof t he jury an d th enfai li ng to pre se ntan y ev id en ce t o s up po rt tha t p le a.” The co urt the n c it edto th e tr an sc rip t o f th e tr ia l p ro ceed in gs th atco nc ern edth e en try of the pl ea o f no t gu il ty by reas on of i ns an it y . In p ert in en t p art , th e fo ll owi ng ex ch an ge be twee n t he 8jud ge an d the de fen se co un se l o ccu rred .

THE COURT: Youare ch arg edun de r Co un t 1 of t he in di ctm en t o f th e o ffen se of m

ur de r du rin g ro bb ery; to th atho w do y oupl ead ? [Tri al co un se l] : Notgu il ty. Notgu il ty by reas on of i ns an it y . THE COURT: Und er Co un t 2 of t he in di ctm en t you a re ch arg edwith m ur de r in co nn ect io n wi th anars on inth e se co ndde gr ee. To th at ch arg e h ow d o youpl ead ? [Tri al co un se l] : Notgu il ty ple a an d n otgu il ty by reas on of i ns an it y . THE COURT: Youm ay

be sea te d. Lad ie s an d g en tl em en , we are ca ll in g fo r tr ia l atth is ti m e th e cas e o f St at e o f Alaba m a v s. Dav idLee Ro be rts who is ch arg edwith t wo co un ts of c ap it al m

ur de r. The st at e ap pe ll at e co urt the n n ot edth atth e tr ia l co urt b eg anit s qua li fic at io n o f th e v en ire . No o ne di sp ut es th atRo be rts ’s tri al co un se l n ev er p res en te d a ny evi de nc e o f in sa ni ty andin de edhi s t ria l co un se l t es ti fie d a t the Ru le 32 ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athi s d efen se strat eg y

was t o c reat e rea so nabl e d oubtth atRo be rts co m m it te d th e m ur de r. Non ethe le ss , th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt, ag reei ng with t he Ru le 32 tri al co urt’s fi nd in gs , con cl ud edth atRo be rts fai le d t o p ro ve th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e. Fir st , th e st at e co urt n ot edth atitap pe aredth atRo be rts an d h is tri al co un se l wer e atth e b en chwhen th e p le as of n otgu il ty by reas onon in sa ni ty w ere

9en te red . Seco nd , th e st at e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i t was cle ar tha t the jury ve ni re

was inth e co urtro om

when th e p le a was en te red , bu t fu rth er co nc lu de d t ha t the re was no ev id en ce t o s up po rt afin di ng th atth e p ro sp ect iv e juro rs he ardth e en try of th e in sa ni ty ple a. The s ta te co urt b as edth is co nc lu si on inpa rt o n Odum ’s Rul e 3 2 te st im on y wher ei n h e st at edth atth e arra ig nm en t t oo k p la ce atth e b en chan d t ha t he di d n otkn ow “ who he ardwhat .” The s ta te co urt al so cred it edtri al co un se l’s te st im on y th athe be li ev edth athe wou ldhave be ensp eak in g i n ahu sh edto ne an d, th us , th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt d et erm in edth atRo be rts pre se nt edno ev id en ce athi s Ru le 32 he ari ng th atth e p ro sp ect iv e juro rs he ardth e en try of the in sa ni ty ple a o r th at , if the y

di d, the y un de rs to odth is to be anadm is si on of g ui lt . Fin al ly, th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt cr ed it edth e Ru le 32 tri al co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t the pl ea was withd rawnbe fo re the cas e was sen t t o t he jury, whi ch was n ev er ch arg edon th e de fen se of i ns an it y . Bas edon th es e co nc lu si on s ab ou t the reco rdev id en ce, the st at e ap pe ll at e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Ro be rts was n otpre jud ic edby the en try of the in sa ni ty ple a an d t he refo re d en ie d h is cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. Inord er t o e st ab li shin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, Ro be rts m us t s ho w th athi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d t ha t the de fic ie nc y pre jud ic edhi s de fen se . Stri ck landv. Wash in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7 (1 98 4) . W it h re sp ectto de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, Ro be rts m us t s ho w th athi s “ co un se l’s re pr es en ta ti on fel l 10be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss .” Id . at 6 88 . As to pre jud ic e, he m us t s ho w th atth ere i s a “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor co un se l’s unpr of es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Id . at69 4. W e n eedno t ad dr es s t he qu es ti on of d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce b ecau se we can no t s ay

th atth e st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce s ta nd ardwas un reas on ab le . Rob ert s ar gu edto th e st at e co urt, i n p art , th athe was p reju di cedby hi s co un se l’s en try of the no t g ui lt y by reaso n o f in sani ty ple a b ecau se su ch a pl ea wou ldha ve be entre at edby the jury as anadm is si on th athe co m m it te d t he ch arg ed of fen se . And , he a rg ue s, wh enth e jury the n h eardno ev id en ce o f hi s i ns an it y , it wou ldha ve ha d n o re as onno t t o fi ndhi m gu il ty giv enth athe ess en ti al ly had adm it te d t he off

en se co nduc t. In it ia ll y , we can no t s ay th atth e st at e co urt un reas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d b as edon it s fi nd in g t ha t the jury m or e li ke ly tha n no t n ev er h eardth e p le a. Giv enth is fin di ng , th ere wo ul d h av e b een no reas on to pr es um e th atth e jury hadth e im pr es si on th atRo be rts ha d a dm it te d t he off en se co nduc t, an d t he refo re n o p reju di ce co ul d h av e res ul te d fr om th e en try of the in sa ni ty ple a. Ro be rts , ho wev er, al so arg ue s t ha t the st at e co urt n ev er ad dr es se d p reju di ce as itpe rta in edto hi s cl ai m th athi s t ria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to

11in ve st ig at e h is m en ta l s ta te insupp ort o f th e in sa ni ty defen se . Bas edon th is

cl ai m , Rob ert s ar gu es th at“ a p ro pe r pr ejud ic e an al y si s wo ul d re qu ire a rev ie w of wha t ev id en ce co un se l co ul d h av e p res en te d t o s up po rt [ hi s] in sani ty ple a, if co un se l h adco nduc te d a n a de qu at e in ve st ig at io n b efo re the en try of the pl ea.” The ap pr op ria te pre

jud ic e an al y si s fo r th is cla im wou ldrequi re the st at e co urt t o co ns id er wh ethe r th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t Ro be rts ’s tri al wou ldha ve res ul te d i n h is be in g fo un d n otgu il ty by reas onof i ns an it y

ha d h is tri al co un se l pr op erl y in ve st ig at edan d p res en te d a n i ns an it y de fen se . See e.g . W eek s v . Jo ne s, 26 F.3d10 30 , 10 38 –3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) (ex pl ai ni ng th atto est ab li sh pre jud ic e pe ti ti on er “ wou ldha ve to est ab li sh a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t h is tri al co un se l’s fai lu re t o d is co ve r an d re vi ew hi s m en ta l h is to ry fro m [th e h os pi ta l] and , th us , to pr es en t an in sani ty defen se , wou ldha ve res ul te d i n h is be in g fo un d n otgu il ty by reas onof i ns an it y ”). Inass es si ng th e p ro babi li ty tha t the ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t, the rev ie win g c ou rt m us t co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e rel ev an t ev id en ce b efo re the jud ge or ju ry as we ll as t he ev id en ce ad du cedat t he habe as pr oc eed in gs . See Wigg in s v . Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 36 (20 03 ). As t o t hi s cl ai m , we agr ee wi th Ro be rts th atth e st at e co urt n ev er ad dr es se d whe th er Ro be rts was p reju di cedby O du m ’s fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te an d p res en t ev id en ce o f hi s i ns an ity

an d t he refo re, o urrev ie w is co nt ro ll edby Stri ck la ndon ly,

12witho utth e ad de d d efer en ce o f AEDPA. See Ro m pi ll a v . Beard , 54 5 U.S. 3 74 , 39 0 (2 00 5) . Howev er, aft er co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce tha t Ro be rts co nt en ds Odu m sh ou ldha ve di sc ov eredan d/ orpre se nt edto est ab li sh hi s i ns an it y , we can no t s ay th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t thi s ev id en ce wo ul d h av e ch an ge d t he ou tc om e o f hi s t ria l s uc h tha t h e was pre jud ic edby O du m ’s fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te th e d efen se of i ns an it y . Rob ert s re li es on th e co urt-o rd eredps y ch ia tri c rep ort fr om Tay lo r Hard in Secu re Me di cal Faci li ty andth e te st im on y of Dr. Al le n S he al y

th at was pre se nt edat h is sec on d s en te nc in g h eari ng to est ab li sh th athe was i ns an e at th e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Alth ou gh th e Tay lo r Hard in rep ort i de nt ifi edth atRo be rts read il y adm it te d t o s ig ni fic an t s ub st an ce ab us e in th e p as t, h adsel f-re po rte d fo ur pr io r su ic id e at te m

pt s, an d re po rte d o ccas io na ll y he ari ng a hi gh -p it ch edto ne , it co nc lu de d t ha t Ro be rts ’s per so na li ty dis or de r an d p as t s ub st an ce ab us e wou ldno t subs ta nt ia ll y

in te rfer e wit h h is un de rs ta nd in g o f ri gh t fr om wron g. Sp eci fic al ly di sc us si ng hi s m en ta l s ta te at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , th e rep ort s ta te d t ha t Ro be rts di d n otha ve a hi st ory

of a“ m ajorde bi li ta ti ng m en ta l i ll ne ss ” an d t ha t “ [t]he re i s no ev id en ce tha t [R ob ert s] was s uf feri ng fro m

su ch du rin g t he ti m e o f th e al le ge d of fen se whi ch wou ldha ve subs ta nt ia ll y in te rfer edwith h is un de rs ta nd in g o f ri gh t fro m wron g.” See Weeks , 26 F.3dat 1 03 8– 39 (“ If Weeks was n otsu ffer in g fr om a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectat t he ti m e o f th e cri m e o r attri al , th enhe was n ot 13pr ejud ic edby his co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntth e m en ta l h is to ry th athe co nt en ds sh ou ldha ve be ensubm it te d.” ). Ro be rts als o re li es on th e te st im on y of Dr. Sh eal y

whi ch he ass ert s i s t he type o f ev id en ce tha t Odum wou ldha ve un co ve redha d h e n otbe ende fic ie ntin fai li ng to in ve st ig at e Ro be rts ’s m en ta l s ta tu s atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Dr. Shea ly te st ifi ed , at Ro be rts ’s sec on d s en te nc in g h eari ng , th athe di d n otbe li ev e th at Ro be rts kn ew wha t h ap pe ne d a t the ti m e o f th e o ffen se gi ve n t he nu m ero us co nt rad ic to ry

st at em en ts m ad e b y

Ro be rts ab ou t the ev en ts . Dr. Shea ly attr ib ut ed Ro be rts ’s m em ory

lap se s t o h is ex ces si ve alc oh ol an d d ru g u se , di ag no si ng hi m with “ can nabi s i nt ox ic at io n.” Howev er, wh enask edwhet he r Ro be rts was i ns an e atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se , Dr. She al y tes ti fie d t ha t “ [i]t i s d iff

ic ul t t o re ach a co nc lu si on if ape rs on do es n’t kno w whathapp en ed . Diffi cu ltto reac h a co nc lu si on ab ou t wh ethe r he kn ew ri gh t fr om wron g i f he di dn ’t kn ow wh at happ en ednu m

be r on e.” Fi na ll y , Rob ert s p oi nt s t o t he tes ti m on y of h is ori gi na l tri al co un se l, Sa m

ue l M as do n, wh o s ta te d t ha t Ro be rts ’s ver si on s o f th e ev en ts ch an ge d e ach ti m e th ey

tal ke d, wh ic h M as do n a tt rib ut edto Ro be rts ’s LSD us e. In Al ab am a, th e d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g the de fen se of in sa ni ty by

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. See Will ia m s v . All en , 59 8 F .3d77 8, 78 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) (ci ti ng Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 1( a), (c) ). Spe ci fic al ly the 14de fen da ntm us t s ho w th at“ atth e ti m e o f th e co m m is si onof t he act s co ns ti tu ti ng th e o ffen se , th e d efen da nt , as ares ul t o f se ve re m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect , was un ab le to ap pr eci at e th e n atur e an d qua li ty or wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts .” Ala. C od e § 1 3A- 3- 1( a). W e h av e ex pl ai ne d tha t thi s m ean s tha t “ in ord er t o e st ab li sh th e affi rm at iv e d efen se of i ns an it y , th e d efen dantm us t es tabl is h t ha t h e su ffer edfro m a m en ta l d is eas e.” Will ia m s, 5 98 F.3dat 7 89 . Giv enAlab am a’s st an da rdforest ab li sh in g a n i ns an it y de fen se , we can no t sa y th at , hadth e jury hear d a ll of t he ev id en ce, the re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty th atth e jury woul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t Ro be rts was i ns an e atth e ti m e o f th e of fen se . The rep ort fr om

Tay lo r Hard in sp eci fic al ly con cl ud edth atRo be rts was no t s uf feri ng fro m

an y de bi li ta ti ng m en ta l i ll ne ss at t he ti m e o f th e cri m e an d t ha t th ere was no th in g t o i nd ic at e th athe co ul d n otdi st in gu is h ri gh t fr om wron g. Dr. Sh eal y ’s andMas do n’s t es ti m on y at m os t es tabl is h t ha t Ro be rts was e xtrem el y in to xi cat edat t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , bu t p ro vi de no ba si s fo r co nc lu di ng th atas th e res ul t o f a s ev ere m en ta l d efec t o r il ln es s t ha t h e co ul d n otap pr eci at e th e wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ti on s. See id . (vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n i s n otanaffi rm at iv e de fen se to cap it al m

ur de r in Alab am a). Acco rd in gl y , bec au se Ro be rts can no t s ho w pre jud ic e b as edon Odu m ’s fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te an d t o p res en t ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th e in sani ty defen se , th e 15di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s St ric kl an d c la im is affi rm ed . B. Enti tle m ent to an Ins truc tio n o n the L es se r In cl uded Offe ns e o f Felo ny Murde r Ro be rts ne xtarg ue s t ha t the st at e tr ia l co urt’s fa il ur e to in st ru ctth e jury on th e o ffen se of f

el on y m ur de r vi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l an d t ha t the st at e ap pe ll at e co urt’s d eci si on was a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Bec k v . Alab am a, 44 7 U.S. 6 25 (19 80 ). At th e co nc lu si on of t he gu il t p ha se of R ob ert s’s tria l, the tri al co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury onth e el em en ts of c ap it al m ur de r du rin g t he co ur se of a ro bb ery an d dur in g t he co ur se of a rs on an d o n t he les se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se of no n- cap it al in te nt io na l m ur de r. The t ria l co urt al so in st ru ct edth e jury tha t i t co ul d return ave rd ic t o f no t-g ui lty . On d ire ctap pe al , Rob ert s ar gu edth atth ere was ev id en ce re ga rd in g h is st at e o f m in d a t the ti m e o f th e o ffen se , whi chsh ou ldha ve al lo wedth e jury to c on si de r whe th er Ro be rts po ss es se d t he requi si te sp eci fic in te ntforcap it al m

ur de r, an d t he refo re the les se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se of f el on y m ur de r sh ou ldha ve be enpa rt o f th e jury ins tru ct io ns . The s ta te ap pe ll at e co urt co ns id eredth is cla im

on th e m eri ts , reco gn iz in g t ha t “ [a] jury ch arg e o n ales se r in cl ud edoff

en se sh ou ldbe gi ve n wh enth ere i s a r eas on ab le th eo ry fro m th e ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t.” Ro be rts v. St at e, 73 5 S o. 2 d 1 24 4, 1 25 2 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 97 ). The s ta te ap pe ll at e co urt wen t o n t o c on cl ud e th atth e in st ru ct io n was no t

16warra nt edbe cau se “ Ro be rts adm it te d i n h is st at em en t tha t h e in te nt io na ll y sh otth e vi ct im rep eat ed ly to k il l h er.” Id . at 1 25 3. InBeck , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t Al ab am a was co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr oh ib it edfro m

ab so lu te ly barri ng a jury in a c ap it al cas e fro m co ns id eri ng a le ss er-i nc lu de d o ffen se to th atof c ap it al m ur de r. 44 7 U.S. at63 8. Th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ whe n t he ev id en ce u nque st io nabl y est ab li sh es th atth e d efen da ntis gu il ty of a s eri ou s, v io le ntoff en se —b utlea ve s s om e d oubtwith re sp ectto an el em en t tha t wo ul d ju st ify con vi ct io n o f a cap it al off en se —” t he fai lu re t o p ro vi de th e jury with an ot he r op ti on of ales se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se lea ds to th e in to le rab le ris k o f anun warra nt edco nv ic ti on fora cap it al cri m e. Id . at 6 37 . Here, Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t the ev id en ce athi s t ria l ab ou t h is de bi li ta te d m en ta l s ta te lef

t d oubtab ou t wh ethe r he form edth e sp eci fic in te ntto ki ll ne ces sa ry fora co nv ic ti on of e it he r cap it al m ur de r orno n- cap it al m

ur de r, an d th eref or e, th e fai lu re t o g iv e anin st ru ct io n o n fe lo ny m ur de r—an o ffen se th atdo es no t re qu ire in te ntto ki ll —l eadto th e in to le rab le ris k o f hi s u nwa rran te d co nv ic ti on form

ur de r requi rin g s pe ci fic in te nt . The Supr em e Co urt’s l at er de ci si on inSch adv. Ari zo na , 50 1 U.S. 6 24 (19 91 ), ho wev er, s eem s t o fo recl os e Ro be rts ’s arg um en t. InSch ad , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the pe ti ti on er i n tha t ca se co ul d n ot“ su ccee d u nd er the st ric t h ol di ng of B eck ,” be cau se th e jury hadth e 17op ti on of f

in di ng th e d efen da nt“ gu il ty of a le ss er i nc lu de d n on cap it al off en se , se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r.” 5 01 U.S. at 6 46 . The Co urt was als o n otwil li ng to ex te ndth e due pro ces s p rin ci pl es un de rlyin g B eckto co nc lu de th ata de fen da ntin a cap it al cas e is en ti tl edto in st ru ct io ns on an y les se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se ex pl ai ni ng th atinBeck , it“ rep eat ed ly stre ss edth e al l-o r-n ot hi ng na tu re o f th e d eci si on with whi chth e jury was pr es en te d.” Id. Th e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t b ecau se th e jury in Sch adwas i ns tru ct edon sec on d d eg ree m ur de r, an d t he refo re “ was no t fa cedwith anall -o r-n ot hi ng ch oi ce b etweenth e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n (c ap it al m ur de r) an d in no cen ce[,]” Beckwas n otim pl ic at ed . Id. at64 7. Ult im at el y , we can no t s ay th atth e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt’s d en ia l o f Ro be rts ’s Bec k c la im

inth is cas e was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Supr em e Co urt pr eced en t. The st at e co urt i de nt ifi edth e co rrec t s ta nd ardforrequi rin g a n in st ru ct io n o n ales se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se , i.e. “ whe n t he re i s a r eas on ab le th eo ry fro m th e ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t,” h owe ve r, itde te rm in edth atth e ev id en ce d idno t supp ort the co nc lu si on th atRo be rts lac ke d i nt en t t o k il l as he ga ve a st at em en t tha t

“ he in te nt io na ll y

sh otth e v ic ti m

rep eat ed ly to k il l h er.” Ro be rts , 73 5 S o. 2 d a t 12 52 –5 3. Acco rd in gl y , we can no t s ay th atth e st at e co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s cl ai m in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt . C. Rob erts ’s Rese nten ci ng in a Ju dg e-O nl y Pro ceed in g 18Ro be rts ’s fin al cla im is th atth e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt o n d ire ctap pe al , hav in g fo un d re ve rs ib le erro r in th e p en al ty pha se he ari ng , erredinno t o rd eri ng th e em pane li ng of ane w jury

to co nduc t Ro be rts ’s res en te nc in g upo n re m an d. Ro be rts see ks habe as rel ie f on th e g ro un d t ha t the fai lure t o re qu ire hi s res en te nc in g b efo re a jury an d i ns te adpe rm it ti ng on ly the jud ge to co nduc t a n ew pe na lty ph as e h eari ng was a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Harri s v . Alab am a, 51 3 U.S. 50 4 (1 99 5) . The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt, re lying on Harri s, re vi ewedan d reject edth is cla im

on di rectap pe al . Ex Part e Ro be rts , 73 5 S o. 2 d a t 1 27 9. At the co nc lu si on of R ob ert s’s o rig in al pe na lt y ph as e h eari ng , th e jury reco m m en de d b y

a vo te of 7 to 5 tha t Ro be rts be sen te nc edto li fe i n p ris on witho utth e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le . Und er Al ab am a la w, a cap it al de fen da ntha s t he st atut ory rig htto a se nt en ci ng he ari ng be fo re a jury , for th e jury to fi nd ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g fa ct or s an d re nd er an advi so ry ve rd ic t b as edon th os e fin di ng s. See Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 5- 46 (a). Alaba m a la w als o p ro vi de s t ha t the jud ge m us t co ns id er the jury’ s ad vi so ry ve rd ic t, wh ic h i s n otbi nd in g o n t he tri al jud ge . Id . § 1 3A- 5- 47 (e). Des pi te th e rec omm en da ti on of s ev enof t he twel ve juro rs th at Ro be rts be gi ve n asen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le , th e tr ia l ju dg e in Ro be rts ’s cas e se nt en cedhi m

to de ath. Ro be rts ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e an d the st at e ap pe ll at e co urt 19rev ers edth e d eath s en te nc e co nc lu di ng th atth e tr ia l co urt p rev en te d h im fro m pr es en ti ng ev id en ce wh ic h m ay ha ve est ab li sh edcert ai n s ta tu to ry m it ig at in g fact or s. Th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt re m an de d fo r res en te nc in g b utsp eci fic al ly or de redth atth e h eari ng ne edno t b e co nduc te d i n fr on t o f a jury andco ul d b e h el d be fo re o nl y

a jud ge . Rob ert s h ada ne w sen te nc in g h eari ng be fo re the tri al jud ge , who ag ai n s en te nc edhi m to de ath, an d a fte r a s eco ndrem an d fo r fu rth er cl ari fic at io n, tha t d eat h s en te nc e was affi rm ed . Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t a s en te nc in g ju dg e m us t b e ab le to co ns id er a co ns ti tu ti on al ly val idjury reco m m en da ti on an d t ha t the advi so ry ve rd ic t i n h is cas e d idno t m eetth atst an da rdbe cau se th e jury was no t p erm it te d t o h ear c ert ai n m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. W e, ho wev er, can no t s ay th atth e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt’s fai lu re t o o rd er re se nt en ci ng be fo re a jury an d t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt’s affi rm an ce o f th atde ci si on was a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Supr em e Co urt pr eced en t. InSp azi an o v . Flo rid a, 46 8 U.S. 4 47 (19 84 ), th e Supr em e Co urt sp eci fic al ly hel d t ha t the re i s n o c on st itut io na l ri gh t t o ju ry sen te nc in g i n acap it al cas e. Ro be rts ’s rel ia nc e o n Harris do es no t p ers ua de us ot he rwis e. InHarri s, the Supr em e Co urt, i n a dd res si ng Alab am a’s cap it al sen te nc in g s ch em e, as ke d

“ whe th er the Eig ht h Am en dm en t t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on requi res th e se nt en ci ng jud ge to asc rib e an y

pa rti cu la r wei gh t t o t he ve rd ic t o f anadvi so ry jury. ” 51 3 U.S. at 2050 9. In co nc lu di ng th atitdo es no t, the Co urt n ot edth atth e Co ns ti tu ti onpe rm it s

th e tr ia l ju dg e, act in g a lo ne , to im po se th e d eat h p en al ty andth eref or e, itwou ld no t b e u nc on st itut io na l t o p erm itth e tr ia l ju dg e to de ci de whatweig htto gi ve to th e jury’ s ad vi so ry

ve rd ic t. Id . at 5 15 . Mo reo ve r, th e o rig in al jury reco m m en da ti on was 7 to 5 i n fa vo r of a li fe se nt en ce, a d et erm in at io n t ha t co ul d n otha ve be enim pr ov edup on by a seco nd jury oth er tha n fo r m or e juro rs to reco m m en d l ife . Howev er, b ecau se Alab am a la w do es no t re qu ire th e jud ge to fol lo w th e jury’ s re co m m en da ti on no m at te r th e nu m be r of juro rs reco m

m en di ng li fe, we can no t s ta te th atth e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt’s af

firm an ce o f th e ap pe ll at e co urt’s re m an d fo r jud ge -o nl y res en te nc in g was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. AFFIRMED.

21BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , con cu rri ng :

I co nc urinth e m ajor it y ’s op in io n a ndwrit e se pa rat el y on ly to v oi ce m

y ag reem en t wi th Ju st ic e St ev en s’s re co gn it io n i n Harris v. Al ab am a, 51 3 U.S. 5 04 (1 99 5) , of t he pe rv ers it y

of Al ab am a’s jud ic ia l o ve rri de syste m incap it al se nt en ci ng . As Ju st ic e St ev en s n ot ed , Alab am a is on e o f th e fo urst at es th atall ow jud ic ia l o ve rri de of ajury’ s re co m m en da ti onof ali fe s en te nc e. See Harris , 51 3 U.S. at 5 15 –1 6 (S te ve ns , J., di ss en ti ng ). Even th ou gh th e m ajor ity of juro rs in Ro be rts ’s cas e rec omm en de d t ha t h e rec ei ve a li fe s en te nc e, Alab am a’s cap it al se nt en ci ng reg im e p erm it te d the jud ge to reject , witho utan y gu id in g s tand ard , th at reco m m en da ti on infav orof asen te nc e o f de ath, wh ic h i s wh atth e jud ge inth is cas e d id . The pra ct ic al co ns eque nc e o f Alaba m a’s syste m is ex act ly as Ju st ic e St ev en s d es cri be d: The de fen da nt ’s li fe is twi ce pu t in jeop ard y, on ce be fo re th e jury an d ag ai n in th e rep eat pe rfo rm an ce be fo re a di ffer en t, an d li ke ly le ss sym pa th et ic , de ci si on m ak er. A sc he m e th at we as su m ed wou ld pr ov id e cap it al de fen dant s with m or e, rathe r th a n le ss , jud ic ia l pr ot ect io n, ha s pe rv ers el y de vo lv ed in to a pr oc edur e th at requi res th e de fen da nt to st av e of f a d eat h s en te nc e ateach of t wo de no vo se nt en ci ng he ari ng s. Id . at 5 21 (in te rn al cit at io n, quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Mor eo ve r, be cau se th e se nt en ci ng de ci si on of t he fir stde ci si on m ak er— i.e, a p res um ed

22reas on ab le jury—canbe ig no redwitho utan y li m it in g p rin ci pl es infav orof a se nt en ce o f de ath b y

th e se co ndde ci si on m ak er, I que st io n wh ethe r itcanbe de em edco ns ti tu ti on al .

23HULL, Ci rcu itJu dg e, sp eci al ly con cu rri ng :

I co nc urinth e m ajor it y ’s op in io n. I wri te sep arat el y on ly to s ta te th at Ro be rts ha s n otch al le ng edth e co ns ti tu ti on al ity of Al ab am a’s st atut ory , jud ic ia l ov erri de syste m

incap it al sen te nc in g. Th eref or e, th atis su e is no t b efo re the Co urt, an d t he re i s n o re as on to di sc us s i t.

24