FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 13, 2008 THOM A S K. KA HN CL ERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15674

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 0 0 9 0 - CV- LS C- J EO M A X L A N D O N P A Y N E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R I C H A R D F . A L L E N , C o m m is s io n e r , A lab a m aD e p a r tm e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A ugus t13, 2008) B efo re B A R K E T T , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. HU LL , CI RC UI T J UD GE:2

I n thi s c api t a l c a s e , pe t i t i one rM a x L a ndon P a y ne ( “ P a y ne ” ) appe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n f o raw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . A f t e rr e v i e w a n do r a l a r g u me n t , w e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . T h e C ri m es P a y ne r obbe d, abduc t e d, a nd brut a l l y m ur de r e d B r a xt on B r ow n. S e e P a y ne v. S t a t e , 683 S o. 2d 440, 442- 47 ( A l a . C r i m . A pp. 1995) . O n M a r c h 23, 1992, the ev en in g P ay n e m u rd er ed B ro w n , P ay n e w as at h is sisterW il m a F ay e E as terly’s hous e w i th hi s gi r l f

r i e nd, S a ndr aW a l ke r , a nd E a s t e r l y . P a y ne l e f tthe hous e w i th a d o u b l e-b arrel ed sh o t g u n . Id . at4 4 3 . P ayn e sai d h e w as t ak i n g th e sh o t g u n i n case

“ som ebod y f

ucks w i th m e. ” I d. A roun d 8 : 25 or 8: 30 p. m . , tw o cust om er s s aw P a y ne a tW e s tP oi ntG r oc e ry , w hi c h B r ow n ow ne d. I d. A r o u n d 8 : 3 0 p . m. , a n a l a rm c o mp a n y o p e r a t o rr e c e i v e d a“ h o l d - u p a l a rm” f r om W e s tP oi ntG r oc e ry a nd c a l l e d the s he r i f f’ s de pa r tm e nt . I d. T he r e s pondi ng de puty di s c ove r e d the s t or e doorope n a nd s a w M a r l bor o pa c ks s c a tt e r e d on the f l oor , butf

ound no one the r e . I d. P a y ne ha d r obbe d the s t or e , ki dnappe d B r ow n, a nd t a ke n B r ow n a tgunpoi nt t o E as t er l y’ s hou se . E as t er l y w as st i l l there w i th W al ker. Id. W al ker t es t i fi ed B r o w n ap p e a r e d v e ry n e rv o u s a n d s c a r e d , a n d P a y n e h a d ag u n , s to o d r ig h t n e x t to3

B r o w n , a n d h a d a n a rm s lin g . P a y n e o r d e r e d B r o w n to g iv e E a s te r ly m o n e y . I d . B ro w n laid$ 2 0 o n a tab le. Id . W alk ero v erh ea rd E as terly b eg g in g P ay n e “d o n ’t do thi s ” s e ve r a l t i m e s . I d. E as t er l y a sked P ay ne t o l ea ve B row n w i th h eror t ake hi m back t o h i s s t ore and sai d “ m aybe [B row n] w ou l d forgetabou tthi s. ” I d. at44 4. B row n n od ded ne rvous l y . I d. P a y ne r e j e c t e d E a s t e r l y ’ s s ugge s t i on, s t a t i ng, “ N o, I a m goi ng t o do thi s . ” I d. P a y ne f

or c e d B r ow n t o l e a ve E a s t e r l y ’ s hous e w i th hi m . I d. A ro u n d 9 : 1 5 p . m . , P ayn e w en tt o G eo rg e C l eg h o rn ’ s h o u se an d ask ed t o u se th e te le p h o n e . I d . P a y n e c a lle d s o m e o n e a n d a s k e d f o rb u lle ts f

o ra.2 2 r if

le . I d . P ay n e a lso as k ed C leg h o rn if h e h ad an y b u ll ets. Id . D u rin g th is ti m e, P ay n e’s other s i st erA l m a T ho m as w entt o W es tP oi ntG roce ryand i nform ed po l i ce her br othe rha d be e n s e e n w i th B r ow n a nd de s c r i be d the c a rP a y ne w a s dr i vi ng. I d. A r ound 10: 00 p. m . , apol i c e i nve s t i ga t ort a ki ng pi c tur e s a tW e s tP oi nt G r o c e ry r e c e iv e d ac a ll th a t g u n s h o ts h a d b e e n h e a r d . I d . H e a tte m p te d to lo c a te the or i gi n of

the s hot s butf

a i l e d. I d. W he n the i nve s t i ga t orr e turne d t o W e s tP oi nt G r oc e ry , he r e c e i ve d ac a l l tha tB r ow n ha d be e n s e e n w i th P a y ne . I d. F ol l ow i ng the re po rtof gu nsho t s, an i nv es t i gat or arri ved atE as t er l y’ s hou se and fou nd the ca r P ay ne had u se d thateveni ng . Id. Insi de the ca r w er e tw o spentand sever al u n s p e n t s h o tg u n s h e lls . I d . A r o u n d m id n ig h t, P a y n e p u r c h a s e d ab u s tic k e t to4

F l or i da . I d. T he t i c ke ta ge ntnot i c e d P a y ne w or e t orn bl ue j e a ns w i th bl ood s t a i ns a nd ha d c ut s on hi s f

a c e . I d. O n the m orni ng of M ar ch 24 , 19 92 , a vol un t ee r f i re m an foun d a part i al de nt a l pl a t e on abr i dge ove rC r ooke d C r e e k a nd not i c e d da rk r e d s t a i ns on the br i dge a nd r a i l i ng. I d. a t445. T he s e a r c h t e a m di s c ove r e d B r ow n’ s body i n the c r e e k . I d . M o s t o f

B r o w n ’s f

a c e w a s g o n e d u e to tw o s h o tg u n b la s ts to th e f a c e . I d . H e h a d tw o la r g e h o le s in h is f a c e : o n e in h is f

o r e h e a d a n d o n e in h is m o u th . I d . A n au to p s y la te rr e tr ie v e d 4 6 6 s h o tg u n p e lle ts f r o m B r o w n ’s s k u ll. I d . a t 4 4 6 . A f or e ns i c e xa m i ne rt e s t i f

i e d B r ow n w a s s hotw i th as hot gun f r om adi s t a nc e of one t o one - a nd- a - ha l f

f e e ta w a y . I d. O n M a r c h 2 5 , 1 9 9 2 , f

o l l o w i n g ac a l l f

r o m A l ab a maau th o r i t i e s , aM i a mi p o l i c e d e t e c t i v e me tPa y n e ’ s b u s w h e n i ta rr i v e d i n M i a mi . I d . a t4 4 5 . I t e ms fo u n d o n P ayn e i n cl u d ed B ro w n ’ s h an d g u n ; a j ew el er’ s i n v o i ce m ad e o u tt o W est P oi ntG roce ry ; a vehi cl e r egi stra t i on i n B row n’ s nam e; three ca rt on s of M ar l bo ro ci g arett es; th ree b an kd ep o si tb ag s co n t ai n i n g n u m ero u s ch eck s w ri tt en t o W est P o in t G r o c e ry , c r e d it c a r d r e c e ip ts , r in g s , an d f o o d s ta m p s ; b a n kr e c e ip ts in B row n’ s nam e; and a t ot al of $1 , 08 5. 84 . Id. at44 5-46 . B row n’ s s on i dent i fi ed m any i t em s a s c om i ng fr om W es tP oi ntG roce ry . Id. F orensi c t es t i ng m at ched hum a n t i s s ue r e c ove r e d f r om P a y ne ’ s a rm s l i ng t o B r ow n’ s bl ood type . I d. a t446.Th ec ountsare : ( 1) intenti on al murder c ommitt e d d uringan a bd uc tio n withtheintent to 1 acc omplish or aid the commission of robbery or flight theref

rom; (2) intentional murder during anab d u ct i o nwi thth e i nt entt o i n fl i cts eri o u s p hys i cali n j ury ; an d (3 ) i nt enti o n almurd er

d uri n g a robber y in the first degree . See Ala. Code . §§ 13A-5-40( a)( 1)-( 2), 13A-6- 2, 13A-6-43, 13A -8- 41 . Apers on

c ommitsrobb ery

in t hefirs t de gre ewh en h e , in thec ours eof

c ommittinga

the ft , (1) use s forc e with intent to overc ome physical re sistance or threatens the imminent use of force with intent to c omp e l ac quie sc enc eto t hetakingof

or e sc a pingwith t

heprop ert

y ; and (2 ) i s arm e d witha

de adly we a po n o r dang erousins tr

ument o r c a

us e s seri ou s p hysic al in

jur y to another . Ala. Code §§ 13A- 8-41, 13A-8- 43. 5 P ay n e w as in d icted fo r th re e c o u n ts o f c ap it al m u rd erar isin g fr o m B ro w n ’s de a th. A n A l aba m aj ury una ni m ous l y c onvi c t e d P a y ne on a l l c ount s a nd

1 re com m ended a death sent ence by an 11 -1 vo t e. T he st at e tri al j ud ge se nt ence d P a y n e to d e a th . B. Pr e - t r i a lM o t i o ns P ri or t o tri al , defe nse c ou nsel G re g N i chol as and R ob ertS app m ov ed ex part e f or fund s t o i nv es t i gat e the cr i m es and m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s. T he court g r a n t e d th e mo t i o n a n d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l h i r e d J o h n n y N e s mi th , ar e t i r e d A l ab a ma B u r e au o f

I n v e s tig a tio n a g e n t. C o u n s e l a ls o m o v e d f o rac o u r t- o r d e r e d p s y c h ia tr ic exam t o d et erm i ne P ay ne’ s c om pet encyt o st and tri al and h i s m ent al and em ot i on al s t a t e a tthe t i m e of

the of f e ns e s . T he tr i a l c our the l d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on the m o tio n . N ic h o la s a n d S ap p a tte n d e d th e h e a r in g , b u t S ap p q u e s tio n e d th e w itn e s s e s . F am i l y w i tn esses t est i fi edab o u tP ayn e’ s d i ffi cu l tch i l d h o o d , h i s h eal th p ro b l em s, an d th e p h ysi cal ab u se h e su ffered fro m h i s st ep fath er. P ayn e’ s m o th er al so6

di s c us s e d the s t om a c h s ur ge ry P a y ne ha d a s ac hi l d, a nd P a y ne ’ s be ha vi ora r ound th e tim e o f th e m u rd er . E as terly tes ti fied ab o u t th eir a b u siv e s tep fa th er , P ay n e’s m e di c a t i on f

orne rve pr obl e m s , a nd P a y ne ’ s i rr a t i ona l i ty the da y be f or e the m ur de r . A l m aT hom a s di s c us s e d how P a y ne a tt e m pt e d s ui c i de a nd how , a f t e rthe m ur de r , P a y ne w a s outof hi s m i nd w he n s he dr ove hi m t o the bus s t a t i on. T he c our tgr a nt e d the m e nt a l e va l ua t i on m ot i on. D r. M ai er , a c l i ni ca l psyc ho l og i stand cert i fi ed forens i c e xam i ner, exam i ned P a y ne a nd f

ound no e vi de nc e of

m e nt a l i l l ne s s , di m i ni s he d m e nt a l c apa c i ty , or c o g n itiv e im p a irm e n t. D r . M a ie rr e v ie w e d P a y n e ’s p s y c h o lo g ic a l a n d p s y c h ia tr ic h is to ry , in c lu d in g P a y n e ’s h is to ry o f s u b s ta n c e ab u s e a n d c u rr e n t m e d ic a tio n s . P a y n e d e n ie d a n y h is to ry o f h o s p ita liz a tio n o rc o n ta c t w ith am e n ta l h e a lth profes si on al for psy chi atri c or s ub st ance abuse r ea sons, bu tre po rt ed a l on g h i st ory of a l c ohol abus e a nd s tr e e tdrug us a ge . P a y ne w a s ahe a vy dr i nke rs i nc e a ge f i f t e e n ors i xt e e n a nd f

ors e ve r a l y e a r s dr a nk ac a s e of be e rada y . H e w a s dr i nki ng heavi l y a tthe t i m e of the cr i m es . P ay ne had p robl em s w i th a nervou s s t om ac h s in c e c h ild h o o d a n d r e c e iv e d m e d ic a l h e lp f o rth a t. D r. M ai er ’ s c l i ni ca l as se ss m entno t ed thatno thi ng i n P ay ne’ s hi st ory off er ed any organi c e xp l anat i on s f or P ay ne’ s a l l eged bl ac ko ut s and ra ges, bu tthat bl ac ko ut s and anger outbu rs t s w er e notun com m on du ri ng i nt ox i ca t i on . D r. M ai er7

f ound no e vi de nc e of

c ogni t i ve i m pa i rm e nt , m e m ory pr obl e m s , ha l l uc i na t i ons , or d e lu s io n s . P a y n e w a s o r ie n te d in tim e , p la c e , a n d p u rp o s e , h is s p e e c h w a s n o rm a l, and h e had avera ge or bett eri nt el l ec tual funct i on i ng . P ay ne’ s a ff ec t i ve st at e w as w i thi n norm a l l i m i t s , a nd he ha d norm a l abs tr a c t i ve thi nki ng a nd f a i rj udgm e nta nd i nsi gh t . D r. M ai ersaw no si gn of re m orse for the cr i m es . U si ng the D S M -I II , D r. M ai erdi agno se d P ay ne as havi ng A xi s I al coho l depend ence and A xi s I I p e r s o n a lity d is o r d e r . D r . M a i e ra l s o a dm i ni s t e r e d the C om pe t e nc y t o S t a nd T r i a l A s s e s s m e nt Instrum entt es tand fou nd P ay ne w as com pet entt o st and tri al . D r. M ai erno t ed that o f th e th irte e n a r e a s th a t th e te s t m e a s u r e s , P a y n e h a d m ild im p a irm e n t in s ix a r e a s . P a y n e w a s a w a r e o f

th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im a n d th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f ac o n v ic tio n . H e und er st oo d the du t i es of courtpers on nel , courtroom procedure, the es se nt i al b a s ic s o f p le a - b a r g a in in g , a n d th e d if f e r e n c e b e tw e e n am is d e m e a n o ra n d af e lo n y . D r . M a ie rb e lie v e d P a y n e h a d a d e q u a te tru s t a n d r ap p o r t w ith h is a tto rn e y s . A s to P ay ne’ s m ent al st at e a tthe t i m e of the cr i m es , D r. M ai erconcl ud ed, “ P ay ne w as hi ghl y i nt oxi c a t e d f

r om a l c ohol , c om bi ne d w i th ‘ 13 or14 pa i n pi l l s . ’ ” P a y ne adm i tt ed consum i ng a c as e t o a ca se and a hal f of bee r duri ng the si x t o ei gh tho urs before the cr i m es and d ri nk i ng on hi s w ayt o F l ori da. D r. M ai erfoun d n o evi dence o f a n y s ig n if

ic a n t m e n ta l illn e s s o th e rth a n P a y n e ’s a lc o h o l ab u s e p r o b le m .8

P ay ne’ s r eportof thi ng s he r em em bere d and hi s behavi or af t erthe cr i m es s u g g e s te d “h e d id k n o w th a t w h a t h e d id w a s w r o n g a n d a g a in s t th e la w .” A s to P ay ne’ s c l ai m s of bl ac ko uti n rec al l i ng event s s urroun di ng the ki dn appi ng , D r. M aiersa w n o ex p lan atio n fo r it “ ex ce p t th at su ch a lo ss w o rk s to d ef en d an t’ s a dva nt a ge , a nd c oul d r e f l e c tt e m por a ry c e r e br a l i m pa i rm e ntdue t o the e f f e c t s of a l c ohol - c aus e d i nt oxi c a t i on. ” P a y ne w a s “ abl e t o unde r s t a nd a nd appr e c i a t e the nature a nd consequence of hi s a ct i on s a tthe t i m e of the al l eged offense s. ” D r. M ai erconcl ud ed P ay ne coul d u nd er st and the charges agai nsthi m and the court pr oc e dur e s a nd c oul d c oope r a t e w i th hi s a tt orne y s . D r . M a i e rs t a t e d P a y ne w a s not in n e e d o f

im m e d ia te p s y c h ia tr ic c a r e . T h e tr ia l c o u r t f

o u n d P a y n e c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l. P a y n e ’s c o u n s e l d id n o t c a ll D r . M a ie ra s aw itn e s s d u r in g th e tr ia l. C . P ay n e ’ s Ju r y T r i al A tP a y ne ’ s tr i a l , the S t a t e pr e s e nt e d thi r ty w i tne s s e s , w ho r e c ount e d va r i ous de t a i l s of the c r i m e s . T he de f

e ns e pr e s e nt e d e l e ve n w i tne s s e s i nc l udi ng tw o of P ay ne’ s s i st er s, hi s m other, and N es m i th. A ft erthe j ury unani m ou sl y c on vi ct ed P a y n e , th e p e n a lty p h a s e b e g a n . T h e S ta te a d o p te d th e e v id e n c e f r o m th e g u ilt st age. P ayn e’ s co u n sel p resen t ed m i t i g at i o n ev i d en ce th ro u g h fi v e w i tn esses:9

P ay ne’ s m other ( G re del l T ho m as ), si st er s E as t er l y and A l m a T ho m as , D r. Ja ck C ol em an, and D r. D avi d L ai rm ore. T he fa m i l y w i tness es ’ t es t i m on y c ov er ed P ay ne’ s c hi l dh oo d and dysf un ct i on al fa m i l y, the negl ec tby P ay ne’ s bi ol og i ca l f a the r , the phy s i c a l abus e by P a y ne ’ s a l c ohol i c s t e pf a the r , P a y ne ’ s w i tne s s i ng r e pe a t e d abus e of

hi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r , a nd P a y ne ’ s us e of a l c ohol a ta n e a r l y a ge a s w e l l a s hi s e xt e ns i ve a l c ohol a nd drug abus e . W i tne s s e s a tboth the gui l ta nd pe na l ty pha s e s t e s t i f

i e d aboutP a y ne ’ s abus e of drugs a nd a l c ohol on the da y of the m u r d e r . B e c aus e P a y ne ’ s f

e de r a l pe t i t i on c l a i m s hi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve a nd s h o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d m o r e e v i d e n c e ab o u th i s c h i l d h o o d a n d s u b s t a n c e ab u s e , we d e ta il w h a t c o u n s e l d id p r e s e n t d u r in g P a y n e ’s ju ry tr ia l. P a y ne ’ s m othe rt e s t i f

i e d f i r s taboutP a y ne ’ s c hi l dhood. P a y ne w a s the youn gestof fi ve chi l dren. P ay ne’ s m other di vo rc ed P ay ne’ s f ather, an al coho l i c, b ecau se h e w as ab u si v e an d v i o l en tt o w ardh er. P ayn e’ s st ep fath er, P erv i s M i m s, w a s a ls o a n a lc o h o lic . M im s o f te n p h y s ic a lly ab u s e d P a y n e a n d P a y n e ’s s ib lin g s . P a y ne ne ve rr e c e i ve d a ny pr of e s s i ona l he l p f

orthe abus e he e ndur e d a nd w i tne s s e d. P a y n e w a s as ic k ly c h ild w h o “g o t m a d e f u n o f ” a n d b e a t u p b y o th e rb o y s . P ay ne began d ri nk i ng ar ou nd fi fth g ra de. W hen h e w as thi rt ee n, P ay ne m ov ed10

a w a y f r om hom e s o the ki ds w oul d notpi c k on hi m . P a y ne l ove d hi s s i s t e r s a nd w ou l d tryand st op hi s m other f rom w hi pp i ng them . H i s m other i dent i fi ed se vera l pi c tur e s of

P a y ne a s ac hi l d. E a s te r ly d id n o t r e m e m b e rth e irb io lo g ic a l f a th e rb e in g in th e h o u s e a n d d id notknow of

a ny c ont a c tbe tw e e n the i rf a the ra nd P a y ne unt i l he w a s abouttw e l ve y e a r s o l d . H o w e v e r , Ea s t e r l y k n e w al o tab o u tPa y n e ’ s s t e p f a th e r . M i ms phy s i c a l l y abus e d P a y ne . I nde e d, aboutonc e ortw i c e am onth, f r om w he n P a y ne w a s s e ve n unt i l he l e f

thom e a r ound a ge tw e l ve orthi r t e e n, M i m s be a tP a y ne i n the fa ce , st om ac h, or anyw here . P ay ne even w i tness ed M i m s m ol es thi s ol der s i st er E v el yn o n sev eral o ccasi o n s. P ayn e l efth o m e b ecau se h e co u l d n o tt ak e th i s ab u se anym ore. P ay ne w as pass ed fr om re l at i ve t o rel at i ve. P ay ne w as dri nk i ng qu i t e a bi tby a ge f

i f t e e n. N on ethel es s, P ay ne w as al w ay s there for E as t er l y. If E as t er l y goti n troub l e, P a y n e w o u ld te ll th e irm o th e rh e d id it s o th e irm o th e rw o u ld w h ip P a y n e in s te a d . P ay ne w as there for E as t er l y w hen she had m i sc arri ages and h el ped w i th h er d au g h te r ’s d o c to rb ills . T h e w e e kb e f o r e th e m u r d e r , P a y n e w a s u p s e t b e c au s e h is w if e s a id th e irb ab y w a s n o t h is . P a y n e w e n t to ad o c to rto g e t s o m e th in g f o rh is nerves . P ay ne’ s dri nk i ng go tw orse , go i ng fr om every tw o o r three days t o every d ay.11

P a y ne ’ s ol de s ts i s t e r , A l m aT hom a s , l i ve d w i th he rgr a ndpa r e nt s f r om a ge tw el ve and w as no tar ou nd P ay ne m uch as achi l d. H ow ever , i n the four ye ar s before the m urder, T ho m as spenta l otof t i m e w i th P ay ne. T ho m as desc ri bed P a y ne a s the be s tf

r i e nd s he e ve rha d, s om e one w ho w oul d do a ny thi ng f or a n yb o d y . Pa y n e w a s g r e a tw i th Th o ma s ’ s f i f t e e n - y e a r - o l d s o n , b u i l d i n g h i m a tr e e hous e a nd e nc our a gi ng hi m t o s t a y i n s c hool . T he da y of the m ur de r , P a y ne w a s a c t i ng c r a z y a nd di d notknow w ha the w a s doi ng. T he nextw i tness es w er e D r. C ol em an and D r. L ai rm ore. A bo utthree m onths pr i ort o the m ur de r , D r . C ol e m a n tr e a t e d P a y ne f ornaus e a , vom i t i ng, abdom i na l pa i n, a nd di a rrhe a . P a y ne a l s o s a i d he w a s ha vi ng a nxi e ty a nd t e ns i on abou tsom e f

am i l y probl em s. D r. C ol em an di agno se d P ay ne w i th v i ra l g a s tr o e n t e r i t i s . D r . Co l e ma n p r e s c r i b e d me d i c i n e f o rPa y n e ’ s s t o ma c h p r o b l e ms and A t i van for the t ensi on and anx i ety. D r. C ol em an al so expl ai ned h ow A t i van and al coho l i nt er ac t . A t i van, a drug si m i l art o V al i um , i s aca l m i ng agentt o q ui et do w n anx i ety a tt ac ks. W hen A t i van i s c om bi ned w i th al coho l , the drug s have a se dat i ve ef

fe ctand cause drow si ness . A pers on , ho w ever , coul d g o throu gh an e x c itab le p h a s e b e f

o r e h e p a s s e s o u t, lik e h o w p e o p le w h o c o m e o u t o f a n a e s th e s ia c a n go thr ough ac om ba t i ve s t a ge . I f P a y ne t ook the A t i va n i n e xc e s s of the dos a ge pr e s c r i be d a nd i n c onj unc t i on w i th a l c ohol , P a y ne c oul d l os e hi s r e a s oni ng12

abi l i t i e s . B e c aus e a l c ohol a nd A t i va n a r e both de pr e s s a nt s , the i rc om bi na t i on c oul d ha ve a n e f

f e c ton w ha tape r s on w oul d norm a l l y do. A w e e kb e f

o r e th e m u r d e r , D r . L a irm o r e tr e a te d P a y n e a f te rac a ra c c id e n t. P a y n e r e p o r te d n e c kp a in , s h o u ld e rp a in , a n d a n ab r a s io n o n h is h a n d . P a y n e d id n o t in d ic a te a n y m e n ta l o rd o m e s tic p r o b le m s o re x h ib it a n y e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . P ay ne w as neurol og i ca l l y norm al . D r. L ai rm ore ordere d a sl i ng for P ay ne t o w ea r t o pr ot e c thi s r i ghts houl de r , w hi c h w a s s pr a i ne d. D r . L a i rm or e pr e s c r i be d tw e l ve tab le ts o f T y le n o l 3 , w h ic h is ac o m b in a tio n o f c o d e in e a n d a c e ta m in o p h e n . C ode i ne de pr e s s e s ape r s on’ s m e nt a l s t a tus a nd c aus e s the br a i n t o f e e l l e s s pa i n, b u t a ls o lo w e r s ap e r s o n ’s m e n ta l s ta te a n d m a k e s h im d r o w s y . D r. L ai rm o re ex p l ai n ed al co h o l ’ s effect on th e b rai n , h o w i td ecreases a pe r s on’ s r e a c t i on t i m e a nd c aus e s dr ow s i ne s s a nd de pr e s s i on, a nd tha tone s y m pt om of

a n a l c ohol ove r dos e i s bl a c kout s . A pe r s on of P a y ne ’ s ge ne r a l he a l th, a ge , a nd phy s i c a l s t a tus w ho c ons um e d tw e l ve t o s i xt e e n c a ns of be e rove rs i x or s e v e n h o u r s w o u ld p r o b ab ly b e le g a lly in to x ic a te d . T h e p e r s o n ’s r e a s o n in g ab ility c oul d be a l t e r e d, e s pe c i a l l y i n c om bi na t i on w i th ana r c ot i c l i ke c ode i ne . A l c ohol a n d c o d e in e to g e th e rp r o d u c e am u ltip lie d e f f e c t. T h e S ta te c a lle d n o r e b u tta l w itn e s s e s . A f te rth e ju ry r e c o m m e n d e d ad e a th se nt ence , the st at e tri al j ud ge hel d a se para t e s ent enci ng hear i ng a m on th l at er .13

D . St a t e Tr i a lC o ur t ’ s Se nt e nc i ng T he s t a t e tr i a l c ourtc ons i de r e d the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l a nd the se nt enci ng hear i ng s, the j ury’ s a dv i soryverdi ct , and P ay ne’ s pre se nt ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t . T he c our tf ound one s t a tut ory a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e : the c api t a l of

f e ns e w a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e the de f e nda ntw a s e nga ge d i n r obbe ry a nd ki dn appi ng offe nses . T he courtfoun d o ne st atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance : P a y ne w a s the n 21 y e a r s ol d. T he c our ta l s o f

ound f ournons t a tut ory m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s : ( 1) P a y ne w a s unde rthe i nf

l ue nc e of pr e s c r i pt i on drugs a nd a l c ohol a tthe t i m e of the offe nses ; (2) P ay ne w as un dergoi ng em ot i on al prob l em s c on ce rni ng the al l eged no n-pat erni ty of achi l d h e tho ug htw as hi s; (3) P ay ne’ s c hi l dh oo d exp er i ence w as bad b ec ause of hi s s t epfa ther’ s a l coho l prob l em s and “ as saul t i ng ” of P ay ne’ s s i st er , h is m o th e r ’s n u m e r o u s m a rr ia g e s , a n d ag e n e r a lly p o o rc h ild h o o d e n v ir o n m e n t; a nd ( 4) P a y ne c urr e nt l y appe a r e d t o ha ve agood r e l a t i ons hi p w i th hi s f a m i l y . T he c o u r t c o n c lu d e d “th e m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th is c a s e d o n o t o u tw e ig h th e s o le aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance ” a nd i m po se d the death sent ence . E . D i r e c t A p p e al T en days af

t erse nt enci ng i n 1 99 4, the st at e tri al courtappo i nt ed new c o u n s e l f o rPay n e . Atth a tt i me , Al ab a mah a d ap r o c e d u r a l ru l e , e s t ab l i s h e d b y ExUnder Ala bama ’sproc e dure , n ew a

pp e llatec ouns e l mu st obtain t hetrial trans c ript in 2 order to b ea

bleto raiseine ff

e c tiv e -t ri al- c ouns e l c laimson

dire c t a pp e al. TheAl a

bama Sup reme Court in J ackson recognized that when new c ounsel is appointed to represent a defendant on direc t appeal, “it is unli kely that the reporter’ s transcript will be made available to him beforethe 30-day period within which to file a motion for a new

trial has expired.” Jackson, 598 So. 2d at 897. The Jackson court instructe d that if new a ppellate c ounsel is appointed, that counse l may file a motion with the trial cour t within 14 days of appointment to suspend the runningof the 30- day period to file a

motion for new trial until the cour t reporter has f

iled the trial transcript. I d. After appellatecounsel re ceive s the trial transcript, “[a]ppellate counsel will then havethe means to raise all appropriateissues before the trial court” in a motion for new trial. I d. Th esamec ouns e l repre sente d Pa y nein t hestateand

fe deral c oll ateral proc e e ding s. 3 14 part e J ac kson , 59 8 S o. 2d 89 5 (A l a. 19 92 ), w hi ch re qu i re d n ew appel l at e c ou nsel t o rai se i neff

ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s i n a m ot i on for new tri al and then o n d i re ct appeal (a s opp osed t o w ai t i ng un t i l col l at er al proceedi ng s) . H ow ever , P ay ne’ s new appe l l a t e c ouns e l di d notf i l e am ot i on f

orne w tr i a l a nd di d notr a i s e a ny in e f f e c tiv e - tr ia l- c o u n s e l c la im s o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. 2 T he A l abam a C ou rtof C ri m i nal A pp ea l s ( the “ A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rt ”) a n d th e A lab a m aS u p r e m e C o u r t a f f irm e d P a y n e ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d d e a th s e n te n c e . S e e P a y n e , 6 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 4 5 8 ; E x p a r te P a y n e , 6 8 3 S o . 2 d 4 5 8 , 4 7 4 ( A la . 1 9 9 6 ) . T he U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our tde ni e d c e rt i or a r i . S e e P a y ne v. A l aba m a , 520 U . S . 11 46 , 11 7 S . C t . 13 19 (199 7). F . R u l e 32 P e t i t i on an d F i r s t A p p e al P a y ne , thr ough a nothe rne w c ouns e l , f i l e d apos t - c onvi c t i on- r e l i e f pe t i t i on pur s ua ntt o A l aba m aR ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32. P a y ne ’ s R ul e 32 pe t i t i on 3 r a is e d c la im s o f: ( 1 ) in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

tr ia l c o u n s e l f

o rf a ilu r e to in v e s tig a te15

a nd pr e s e nte xpe r tm e nt a l he a l th e vi de nc e a nd a de qua t e m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e ; a nd ( 2 ) in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

ap p e lla te c o u n s e l f

o rn o t p u r s u in g in e f

f e c tiv e - tr ia lc ouns e l c l a i m s i n am ot i on f orne w tr i a l oron di r e c tappe a l . T he s t a t e R ul e 32 c our tde ni e d P a y ne ’ s pe t i t i on. T he R ul e 32 cou rthel d P ay ne’ s i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s w er e barre d because P ay ne’ s app el l at e c ou nsel di d n otra i se tho se cl ai m s i n a m ot i on for new tr i a l oron di r e c tappe a l a s r e qui r e d by A l aba m al a w i n J a c ks on. S e e J a c ks on, 598 S o. 2d at89 7. T he R ul e 32 cou rtal so deni ed P ay ne’ s i neff ec t i ve-app el l at e- coun se l claim s. P ay n e a p p ea led . T h e A lab am a A p p ea ls C o u rt af firm ed th e R u le 3 2 co u rt’s deni al of P ay ne’ s i neff

ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s, no t i ng “ the procedure outl i ned in E x p a r te J a c k s o n , 5 9 8 S o . 2 d 8 9 5 ( A la . 1 9 9 2 ) , w a s in e f f e c t” f o rP a y n e ’s c a s e . Pa y n e v . St a t e , 7 9 1 So . 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 9 - 9 0 ( A l a . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . Th e A l ab a ma A pp ea l s C ou rtconcl ud ed P ay ne’ s i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s w er e pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d be c aus e the y w e r e notr a i s e d i n am ot i on f orne w tr i a l oron d ir e c t ap p e a l. I d . a t 3 9 0 . T he A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rtre m anded the ca se t o the R ul e 32 cou rtfor a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on P a y ne ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve - appe l l a t e - c ouns e l c l a i m . I d. a t393. G . Ev i de nt i a r y H e a r i ng o n R ul e 3 2 R e m a nd O n re m an d , th e R u le 3 2 co u rt h eld an ev id en ti ar y h ea rin g o n P ay n e’s16

in e f f e c tiv e - ap p e lla te - c o u n s e l c la im s . B e c au s e w e u ltim a te ly m u s t d e te rm in e if P a y ne ’ s R ul e 32 e vi de nc e w a s ne w ors i m pl y c um ul a t i ve of w ha tthe j ury a nd s e nt e nc i ng j udge he a r d, w e de t a i l P a y ne ’ s R ul e 32 e vi de nc e a tl e ngth. T h e f i r s twi tn e s s , Gr e g o ry Ni c h o l a s , wa s o n e o f P a y n e ’ s tr i a l a tt o rn e y s . He t es t i fi ed abou thi s e xp er i ence , tri al prepar at i on , and stra t egy. N i chol as began l aw pr a c t i c e i n 1985, w a s as ol o pr a c t i t i one r , a nd ha d age ne r a l pr a c t i c e , athi r d of w hi c h w a s c r i m i na l c a s e s . H e ha d ha ndl e d f e l ony a nd vi ol e ntf

e l ony c a s e s , a nd th i s w a s h i s f

i r s tc ap i t a l c a s e . N i c h o l a s w a s ap p o i n t e d i n 1 9 9 2 a n d r e c e i v e d s o me as si st ance fr om C api t al R es ou rc es , an organi za t i on as si st i ng l aw ye rs i n capi t al tri al s. N i chol as al so att ended a semi nar host ed by C api t al R es ou rc es atl ea sta y ea r be f or e the tr i a l . C api t a l R e s our c e s pr ovi de d anot e book f ul l of s a m pl e m ot i ons , the m os tc urr e ntc a s e l a w , a nd i nf orm a t i on on the gui l tpha s e , pe na l ty pha s e , a nd e v id e n tia ry is s u e s . N ic h o la s u s e d th e in f o rm a tio n f

r o m C ap ita l R e s o u r c e s in prepari ng P ay ne’ s c as e. D uri ng N i chol as and h i s c o-coun se l ’ s pre para t i on , they al so co n t act ed C ap i t al R eso u rces w i th sp eci fi c q u est i o n s. N i chol as m ov ed for acourt -order ed m ent al exam because P ay ne had i ss ues a s ac hi l d a nd “ t o m a ke s ur e a l l the ba s e s w e r e c ove r e d, ” s t a t i ng: I t a l ke d w i th [ P a y ne ] e a r l y on. T he r e ha d be e n s om e i s s ue s tha the h a d a s ac h ild th a t c e r ta in ly w e w an te d a ll th o s e e x p lo r e d . I ’m n o t a m e nt a l he a l th pr of

e s s i ona l a nd w e j us tw a nt e d t o m a ke s ur e a l l the ba s e s w e r e c ove r e d. W e w a nt e d tha ta s s i s t a nc e . . . . I di dn’ tha ve a nyNicholas be lieved Ne smith’s charg es went over the $1500 limit and Nesmith spent more 4 than the allotted 50 hours. Since Pay ne’s trial, Nicholas moved re sidence s and law of fice s and was una ble to locate his trial f

ile for this ca se. 17 r e a l c onc e rns about[ P a y ne ] ’ s c om pe t e nc y t o s t and tr i a l a f t e rt a l ki ng w i th hi m . B uta ga i n, w e w a nt e d t o m a ke s ur e w e ha d done the thi ngs w e nee ded t o d o. If

there w er e s om e und er l yi ng prob l em s, w e w ant ed s o me a s s i s t a n c e w i th th e m. N ic h o la s u s e d c o u r t- s u p p lie d f u n d s to h ir e N e s m ith . N ic h o la s b e lie v e d N e s m ith

“ c ont a c t e d s om e f

ol ks i n M obi l e a nd S a r a l a nd, butI ’ m nots ur e . ” T he s e i nc l ude d a doc t orw ho t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l abouttr e a t i ng P a y ne i n 1991 a nd one of P a y ne ’ s good fri en d s. 4 A s t o the pe na l ty pha s e , N i c hol a s e xpl a i ne d the i rs tr a t e gy w a s t o hi ghl i ght P a y n e ’s d if

f ic u lt lif e , s ta tin g : [P ay ne] had h ad a v er y d i ff i cul tup bri ng i ng , t o saythe l ea st . H e had h a d atr au m a tic c h ild h o o d . H is f a th e rw a s v e r y ab u s iv e a t av e ry e a r ly a g e . [ P a y n e ] h a d s ta r te d d r in k in g w h e n h e w a s in th e f if th o rs ix th g r a d e . H e h a d le f

t h o m e a n d w e n t o u t o n h is o w n a t av e ry e a r ly a ge . . . . R i ghtbe f

or e thi s i n c i de ntha d oc c urr e d w i th B r a xt on B r ow n, [ P a y n e ] h a d h a d s o m e u p s e ttin g n e w s r e g a r d in g as o n th a t h e h a d . I bel i eve [ P ay ne ] ha d j us tl e a rne d tha thi s w i f e ’ s c hi l d m a y notha ve be e n hi s c hi l d. A nd tha ta nothe ri ndi vi dua l tha t[ P a y ne ] ha d a r e l a t i ons hi p w i th, m a y ha ve a c hi l d tha t w a s [ P a y ne ] ’ s c hi l d . I m e a n, [ P a y ne ] l ove d ki ds a nd tha tw a s obvi ous l y ups e tt i ng t o hi m a l s o. T h e d e f e n s e in te rv ie w e d P a y n e ’s f a m ily m e m b e r s a n d f

r ie n d s , in c lu d in g h is m o th er, tw o si st ers, a b ro th er-i n -l aw , an d a co u p l e o f fri en d s. T h e d efen se in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e ab o u t P a y n e ’s tr au m a tic c h ild h o o d a n d p h y s ic a l ab u s e , h isDuringthe Rule 32 hea ring , Pay ne’s c ounsel called jail administrator Br yan B ueg lar. 5 Bue g lar remembere d some disciplinary incidents involving Pay

ne, but could find no re cords. Bue g lar testified that Pay ne wa s “high risk . . . violating every kind of security

rule or regulation that w ehad th at c ould b eimag ine d. ”B ue g lar te sti fi e d th at “ [f]rom timeto time[Pay ne ] would g e t angry, a

nd wewould

haveto m ov ehim

from his c e ll to a

no ther c e ll. Re ally, h ewa s a manag ement problem for us.” 18 dri nk i ng , hi s di sc ov ery hi s c hi l d m ayno thave been hi s, and h ow up se tt i ng thi s w as t o P ay ne. N i c hol a s de c i de d nott o pr e s e nte vi de nc e of P a y ne ’ s pr i ore m pl oy m e nt hi st ory bec ause i t“ had n otbeen rea l go od . [P ay ne] had n othad a j ob thathe had h eld fo r a lo n g p er io d o f tim e.” T h ey d ec id ed n o t t o p re se n t ev id en ce o f P ay n e’s ja il b e h a v io rb e c au s e o f a n in c id e n t th a t o c c u rr e d “th a t w e d id n o t w a n t th e ju ry to re al l y kno w abou t , ” a nd they w er e c on ce rned i tw ou l d com e outi f j ai l pers on nel t e s t i f i e d. 5 N ic h o la s a n d S ap p c o n s id e r e d P a y n e ’s m e d ic a l h is to ry , a n d d e c id e d to pres entthe evi dence throu gh D r. C ol em an and D r. L ai rm ore. N i chol as kn ew P ay ne w as i n an acci dent , bu tdi d n otspec i fi ca l l y r ec al l a hea d i nj ury. D r. C ol em an tre at ed P ay ne for hi s nervo us st om ac h. D r. L ai rm ore, w ho exam i ned P ay ne af t erhi s a cc i dent , gave no i nd i ca t i on of a head i nj ury or thatP ay ne w as c o m p la in in g o f

ah e a d in

ju ry . D r . L a irm o r e te s tif ie d ab o u t s u b s ta n c e ab u s e . N ic h o la s tr ie d to o b ta in in f o rm a tio n ab o u t P a y n e ’s a lc o h o l a n d d ru g ab u s e . B ec ause P ay ne had n everbeen ho spi t al i ze d o r tre at ed for hi s drug o r a l coho l abuse,19

N i chol as ob t ai ned the i nform at i on fr om P ay ne. P ay ne’ s m other a nd si st er s t es t i fi ed abou tP ay ne’ s hi st ory of dri nk i ng ata y ou ng age a nd another w i tness w as a w a r e P a y ne w a s dr i nki ng a nd t a ki ng m e di c a t i on. N i chol as consi dere d p re se nt i ng evi dence of cognit i ve i m pai rm ent s. W hen a s ke d w he the rhe be l i e ve d P a y ne w a s m e nt a l l y i m pa i r e d ba s e d on hi s tw o y e a r s of in te r a c tio n w ith P a y n e , N ic h o la s s ta te d , “I d o n ’t b e lie v e th a t h e w a s m e n ta lly im p a ir e d a s f

a ra s h a v in g a n y k in d o f m e n ta l illn e s s . A t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n s e , I bel i eve he w as prob abl y i nt ox i ca t ed and w as usi ng the drug s and al coho l . ” N ic h o la s d id n o t s e e a n y in d ic a tio n o f im p a irm e n t r e g a r d in g e d u c a tio n o rp o s s ib le m ent al re t ar dat i on . B oth N i chol as and S app rece i ved D r. M ai er ’ s r eport , w hi ch i nd i ca t ed P ay ne w as com pet entt o st and tri al and d i d n otneed psyc hi atri c c ar e. D r. M a i e r ’ s r e por tnot e d P a y ne w a s dr i nki ng he a vi l y a tthe t i m e of the c r i m e s , but c o n ta in e d n o in d ic a tio n P a y n e w a s u n d e rd u r e s s o rd o m in a tio n b y a n o th e rp e r s o n . H a d th e r e b e e n in d ic a tio n s o f d u r e s s o rd o m in a tio n in th e r e p o r t, N ic h o la s w o u ld h a v e p r e s e n te d th a t to th e ju ry . N ich o las a n d S ap p p re se n ted ev id en ce ab o u t em o ti o n al stre ss an d P ay n e’s i n t o x i cat i o n atth e t i m e o f th e o ffen ses. In u si n g P ayn e’ s fam i l y m em b ers, N i ch o l as an d S ap p “ w an t ed t o h i g h l i g h tas m u ch as p o ssi b l e h o w trag i c [P ayn e’ s] earl y l i fe w as. ” A l l th e ev i d en ce fro m th e g u i l tp h ase w as al so p arto f th e p en al ty-20

p h a s e e v id e n c e . A f

te rP a y n e w a s s e n te n c e d , N ic h o la s w ith d r e w a n d n e w ap p e lla te c ouns e l w a s appoi nt e d. E a s t e r l y a l s o t e s t i f

i e d aboutP a y ne ’ s f

a m i l y hi s t ory a nd c hi l dhood. P a y ne w as the youn gest , and she w as hi s c l oses tsi bl i ng . E as t er l y l i ved w i th h erm other w he n P a y ne w a s born a nd gr e w up w i th hi m . W he n E a s t e r l y m a rr i e d a ta ge sev en t een , P ayn e m o v ed w i th h er. E ast erl y h ad n o m em o ry o f h er fath er. H er fi rst m em o ry o f h er st ep fath er w as th ath e b ack h an d ed h er o v er a recli n er. P ayn e w as a s i c kl y c hi l d w ho “ ne ve rw a s r e a l popul a r , ” ne ve rpl a y e d s por t s , a nd “ w a s m or e l i ke a l on er . ” P ay ne w as general l y s m al l erthan o ther c hi l dren hi s a ge. P ay ne w as a l w a y s i n f

i ght s ; othe rboy s w oul d pus h hi m dow n, f a c e f i r s ti n the gr a ve l . P a y ne s t a r t e d s om e of

the s e f i ght s , a l though one t i m e i tw a s f oram e nt a l l y r e t a r de d boy w ho w a s ge tt i ng pi c ke d on. E as terly f

irst sa w P ay n e d rin kalco h o l w h en h e w as se v en o r e ig h t. P ay n e’s s te p f a th e rM im s s u p p lie d P a y n e w ith a lc o h o l. E a s te r ly d e s c r ib e d w e e k e n d tr ip s to turke y s hoot s tha tP a y ne of t e n w e nton w i th hi s s t e pf a the ra s “ ba s i c a l l y f

i f ty or m ore or l es s drunk m en. ” P ay ne w i tness ed M i m s m ol es thi s s i st erE vel yn, w hi ch bothe r e d P a y ne . O ne t i m e he w a s goi ng t o try a nd c a l l 911 t o s t op the abus e a nd

“ go tbeatup pretty bad for that . ” P a y n e w a s a r o u n d tw o o rth r e e y e a r s o ld w h e n th e irs te p f a th e rM im s f

ir s t h itPay ne’s Rule 32 c ounsel also proff ere d that Easterly

would provide testimony about an 6 incident in which Pay

ne’s mother , hospitaliz ed with broken ribs beca use of Mims, ripped the IVs out of her a rm s toc omeho mefrom t heho sp ital and

stop M imsfrom b e atingEa sterly . E a sterly would also testify

about see ing Mims beat her sister Eve ly n. Although theparties a

rgue about the admissibi lity of the a ffidavits, the Rule 32 cour t 7 ruled that “ all aff

idavits will be admitted.” Other releva nt evidencebefore the Rule 32 c ourt included Dr . Maier’ s pre- trial repor t, Pay ne’s medic al re cords, Pay ne’s jail medical rec ords, and two letters from Pay

ne to B ueg ler re g ardingjail visit ation. 21 hi m . M i m s a l s o turne d ac hi nac abi ne tove ron the i rm othe ra nd ki c ke d a nd br oke h e rr ib s . P a y n e w o u ld e ith e rju m p in to th e f ig h tin g o rru n a w a y a n d h id e . T h e ir m othe rs pa nke d P a y ne w i th abe l t . P a y ne r e c e i ve d no c ouns e l i ng f orw i tne s s i ng the phy s i c a l abus e of

hi s m othe r , the s e xua l abus e of hi s s i s t e r , orhi s e a r l y a l c ohol use. 6 P a y ne ’ s R ul e 32 c ouns e l a l s o s ubm i tt e d a f f i da vi t s f r om : ( 1) D r . F r a nk G e r s h, ( 2 ) D r . L a w r e n c e M a ie r , a n d ( 3 ) P a y n e ’s m o th e r . F r a n kG e r s h , a 7 l i cen sed p sych o l o g i st , d et ai l ed w h ath e h ad l earn ed ab o u tP ayn e’ s so ci al h i st o ry, h ea d in ju ries , su b stan ce ab u se , stres s a t th e tim e o f th e m u rd er , an d step fa th er ’s p h ysi cal ab u se o f m u l t i p l e fam i l y m em b ers an d sex u al ab u se o f o n e si st er. G ersh ne ve rm e tP a y ne a nd ba s e d hi s opi ni on on c onve r s a t i ons w i th P a y ne ’ s a tt orne y a nd h is re v iew o f th e s tate co u rt cr im in al re co rd . G er sh o p in ed th at g iv en P ay n e’s b a c k g r o u n d , “th e r e is as u b s ta n tia l b a s is f o rc o n c lu d in g th a t a p s y c h o lo g ic a l/n e u r o p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a tio n s h o u ld h a v e b e e n c o n d u c te d p r io rto tri al ” a nd “ a r ea sonabl y c om pet entatt orney w ou l d h ave obt ai ned an exp ert22

e v a lu a tio n in th e c a s e a t h a n d .” G e r s h ’s s u p p le m e n ta l a f f id a v it e x p la in e d h e w o u ld no tw antt o o ff

eran op i ni on on P ay ne’ s c as e “ w i tho utneurop sy chol og i ca l a s s e s s m e ntt o de t e rm i ne w he the rornotthe r e i s norm a l br a i n f unc t i oni ng, a nd pers on al i ty a ss es sm entt o l oo k atpers on al i ty f un ct i on i ng . ” I n hi s a f f i da vi t , D r . M a i e rha d no pe r s ona l r e c ol l e c t i on of e xa m i ni ng P a y ne and d i d n othave a copy of hi s w ri tt en re po rt . A l l of D r. M ai er ’ s dat a a nd no t es fr om hi s 199 2 eval uat i on s had been destroye d. D r. M ai erre vi ew ed the court o r d e r s in th e c a s e a n d s ta te d h e “w o u ld h a v e p e r f o rm e d a n e v a lu a tio n o n ly w ith r e ga r ds t o the tw o i s s ue s of w he the rthe de f

e nda ntw a s m e nt a l l y c om pe t e ntt o s t a nd tri al and w hether the defendantw as i nsane a tthe t i m e of the offens e. ” H i s r eport w oul d notdi r e c t l y a ddr e s s the i s s ue of di m i ni s he d c apa c i ty ora ny m i t i ga t i on i s s ue s . “ I n or de rt o pe r f orm athor ough e va l ua t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o f a c t or s of m i t i ga t i on, m or e e xt e ns i ve s oc i a l , m e di c a l , a nd e duc a t i ona l hi s t ory r e ga r di ng the de f e nda ntw oul d ha ve be e n r e qui r e d a nd am or e e xt e ns i ve i nt e rvi e w a nd t e s t i ng p r o c e s s c o n d u c te d .” A n a f f i da vi tf r om P a y ne ’ s m othe rdi s c us s e d hi s c hi l dhood. W hi l e pr e gna nt w ith P a y n e , s h e s m o k e d ap a c ko f c ig a r e tte s ad a y a n d d r a n ka lc o h o l o c c a s io n a lly . W he n s he w a s s i x m onths pr e gna nt , he rbr othe rs truc k he rf or c e f ul l y i n the s t om a c h. S he doe s notr e c a l l a ny thi ng e l s e unus ua l abouthe rpr e gna nc y or23

P ay n e’s b irth . S h e s ep ar ated fr o m P ay n e’s f ath erP atrick b ec au se o f P atrick ’s h eav y d ri n k i n g an d p h ysi cal ab u se. P ayn e’ s fath er w as g o n e b efo re P ayn e w as a ye aro ldan d sa w P ay n e o n ly a h alf- d o ze n ti m es b ef o re P ay n e w as tw elv e. P ay n e’s st epfa ther physi ca l l y a ss aul t ed her i n P ay ne’ s pre se nce a nd ph ys i ca l l y abu se d P a y n e . P a y n e ’s m a le r o le m o d e ls w e r e a lc o h o lic a n d p h y s ic a lly v io le n t. P ay ne di d o kay i n schoo l throu gh the thi rd grade. P ay ne w as sm artbefore he st art ed sc ho ol and w as abl e t o d o h i s s i st er ’ s m ath p robl em s a ta y ou ng age. In the fourth g ra de, P ay ne st art ed t o exh i bi tbehavi or prob l em s. P ay ne’ s m other w as ca l l ed i n sever al t i m es t o t al k w i th t ea cher s abo utP ay ne’ s behavi or. P ay ne w as a l w a y s as m a l l c hi l d a nd s i c k f r om a ge ni ne t o e l e ve n. P a y ne ha d tr oubl e e a t i ng a n d f r e q u e n t, s e v e r e s to m a c h p a in . T h e d o c to r s r e c o m m e n d e d P a y n e n o t e n g a g e in ph ys i ca l ac t i vi ty s o h e c ou l d n otpl aybal l or ri de bi kes. H e w as bu l l i ed and t ea se d b y o th e rc h ild r e n . P a y n e c a m e h o m e f r o m s c h o o l a lm o s t e v e ry d a y in th e f o u r th gr a de w i th t orn c l othe s , brui s e s , ors c r ape s . P a y ne ’ s m othe rde s c r i be d hi m a s “ the w h ip p in g b o y in th e n e ig h b o rh o o d .” P ay n e lo s t in te r e s t in s c h o o l an d b e g a n to e x h ib it p o o rp e r f

o rm a n c e . W h en P ay n e w as elev en , h e h ad su rg er y to co rr ec t h is in testin es . P ay n e’s m othe rhi r e d atut ort o t e a c h hi m a thom e . E ve n the n, c hi l dr e n w oul d s t a nd on the e d g e o f th e p r o p e r ty a n d t e a s e P a y n e . P a y n e d i d n o tc o m p l e t e e i g h th g r a d e . At24

a ge tw e l ve , he w e ntt o l i ve w i th hi s f a the ri n T e xa s , r e turne d br i e f l y , the n w e nt ba c k t o T e xa s . D ur i ng thi s t i m e , P a y ne ’ s m othe rdi vor c e d M i m s be c aus e of the p h y s ic a l v io le n c e w h ic h P a y n e w itn e s s e d . M im s a ls o p h y s ic a lly ab u s e d P a y n e . P a y n e ’s m o th e rs o u g h t m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t o n ly o n c e f o ra ll th e ab u s e s h e r e c e iv e d . P a y n e n e v e rr e c e iv e d c o u n s e lin g o rtr e a tm e n t f o rs u b s ta n c e ab u s e , b e in g av ic tim o f p h y s ic a l ab u s e , o rs e e in g h is s te p f a th e rab u s e h is m o th e ra n d s is te r s . H . S tate R u l e 32 C ou rt ’s S ec on d O rd er A f t e rthe e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, the R ul e 32 c our tde ni e d P a y ne ’ s R ul e 32 pet i t i on , concl ud i ng P ay ne’ s app el l at e c ou nsel w as no ti neff ec t i ve. T he court f ound tr i a l c ouns e l w a s notde f i c i e nti n obt a i ni ng a nd pr e s e nt i ng m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e ore xpe r tm e nt a l he a l th e vi de nc e , a nd thus ne w appe l l a t e c ouns e l w a s not i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o rai se tho se tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s. In addi t i on , the court f o u n d P a y n e “h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e p r e

ju d ic e d [ h im ].” T h e c o u r t p o in te d o u t tr ia l c o u n s e l m o v e d f o rap s y c h ia tr ic e x a m to de t e rm i ne P a y ne ’ s c om pe t e nc y t o s t a nd tr i a l a nd m e nt a l s t a t e a tthe t i m e of the o f f e n s e s . A f

te re x a m in in g P a y n e , D r . M a ie rr e p o r te d P a y n e w a s d r in k in g h e a v ily a tthe t i m e of

the c r i m e s a nd ha d ahi s t ory of a l c ohol abus e . D r . M a i e rf ound no evi dence of m ent al di se as e, defe ct , or di m i ni shed capaci ty. T he courtfoun d tri al c o u n s e l h a d m a d e p r e - tr ia l in v e s tig a tio n o f D r . L a irm o r e , D r . C o le m a n , a n d f a m ilyThe Rule 32 cour t quoted trial counsel’ s pre- trial motion as stating: “Counsel is re quired 8 t o o b t ai ni n f

o r m ati o n[ re l e v ant ] t o Mr . P ayn e ’ s m e di c alh i s t o r y, e d u c ati o n alh i s t o r

y, employ ment[ and] traininghistory , family and social history , [and any] religious and cultural inf luenc e s. [Th ere fo re , c ]oun se l mu st dire c t an inve sti g ator to obtain re c ordsfrom all doc tor s, hospitals, schools, [ and] employers, [and] interview peoplewith knowledg e of the [se] aspec ts of Mr. Pay ne’s background.” Trial counsel’s motion does say this, as modified by

the few words shown in brackets. Duringthe Rule 32 hea ring , Nicholas testified that Nesmith’s investigation ultimately

focuse d “primarily

on investigating f

act witnesse s . . . for the guilt phase.” 25 m em bers , and p re se nt ed thei r t es t i m on y t o the j ury. T he courtno t ed tri al coun se l f i l e d am ot i on f

orf unds t o hi r e a n i nve s t i ga t or , w hi c h w a s gr a nt e d. 8 T he R ul e 32 cou rtpo i nt ed ou tbo th n ew appel l at e c ou nsel and p ri or tri al coun se l S app h ad no tbeen cal l ed as w i tness es and “ N i chol as st at ed thati tw as S ap p w h o h a n d le d th e m e n ta l/p s y c h o lo g ic a l p a r t o f th e p r e tr ia l m o tio n s w h ile N i chol as hand l ed the change of venu e m ot i on . ” T he courtno t ed (1) onl y N i chol as t es t i fi ed bu the had l osthi s f i l es si nce the tri al and (2) P ay ne, al tho ug h p re se ntat the heari ng , di d n ott es t i fyas t o h i s r el at i on shi p and prepara t i on s w i th h i s tri al coun se l , no r any defi ci enci es i n cou nsel ’ s per form ance . T he courtdet erm i ned the R ul e 32 p et i t i on “ deal s notso m uch w i th the fa ct th a t c e r ta in e v id e n c e w a s n o t b r o u g h t o u t, b u t th a t it w a s n o t p r e s e n te d in p r e c is e ly the s a m e m a nne r , ori n the s a m e de t a i l a s R ul e 32 c ouns e l w oul d ha ve l i ke d. ” T he courtfoun d tri al coun se l ’ s dec i si on s abo utw hether t o p re se ntevi dence of m ent al i m pai rm ent , al coho l abuse, fa m i l y dys funct i on and n on -f am i l y t es t i m on y a s m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e “ w e r e a l l tr i a l s tr a t e gy de c i s i ons ba s e d upon the i nve s t i ga t i onsB oth theAl a bama Appe als C ourt ’sfirs t op ini on remandingthec a seto t

heRul e32 c ourt , 9 dated July

9, 1999, and its second opinion, dated F ebrua ry 25, 2000, arein the same published document. See Pay

ne v. State, 791 So. 2d 383 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). 26 o f th e a tto rn e y s a n d th e in v e s tig a to r , d is c u s s io n s a n d c o n f e r e n c e s w ith th e f

a m ily m em bers and the evi dence w hi ch coun se l kn ew thatthe prosecut i on po ss es se d. ” T he courtfoun d, i n any event , thatP ay ne had n otshow n any defi ci entperf orm ance p r e ju d ic e d h im . P a y n e ap p e a le d . I . A l ab am a A p p e al s C ou r t ’ s S e c on d R u l e 32 D e c i s i on T h e A lab a m aA p p e a ls C o u r t a f f irm e d th e d e n ia l o f

P a y n e ’s R u le 3 2 p e titio n . Pa y n e v . St a t e , 7 9 1 So . 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 9 4 , 4 0 1 ( A l a . Cr i m. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) . Th e A l ab a ma 9 A p p eal s C o u rtn o t ed th att o su cceed o n h i s i n effecti v e-ap p el l at e-co u n sel cl ai m s, P ay ne m ustes t abl i sh hi s und er l yi ng i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s w er e m e r i t or i ous a nd ha d the y be e n r a i s e d, the out c om e of hi s di r e c tappe a l w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . I d. T he A l aba m aA ppe a l s C our tr e vi e w e d the R ul e 32 c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs a nd o b s e rv e d th e R u le 3 2 c o u r t f o u n d : ( 1 ) P a y n e u n d e rw e n t ap s y c h ia tr ic e x a m to de t e rm i ne hi s c om pe t e nc y t o s t a nd tr i a l a nd hi s m e nt a l s t a t e a tthe t i m e of the of f e ns e s ; ( 2) i nf

orm a t i on r e ga r di ng the i nve s t i ga t i on of P a y ne ’ s he a d tr aum af

r om an aut om ob i l e a cc i dentw as m ade a vai l abl e t o the j ury; (3) tri al coun se l bel i eved P a y ne w a s c om pe t e ntt o s t a nd tr i a l , butr e que s t e d am e nt a l e va l ua t i on be c aus e of27

P ay ne’ s unu sual chi l dh oo d and un derl yi ng m ent al prob l em s; and (4) no expert f i ndi ngs s ugge s t e d P a y ne s uf f e r e d m e nt a l ore m ot i ona l dur e s s a tthe t i m e of the of f e ns e s ortha the c oul d notappr e c i a t e the c r i m i na l i ty of hi s c onduc t . I d. a t400- 0 1 , 4 0 7 . A s t o exp ertm ent al heal th evi dence, the A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rtconcl ud ed

“ P a y ne ha s nots how n tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr e s e nte xpe r tt e s t i m ony on hi s m ent al heal th w as ou t si de the w i de ra ng e of r ea sonabl e profes si on al a s s i s t a nc e . ” I d. a t401 ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . A s t o the pr e j udi c e pr ong, the A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rtst at ed that“ [a ] dd i t i on al l y, P ay ne ha[s ] no tshow n that a ddi t i ona l t e s t i m ony abouthi s m e nt a l he a l th w oul d ha ve c ha nge d the out c om e of hi s tri al . ” I d. B ec ause P ay ne’ s und er l yi ng i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s w er e n o tm eri t o ri o u s, th e A l ab am a A p p eal s C o u rtco n cl u d ed P ayn e “ fai l ed t o p ro v e b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha thi s appe l l a t e c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng to p r e s e n t [ th o s e c la im s ].” I d . A s t o m i t i gat i on evi dence genera l l y, the A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rtconcl ud ed th e R u le 3 2 c o u r t “a d e q u a te ly a s s e s s e d a n d r e je c te dth e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d to s u p p o r t P a y n e ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h is tr ia l [ c o u n s e l] f a il[ e d ] to in v e s tig a te a n d to pres entadequat e m i t i gat i on evi dence. ” I d. at40 5. T he A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rt a dopt e d, a nd quot e d a tl e ngth f r om , the R ul e 32 c our t ’ s s e c ond or de rdi s c us s i ng ( 1)Asto P ay ne ’sargument t

hat trial c ouns e l sh ould h avepre sente d evidenc eof his 10 confinement history , the Alaba ma Appeals Court noted trial counsel dec ided not to present the evidenc e bec ause Pay

ne violated jail policies a

nd rules. 791 So. 2d at 407. 28 tr ia l c o u n s e l’s in v e s tig a tio n in to P a y n e ’s m e d ic a l, e d u c a tio n a l, e m p lo y m e n t, f a m i l y , a nd s oc i a l hi s t ory ; ( 2) the a m ountof ba c kgr ound m a t e r i a l ga the r e d on P ay ne’ s l i fe and p re se nt ed t o the j ury by P ay ne’ s m other a nd si st er ; (3) the fa i l ure t o cal l appel l at e c ou nsel as a w i tness atthe R ul e 32 h ea ri ng ; and (4) ho w tri al c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n s ab o u t w h e th e rto p r e s e n t e v id e n c e o f m e n ta l im p a irm e n t, a l c ohol abus e , f

a m i l y dy s f

unc t i on, a nd non- f

a m i l y t e s t i m ony w e r e tr i a l s tr a t e gy de c i s i ons . I d. a t405- 07. 10 T he A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rtre j ec t ed P ay ne’ s argum entthattri al coun se l pr e s e nt e d i ns uf

f i c i e ntm i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e , s t a t i ng: N um e r ous w i tne s s es t e s t i f i e d dur i ng the gui l tpha s e about Pa y n e ’ s c o n s u mp t i o n o f a l c o h o l o n th e d a y o f

th e o f f e n s e a n d ab out the va r i ous f

orm s of phy s i c a l abus e tha tP a y ne s uf f e r e d a nd w itn es se d . A d d it io n ally, ev id en c e w as p re se n tedfr o m P ay n e’s phy s i c i a ns c on cerni ng hi s m e nt a l a nd e m ot i ona l f a c ul t i e s a nd the ef fe ct s of d ru g an d al coho l consum pt i on [on] hi s f ac ul t i es . T hat evi de nc e w a s a l s o pl a c e d be f or e the j ury du r i ng the pe na l ty ph a s e . In lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d d u r in g th e g u ilt p h a s e a n d t h e p e n a lty pha s e of the tr i a l , w e c onc l ude tha tP a y ne ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s not in e f f e c tiv e f o rn o t p r e s e n tin g a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e . T h u s , a p p e l l a te c o u n s e l w a s n o ti n e f

f e c t i v e f o rn o tr a i s i n g s u c h ac l a i m. I d . a t 4 0 7 - 0 8 . B e c au s e P a y n e ’s tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e , a n d th u s h is appel l at e c ou nsel w as no ti neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o rai se i neff

ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel29

c la im s , th e A lab a m aA p p e a ls C o u r t a f f irm e d th e d e n ia l o f

P a y n e ’s R u le 3 2 c la im s . I d. a t408. T he A l aba m aS upr e m e C our tde ni e d c e r t i or a r i . E x pa r t e P a y ne , 791 S o. 2d 40 8 (A l a. 20 00 ). J. F e d e r alH ab e as P e t i t i on P ay ne’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on then chal l enged h i s dea th sent ence , cl ai m i ng hi s tri al an d ap p ellate co u n se l w er e in ef fe ctiv e. T h e d istrict co u rt re jected P ay n e’s i ne f f e c t i ve - tr i a l - c ouns e l c l a i m s a s pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d unde rA l aba m a ’ s J a c ks on ru le . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o r e je c te d P a y n e ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h is a lle g e d ly in e f f e c tiv e ap p e lla te c o u n s e l c o n s titu te d c au s e a n d p r e ju d ic e f o rh is f a ilu r e to tim e ly r a is e th e in e f

f e c tiv e - tr ia l- c o u n s e l c la im s . A l t ernat i vel y, the di stri ctcourtaddres se d the m er i t s of P ay ne’ s i neff ec t i vetri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s, bu tm ai nl y throu gh the l ens of w hether app el l at e c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o rai se tho se tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s. T he di stri ctcourt r e vi e w e d the s t a t e c our t s ’ de t e rm i na t i ons tha tP a y ne ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s not i ne f f e c t i ve i n i nve s t i ga t i ng a nd pr e s e nt i ng m e nt a l he a l th a nd a de qua t e m i t i ga t i on evi dence, and thu s app el l at e c ou nsel w as no ti neff ec t i ve for notra i si ng such cl ai m s. T h e d i stri ctco u rtco n cl u d ed P ayn e fai l ed t o sh o w th e st at e co u rt s’ d e c i s i o n s a r e c o n tr a ry t o , o ri n v o l v e d a n u n r e a s o n ab l e ap p l i c a t i o n o f , Su p r e me C our tpr e c e de ntora r e ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s . T he30

d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d P a y n e ’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n a n d ap p lic a tio n f o raC O A . T hi s C ou rtgrant ed P ay ne a C O A on w hether hi s i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel c la im s w e r e p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d u n d e rA lab a m a ’s J a c k s o n ru le a n d o n h is i neff ec t i ve coun se l cl ai m s a s t o exp ertm ent al heal th and m i t i gat i on evi dence.

I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW I n e x a m i n i n g ad i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a§ 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e t i t i o n , “ we r e vi e w que s t i ons of

l a w a nd m i xe d que s t i ons of l a w a nd f

a c tde novo, a nd f

i ndi ngs of f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . ” S t e w a r tv. S e c ’ y , D e p’ tof C orr . , 476 F . 3d 1193, 1208 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e rap a r tic u la rc la im is p r o c e d u r a lly defaul t ed. S ee Judd v. H al ey , 25 0 F . 3d 13 08 , 13 13 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). P a y ne f i l e d hi s f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on a f t e rA pr i l 24, 1996, a nd thus the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 10 4-13 2, 11 0 S t at . 12 14 , go verns thi s app ea l . U nd erA E D P A , ou r r evi ew of a f i nal s ta te h ab e a s d e c is io n is “g r e a tly c ir c u m s c r ib e d a n d is h ig h ly d e f e r e n tia l to th e s ta te co u rts.” C ra w fo rd v . H ea d , 3 1 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 5 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). F irst, “ a de t e rm i na t i on of

af a c tua l i s s ue m a de by aS t a t e c our ts ha l l be pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t , ” a nd “ [ t ] he appl i c a nts ha l l ha ve the bur de n of r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of corr ec tness by cl ea r and conv i nci ng evi dence. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (1); H enya rd v. M c D onough, 459 F . 3d 1217, 1240 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __,31

127 S . C t . 1818 ( 2007) . S e c ond, § 2254( d) a l l ow s f e de r a l habe a s r e l i e f

f ora ny cl ai m adj ud i ca t ed on the m er i t s i n st at e c ou rton l y w here the st at e c ou rt adj ud i ca t i on “ (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the S upr e m e C our tof

the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or( 2) r e s ul t e d i n ade c i s i on tha tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ng. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) ; H e ny a r d, 459 F . 3d a t1240. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A l ab am a’ s P r oc e d u r alB ar A tth e t i me o f

Pa y n e ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e i n 1 9 9 4 , th e A l ab a ma S u p rem e C o u rth ad a p ro ced u ral ru l e th atreq u i red n ew ap p el l at e co u n sel t o rai se any i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s i n a m ot i on for new tri al and o n d i re ctappeal a nd pr ovi de d tha tf

a i l ur e t o do s o r e s ul t e d i n aba rof tha ti s s ue i n pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ngs . S e e E x pa r t e J a c ks on, 598 S o. 2d 895, 897 ( A l a . 1992) ; B ry a ntv. S t a t e , 739 S o. 2d 1138, 1140 ( A l a . C r i m . A pp. 1998) ( di s c us s i ng how J a c ks on re qu i re d n ew l y app oi nt ed appel l at e c ou nsel t o rai se i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel c la im s ) . B o th th e R u le 3 2 co u rt an d th e A lab am a A p p ea ls C o u rt h eld P ay n e’sThe Ala bama Appe als Court unequivocally stated that “[b]ecause Pay ne wa s 11 represente d by

different counse l at trial and on a ppeal, a ny claim of inef

fec tive assistanceof trial counsel should havebeen raised in a motion for a new trial in order to pre servethe issue for review. Thus, the trial c ourt correctly conclude d that Pay

ne’s c laims reg ardingineffe ctive assistanceof trial counse l areproce durally barred . . . .” Pay

ne, 791 So. 2d at 390 (c itations omitted). The State c ontends Pay ne’s pa rticular a rguments on appeal about Alabama ’s J ackson 12 r ulew eren o t f

airly p re s ente d

toth edis trict c o urt a

n d s h o uld n o t b ec o n s idere d

o na pp e al. We ne e d n ot re so lvethat is su ebe c a us ePay ne ’sargumentslac k merit in any e vent. 32 i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s w er e procedural l y barre d b y the Ja ckson rul e. 11 S ee P ay n e, 7 9 1 S o . 2 d at 3 8 9 -9 0 . T h u s, th e A lab am a c o u rts r ejec ted P ay n e’s in ef fe ctiv e- trial-co u n se l claim s o n a s tate p ro ce d u ra l g ro u n d . “ A state c o u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

ap e titio n e r ’s c o n s titu tio n a l c la im o n s ta te p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s w ill ge ne r a l l y pr e c l ude a ny s ubs e que ntf e de r a l habe a s r e vi e w of tha tc l a i m . ” S e e J udd, 250 F . 3d a t1313. N one the l e s s , f

oras t a t e pr oc e dur a l rul i ng t o pr e c l ude f e de r a l r e vi e w , the st at e rul i ng m ustre stup on an “ i nd ependentand adequ at e” st at e groun d. Id. ; se e L y nd v. T e rry , 470 F . 3d 1308, 1313 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __ 128 S . C t . 23 2 (20 07 ). P ay ne do es no tcont es tthatA l abam a’ s J ac kson rul e w as an in d e p e n d e n t s ta te g r o u n d . I n s te a d , P a y n e c la im s th a t A lab a m a ’s J a c k s o n ru le is n o t a n a d e q u a te s ta te g r o u n d b e c au s e it w a s n o t f irm ly e s tab lis h e d a n d r e g u la r ly fol l ow ed by A l abam a c ou rt s. W e a gree the st at e procedural rul e, t o b e a n 12 a d e q u a te s ta te g r o u n d , m u s t b e o n e th a t is “f irm ly e s tab lis h e d a n d r e g u la r ly fol l ow ed. ” H urth v . M i t chem , 40 0 F . 3d 85 7, 85 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ).See Alder man, 647 So. 2d at 31 (“[The inef fec tive-trial-c ounsel claims] are ba rre d from 13 Rul e32 review b e c a

us ethea pp e lla nt did not p re sent t

ho sec laimsto t

hec ircuit c ourt in his motion to with draw theguilty

ple a or motion fo r a new tri al. . . . ‘F ailureto inc ludea re a so na bly ascertainableissue in a motion for a new trial will result in a bar to further argument of the issue on appeal and in post-conviction proc eeding s.’”) (empha sis omitted) (quotingJ ackson, 598 So. 2d at 89 7) ; B ro wn , 6 81 So. 2d at 11 03 (“ Ex pa

rteJac ks on

prov ide d a

metho d whereby

newly appointed appe llant counsel could discover and present all issues concer ning ine ffe ctive a ssi sta nc eof trial c ouns e l on

dire c t a pp e al. Theproc e dureoutline d in Ex pa rteJac ks on

pre vents an appe llant from raising inef fec tive assistanceof [trial] counsel in a Rule 32 petition. Here appellatecounsel did not alleg e inef fec tive assistanceof trial counse l on direct a ppeal. There forethis iss ue is waive d as an issue which could havebeen raised on dire ct appe al but was not.”); Covington, 671 So. 2d at 110 (“We agreethat the petition’s claim[] of ineff ectivene ss of trial counsel is proc edurally barred . . . . B eca

use the a ppellant was repre sented by different counsel at trial and on appe al, any claim of inef

fec tive assistanceof trial counse l must be raised in a motion for a new trial in order to preser ve the issue f

or review.”) ; Arrington, 716 So. 2d at 239 (“Pursua

nt to ExparteJ ackson, be causethe appe llant was represented by different counse l at trial and on a

ppeal, a ny claim of inef

fec tive assistanceof trial counse l should have been raised in a motion fo r a new tri al in

order to p re serv etheissuefo r re view. Thus , thea pp e lla nt’ s c laims reg ardingineffe ctive assistanc e of trial counsel are proc edurally barred . . . .”)(citations omitted); Hartzog, 733 So. 2d at 462 n.1 (holding Rule 32 petitioner’s ineff ective- trial-counse l claim was procedurally

barred by

J ackson be causenew a

ppellate c ounsel did not raise a n ineffe ctive-trial-counsel c laim in a motion for new trial or on direc t appeal); Dyson, 722 So. 2d at 787 &n.1 (same) ; Bryant, 739 So. 2d at 1140 (same) . 33 H ow e ve r , a f

t e rr e vi e w i ng the A l aba m ac our t s ’ de c i s i ons , w e c onc l ude the J a c ks on pr oc e dur a l ba rw a s f i rm l y e s t abl i s he d a nd r e gul a r l y f ol l ow e d by the A l aba m as t a t e c our t s . S e e A l de rm a n v. S t a t e , 647 S o. 2d 28, 31 ( A l a . C r i m . A pp. 1994) ; C ovi ngt on v. S t a t e , 671 S o. 2d 109, 110 ( A l a . C r i m . A pp. 1995) ; B r ow n v. S t a t e , 681 S o. 2d 1102, 1103 ( A l a . C r i m . A pp. 1996) ; A rr i ngt on v. S t a t e , 716 S o. 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 ( A la . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ; H a r tz o g v . S ta te , 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 2 n .1 ( A l a . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ; D y s o n v . St a t e , 7 2 2 So . 2 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 7 & n . 1 ( A l a . Cr i m. A pp. 1997) ; B ry a ntv. S t a t e , 739 S o. 2d a t1140. A s the s e c a s e s de m ons tr a t e , the 13 A l abam a A pp ea l s C ou rtconsi st ent l y app l i ed Ja ckson’ s post -c on vi ct i on proceduralThe Ala bama Appe als Court rec ognized “J ackson w as subsequently overr uled by Ex 14 parteIngram, 675 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1996) ,” but noted Pay ne wa s sentence d to death on June 13, 1994, Pay ne’s trial counsel withdrew , and new appellatecounsel wa s appointed on June 23, 1994, and thus J ackson, de cided in 1992, applied to Pay ne’s c ase. Pay

ne, 791 So. 2d at 389-90. Simi larly the Alabama Appeals Court applied the J ackson r ule in the ca ses listed in note 13, su pra , a s th edate s o f c onvictio n in tho sec a se s w erebetw e en Jacks on and Ingra m. We rejec t Pay

ne’s c ontention that Hale v. State, 611 So. 2d 1202 (Ala . Crim. App. 15 1992), implies J ackson’ s rule wa s permissive, not mandatory . Hale involved a direc t appeal–not a post-convic tion procee ding–wherenew a ppellate c ounsel did not make a motion for new trial on theine ff e c tiv e -t ri al- c ouns e l c laim a s re quire d b y Jac ks on but attempte d tomakethetrialc ouns e l c laim f

or thefirs t timeon

dire c t a pp e al. H ale , 6 11 So. 2d

at 12 05 . TheAl a

bama Appeals Court would not address the trial-c ounsel claim for the first time on direc t appeal beca use the petitioner did not follow the J ackson r ule. I d. Whil e the Ala

bama Appe als Court stated in dicta, “ any

reme dy for the a ppellant upon this issue lies in a petition for post-conviction relief ,” nothingin Hale holds petitioner would, in fact, re ceivepost-conviction re lief and H ale, a dire c t a pp e al c a se , doe s n ot even discus s whether Jac ks on would pre sent a proc e dural ba

r to post-conviction re lief. Id. 34 bar unt i l i t s overrul i ng i n E x p art e I ng ra m , 67 5 S o. 2d 86 3 (A l a. 19 96 ). 14 Pay n e c i t e s t o Gu n n v . St a t e , 6 1 9 So . 2 d 2 2 5 ( Al a . Cr i m. Ap p . 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d Ex pa r t e P e rki ns , 920 S o. 2d 599 ( A l a . C r i m . A pp. 2005) . H ow e ve r , the c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e i n G unn w e r e be f or e J a c ks on w a s de c i de d, a nd P e rki ns a ddr e s s e d a m an d am u s p et i t i o n ab o u td i sco v ery. 15 B e c au s e A lab a m a ’s J a c k s o n ru le w a s a n in d e p e n d e n t a n d a d e q u a te s ta te grou nd , w e a re barr ed fr om habeas re vi ew of P ay ne’ s i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s unl es s he s ho w s c ause and p re j ud i ce t o o verc om e A l abam a’ s proce du ra l bar. B . C au s e an d P r ej u d i c e T o O ve r c om e A l ab am a’ s P r oc e d u r alB ar P ay ne cl ai m s c ause and p re j ud i ce exi stt o o verc om e A l abam a’ s proce du ra lSe eCo lema nv . Th o mp s o n , 5 0 1 U . S. 7 2 2 , 7 5 5 , 1 1 1 S. Ct . 2 5 4 6 , 2 5 6 7 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ We 16 reiterate that c ounsel’s ineff ectivene ss will constitute ca use only if it is an independent constitutional viol ation.”); Mize, No. 07-10659, slip op. at 15 n.5 (instructingthat “[t] he exhaustion doctrine . . . g enerally require s that a claim of ineffe ctive assistanc e [of counsel] be presented to the state c ourts as an independent c laim beforeit may be used to e stablish cause f or a proc edural defa

ult” (ellipsis and second alteration in orig inal) (quotingMurra y v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488-89, 106 S. Ct. 2639, 2646 (1986))). 35 b a rb e c au s e h is n e w ap p e lla te c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . S pe c i f i c a l l y , P a y ne a r gue s hi s appe l l a t e c ouns e l ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e –i n not tim e ly r a is in g h is in e f

f e c tiv e - tr ia l- c o u n s e l c la im s in s ta te c o u r t– c au s e d h is procedural defaul tand p re j ud i ce d h i m . P ayne cont ends hi s i neff ec t i ve-app el l at ecoun se l cl ai m s are m er i t ori ou s and thu s he c an show the re qu i si t e pre j ud i ce .

“ A pet i t i on erca n est abl i sh cause by s ho w i ng thata procedural defaul tw as c aus e d by c ons t i tut i ona l l y i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l unde rS tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 690, 104 S . C t . 2052 . . . ( 1984) . ” F or t e nbe rry v. H a l e y , 297 F . 3d 1213, 1222 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T o s how c aus e f orf a i l i ng t o f

ol l ow as t a t e pr oc e dur a l rul e , the i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l m us toc c urdur i ng a s t a ge w he n ape t i t i one rha d ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o c ouns e l . S e e , e . g. , M i z e v. H a l l , __ F . 3d __, N o. 07- 10659, s l i p. op. a t13 ( 11th C i r . J ul y 2, 2008) ( “I n e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e d u r in g as ta g e w h e r e th e p e titio n e rh a d ar ig h t to c o u n s e l is ava l i d e xc us e f

orf a i l i ng t o f

ol l ow as t a t e pr oc e dur a l rul e . ” ) . A nd P a y ne 16 o b v io u s ly h a d ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to c o u n s e l in h is s ta te tr ia l a n d d ir e c t ap p e a l. T hus , t o de t e rm i ne c aus e a nd pr e j udi c e , w e m us ta s c e r t a i n w he the rP a y nePay ne, in passing , also contends his trial counse l failed to investig ate a nd present 17 evidenc e of his school re cords a nd employ

ment history . Be causePay ne pre sented no evidence of his school rec ords and employ ment history

in his state and fe deral collateral proce eding s, we readily concludethis claim lacks merit. I ndeed, trial counsel Nicholas testified he did not present evidenceof Pay

ne’s employ

ment history

beca use it “had not be en re al g ood.” 36 h a s s h o w n in e f

f e c tiv e ap p e lla te c o u n s e l in n o t tim e ly r a is in g h is in e f f e c tiv e - tr ia lc o u n s e l c la im s . A n d to d e te rm in e w h e th e rP a y n e h a s s h o w n in e f f e c tiv e ap p e lla te c ouns e l , w e m us tde t e rm i ne w he the rP a y ne ha s s how n unde r l y i ng m e r i t or i ous i ne f f e c t i ve - tr i a l - c ouns e l c l a i m s . S o, a tthe e nd of the da y , w he the rthr ough the l e ns o f c au se an d p re

ju d ice f o r o u r p ro ce d u ra l b aran alys is o r th ro u g h P ay n e’s i nde pe nde nti ne f

f e c t i ve - appe l l a t e - c ouns e l c l a i m s , w e ul t i m a t e l y m us te xa m i ne w he the rP a y ne ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n the i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr e s e nt a t i on of expertm ent al heal th evi dence and adequat e m i t i gat i on evi dence. W e now turn t o th e u n d erl yi n g i n effecti v e-tri al -co u n sel i ssu es. C . In ef

fe ct i ve A ss i st an ce of T ri al C ou n se l P ay ne cont ends hi s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o i nv es t i gat e, obt a i n, a nd pr e s e nts uf

f i c i e ntm i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e i n the pe na l ty pha s e . P a y ne f oc us e s on tw o type s of

m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e : ( 1) e xpe r tm e nt a l he a l th e vi de nc e a nd ( 2) m or e thor ough a nd gr aphi c de t a i l abouthi s f a m i l y a nd s oc i a l hi s t ory . T he 17 A l ab a maA p p e a l s Co u r tc o rr e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d Str i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U . S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , a n d i t s p r o g e n y a s th e g o v e rn i n g Su p r e me C our tpr e c e de nt . S e e P ay ne , 791 S o. 2d a t401.37

T o o b tain re li ef

u n d erS trick lan d , P ay n e m u st sh o w (1 ) c o u n se l’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nta nd ( 2) tha tde f

i c i e nc y pr e

j udi c e d hi m . S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . C o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e is d e f

ic ie n t w h e n it f

a lls

“ be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s , ” C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 1305, 1312 ( 11th C i r . 2000) , w hi c h m e a ns tha ti ti s “ out s i de the w i de r a nge of profes si on al l y c om pet entas si st ance , ” S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at69 0, 10 4 S . C t . at 2066. F ur the r , “ om i s s i ons a r e i ne vi t abl e . . . . [ T ] he i s s ue i s notw ha ti s pos s i bl e or

‘ w hati s prudentor approp ri at e, bu ton l y w hati s c on st i tut i on al l y c om pel l ed. ’ ” Ch a n d l e r , 2 1 8 F. 3 d a t1 3 1 3 ( q u o t i n g Bu r g e rv . K e mp , 4 8 3 U . S. 7 7 6 , 7 9 4 , 1 0 7 S. C t. 3 1 1 4 , 3 1 2 6 (1 9 8 7 )) . C o u rts c o n d u ct a h ig h ly d ef er en ti al re v iew o f c o u n se l’ s perf orm ance and “ ‘ i nd ul ge [the] strong pres um pt i on ’ thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w a s r e a s onabl e a nd tha tc ouns e l ‘ m a de a l l s i gni f i c a ntde c i s i ons i n the e xe r c i s e of r e a s onabl e pr of

e s s i ona l j udgm e nt . ’ ” I d. a t1314 ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ( quot i ng S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at68 9-90 , 10 4 S . C t . at20 65 -66). T o e s t abl i s h pr e

j udi c e , “ the r e m us tbe ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf or coun se l ’ s def

i ci entperf

orm ance , the re sul tof the proceedi ng s w ou l d h ave been d if f e r e n t.” L y n d , 4 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 5 . “A r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility is ap r o b ab ility s uf f i c i e ntt o unde rm i ne c onf i de nc e i n the out c om e . ” S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t694, 1 0 4 S . C t. at 2 0 5 6 . “ A p etit io n er ’s b u rd en o f e stab li sh in g th at h is law ye r’s38

d ef icien t p er fo rm an ce p re

ju d iced h is ca se is also h ig h .” V an P o yc kv . F la. D ep ’t o f C o rr ., 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A p e titio n e rm u s t “a f f irm a tiv e ly pr ove pr e

j udi c e . ” S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t693, 104 S . C t . a t2067. I n S tr ic k la n d , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t a d d r e s s e d c la im s th a t c o u n s e l f a ile d to i nve s t i ga t e a nd pr e s e ntm i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e . I d. a t678, 690, 104 S . C t . a t2059- 60, 2 0 6 6 . A s to c o u n s e l’s in v e s tig a tio n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t s tr a te g ic c h o ic e s m a d e a f te r th o r o u g h in v e s tig a tio n o f la w a n d f a c ts r e l e va ntt o pl aus i bl e op t i o ns a r e vi rtua l l y unc ha l l e nge abl e ; a nd stra t egi c c ho i ce s m ade a ft erl es s than co m pl et e i nv es t i gat i on ar e re as on abl e pre ci se l y t o the ext entthatre as on abl e profes si on al j u d g m e n ts su p p o rtth e l i m i t at i o n s o n i n v est i g at i o n . In o th er w o rd s, coun se l has adu ty t o m ake r ea sonabl e i nv es t i gat i on s o r t o m ake a reaso n ab l e d eci si o n th atm ak es p art i cu l ar i n v est i g at i o n s u n n ecessary. I n a n y in e f

f e c ti v e n e s s c a s e , ap a r tic u la rd e c is io n n o t to in v e s tig a te m u stb e d i rect l y ass e s s e d fo r reaso n ab l en ess i n al l th e ci rcu m st an ces, ap p l yi n g a h eav y m easu re o f d eferen ce t o co u n sel ’ s j u d g m en t s. 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 6 . “A c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n n o t to in v e s tig a te a nd de ve l op f

a vor abl e e vi de nc e m us tbe r e a s onabl e a nd f a l l w i thi n the r a nge of profes si on al l y c om pet entas si st ance . ” L ynd, 47 0 F . 3d at13 16 . H ow ever , “ even w hen tri al coun se l ’ s i nv es t i gat i on and p re se nt at i on i s l es s c om pl et e than col l at er al coun se l ’ s, tri al coun se l has notperf orm ed defi ci ent l y w hen a rea sonabl e l aw ye r c oul d ha ve de c i de d, unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , nott o i nve s t i ga t e orpr e s e nt part i cul arevi dence. ” G rays on v. T ho m pson , 25 7 F . 3d 11 94 , 12 25 (11th C i r. 20 01 ).39

1 . Pe r f o r m a nc e Pr o ng A s t o th e p e r f

o rma n c e p r o n g , b o th th e Ru l e 3 2 s t a t e c o u r ta n d th e A l ab a ma A p p e a ls C o u r t f

o u n d P a y n e f

a ile d to s h o w h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in notr a i s i ng i ne f

f e c t i ve - tr i a l - c ouns e l c l a i m s a s t o e xpe r tm e nt a l he a l th e vi de nc e a nd a de qua t e m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e . T he A l aba m aR ul e 32 c our tc onduc t e d a n e xt e ns i ve e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on P a y ne ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m s a nd the r e a f t e ri s s ue d a thor ough or de rc ont a i ni ng f i ndi ngs of

f a c t , di s c us s i ng the c l a i m s , a nd the n de ny i ng the m . I n a f

f i rm i ng, the A l aba m aA ppe a l s C our tr e pe a t e d a nd a dopt e d the R ul e 32 c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs a nd l e ga l c onc l us i ons , a nd e xpa nde d on the m . P a y ne , 791 S o. 2d a t400- 08. B o th state c o u rts d ec id ed P ay n e h ad n o t sh o w n h is trial co u n se l’ s in v e s tig a tio n a n d p r e s e n ta tio n o f e v id e n c e in th e p e n a lty p h a s e w a s in e f f e c tiv e . B oth cou rt s e m ph as i ze d tri al coun se l di d o bt ai n a m ent al eval uat i on by D r. M ai er , w ho foun d n o m ent al i l l ness , defe ct , or cogn i t i ve i m pai rm ent . F urther, tri al coun se l i nv es t i gat ed and p re se nt ed si gn i fi ca ntevi dence fr om D r. C ol em an and D r. L a i rm or e aboutP a y ne ’ s m e di c a l pr obl e m s a nd f r om thr e e f

a m i l y m e m be r s about P a y ne ’ s di f

f i c ul tc hi l dhood a nd f

a m i l y ba c kgr ound, the phy s i c a l abus e P a y ne suff er ed and w i tness ed, hi s m edi ca l hi st ory, hi s a l coho l abuse, and h i s m ent al a nxi e ty ove rthe pa t e rni ty of hi s c hi l d. G i ve n a l l the m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e f r om40

fa m i l y m em bers and d oct ors thatw as pres ent ed, the st at e c ou rt s c on cl ud ed that because P ay ne had n otshow n i neff ec t i ve tri al coun se l , hi s new appel l at e c ou nsel w a s noti ne f

f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o r a i s e i ne f

f e c t i ve - tr i a l - c ouns e l c l a i m s . W e c onc l ude P a y ne s i m pl y ha s nots how n the A l aba m ac our t s ’ de c i s i ons on hi s i ne f f e c t i ve c o u n s e l c la im s a r e ( 1 ) c o n tr a ry to , o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly es t abl i shed fe dera l l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt ; or (2) bas ed on an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the R ul e 32 p roce edi ng s. S ee 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). W e a d d o n ly af

e w c o m m e n ts ab o u t P a y n e ’s p e r f o rm a n c e c la im s . A s to h is e xpe r t - m e nt a l - he a l th c l a i m , P a y ne , i n the c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ngs , s t i l l ha s not pr e s e nt e d a ny e vi de nc e of w ha tam e nt a l he a l th e xpe r tw oul d ha ve s a i d about P a y n e ’s m e n ta l h e a lth o rh o w it a f f e c te d P a y n e ’s b e h a v io ro rm itig a te d h is c r im e s . T hu s, on thi s bas i s a l on e, P ay ne’ s m ent al -hea l th-perf orm ance cl ai m fa i l s f

or l ac k of any e vi dence of w hattri al coun se l w ou l d h ave l ea rned i f he had cond uct ed m ore i nve s t i ga t i on. W e r e c ogni z e P a y ne di d f i l e D r . G e r s h’ s a f

f i da vi t s , butthe y do not co n t ai n an y ex p erto p i n i o n ab o u tP ayn e’ s o w n m en t al h eal th . In d eed , D r. G ersh h as n ev er seen n o r ex am i n ed P ayn e. M o re i m p o rt an t l y, i n h i s affi d av i t , D r. G ersh hi m s e l f a c know l e dge d tha tw i thoutc onduc t i ng ane ur ops y c hol ogi c a l e va l ua t i on of P ay ne, D r. G er sh coul d n otgi ve an op i ni on as t o P ay ne’ s m ent al heal th. F urther,41

th is is n o t ac a s e w h e r e th e r e w a s n o m e n ta l e v a lu a tio n a t a ll o f ac ap ita l d e f

e n d a n t. T h e s ta te c o u r ts e m p h a s iz e d D r . M a ie rf o u n d P a y n e h a d n o c o g n itiv e im p a irm e n t, m ent al i l l ness , defe ct , or di m i ni shed capaci ty other than al coho l abuse a nd tri al c o u n s e l m a d e as tr a te g ic d e c is io n n o t to p r e s e n t D r . M a ie r ’s r e p o r t. A s t o the a de qua c y of

m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e ge ne r a l l y , w e not e the s e nt e nc i ng s t a t e j udge f

ound f ournon- s t a tut ory m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s : ( 1) P a y ne ’ s be i ng u n d erth e in flu en ce o f a lco h o l an d d ru g s a t th e tim e o f th e o ff en se s; (2 ) P ay n e’s e m ot i ona l pr obl e m s ove rthe que s t i onabl e pa t e rni ty of hi s c hi l d; ( 3) P a y ne ’ s poor c hi l dhood, pa r t i c ul a r l y hi s s t e pf a the r ’ s a l c ohol i s m a nd abus e ; a nd ( 4) P a y ne ’ s good r e l a t i ons hi p w i th hi s f

a m i l y . T hus , the e vi de nc e tr i a l c ouns e l di d pr e s e nta l r e a dy c onvi nc e d the s e nt e nc i ng j udge t o f i nd f ours e pa r a t e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s , a nd thi s s tr ongl y s uppor t s the s t a t e c our t s ’ de c i s i ons tha ttr i a l c ouns e l ’ s i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr e s e nt a t i on of

m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e w a s notde f i c i e nt . T he m e r e f

a c ttha tthe f a m i l y m e m be r s c oul d ha ve pr e s e nt e d m or e thor ough a nd gr aphi c de t a i l aboutthe ph ys i ca l abuse P ay ne suff er ed and w i tness ed and h i s e ar l y s ub st ance abuse does notr e nde rc ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e i ne f

f e c t i ve , e s pe c i a l l y w he r e the s e nt e nc i ng j udge a l r e a dy f

ound s uc h c i r c um s t a nc e s w e r e m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s . T he t e s tf

or r e a s onabl e ne s s i s notw he the rc ouns e l c oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng m or e or di f f e r e nt ; i ns t e a d c our t s m us tc ons i de rw he the rthe pe r f orm a nc e f

e l l “ w i thi n the42

‘ w i de r a nge of

r e a s onabl e pr of

e s s i ona l a s s i s t a nc e . ’ ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1313 n. 12 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . B e c aus e tr i a l c ouns e l c onvi nc e d the s e nt e nc i ng j udge of th e s e f o u rm itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s , c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t d id n o t f a ll o u ts id e th is w i de ra ng e of r ea sonabl e a ss i st ance . In co n clu sio n , g iv en S trick lan d ’s stro n g p re su m p ti o n th at co u n se l’ s p erfo rm an ce w as reaso n ab l e an d A E D P A ’ s d eferen ce t o st at e co u rtad j u d i cat i o n s, w e c a nnots a y the A l aba m ac our t s ’ de c i s i ons –tha tP a y ne ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s not i ne f f e c t i ve a nd thus hi s ne w appe l l a t e c ouns e l w a s noti ne f f e c t i ve f ornotr a i s i ng i neff ec t i ve-tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m s–ar e c on traryt o, or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, S u p rem e C o u rtp reced en t , o r an u n reaso n ab l e d et erm i n at i o n o f th e fact s. 2 . Pr ej udi c e Pr o ng E v en if P ay n e d idd em o n stra te th at h is trial an d ap p ellate co u n se l’ s p e r f o rm a n c e s w e r e d e f

ic ie n t u n d e rS tr ic k la n d , P a y n e h a s n o t c a rr ie d h is b u r d e n to s how the r e i s a“ r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty ” tha t , butf orhi s tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s de f i c i e nt pe r f orm a nc e , the r e s ul tof

the pe na l ty pha s e w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nta nd the se n ten ce r w o u ldn o t h av e im p o se d a d ea th se n ten ce . M o re sp ec ifically, “ [i]n a s s e s s i ng pr e

j udi c e , w e r e w e i gh the e vi de nc e i n a ggr a va t i on a ga i ns tthe t ot a l i ty of a v a ilab le m itig a tin g e v id e n c e .” W ig g in s v . S m ith , 5 3 9 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 3 4 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 , 2 5 4 2 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h u s , “th e q u e s tio n is w h e th e rth e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityAs to mental health evidence , the Rule 32 court c oncluded Pay ne had not shown 18 defic ient perf

ormanc e pre

judiced him. The Ala

bama Appe als Court said Pay ne had not shown additional mental health evidence“would havechang ed the outcome .” Pay ne, 791 So. 2d at 401. As to miti g ation evidenc e g enerally, the Rule 32 court c oncluded Pay ne had not shown c ounsel’s defic ient perf

ormanc e pre

judiced him, but the Alabama Appeals Court did notreach the prejudiceprong . See Pay ne, 791 So. 2d at 407-08. On the pre

judice issue, weneed not de cide whether weowe AEDPA deferenc e to the Rule 32 court’s de cision or only to that of the Alaba

ma Appeals Court becausewe c onclude that even under de novo review Pay ne has not c arried his burden to esta blish the requisite prejudice . 43 tha t , abs e ntthe e rr or s , the s e nt e nc e r. . . w oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe ba l a nc e of a ggr a va t i ng a nd m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s di d notw a rr a ntde a th. ” S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t695, 104 S . C t . a t2069. 18 W e have al re ady r evi ew ed atl ength everybi tof P ay ne’ s r el evantevi dence at the R ul e 32 evi dent i ary hea ri ng , w hether by di re ctt es t i m on y or a ff i davi t s, w hi ch n o w e n ab l e s u s t o s u c c i n c t l y e v a l u a t e th e p r e j u d i c e p r o n g . F o rs e v e r a l r e a s o n s , we c onc l ude P a y ne ha s nots how n ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tthe r e s ul tof the p e n a lty p h a s e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. F i rs t , i n the col l at er al proceedi ng s, P ay ne si m pl y pre se nt ed no new expert e vi de nc e a s t o hi s m e nt a l he a l th orhow hi s m e nt a l he a l th a f f e c t e d hi s be ha vi oror m itig a te d h is c r im e s , m u c h le s s h o w it w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e r e s u lt o f h is pe na l ty pha s e . S e c ond, the r e w a s undi s put e d e vi de nc e of P a y ne ’ s tr a gi c c hi l dhood, the ph ys i ca l abuse he s uffe re d and w i tness ed, and h i s bei ng di straug htov er l ea rni ng he m ayno tbe the fa ther of hi s c hi l d. T here w as al so a w ea l th o f e vi dence of hi s e a r l y a nd l ongs t a ndi ng a l c ohol abus e a nd hi s abus e of a l c ohol a nd drugs on44

the da y of

hi s c r i m e s . I nde e d, the s e nt e nc i ng j udge a l r e a dy f ound f ourm i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s ba s e d on the e vi de nc e tr i a l c ouns e l di d pr e s e nt . T he m a j or i ty of P a y ne ’ s e vi de nc e i n the c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ngs w a s c um ul a t i ve of w ha tthe j ury a nd ju d g e h e a r d a t tr ia l. T hi r d, a s w e r e c ount e d e a r l i e ra nd a s the A l aba m aA ppe a l s C our tf ound, the e v id e n c e o f

P a y n e ’s g u ilt w a s “s tr o n g a n d c o n v in c in g .” P a y n e , 6 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 3 . A nd P ay ne’ s m urder of B row n w as part i cul ar l y brut al , w i th B row n b ei ng robb ed an d th en h el d h o st ag e, o n l y t o b e sh o ttw i ce i n th e face w i th a sh o t g u n atcl o se r a n g e a n d d u m p e d in ac r e e k . T h e s tr e n g th o f th e e v id e n c e o f

b o th P a y n e ’s g u ilt a nd the a ggr a va t i ng na tur e of the c r i m e s i s gr e a t . S om e m or e de t a i l e d m i t i ga t i ng e v id e n c e ab o u t P ay n e ’s c h ild h o o d , f a m ily b a c k g r o u n d , a n d s u b s ta n c e ab u s e w o u ld notha ve ne ga t e d the a ggr a va t i ng na tur e of thi s abhorr e ntm ur de rpr ove n be y ond a l l doubtby the S t a t e . A s w e ha ve not e d, “ ‘ [ m ] a ny de a th pe na l ty c a s e s i nvol ve m ur de r s tha ta r e c a r e f

ul l y pl a nne d, ora c c om pa ni e d by t or tur e , r ape , or k id n ap p in g .’” G r a y s o n , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( e m p h a s is om i tt e d) . “ I n the s e type s of c a s e s , thi s c our tha s f

ound tha tthe a ggr a va t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e c r im e o u tw e ig h a n y p r e ju d ic e c au s e d w h e n ala w y e rf a ils to pres entm i t i gat i ng evi dence. ” D ob bs v. T urpi n, 14 2 F . 3d 13 83 , 13 90 (11th C i r. 1998) . N one of

the m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s pr e s e nt , nora ny tha tc oul d be f ound45

i n th e m o re d et ai l ed ex p l i cat i o n o f P ayn e’ s b ack g ro u n d i n th e R u l e 3 2 p ro ceed i n g s, w o u ld h a v e d e tr a c te d s ig n if ic a n tly f r o m th e g ru e s o m e c r im e s P a y n e c o m m itte d . S i gn i fi ca nt l y, the se nt enci ng j ud ge even foun d the four m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s de t a i l e d above , buts t i l l c onc l ude d the m ul t i pl e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s di d not outw e i gh the a ggr a va t i ng na tur e of P a y ne ’ s c r i m e s . T hus , unde ra l l the f a c t s of th is c a s e , P a y n e h a s n o t c a rr ie d h is b u r d e n to e s tab lis h th e r e q u is ite p r e ju d ic e to p rev ai l o n h i s i n effecti v e-co u n sel cl ai m s. I V . CONCL US I ON W e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of P a y ne ’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on. AF F I RME D.B oth thema jority and thestatec ourt

po int to t hee valua tio n c on duc te d b y

Dr . M aier to 1 support their re spective f

indings that the perfor

manceof Pay

ne’s trial counsel wa s not deficient. However, as Maier himself noted, this cour t-direc ted examination focused on Pay ne’s competency

to stand trial and the potential f or an insanity

defense. It did not investi g ate other mental health issues that mi ght have be en off ere d as mitigation evidence . 46 B A R K E T T , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng : I c onc uri n the m a

j or i ty opi ni on w i th the e xc e pt i on of i t s c onc l us i on tha tthe p e r f o rma n c e p r o n g o f

th e t e s te s t ab l i s h e d i n Str i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U . S. 668, 688, 691 ( 1984) , w a s m e ti n thi s c a s e . C ons i de r i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s abe rr a nt b eh av i o r— fo r ex am p l e, h an d i n g th e v i ct i m th e cl i p fro m h i s g u n d u ri n g th e co u rse of the ki dn appi ng — as w el l as hi s hi st ory of f am i l y abu se and chem i ca l depend ence , I bel i eve c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o o bt ai n the op i ni on of a m e n ta l h e a lth e x p e r t w h o c o u ld h a v e a d d r e s s e d P a y n e ’s c o n d u c t a n d m e n ta l h e a lth cond i t i on and i nform ed coun se l of any r el evantm ent al heal th m i t i gat i on evi dence. 1 H ow ever , because I agre e thatP ay ne fa i l ed t o sho w prej ud i ce , I c on cur thathe has n o t m e t h is b u r d e n u n d e rS tr ic k la n d .