[PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 1-1199 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 07-61 249-C IV-KAM OMAR BL ANC O,

Pet iti one r-Appe lla nt,
ve rsus SECRETAR

Y, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF C ORR EC TIONS, e t. a l., Re spon de nt-App el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for theSouth ern Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (July 31, 2012 )
Be fore T JOFLAT, PRYOR , a nd ED MOND SON, C irc uit Jud ge s. Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 1 of 69TJOFLAT , C irc uit Jud ge : On Ju ne 15, 1982 , a

jury in the Bro ward C ount

y Ci rcui t C ourt, Florid a,
co nvi ct ed Om ar B la

nc o of t he first-d eg ree c ap ita l m

urde r of Jo hn R

y an and a rm ed 1 burgl ary of th e res ide nc e whe re R y an wa s li vin g. On

Jun e 21, 1 982, the c ourt, 2
ac cepti ng t

he jury ’s se nte nc ingrec om m en datio n on

them urde r co nvi ct ion , se nte nc ed Bl an co to de at

h. Th e co urt a lso se nte nc ed Bl an co to se ve nty -five y ea rs’ im priso nm ent for t

he a rm ed burgl ary c onvi ct ion . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt affirm ed Bl an co ’s c onvi ct ion s a

nd d ea th s ente nc e; thesup rem e co urt t he rea fte r 3 de nie d B la

nc o c oll at era l re lie f. 4 In 198 7, B la

nc o pe tit ion ed

theUni te d State s Di stri ct Co urt for t

he South ern Dist ric t of Fl orida

for a writ o f ha

be as c orpus to se t a sid e his c onvi ct ion s a nd 5
se nte nc es . TheDis tric t C ourt d en ie d th e writ a s to his c onvi ct ion s but gra nte d th e writ a s to his de at

h se nte nc e on t

he groun d th at

he ha d be en

de nie d hi s Sixth a

nd

Fla. Stat. § 782.04 (1982)
. 1 Fla. Stat. § 810.02 (1982)
. 2 Bla nco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520 (F la. 1984), c ert. de nied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S. Ct
. 3 940, 83 L . Ed. 2d 953 (1985). Bla nco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987) ( aff irming the Br owar d County 4 Circuit Court’s denial of B lanco’ s motion t o vacate). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 5 2 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 2 of 69Fourte enth Am en dm ent rig ht t o e ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns el in the pe na lty 6 pha se of hi s c as e. W e affirm ed
. 7 8 Bl an co ’s c as e wa s th ere aft er re turne d for a ne w pe na lty -pha se proc ee din g to the Bro ward C ount

y Ci rcui t C ourt. It y ie lde d th e sam e res ult a s th e ea rlie r 9 proc ee din g: t

he jury rec om m en de d th e de at

h pe na lty a nd t he c ourt i m

pose d it . In thi s a ppe al , we de ci de whe the r a writ o f ha be as c orpus sho uld

iss ue va ca

tin g Bl an co ’s de at

h se nte nc e. The Dis tric t C ourt fo r theSouth ern Dist ric t of Fl orida de ci de d th at

it sho uld not . W e ag ree and t

he refore a ffirm

it s ju dgm ent. I. W e be gin our re vie w of th e Dist

ric t C ourt’ s ju dgm ent by

de sc ribin g wha

t

The Six th Amendment, re adingin pertinent par t, “In all criminal prose cutions, the 6 acc used shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his def ence ,” U.S. Const. amend. VI , has previously

been a pplied to the States by

the Supreme Court, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 345, 83 S. Ct . 792, 797, 9 L . Ed. 2d 799 (1963). The Court has also held that the “Assistance of Counsel” mea ns the “e ffe ctive” a ssistance of c ounsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Bla nco v. Dug g er, 691 F . Supp. 308, 333 (S.D. Fla. 1988). 7 Bla nco v. Single tary , 943 F.2d 1477, 1505 ( 11th Cir. 1991). 8 At the conc lusion of the penalty phase, only

two sentenc es we re possible: a de ath 9 sentenc e or life with the possibili ty of par ole af

ter 25 year s. See F la. Stat. § 775.082 (1983) (“ A person who ha s been c onvicted of a capital f elony shall be punished by

life imprisonment and shall be re quired to ser

ve no less than 25 year s befor e bec oming e ligible f or par ole unless the proce edingheld to deter

mine the sentenc e . . . re sults in findi ng s by the cour t that such person shall be punished by

death[.]”); Sandoval v. State, 884 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (c iting Sander s v. State, 787 So. 2d 264, 265 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (de scribingthe sentenc e as “prede termined” if the dea th penalty is not sought)).
3 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 3 of 69too k pl ac e durin g th e ne w pe na lty pha se , from

theti m e the Bl an co v. Sin gle ta ry
m an date rea ch ed

theBro ward C ount

y Ci rcui t C ourt u

nti l t he de at h se nte nc e wa s im pose d. From

the re, w e dis cu ss t

he rev ie w of th e se nte nc e by theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt, wh ic h su staine d it on d ire ct a ppe ala nd, l at er, o n c oll at era l re vie w. Afte r that, we rev ie w th e Dist ric t C ourt’ s e nte rta inm ent a nd re je ct ion of B la nc o’ s pe tit ion for a writ o f ha

be as c orpus . A. The ne w pe na lty

pha se be ga

n wi th t he a ppoi ntm ent of c ouns elto repre se nt Bl an co , who wa s in dig ent. The c ourt a ppoi nte d Hi lli ard E. M old of, a priva te 1 0 prac tit ion er, o n Ju

ne 12, 1992 . Ju dit

h Ha ll, a Ca pit alCo lla

te ralRepres entativ e, 1 1
as sis te d M old of, but

did not a ppe ar a s hi s c o-co unse l of re co rd. Ha vin g m ad e thi s ap poi ntm ent, t

he c ourt n ext i nqui red whe the r the pa rtie s we re re ad

y to proc ee d. The State not ifie d th e co urt t ha t i t wa s re ad

y to proc ee d in

orde r to p ursue thede at

h pe na lty
. Mo ldo f, aft er c onsu lti ng wi th B la nc o, t old thec ourt t

hat B la nc o wa s no t 1 2 Counsel who repr esente d Bla nco in the 1982 trial proc eeding s were discharg ed once 1 0 Bla nco alleg ed in his post-conviction proce eding s in the Circuit Court and the United States District Court that their perf ormanc e in handlinghis case ha d been c onstitut ionally defic ient. The Of fice of the Capital Collatera l Represe ntative (the “ CCR ”), w as the pre dece ssor 1 1 to the Offic e of the Capital Collateral Reg ional Counsel. See Fla . Stat. §§ 27.705(3), 27.7001. The State a

ppeale d the District Court’s issuanceof the writ vacatingBla nco’s de ath 1 2 sentenc e; B lanco a

ppeale d the cour

t’s denial of the writ as to his convictions. Both pa rties fa iled to obtain cer

tiorari re view in the Supreme Court. Singletar y v. Bla nco, 504 U.S. 946, 112 S. Ct. 2290, 119 L . Ed. 2d 213 (1992); B lanco v. Sing letary , 504 U.S. 943, 112 S. C t. 2282, 119 L . Ed. 4 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 4 of 69rea dy

to proc ee d, a

nd t he c ourt t he n gra nte d a c ont inu an ce . 1. On Ju ne 19, 1992 , Mo ldo f m ove d th e Ci rcui t C ourt t o a ppoi nt a psy ch olo gis t to a ssi st h im

in the pre se ntatio n of miti gatin g e vid en ce , c iti ng Ak e v. Ok la hom a, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. C t. 1 087, 84 L . Ed. 2d 5 3 (198 5). On Augus t 28 , 199 2, 1 3 Mol dof, re pres entin g th at he ne ed ed

thea ssi sta

nc e of a ne urops y ch olo gis t, a
ne urolo gis t, a

nd a soc iol ogi st, file d th

ree m oti ons requ es tin g th at thec ourt p rovid e for the a ppoi ntm ent of t

he sespe ci al ist s. M old of nam ed thene urops y ch olo gis t a

nd
soc iol ogi st h e wante d a

ppoi nte d, Dr. Do rita

Ma rina and Dr. J ua n C la rk,
res pe ct ive ly , but

he did not provi de thenam e of a

ne urolo gis t. O n Se pte m

be r 11, 1992 , th e co urt gra

nte d th e Augu st 2 8 m oti ons in t hreeorde rs. On e orde r ap poi nte d Dr. M ari na ; t

he oth er o rders sim

ply provi de d for th e ap poi ntm ent of a
ne urolo gis t a

nd a soc iol ogi st w ith out

nam ingthespe ci al ist s. Alt hough th e rec ord 1 4 doe s no t c ont ai n th e orde rs of a ppoi ntm ent, M old of a

ppa rent ly obt ai ne d th e

2d 207 (1992). The re cord doe s not revea l whether this mot ion was grante d. 1 3 After Moldof filed the August 28 moti on, he wa s unable to locate Dr. Clar k. This 1 4 explains why

the cour t’s September 11 order grantingMoldof’s re quest for a sociolog ist did not provide for

Clark’s appointment. 5 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 5 of 69as sis ta

nc e of a ne urolo gis t a

nd a soc iol ogi st a

t so m e poi nt. 1 5 At s om e poi nt d

uringthee nsui ng e ight a

nd a ha lf m ont

hs, D r. Ma

rina , havin g th e be ne fit o f the inform at ion provi de d by

the oth er s pe ci al ist s, t old Mo ldo f that a psy ch iatris t wa s ne ed ed . Dr. M ari na ’s sug ge ste d th at a psy ch iatris t wa s
ne ce ssa ry to revi ewthem enta l he al th i nform ation at ha nd a nd t o form

an op ini on
as to whe the r a c as e co uld be m ad e tha

t, at t he ti m e of them

urde r, Bl an co wa s
expe rie nc ing“ an

e xtre m e m enta l or e m oti ona l di stu rban ce ” or la ck ed

the “ ca pa ci ty to a ppre ci at e the c rim ina lit

y of hi s c ondu ct ,” bot

h of wh ic h c onst itute miti gatin g ci rcum sta nc es und er Flo rida

la w. 1 6 On M ay 27, 1993 , Mo ldo f m ove d th e co urt for t he a ppoi ntm ent of a psy ch iatris t. B ec au se Bl an co did not spe ak Engl ish , th e psy ch iatris t ne ed ed to be flue nt i n Spa

nis h. Th e co urt gra

nte d th e m oti on o n Ju

ne 18, 1993 , a

nd a ppoi nte d the phy sic ia

n M old of c hose , Dr. Ane sta sio Ca sti el lo, a Spanis h-spe aking 1 7

See B lanco v. State, 706 So. 2d 7, 10 (F la. 1997) (“ [I ]n additi on to appointing Dr
. 1 5 Maulion, the court a

ppointed, at county

expense, a psycholog ist, a neuropsycholog ist, a neurolog ist, and a sociolog ist to assistin Blanc o’s def ense.” ). Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6) (b) ( 1983) (“ The c apital fe lony was c ommitt ed while the 1 6 defe ndant was unde r the influenc e of e x treme me ntal or emotional disturbanc e.”) ; I d. § 921.141(6)( f) ( 1983) (“ The c apac ity of the de fenda

nt to apprec iate the c riminality of his conduct or

to conform his conduc t to the require ments of law wa s substantially impaired.” ). The re cord r efle cts that Dr. Castiello was sometimes re fer red to a s Dr. Richar d 1 7 Castillo. 6

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 6 of 69psy ch iatris t i n Da de Co unt y . Dr. C as tie llo de cl ine d th e ap poi ntm ent, so M old of 1 8
as ke d th e co urt t o a

ppoi nt D r. Arturo G onz al es , a lso a Spanis h-spe aking psy ch iatris t. T he Stateargue d th at the fee s he woul d c ha

rge woul d be too high,
an d th e co urt a gree d. The c ourt s ugge ste d th at Mo ldo f co nsi de r the a

ppoi ntm ent 1 9 of Dr. Ric ha

rd Ma uli on, who a lso wa s flu ent i n Spa nis h. M old of c ont ac te d Dr. Ma uli on, a nd Dr. M au lio n sa id t

hat hewoul d be wil lin g to ta ke the a ppoi ntm ent. Mol dof c onve y ed

thi s in form at ion

to the c ourt a

t a pre tria l he ari ng o n August 10, 1993 . At thi s he ari ng, t

he c ourt a ske d M old of, “ Are y ou s at isfi ed wit h hi m ? ” Mol dof re pli ed , “ Ye s, s ir. He se em s to be qua lifi ed . He is Span ish spe aking . He
se em s to have a ll of thetoo ls, at le as t, t o be a

bleto ac co m

pli sh wh at

we ’re
se eking .” Giv en

thi s re spon se , th e co urt e nte red an orde r ap poi nti ng Dr. M au lio n. At a he ari ng o n Septe m

be r 8, 19 93, M old of rep orte d on his int era ction

wit h Dr. Ma uli on. He sa id t o th e co urt, “ I’v e se en his work[] . Hese em s to bem ore tha n a cc ep ta ble . He is doi ng a

n e xc el le nt j ob.”At tha

t sa m e he ari ng, M old of
After contac ting Dr . Castiello and providinghim with a copy of the Circuit Court’s 1 8 administrative orde r re g ardingexpert fee s in Brow ard County , Moldof repor ted to the cour

t that Dr. Castiello ref

used to come to B rowa

rd County at the ra tes presc ribed by

the cour t’s order
. The orde r provided f

or the pa y ment of psychiatrists at the ra te of $150 pe r psychiatric evaluation. Deposition and court testimony was pa yable a t the rateof $150 per

hour. All other time spent on a def

endant’ s case including r esea rch, doc umentation revie w, and c onsultation with counsel, wa s paid at the maximumrate of $50 per hour. Dr. Gonzales wa s willing to take the appointment for a daily fee of $2,000. The State 1 9 objected on the ground that such a fee would exceed the limits set out in the administrative order . See supra

note 18. 7 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 7 of 69co m

m ente d th at

Dr. M au lio n “ sa

y s he ne ed s a

ne urops y ch olo gis t a

nd [a ]
ne urolo gis t t o do som e te sti ng o f Mr. B la nc o to c onfirm

what hethi nks he ’s findi ng. I’v e al rea dy

got pe rm iss ion .” Mo ldo f reit erate d th e ne ed for a 2 0
ne urops y ch olo gis t at st at

us h ea rings on Septe m

be r 13 a nd Septe m

be r 24. T he n, on Oc tob er 1 , 199 3, t

he c ourt e nte red an

orde r ap poi nti ng Dr. L ee Bu kst el , a
ne urops y ch olo gis t. In a ddi tio n to obt ai nin g th e ap poi ntm ent of t he se m enta l he al th e xpe rts, Mol dof ob ta ine d di sc ove ry of e vid en ce the State woul d be pre se nti ng t o th e jury in the se co nd p en al ty

pha se . Som e of thedis co ve ry req ue sts sou ght

e vid en ce the Statewoul d be int

roduc ingin supp ort of i ts c as e for a d ea th s ente nc e
rec om m en datio n. Th e State not ifie d M old of tha t, t o e sta bli sh t he a ggravate d ci rcum sta nc e that t he de fend ant ha d pre vio usl y be en c onvi ct ed

of a “ fel ony inv olv ingtheuse or threat of v iol en ce to the pe rson,” it woul d be int

roduc ing 2 1
ce rtifie d c opi es of B la

nc o’ s 19 84 c onvi ct ion s in the Bro wa

rd C ount y Ci rcui t C ourt for the arm ed

robbe ry and a

rm ed burgl ary of a

res ide nc e in t

he Em era ld H ill s 2 2 2 3
Dr. Marina was una

ble to perf

orm a ne uropsycholog ical eva luation of Bla nco, and a 2 0 neurolog ist, though provided f or in the cour

t’s September 11, 1992 or der, ha d appar ently not been e ng ag ed by

this ti me. Fla. Stat. § 921.141(5) (b) ( 1983). 2 1 Florida statutes define d robber

y duringthe time period at issue as: 2 2 (1) “ Robbery” mea

ns the takingof money

or other pr operty

which may

be the 8 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 8 of 69co m

m uni ty on D ec em

be r 29, 1 981. The c rim es ha d be en c om m itt ed a li ttl e m ore 2 4 tha n tw o we ek s be fore t

he Ry an m urde r. At a

sub se que nt p ret

ria l c onfe renc e, Mol dof a nd t he State stipul at ed

to the int roduc tio n of c ert ifie d c opi es of B la nc o’ s Ma rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ct ion s of t hosetwo fel oni es . subject of lar ceny

from the pe rson or c ustody of anothe r by

the use of f

orce , violence, a ssault, or putting in fe ar. (2) ( a) I f in the cour se of c ommitt ing the robber y the offe nder c arried a f

irea rm or other de adly

wea pon, then the robbe ry

is a felony

of the fir st degree , punishable by imprisonment for a ter

m of year s not ex cee ding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1) , (2)( a) ( 1983). Under Florida law, ar med burg lary

was de fined a s follows at the re levant time: 2 3 (1) “ Burg lary

” mea ns enteringor re maining in a structure or a c onveyancewith the intent to commit an offense there in, unless the premises a re at the time open to the public or the de fenda nt is li cense d or invited to enter or rema in. (2) B urg lary

is a felony

of the fir st degree , punishable by imprisonment for a ter

m of year s not ex cee ding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the cour se of c ommitt ing the offe nse, the off ender : (a) Makes a

n assault or battery

upon any person; or (b) I s armed or

arms himself within such structure or conve yance , with expl osives or a da ng erous we apon. Fla. Stat. § 810.02(1) –(2) ( 1983).

Bla nco wa s convicted of

these off enses twice , on April 9, 1982, and, on re trial, on 2 4 Marc h 14, 1984. The State introduce d evidenc e of theApril 9 convictions at B lanco’ s 1982 trial to establish the prior violent fe lony ag gravating c ircumstance . The c onvictions were subsequently

reve rsed on a

ppeal a nd a new trial order ed. B lanco v. State, 438 So. 2d 404, 405 (F la. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1983). On retria l, Blanc o was c onvicted ag ain, and, on a ppeal, the convictions wer e af

firmed. B lanco v. State, 466 So. 2d 1152, 1152 (F la. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (per curiam). 9

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 9 of 692.

The ne w pe na lty

pha se of B la

nc o’ s tri albe ga

n on April18, 1994 . The State ’s c as e in c hie f co ntaine d e vid en ce tha t t he State ha d pre se nte d du ring t he gui lt pha se of th e 1982 tria l, s o th at thejury woul d kn ow ho w th e m

urde r of Joh

n Ry an oc cu rred a nd h ow B la

nc o c am e to b e ide nti fie d a s th e as sa ila nt. The wit ne sse s th e Statec al le d a

nd t he phy sic ale vid en ceit

int roduc ed e sta bli she d th e follo wingfac ts. On t he e ve nin g of J an

ua ry 14, 1982 , Tha lia

Ve zo s, a ge fourte en , wa s at hom e in b ed , rea din g a

boo k. At around 11 p .m ., sh e not ic ed a m an in the ha llw ay out sid e he r be droom ; heha d a gun and wa s c arry inga

brown wa lle t-ty

pe obj ec t. The m an ge stu red to T ha lia

to ke ep sil ent, e nte red he r room , a nd c ut t he wire s to he r te le phon e. Afte r le av ingTha lia ’s room , th e m an e nc ount ere d Tha lia ’s unc le , John Ry an , in theha llw ay . A s trugg lee nsue d a nd t he m an sho t R y an . R y an stum ble d into T ha lia ’s be droom and fe ll on Th al ia , who wa s st illon h er b ed . The
m an foll owe d R

y an int o th e be droom , sho t hi m an a ddi tio na l si x ti m es , a nd fle d. Afte r the m an

le ft th e hous e, Tha lia

ran ne xt d oor to a

ne igh bor’ s ho use a

nd c al le d the pol ic e. Afte r the pol ic e arriv ed

on s ce ne , th ey

int ervi ew ed

Tha lia . Shede sc ribe d th e int rude r as an Hi spa

nic m al e, m ea surin g be twe en 5’ 8” and 5 ’1 0” and we igh ing

10 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 10 of 69be twe en

180 and 1 90 p ound s. T he pol ic e al so i nte rvie we d Ge orge Abde ni, who liv ed a cros s th e stre et

from theVe zo se s. Ab de ni re late d th at he ha d se en

a n ind ivi dua l wi th p hy sic alc ha rac te rist ic s li ke tho se Tha lia ha d de sc ribe d wa lki ng
ea st from thesc en e of thec rim e. He wa s we ari ng a gra y jog gin g su it. Thepol ic e dis patc he r im

m ed iate ly iss ue d a pol ic e BOL O wit

h th e inform at ion

Tha lia and Abde ni h ad

provi de d. Office r Cu

rtis Pricewa s on

dut y in his c ar n ea

r the loc at ion

of th e cri m e, he ard the BO LO ov er h is p oli ce rad io, an d be ga n lo oki ng for s om eo ne of th at de sc ripti on. Approx im at el y fifte en m inute s la

te r, he sa w a n in div idu alwho
m at ch ed thede sc ripti on p rovid ed

by theBO LO rid inga

bic y cl e down

hig hwa y A1A. Office r Price foll owe d th is i ndi vid ua l, l at er d et ermine d to be Bl an co , for ap proxi m at el y

one -te nth of a m ileand c al le d for ba ck

up. Afte r the ba ck

up a rrive d, B la

nc o wa s pl ac ed

und er a rrest and t ak en

to the
sc en e of thec rim e. The re, t he offic ers pre se nte d B la

nc o to Abde ni, who i de nti fie d him a s th e indivi dua l heha d se en . Thepol ic e se arc he d th e Ve zo se s’ res ide nc e an d found a m an ’s purse ne ar t he doo r to T ha lia ’s be droom ; t he purse c ont ai ne d Bl an co ’s ide nti fic at ion

pa pe rs a nd Th al ia ’s wa

tc h. Pol ic e al so re co ve red se ve n she ll ca sin gs from

a .380 c al ibe r autom at ic firea rm sc at te red in T ha lia ’s be droom
an d th e ad ja ce nt h al lwa

y . Whe n th ey

c om ple te d th ei r work at t

he c rim e sc en e, the pol ic e too k B la nc o 11 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 11 of 69to t

he pol ic e sta

tio n. Aft er h e wa s bo oke d, hi s ha nds we re t es te d for gu

nsho t
res idu e. The ne xt d ay , Ja nua ry 15, Tha lia

ide nti fie d hi m

in a lin e-up a s th e int rude r. The res ult s of t

he te sts of hi s ha

nds reve al ed

a le ve l of a nti m ony and ba rium —i ndi ca tin g gu nsho t re sid

ue—on the ba ck a nd p al m of th e right

ha nd a nd on t he pa lm of th e le ft ha

nd. In a cc orda

nc e wit h th e pa rtie s’ pre tria l st ipu latio n, t he Sta te int roduc ed a
ce rtifie d c opy

of th e Ma

rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ct ion s for th e arm ed burgl ary and
arm ed robbe ry of a n Em era ld H ill s re sid en ce on D ec em be r 29, 1 981; the date of the sec onvi ct ion s in dic at es tha t B la nc o c om m itt ed tho se c rim es sho rtly

a fte r he arriv ed in the Uni te d Sta

te s from Cu ba in 1980 , in

what wa s kn own a s th e

“ Free dom Flot ill a. ” The State the n re ste d it s c as e. B la nc o’ s de fens e follo we d. 2 5 Mol dof be ga

n th e pres entatio n of B la

nc o’ s de fens e by

c al lin g te n la

y wit ne sse s to thesta

nd a nd i ntrod uc ingwritt en

sta te m ents o f Bl an co ’s m oth er a nd fat he r, who w ere in Cu

ba . He the n c al le d tw o of hi s m enta l he al th e xpe rts, D r. Ma uli on a nd Dr. B ukst el , to te sti fy
. Dr. Ma uli on s tate d th at

his e xam inatio n of B la

nc o, hi s re vie w of B la

nc o’ s
m ed ic alrec ords, an d hi s st udy of th e repo rts a

nd i nform ation

provi de d by

theoth er
co urt-a ppoi nte d e xpe rts re ve al ed tha t B la nc o ha d a “ ce ntra l ne rvous sy ste m

bra in
Mariel B oatlift, U.S. Coast Guard Alien Migrant Interdiction, 2 5 http://www.usc g .mil/hq/ cg 5/cg 531/AMI O/mariel.a sp (last visited May 1, 2012) (de scribingU.S. Coast Guard a ctivity

duringthe so-called “Mariel Boatlift,” a.k.a. the “F ree dom Flotilla”). 12 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 12 of 69inj ury , [a] his tory of se izures a

nd fit s, a nd p res ent c ogni tiv e im

pa irm ent.” A pe rson w ith

Bl an co ’s diagnos is, he sa id, “ ca n bepe rfec tly

a ll right now an d in

jus t
a m om ent’ s no tic e, he c an turn arou nd a nd b e ei the r irrita

ble , sa d, depres se d,
an gry , or vi ole nt.”He sta te d th at the bra in d am ag e co uld

trig ge r a s ta

rtle d
res pons e if B la

nc o we re c onfront ed

wit h a sit uatio n li ke the one he e xpe rie nc ed whe n he e nc ount ere d Jo hn R y an on t he nig ht o f the m

urde r. In Dr. M au lio n’ s opi nio n, B la

nc o c om m itt ed thec rim e whil e “unde r the influe nc e of an e xtre m e
m enta l or e m oti ona l di stu rban ce ,” and h is “ ca

pa ci ty to ap prec iate thec rim ina lit y of his c ondu ct

or to c onform

his c ondu ct

to the req

uire m ents o f la

w wa s su bst antia lly im pa ire d.” 2 6 Mol dof th en

c hoseto ca ll Dr. B ukst elto the wit ne ss s ta nd t o foll ow Dr. Ma uli on. Dr. B ukst elopi ne d th at , ba se d on his e xamina

tio n of B la

nc o a nd h is revi ewof a

batte ry of ps y ch olo gic alte sts and re co rds prov ide d by m ed ic al profes sio na ls i n C uba , B la nc o ha d a num be r of “ orga

nic ” fac tors ind ic at ingsom e le ve l of b rai n da

m ag e, a se izure dis orde r, an d m enta l re ta rdat ion . He dis ag ree d wit h Dr. M au lio n, ho we ve r, ab out whe the r the m ed ic ale vid en ce e sta bli she d th e sta tut ory m iti gatin g fa ct ors Dr. M au lio n ha d foun d. In h is v ie w, B la nc o ha d no t
co m m itt ed theRy an m urde r “ whil e . . . u

nde r the influe nc e of e xtre m e m enta l or
em oti ona l di stu

rban ce ,” and h e ha d be en

a ble “ to a ppre ci at e the c rim ina lit

y of hi s See supra

note 16 (e x plaining the two statutory mitigatingcirc umstances)
. 2 6 13 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 13 of 69co nduc t.” He a gree d, t houg h, wi th D r. Ma

uli on’ s op ini on t

hat B la nc o’ s a bil ity “ to
co nform his c ondu ct

to the req uire m ents o f la

w wa s su bst antia lly

im pa ire d.” Afte r Dr. B ukst elte sti fie d, t

he de fens e res te d. Th e State put on n o re butta l. 3. On M ay 5, 1 994, thejury

ret urne d it s ve rdic t. B y

a vot e of te n to two it
rec om m en de d th at

thec ourt i m

posea de at h se nte nc e. The c ourt s ch ed ule d Bl an co ’s se nte nc inghe ari ng for J an ua ry 6, 1 995. Prior to thehe ari ng, t he pa rtie s submitt ed se nte nc ingm em oran da . TheState a rgue d in it s m em oran dum

tha t t hree sta tut ory a ggra va tors ha d be en

e sta bli she d: B la

nc o ha d pre vio usl y

c om m itt ed a vio le nt fe lony , Fla . Stat. § 921 .141 (5)(b) (1983); the c ap ital fe lon y wa s c om m itt ed whil e Bl an co wa s e nga ge d in thec om m iss ion of a rm ed burgl ary , id
. § 92 1.14 1(5)(d) (1983 ); a nd t he m urde r was c om

m itt ed for pe cu nia ry ga in, id. § 92 1.14 1(5)(f). 2 7 In his m em oran dum , Mo ldo f argu ed tha t t wo st at uto ry miti gatin g ci rcum sta nc es a ppl ie d: t he c ap ita l fe lon

y wa s c om m itt ed whi le he wa s un de r the influ en ce of e xtre m e m enta l or e m oti ona l di stu rban ce , id . § 9 21.1 41(6)(b) (198 3),
an d B la nc o’ s c ap ac ity

to ap prec iate the c rim ina lit y of hi s c ondu ct

or to c onform

his
co nduc t t o th e requ ire m ents o f la w wa s su bst antia lly

im pa ire d, i d. § 921. 141(6)(f)
The State c oncede d that the sec ond and third ag gravating c apital fa ctors should be 2 7 considere d as one be causeeac h was ba sed on esse ntially the same a spect of the capital c rime. 14 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 14 of 69(1983). Mo ldo f argu ed , in a ddi tio n, t

hat fourt ee n no n-sta

tut ory m iti gatin g ci rcum sta nc es a ppl ie d. 2 8 On Ja nua ry 6, t he da y of th e se nte nc inghe ari ng, t he c ourt a ske d c ouns el whe the r the re we re a

ny iss ue s th at

ne ed ed to be se ttl ed
. THE C OURT: Is the re a

nythi ng t o di sc uss at t

his ti m e prior t o se nte nc ing ?

. . . . MR . MO LDOF: Yo ur Hono r, not hin g ot he r tha n I wa s lo oki ng throu gh m

y se nte nc ingm em oran dum we sub m itt ed

to the Co urt a

nd I co uld have sworn

tha t i n th e se nte nc ingm em oran dum I ha d pl ac ed

the porti on o f the argum ent re latin g to theide a tha t i n m y vie w of th e ca se one of th e—

proba bly oneof th e m ore im

porta nt fa ili ngs, if I lo ok ba ck and s ee thi ngs we did

wrong, is whe n Dr. M au lio n te sti fie d. I felt li ke he wa s re al ly

not a force ful wi tne ss for t

he de fens e an d, y ou k

now, we we re h ere whe n he m ad e the sta te m ent a bout not se ei ng M r. Bl an co in the c ourtroo m . Whe n I th ink the c as e ove r an d ove r, I thi nk t

hat we igh ed

he av ily a ga ins t us wit

h th e jury
.

. . . . THE C OURT: T he re we re n o c om pla int s at a ll up t o th e te sti m ony . MR . MO LDOF: N o qu es tio n. An d qu itefrank ly , I gue ss o ne of the—y ou k

now, if th at ’s m

y fau lt, the n it ’s m

y fau lt. One of th e probl em s is , y ou k

now, psy ch ia

try is as m uc h a n a rt a s a sc ie nc e to m e.

Bla nco’s ( 1) potential for

reha bilitation; (2) f

ather hood; (3) dull intelligenc e; (4) 2 8 impoverished bac kground; (5) org anic br ain damag e; (6) unw avering de clar ation of innoce nce; (7) oppr ession in Cuba; (8) g ood char acte r; (9) strongrelig ious beliefs; (10) c oopera tion with police; (11) lovingfamily relationships; (12) tre atable me ntal disorders; (13) Mariel r efug ee status; and (14) stre ss from ada ption to American c ulture.

15 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 15 of 69Follo wingthi s e xc ha nge , th e he ari ng c om

m en ce d, a

nd a fte r ente rta ini ng t

he pa rtie s’ sub m iss ion s a

nd a rgum ents, the c ourt a

nnou nc ed it s fin din gs. The c ourt found two ag grav at ingc irc um sta nc es —t hat B la nc o pre vio usl y

ha d c om mitt ed a vio le nt fe lony

and t hat hec om

m itt ed theRy an m urde r durin g a

n a rm ed burgl ary
an d for pe cu

nia ry ga in; one sta

tut ory m iti gatin g c irc um sta

nc e— that B la nc o’ s ab ili ty to co nform

his c ondu ct

to the req

uire m ents o f la

w wa s su bst antia lly im pa ire d; and e le ve n no n-sta tut ory m iti gatin g c irc um sta

nc es . Thec ourt 2 9 3 0
co nc lud ed

tha t t he a ggrava

tin g fa ct ors outwe igh ed

themiti gatin g fa ct ors a

nd the reforeim

pose d a de at h se nte nc e. B. Bl an co a ppe al ed his se nte nc e to t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt. H e pres ente d
se ve n c la im s of t

ria l c ourt e rror in t

he se co nd p en al ty

pha se of hi s c as e. Onl y

one is b efore us i n th is a

ppe al : B la

nc o a rgue d th at thetria l c ourt d en ie d hi m due
The trial c ourt reje cted the statutory mitigatingcirc umstance that Blanc o acte d while 2 9 under a extreme mental or e motion dis turbanc e. In doing so, the court found D r. Maulion’s testimony that this mi tigator applied unpe rsuasive, a gree ing w ith Dr. Bukste l’s opinion on the issue. The c ourt also found the f irst part of the “ capa city

to appre ciate the criminality of his conduct” circ umstance ina pplicable, a g ain re

jectingDr. Maulion’s opinion on that point, but found applica

ble the sec ond part of that miti g ator, a s to which both experts agree d: the ability to “conf orm his conduct to the re quirements of la w was substantially

impaired.” The c ourt found the f

ollowing mitigators: Blanc o’s (1) pote ntial for re habilitation; (2) 3 0 fathe rhood; (3) dull intellige nce; ( 4) impoverished ba ckground; (5) org anic br ain damag e; (6) unwave ringdecla

ration of innoce nce; ( 7) oppre ssion in C uba; (8) g ood char acte r; (9) strong relig ious beliefs; (10) c ooperation with poli ce; a nd (11) lovingfamily

relationships. The court reje cted the r emainder

of the non-statutory

mitigatingcirc umstances that Moldof urg ed it to find beca use he ha d prese nted no evidenc e in support of those c ircumstance s. 16 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 16 of 69proc es s of l awwhe n it refus ed to ap poi nt t

he m enta l he al th e xpe rt of hi s c hoi ce , Dr. Arturo Gonz al es , in

vio latio n of Ak e. Inst ea d, t he c ourt a ppoi nte d a 3 1 psy ch iatris t, Dr. M au lio n, wh o wa s in effe ct ive in that hefai le d to provi de the de fens e wit

h c om pe te nt p sy ch iatric a ssi sta

nc e at tria l. T he Florid a Suprem e Co urt found no m eri t i n th is a

rgum ent, B la

nc o v. State , 706 So. 2d

7, 6 –7 (Fla . 199 7) (inte rnalc ita

tio n omitt ed), nor di d it

find any m eri t i n a

ny of th e oth er c la im s of error B la nc o a sse rte d. Th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt t he refore a ffirm ed

Bl an co ’s
se nte nc e, id. at 11 . Afte r the Uni te d State s Supre m e Co urt de nie d c ert iora ri revi ew , B la

nc o v. Florid a, 525 U.S. 83 7, 11 9 S. C t. 9 6, 14 2 L. E d. 2d 76 (19 98), Bl an co ret

urne d to theBro ward C ount y Ci rcui t C ourt a

nd, o n M ay

29, 2001 , 3 2
m ove d th e co urt t o va ca

te his se nte nc e pursu ant t o Flori da Ru le s of C rim ina l Proce dure3.85 0 a

nd 3 .851
. It wa s th e fourth post -con vic tio n m oti on B la

nc o ha d 3 3

Dr. Gonzales wa s Blanc o’s sec ond choice , afte r Dr. Ca stiello declined an a ppointment. 3 1 See supra part I .A.1. This is the date B lanco f iled his amended motion. Bla nco orig inally

filed this 3 2 collater al attac k on September 16, 1999. Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.851 both set out the proc edure to file 3 3 post-conviction motions in Florida. Curre ntly , Rule 3.851 provides the prope r vehic le for collater al re lief in a c ase in whic h the death penalty has bee n imposed. This rule was a dopted in 1993, well into Blanc o’s various collatera l attacks, a nd as a r esult, his attorney s over the year s have f iled his moti ons under Rule 3.850, Rule 3.851, or both rule s. For c onvenienc e, we ref er to all of his post-conviction motions as Rule 3.850 moti ons.

17 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 17 of 69file d in

the c as e. 3 4 His m oti on p res ente d tw enty -two c la im s. W e revi ew two of th e cl ai m s in thi s a ppe al . One is that M old of ren de red ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns el , in vio la tio n of t he Sixt h a nd Fou rte enth Am en dm ents, in fa ili ng a de quate ly to inform Bl an co , be fore t

he c om m en ce m ent of h is s ec ond pe na lty pha se on April 18, 1 994, of theState ’s offer o f a l ife se nte nc e wit h e lig ibi lit

y for pa role a fte r twe nty -five y ea rs. The oth er c la im

is that i n th e pe riod i m

m ed iate ly be fore re se nte nc ing 3 5 (1992-1 994), t

he Statedis rega

rded it s di sc ove ry

dut y und er B rady

v. M ary la

nd,
Bla nco filed his first motion on J anuar y 31, 1986, afte r his convictions and de ath 3 4 sentenc e we re a ffirme d on direc t appea l. The Circuit Court denied this motion on May 6, 1986, and the F lorida Supreme Court a ffirme d on May 7, 1987. See B lanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377, 1380 (F la. 1987). Bla nco filed his sec ond motion, which attacke d his death sentenc e only , on August 1, 1989. The Circuit Court denied that motion as mooton April 18, 1994, the day Bla nco’s se cond penalty phase be g an. The third motion, filed J anuar y 12, 1994, sought the vacatur of B lanco’ s convictions on the ground that new ly

discovere d evidenc e esta blished that Enrique Gonzalez and F idel Romero committed the Ryan murde r. The Circ uit Court denied the motion on April 28, 1994; the Florida Supreme Court af

firmed. See Bla

nco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (F la. 1997) (c oncluding that the newly

discovere d evidenc e wa s not persuasive) . (We note that the portion of the opinion aff irming the April 28, 1994 order misstates the dates the se cond and third Rule 3.850 motions wer e filed. A lso, the rec ord conta ins two nearly identical orde rs from the Circ uit Court denying the motion, one dated April 28, 1994, and the other da ted May 5, 1994, which conta ins an additional sentenc e notifying the defe ndant of his right to appeal. The se discrepancie s are not rele vant her e.) Bla nco desc ribed this claim in his openingappellate brief f rom the trial cour

t denial of 3 5 his fourth 3.850 motion: “Claim XVIaddre sses a pa rticular pr oblem that arose wher ein the Eng lish speakingattorney s did not adequate ly convey the State’s plea

offe r of [pre- guidelines] ‘life’ to [ Bla

nco] with opportunity

for pa role a fter twe nty -five year s. This important claim needs to be addr essed by

an evide ntiary

hearing.” Brief for

Appellant at 91, B lanco v. State, 963 So. 2d 173 (F la. 2007) (N o. 85118). The F lorida Supreme Court r ejec ted B lanco’ s argument. Bla nco v. State, 963 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2007) (per curiam) (af

firmingthe Circuit Court’s denial of B lanco’ s fourth Rule 3.850 motion). 18

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 18 of 69373 U.S. 83, 83 S. C t. 1 194, 10 L . Ed. 2d 2 15 (19 63), a nd wi thh el d m at eri al
ex cu lpatory

e vid en cerel at ingto Bl an co ’s Ma rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ction s for th e
arm ed robbe ry and a rm ed burgl ary of th e Em era ld H ill s re sid en ce . Thee vid en ce purport ed ly

c onsi ste d of a

de altheState m ad e wit

h Fide l Rom ero, to fal se ly im pli ca teBl an co in the hom e inv as ion , a nd wi th E nriqu e Gonz al ez , to ke ep him from giv ingte sti m ony

fav orab le to Bl an co at B la nc o’ s M arc h 19 84 t

ria l. B la

nc o 3 6 al le ge d th at

theStateuse d R om ero’ s “purc ha se d” te sti m ony to obt ai n th e
co nvi ction s a

nd t he n us ed thec onvi ct ion s to obt ai n a de at h se nte nc e for the Ry an
m urde r. 3 7 The Ci rcui t C ourt re

je ct ed bot h c la im s in

an orde r date d Ju ly

1, 2 003, de ny ingBl an co ’s pos t-c onvi ct ion m oti on i n full . Thefirst cl ai m la ck ed m eri t be ca use thec ourt fo und that t

he State ha d no t m ad e the purpo rte d li fe s ente nc e

See supra

note 24 (notingthat Bla

nco wa s twice c onvicted of thearme d robber y and 3 6 arme d burg lary

offe nses). Bla nco’s motion could be r ead a s pursuingan additional B rady claim, i.e., as a 3 7 challeng e to the Mar ch 14, 1984, convic tions for arme d robber y and ar med burg lary . Florida law is clea

r that a de fenda

nt cannot attac k the validity of a prior conviction through a collate ral attack in a

n unrelated proc eeding

in this m anner . See Oc chiconev. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (F la. 2000) (“ [A] defe ndant must first collatera lly challeng e his prior c onviction in a separ ate proce edingbefor e bring ing this cla im.”). B lanco did not cha lleng e his 1984 Emera ld Hills convictions in a prior c ollatera l proce eding ; and he would be barr ed fr om doing so now. See Fla. R. Crim. P ro. 3.850(b) (desc ribingtwo-year time limi tation). Any

future attempt to bring such a challeng e would be f

utile and is proce durally

defa ulted. See Z eig ler v. Crosby , 345 F.3d 1300, 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (“ A proc edura l defa ult can also a

rise whe n “the pe titioner fails to raise the [federa l] claim in state cour t and it is clear f

rom state law that any

future attempts at ex haustion would be futile.” ). 19

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 19 of 69offer; m oreo ve r, as Bl an co a lle ge d in his m oti on, B la

nc o ha d c hose n to a sse rt hi s
co nst itutio na l rig ht t o st an d tri al . These co nd c la im la ck ed m eri t be ca

useBl an co ha d a cc es s to thee vid en ce theState ha d a lle ge dly wit hhe ld a nd a ny atte m pts to
co lla te ral ly atta ck theva lid ity

of th e Ma

rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ct ion s wou ld b e proc ed ural ly ba rred. Bl an co a ppe al ed theCi rcui t C ourt’ s Ju ly

1, 2 003 de ci sio n to the Florid a Suprem e Co urt. H is a

ppe alfai le d. B la

nc o v. State , 963 So. 2d

173 (Fla. 200 7) (per c uriam). Addre ssi ng h is c la im tha t M old of ha d re nde red ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e in fa ili ng t o c om

m uni ca te theState ’s offer o f a l ife se nte nc e wit h pa role e lig ibi lit

y aft er t we nty -five y ea

rs, th e co urt fou

nd t hat t he rec ord c le arl y

e sta bli she d th at

the Stateha d m ad e no s uc h offe r. Id. at 17 9. Th e co urt fou nd t he Bra dy c la im proc ed ural ly de faul te d. Id. at

178
. C. W ith theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt ha vin g de nie d hi s c la im s, B la nc o tu rned to the Uni te d State s Di stri ct

Co urt for t

he South ern Dist

ric t of Fl orida

for rel ie f an d, on Au gust

31, 2007 , pe tit ion ed

tha t c ourt fo r a writ o f ha

be as c orpus . Hi s pe tit ion pres ente d si x c la im s for re lie f. Thre e of thec la im s, e ac h c ha lle ngi ng t he
co nst itutio na l va lid ity

of hi s de at

h se nte nc e, are b efore us i n th is a ppe al : (1) t

he Brow ard Co unt

y Ci rcui t C ourt d en ie d B la nc o th e due proc es s of l awreq uire d unde r Ake whe n it

refus ed to ap poi nt t

he psy ch iatris t of h is c hoi ce , Dr. Gon za le s, 20 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 20 of 69an d whe n th e psy ch ia tris t hedid

a ppoi nt, Dr. Ma

uli on, fa ile d to provi de him wit h
co m pe te nt p sy ch iatric a ssi sta

nc e at tria l; (2) Mol dof re nde red ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns elin fai lin g a de quate ly to inform him of th e State ’s purpo rte d offe r of a life se nte nc e wit

h pa role e lig ibi lit

y a fte r twe nty -five y ea

rs; a nd (3) t he State
co m m itt ed a Bra dy vio latio n by

wit hhol din g m at eri ale xc ulp at ory e vid en ce . 3 8 The Ant ite rrorism

and Effe ct ive De at

h Pe na lty Ac t of 1 996 (“ AEDPA” ), Pub. L. No. 1 04-132 , 110 Stat. 1 214, dic tate d th e sta nda rds t he Dis tric t C ourt woul d us e in re sol vin g th es e iss ue s. Un de r AEDPA, a fed era l c ourt m ay

not grant ha be as rel ie f on a

c la im a dju dic at ed

on t he m eri ts i n st at e co urt un le ss t he sta te
co urt’ s de ci sio n “ wa s c ont rary to, or invol ve d a

n unrea sona

ble a ppl ic at ion of, cl ea rly e sta bli she d Fe de ralla

w, a s de te rm ine d by

theSupre m e Co urt of t

he Uni te d State s,” or “ wa s ba se d on an unrea sona

ble de te rm inatio n of t

he fac ts i n li ght

of th e
ev ide nc e pres ente d in

theState c ourt p roce ed ing .” 28 U.S.C . § 2 254(d). The sta tut ory phra se “ cl ea

rly e sta bli she d Fe de ralla

w” refe rs onl y

to “ the hol din gs, a s op pose d to thedic ta , of [th e Suprem e] Co urt’ s de ci sio ns a s of t he ti m e of therel ev ant st at e-c ourt d ec isi on.” W ill ia m s v. Tay lor, 5 29 U. S. 362, 412 , 120 S. Ct . 149 5, 15 23, 1 46 L. Ed. 2 d 38 9 (200 0). A s tatec ourt d ec isi on i s “ co ntra ry to”
The thre e cla ims not i nvolved in this appeal a re that (1) Moldof re ndere d ineffe ctive 3 8 assistance of counse l in the guilt phaseof his trial, in 1982; (2) B lanco is “a ctually innocent” of the Ryan murde r and a

rmed burg lary ; and (3) F la. Stat. § 921.141(5)(d) , establishing the felony murder a g gravating c ircumstance , is unconstituti onal on its face and as a pplied in Blanc o’s ca se. 21 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 21 of 69suc h la

w “ if th e sta

te c ourt a rrive s at a c onc lus ion

opp osi te to that re ac he d by [the Suprem e] Co urt on

a que sti on o f la

w or if t he sta te c ourt d ec ide s a

c as e diffe rent ly tha n [theSupre m e] Co urt ha s on a se t of m at eri al ly

ind istinguis ha

blefac ts.”Id. at 412– 13, 1 20 S. C t. a

t 15 23. The “unre as ona

ble a ppl ic at ion ” cl au se of § 2 254(d) pe rm its a fed era l c ourt t o gra

nt h ab ea s re lie f “ if th e sta te c ourt i de nti fie s th e co rrec t gove rningle ga l pri nc ipl e . . . b ut u nrea sona bly a ppl ie s th at

princ ipl e to t

he fac ts o f the pris one r’s c as e. ” Id. a t 41 3, 12 0 S. C t. at 15 23. If the sta te c ourt i nc orrec tly ap pli es fed era l l aw , th at

a lon e is n ot e noug h to wa rrant ha be as rel ie f. Inst ea d, “ [a] sta te c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at a c la im la ck s m eri t pre clude s fe de ralha be as rel ie f so l ong as ‘ fai rm ind ed

juri sts c oul d di sa gree ’ on t he c orrec tne ss o f the sta

tec ourt’ s de ci sio n.” Ha

rringt on v . Ric hte r, — U. S. —, 1 31 S. C t. 7 70, 7 86, 1 78 L. Ed. 2 d 624 (2011) (qu oti ng Ya

rboroug h v. Alva

rado , 541 U.S. 65 2, 66 4, 12 4 S. C t. 2 140, 2149 , 158 L. Ed . 2d 938 (2004)). N ota bly , AEDPA a lso e sta

bli she s a pre sum pti on that t he sta te c ourt’ s fin din gs o f fac t a re c orrec t. 2 8 U.S.C . § 2 254(e )(1). This pres um pti on c an be reb utt ed

onl y by c le ar a nd c onvi nc inge vid en ce . Id. T he Dist ric t C ourt’ s re vie w of a

sta te hig h c ourt’ s a dju dic ation of th e m eri ts o f a c la im is a cc ordin gly

de fere nti al . W ith

the se princ ipl es in ha

nd, t he Dis tric t C ourt ad dres se d th e thre e cl ai m s un de r revi ew . 1. The Dis tric t C ourt c onc lud ed tha t t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s a dju dic at ion 22 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 22 of 69of B la

nc o’ s Akec la im

wa s ne ith er c ont

rary to, nor i nvol ve d a

n unrea sona

ble ap pli ca tio n of, c le arl y

e sta bli she d Supre m e Co urt pre ce de nt. See Bl an co v. Sec ret ary , No. 07-612 49-C IV-MAR RA-J OHNSON (S.D. Fla . De c. 7, 2 010). In Ake , a prose cutio n for c ap ita l m urde r, the Co urt he ld t

hat wh erean in dig ent de fend ant de m onst

rat es to the tria l j udge tha t hi s sa nit y at t he ti m e of the offen seis to b e a signific ant fa ct or at t ria l, t he State m

ust , at m ini m um , a ssu re t he de fend ant a cc es s to a

c om pe te nt p sy ch iatris t who w illc ondu ct

an a ppropri at e ex aminatio n a

nd a ssi st i n e va lua

tio n, prep aratio n, a

nd p res entatio n of t

he de fens e. 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S. C t. a t 10 87, 1 096. Theright

to have a cc es s to a

c om pe te nt
m enta l he al th e xpe rt is a

dueproc es s re qui rem ent t hat e xte nds to t

he “ se nte nc ing pha se ” of a

c rim ina l c as e. Id. a

t 84 , 105 S. C t. at 10 97. Be fore b oth

theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt a nd t he Dis tric t C ourt, Bl an co too k a two-pro nge d a

pproa ch to his Ake c la im : first , B la nc o a rgue d th at the tria l c ourt
erre d in refus ingto ap poi nt D r. Arturo G onz al ez , hi s c hoi ce of ps y ch ia tris t; an d
se co nd, n otwi ths ta

ndi ng t he ini tia l a

ppoi ntm ent, Dr. M au lio n’ s pe rform an ce at t ria l
wa s so ine ffec tiv e that i t, i n e sse nc e, m orphe d into t ria l c ourt e rror. The Supre m e Co urt of Fl orida not ed tha t, a s a n in dig ent de fend ant, wh ile Bl an co wa s e nti tle d to thea ssi sta nc e of a c om pe te nt p sy ch iatris t, B la

nc o ha d “no ‘c onst itutio na l rig ht t o c hoos e a psy ch iatris t of h is . . . p ers ona l l iki ng.’ ” Bl an co v. State , 706 So. 2d

7, 9 –10 (Fla. 1997 ) (quot ingAke , 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S. C t. at 1096 ). Thu s, t

he sup rem e co urt c onc lud ed tha t t he tria l c ourt p rope rly

a ppoi nte d 23 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 23 of 69Dr. Ma

uli on, a phy sic ia n who wa s bo ard ce rtifie d in psy ch iatry , ne urolo gy , ad dic tio n m ed ic ine , a

nd p ai n m an ag em ent, a

nd wh o ha d pre vio usl y

te sti fie d a s a

n
expe rt wit ne ss i n fore nsi c psy ch iatry . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt re je ct ed Bl an co ’s se co nd a

rgum ent a s we ll, hol din g th at “ [t] he fac t t

hat [Dr.] Ma

uli on’ s te sti m ony did not li ve up t o B la

nc o’ s e xpe ct at ion s c annot in an y wa y be
ca te goriz ed a s a tria l c ourt e rror.” B la

nc o, 70 6 So. 2 d a

t 9. The Dis tric t C ourt ag ree d on bot h c ount s, a

nd re je ct ed Bl an co ’s argum ent t

ha t t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt misa

ppl ie d Ake . Se e Bl an co v. Se cre ta ry , No. 07-612 49-C IV-MAR

RA-J OHNSON, at 23 (S.D. Fla . De c. 7, 2 010).

2. The Dis tric t C ourt t

he n tu rned to Bl an co ’s ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e cl ai m , th at Mol dof fa ile d a de quate ly to inform Bl an co of th e State ’s offer o f a l ife se nte nc e wit h pa role e lig ibi lit

y a fte r twe nty -five y ea

rs. Th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt de sc ribe d th e ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e cl ai m thi s wa y : “ Bl an co . . . argu es tha t hi s
se co nd p en al ty

pha se c ouns elwa s in effe ct ive for fai lin g to inform him of a ple a de althe State offere d, a

nd t hat up on B la

nc o’ s re je ct ion of th e de altheState a ct ed vin dic tiv el y

in se ekingthede at

h pe na lty .” B la

nc o, 96 3 So. at 17 9. Th e co urt rej ec te d th e argum ent a s “ m eri tle ss b ec au sethe rec ord c le arl y ind ic at es theState
ne ve r offere d B la

nc o a ny ple a de al .” Id. T he Dis tric t C ourt fo und tha t t he rec ord
wa s fa r from c le ar a s to whe the r the re wa s a n offe r. See Bl an co v. Se cre ta ry , No. 24 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 24 of 6907-612 49-C IV-MAR RA-J OHNSON, at 27 , 30 (S.D. Fla . De c. 7, 2 010). To t he
co ntra ry , th e Dist

ric t C ourt c onc lud ed

tha t t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de ci sio n de ny ingthec la im

wa s ba se d on

an unrea sona

ble de te rm inatio n of t

he fac ts g ive n the e vid en ce pre se nte d to thetria l c ourt i n su pport of th e cl ai m . Se e Bl an co v. Sec ret ary , No. 07-612 49-C IV-MAR RA-J OHNSON, 3 –4 (S.D. Fl a. Ma r. 29, 2 011). The c ourt t

he refore a fforded

thede ci sio n no AEDPA de fere nc e. Id. The Dis tric t C ourt h el d a

n e vid entia

ry he ari ng o n th e cl ai m

on Fe brua

ry 17
an d 18 , 201 1, t o flus h out t he fac ts a nd t o de te rm ine whe the r Mol dof’ s pe rform an ce sa

tis fie d th e sta

nda rd for e ffec tiv e as sis ta

nc e of c ouns eltheUni te d State s Supre m e Co urt e sta bli she d in Stric kla nd v . W as hin gto n, 46 6 U.S. 6 68, 1 04 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L. Ed . 2d 674 (1984). Unde r Stric kla nd, [a] c onvi ct ed

de fend ant’ s c la im

tha t c ouns el ’s a ssi sta

nc e wa s so de fec tiv e as to requ ire rev ers alof a c onvi ct ion

or de at h se nte nc e ha s two co m pone nts . First , th e de fend ant m ust sho w th at

c ouns el ’s pe rform an ce wa s de fic ie nt. Thi s re qui res sho wingtha t c ouns elm ad e errors s o se rious tha

t c ouns elwa s no t func tio nin g a s th e “ co unse l” gua rant ee d th e de fend ant by

theSixt h Am en dm ent. Se co nd, t he de fend ant m

ust sho w th at

the de fic ie nt p erform an ce pre jud ic ed the de fens e. Thi s re qui res sho wingtha t c ouns el ’s e rrors we re s o se rious as to de prive thede fend ant of a fai r tria l, a

tria l wh ose res ult

is rel ia ble . Unl es s a

de fend ant m ak es bot

h sh owin gs, i t c annot

be sa id that t he c onvi ct ion

or de at h se nte nc e res ult ed

from a bre ak down

in the ad ve rsary proc es s th at

ren de rs th e res ult

unre lia ble
. 466 U.S. at 68 7, 10 4 S. C t. at 20 64. At t he e vid entia

ry he ari ng, t

he Dis tric t C ourt re ce ive d te sti m ony from an 25 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 25 of 69at

torne y who repre se nte d th e State—StateAtt orne y Mi ch ae l Satz

—a nd t he at torne y s who rep res ente d B la nc o—H ill ia

rd Mo ldo f an d Ju dit

h Ha ll. See Bl an co

3 9 v. Se cre ta ry , No. 07-612 49-C IV-MAR RA-J OHNSON, at 5 (S.D. Fla . Ma r. 29, 2011 ). The te sti m ony

wa s c ont radi ct ory . Id. Satzte sti fie d th at he ne ve r m ad e the al le ge d offe r; M old of rec al le d th e State m akingan offe r to a llo w B la nc o to rec ei ve
a life se nte nc e if B la

nc o wa ive d hi s “ co lla

te ralc la im s.” Id. at 4. Mo ldo f an d Ha ll bot h re ca lle d vi sit ingBl an co in the Bro ward C ount y Ja il to d isc uss theple a de al
. A tra nsl at or wa s no t pre se nt. Id. at 7– 8. So, ac co rdingto the ir te sti m ony , Mo ldo f
an d Ha ll at

te m pte d to e xpl ai n th e te rm s of t he ple a offer t o B la

nc o in Engl ish , as sumingtha

t hem ight bea

ble to unde rsta

nd wh at the y sa id s inc e he ha d unde rstoo d wha

t t he y sa id t o hi m

on e arl ie r oc ca sio ns wi tho ut a tra nsl at or pre se nt. Id. Th ey te sti fie d th at

the y e xpl ai ne d th e State ’s offer, a li fe s ente nc e wit

h pa role el igibil ity a fte r twe nty -five y ea

rs. Id. Mol dof sa id t

hat, a lth ough

he c oul d no t knowe xa ct ly

what B la nc o un de rstoo d, he “ woul d ha ve m ad e sure in [his] m ind [that he ] did

e ve rythi ng [he ] co uld

to try to m ak e him

und ers ta nd i t.” Id. a

t 7. Afte r Mol dof e xpl ai ne d th e offer, B la nc o di d no t a sk q

ue sti ons or e xpre ss t

hat he did not und ers ta nd. B la nc o te sti fie d th at

he rem em

be red his la

wy ers c om ingto the ja il to t al k to

See supra

part I .A. 3 9 26 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 26 of 69him

a bout theState ’s offer. Id. at 8– 10. Bl an co a dm itt ed tha t he und ers too d at le as t so m e of what M old of e xpl ai ne d. B la nc o a lso sta

te d th at he und ers too d th at the re we re t

wo pe na lty

opt ion s, de at

h a nd s om e sort of li fe s ente nc e. Mo reov er, Bl an co und ers too d so m e co m ple x le ga l t ermino log y , in cludi ng t hat hec urrently ha d a 3.85 0 m oti on p en din g, a

nd t hat he woul d ne ed

to wa ive tha

t pe ndi ng 3 .850 in
ex ch an ge for the de al . B la nc o in sis te d, ho we ve r, tha t ha d he und ers too d th e
m ea nin g of t he te rm pa role—t hat he c oul d be rel ea se d a fte r se rvingtwe nty -five y ea rs of a li fe s ente nc e—

he woul d ha

ve a cc ep te d th e State ’s offer. Id. 4 0 The Dis tric t C ourt fo und the a sse rtion tha t B la nc o di d no t un de rsta

nd t he ple a offer t o be unp ers ua siv e, a s th ere we re n um erou s in sta

nc es in the rec ord whe re the two pe na lty

opt ion s we re e xpl ai ne d, wi th a tra nsl at or pre se nt, an d whe re t he transl at or pre sum ab ly

tra nsl at ed bot h op tio ns for B la

nc o. Id. at 9– 10. As t

he Dist ric t C ourt o bse rved , From thebe ginnin g, a

n inte rpret er wa s pre se nt a nd i nte rpret ed

for Mr. Bl an co at hi s a

rraignm ent on

Feb ruary 3, 1 982. It i s tru e that on ly durin g c ert ai n po rtion s of h is o rigin al198 2 gu ilt and s ente nc ing pha se s a n inte rpret er wa s pre se nt i n th e co urtroom to int erpre t c ert ai n proc ee din gs wh en ev er M r. Bl an co ’s Spanis h sp ea kin g atto rney

wa s ad dres sin g th e co urt. At ot he r tim es , hi s Spa

nis h sp ea kin g atto rney woul d si m

ply sit ne xt t o hi m

and t rans late the proc ee din gs. Mr. Bl an co ’s te sti m ony

pre sum es tha

t hi s Spa nis h sp ea kin g atto rney

did
Bla nco argued bef

ore the District Court that his understandingof the State’s of fer , 4 0 based on his experienc e in Cuba, wa s that a life se ntence meant than a n individual never g ot out of jail: he stated, “ [I ]n C uba, onceyou g et a lifesentenc e it’s like you die in there , you never g et out. Ithought that’ s what the situation was.” 27

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 27 of 69not

a cc urat el y

tra nsl at e the proc ee din gs i n a wa y tha t wo uld have al lowe d hi m

to unde rsta

nd t hat a li fe s ente nc e wa s a ct

ua lly li fe i n priso n wi tho ut t

he pos sib ili ty

of pa role for twe nty

five y ea rs. Mr. Bl an co a sse rts t

hat i n a ll the y ea

rs he wa s a

pa rtic ipa nt i n proc ee din gs in t he sta te c ourts tha

t hene ve r he ard or und ers too d th e sta tut ory de finit ion of a li fe s ente nc e in Fl orida . TheCo urt do es not find thi s te sti m ony to be c redible
. Eve n if M r. Bl an co , duri ng h is i nit ia l t ria l a nd s ente nc ing , di d not und ers ta nd t he m ea nin g of a li fe s ente nc e wit

hout thepos sib ili ty of pa role for twe nty -five y ea

rs, th e rec ord re fle ct s th at in his pos tco nvi ct ion

proc ee din gs t

he re wa s a

n inte rpret er p res ent wh o tra nsl at ed the proc ee din gs for h im . Therec ord sh ows t hat a s e arl y

a s August

10, 1993 , (we ll be fore M r. Bl an co ’s res ente nc inga nd t he c onve y an ce of the ple a offer) th at

Mr. B la nc o wa s in

the c ourtroo m

wit h a n int erpre te r pres ent wh en

the two pos sib le pe na lti es und er Flo rida la w we re t horoughly

dis cu sse d. Id. The Dis tric t C ourt a lso found tha t M old of and Ha ll did

not le av e the ja il be lie vin g th at

Bl an co ha d no t un de rstoo d wha t t he State wa s offe ring. Id. at 7. Ra the r, the c ourt fo und that B la nc o re je ct ed the offer o ut o f a d es ire to spe ak to his family be fore m akinga

de ci sio n a

nd b ec au se he c onsi ste ntl y be lie ve d he wa s no t gui lty and d id n ot w ant t o do anythi ng wh ic h wou ld b e inc onsi ste nt w ith tha t be lie f. Id. at 12
. The Dis tric t C ourt a cc ordin gly c onc lud ed

tha t M old of’ s pe rform an ce in
co nve y ingtheState ’s offer wa s no t de fic ie nt b ec au se Bl an co a dm itt ed tha t he unde rstoo d so m e co m

ple x le ga l t erm s, di d no t qu es tio n M old of a bout the offer,
expres se d le git im at e rea sons for rej ec tin g th e offer, h ad a cc es s to an inte rpret er 28 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 28 of 69be fore re se nte nc ing , a nd at so m e poi nt d

uringthe pre vio us t

we lve y ea rs ha d he ard the li fe s ente nc e opt ion

tra nsl at ed int o Spa nis h. Id. at

12– 13. Bl an co the refore fai le d to e sta

bli sh t he first el em ent of a

n in effe ct ive a ssi sta

nc e cl ai m und er Stric kla nd, d efi ci ent pe rform an ce . Al tho ugh thec ourt d id n ot re ac h Stric kla nd’ s
se co nd e le m ent, p rej udi ce , th e co urt no te d in pa ssi ng t hat i t wa s no t a lto ge the r cl ea r from thee vid en ce tha

t B la nc o wou ld h av e ac cepte d th e offer gi ve n hi s st rong be lie f that hewa s innoc ent. Id. at 12
. 3. The Dis tric t C ourt d ismiss ed Bl an co ’s Bra dy

c la im —t hat t he State wit

hhe ld
m at eri ale xc ulp at ory

e vid en ce tha

t B la nc o di d no t c om

m it the a rm ed robbe ry and
arm ed burgl ary offen se s th at

oc cu rred a t a n Em era ld H ill s re sid en ce on D ec em be r 29, 1 981—on t

he groun d th at

it la ck ed juri sdi ction

to ente rta in t

he c la im
. See

4 1 Bl an co v. Se cre ta

ry , No. 07-612 49-C IV-MAR RA-J OHNSON, at 12 –13 (S.D. Fla
. De c. 7, 2 010). In thec ourt’ s vi ew , th e cl ai m wa s a “ se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve c la im ,”
an d, a s su ch , be ca

use Bl an co ha d no t ob ta ine d a n orde r from

thi s c ourt, pursu ant t o 28 U. S.C. § 22 44(b)(3)(A), thec la im c oul d no t bee nte rta ine d. Id. T he Dis tric t 4 2

Be cause the District Court dismiss ed the B lanco’ s Br ady claim for la ck of jurisdiction, 4 1 it did not consider the Florida Supreme Court’s de termination that Bla nco had de faulted on the claim. See supra

part I .B. Section 2244(b)( 3)(A) states, “B efor e a se cond or suc cessive [§ 2254] application 4 2 permitted by

this section is filed in the district court, the applica nt shall move in the appropriate 29 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 29 of 69Co urt no te d th at Bl an co ha d be en

found gui lty of th e De ce m

be r 29, 1 981 offens es te n y ea rs be fore t

he ret ria l of t he pe na lty

pha se of hi s c as e co m

m en ce d in

April 1994 . Id. At h is re tria l on

therobbe ry

and b urgla

ry c ha rges , hi s c o-de fend ants [, Ro m ero an d Gon za le z, ] te sti fie d a s c oope rat ingwit ne sse s a nd a dvi se d the jury a bout thered uc tio n of t

he ir se nte nc es in ex ch an ge for the ir co ope rat ion . Thi s in form at ion wa s kn own t o M r. Bl an co prior t o th e fili ng i n 19 87 o f his ini tia l pe tit ion for writ of ha

be as c orpus wit

h th is Co urt. T he refore , whe n M r. Bl an co file d hi s in iti alpe tition for ha be as co rpus re lie f in t

his Co urt, h e co uld

have and s houl d ha

ve m ad e thi s [Bra dy ] cl ai m . “ The vio latio n of c onst itutio na l rig hts a sse rte d in the se kin ds o f [Bra dy ] cl ai m s oc cu r, if at a ll, at t

ria l or s ente nc ingand a

re ripe for inc lus ion

in a first p et iti on.” The refore , th is c la im is a se co nd or suc ce ssi ve ha

be as c la im

and m ust bedis m iss ed
. Id. (quo tin g Tom

pki ns v . Sec ’y , De pt. of C orr., 557 F.3d 1 257, 125 8 (11t h C ir. 2009 ). 4. On M arc h 29 , 201 1, t

he Dis tric t C ourt e nte red a fina l j udgm ent de ny ing ha be as c orpus rel ie f. See Bl an co v. Se cre ta ry , No. 07-612 49-C IV-MAR

RA-J OHNSON, at 9– 10 (S.D. Fl a. Ma r. 29, 2 011). Bl an co tim el y a ppe al ed thejud gm ent. T he Dis tric t C ourt t he rea fte r grante d hi s a

ppl ic at ion for a c ert ific at e of a

ppe al ab ili ty

(“ COA ”) wi th re spe ct

to the thre e cl ai m s di sc uss ed in p art s I.C .1, I.C .2, a

nd I.C .3. Se e Bl an co v. Se cre ta ry , No.

court of a ppeals for an orde r authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 30 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 30 of 6907-612 49-C IV-MAR RA-J OHNSON (S.D. Fla . Ma y 17, 2011 ). II. In rev ie wingtheDis tric t C ourt’ s ju dgm ent, we are i n th e sam e posi tio n a s the Dis tric t C ourt w as whe n it c onsi de red Bl an co ’s pe tit ion . Spe ci fic al ly , wea sk whe the r the Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s a dju dic ation of th e cl ai m s de sig nate d in the COAwa s “ co ntra

ry to, or invol ve d a

n unrea sona

ble a ppl ic at ion of, c le arl y
es ta bli she d Fe de ralla

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e Co urt of t

he Uni te d State s,”
or wa s “ba se d on

an unrea sona

ble de te rm inatio n of t

he fac ts i n li ght

of th e
ev ide nc e pres ente d in

theState c ourt p roce ed ing .” 28 U.S.C . § 2 254(d). 4 3 W e turn o ur atte nti on firs t t o th e cl ai m ba se d on Ake v. Ok la

hom a, 470 U.S. 68, 1 05 S. C t. 1 087, 84 L . Ed. 2d 5 3 (198 5), th en shi ft our a

tte nti on t o th e oth er cl ai m s de sig nate d in

theCO A. A. Bl an co wa s e nti tle d to thea ppoi ntm ent of a

“ co m pe te nt p sy ch iatris t.” Ake ,

The District Court dec lined to acc ord def ere nce to the F lorida Supreme Court’ s 4 3 adjudication of B lanco’ s ineffe ctive assistanc e cla im—Moldof’s alleg edly inadequate communication of the State’ s life sentenc e off er to B lanco—a

nd there fore decide d the claim de novo based on the fac ts it found following a n evidentiar

y hearing. A ccor dingly , in considering that claim, we r eview the District Court’s finding s of fa ct under the clea rly err oneous standar d and the c ourt’s application of the law to those fa cts de novo. See Fe rguson v. Sec’y for the Dep’ t of Corr., 580 F .3d 1183, 1193 (11th Cir. 2009) (“ When review ing the district court’s denial of a

habea s petition, we revie w questions of law a nd mix ed questions of lawand fa ct de novo, and finding s of fa ct for c lear err or.” ( citing Nyland v. Moore, 216 F .3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam))). 31 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 31 of 69470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S. C t. a t 10 96. W e he ld i n C lis by v. J one s, 96 0 F.2d 925, 929– 30 (11 th C ir. 19 92) (e n ba nc ), tha t t he foll owin g a

na ly sis sho uld

be e m plo y ed whe n a ddre ssi ng Ak e cl ai m s su ch a s B la nc o’ s: W e first e xamine theinform at ion be fore t he tria l c ourt whe n it

is al le ge d to have de prive d th e de fend ant of d ue proc es s. W e the n de te rm ine whe the r that i nform at ion sho uld have le d th e tria l c ourt t o co nc lud e tha

t t he de fend ant wo uld

proba bly not rec ei ve a fai r tria l. Spec ific al ly , we m

ust a sse ss t he rea sona

ble ne ss o f the tria l [c ourt] ’s ac tio n at t he ti m e [it] too k it

and we a re t o e va luate the a ct ion s of t he tria l [c ourt] ba se d on

thee vid en ce pre se nte d to [it]
. Id. at 92 9–30 (al te rat ion s in origi na l) (ci tatio ns o m itt ed) (inte rnalquo tatio n m arks
om itt ed). Bl an co ’s argum ent be fore t his c ourt, jus t a s it

wa s be fore t

he Dis tric t C ourt,
wa s e sse nti al ly

two -fold: (1) tha

t t he tria l c ourt d en ie d B la

nc o du e proc es s in

the ini tia l a ppoi ntm ent of Dr. Ma

uli on; and (2) t

hat, e ve n if t

he ini tia l a

ppoi ntm ent 4 4
wa s re as ona

ble , th e tria l c ourt d en ie d B la nc o du e proc es s du

ring t he pe na lty

tria l aft er i t be ca

m e cl ea r that Dr. M au lio n’ s re vie w, pre pa rat ion , a nd p erform an ce te sti fy ingwe re i nc om

pe te nt. 4 5
Bla nco asse rts in his opening brief in this appea l that he “wa s denied the oppor tunity 4 4 to obtain competent psychiatric assistance ” and that the Circuit Court’s “administrative orde r . . . allowed f or the de nial of funds ne cessa ry for the a ssistance of a

competent menta l health expert.” Br . of Appe llant at 39. In his reply brief, he states that “the me ntal health expert, [Dr. Maulion,] who[m] the cour

t itself rec ommended and subse quently appointed, wa s incompetent and/or incre dible.” Reply

Br . of Appe llant at 2. Bla nco states in his openingbrief in this appe al: “B lanco simply desired a psychiatrist 4 5 who was c apable and qualifie d for the ta sk at hand, whic h Dr. Maulion cle arly wasn’t, 32 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 32 of 69As t o hi s a rgum ent t hat t he ini tia l a

ppoi ntm ent of Dr. Ma

uli on d ep rive d hi m of due proc es s, t

he Ci rcui t C ourt h ad

be fore i t a

n e xte nsi ve am ount

of in form at ion rega rdingDr. M au lio n’ s ba ck ground and h is p ote nti alfitn es s for a ppoi ntm ent t o
se rve as an e xpe rt. B la

nc o sum m ed up t his inform at ion

we ll in t he brie f he submitt ed to theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt i n a ppe al inghis se nte nc e, Bl an co v. Sta te , 706 So. 2d 7 (Fla . 199 7). B la nc o sa id t his a bout Dr. M au lio n: Dr. Ma uli on p res ente d a

n im pres siv e lis t of a ca de m ic and p rofes sio na l cre de nti al s in cludi ng a

fel lows hip in the Am eri ca n Ac ad em

y of Psy ch oa na ly sis , boa

rd c ert ific at ion

in psy ch ia

try by the Am eri ca

n Bo ard of Psy ch iatry

and Ne urolo gy

and t he Am eri ca

n B oa rd of Qua lit y Ass uran ce and Ut ili za

tio n R ev ie w of Phy sic ia

ns a nd a n ins truc tor’ s po sit ion

in psy ch iatry

at Tu la ne Uni ve rsit

y . Add iti ona lly , Dr. Ma uli on wa s th e pres ide nt o f the Bro wa rd C ount y Psy ch iatric Soci et y and a m em be r of the c ounc il of theFlorid a Psy ch iatric Soci et y . Dr. M au lio n wa s c ha irm an of th e Phy sic ia

n R ec ove ry Ne twork of theBro ward C ount y Me dic alAss oc iatio n a

nd C hie f of Sta ff of the m edic alExe cutiv e Co m m itt ee at t he Re tre at

Hosp ita l. The doc tor a lso wa s a

m em be r of the Bi oe thi cs Co m

mitt ee at B roward Ge ne ralHosp ital a

nd t he found er o f a c ha

rita blefound at ion . Dr. Ma uli on p revi ously

worke d in

two Ve te ran’ s Admini stratio n Hosp ita ls a

nd at t he Ch ari ty

Hosp ita l i n Ne w York. At t he ti m e of his te sti m ony , Dr. M au lio n m ai nta ine d a psy ch iatric pra ct ic e whe re h e sa w bot h ou tpatie nts and i npatie nts . Thepsy ch iatris t wa s offe red, and ac cepte d by

theprose cutio n wi th n o ob je ct ion , a s a

n e xpe rt in psy ch iatry . Bri ef for Ap pe lla

nt a t 22 , B la nc o v. State , 706 So. 2d

7 (Fla . 199 7) (No. 85 118)
notwithstanding c ounsel’s initial impressions to the contr ary . Be cause of the state c ourt’s actions, B lanco wa s denied mea ningf ul acc ess to expert assistance a s well as a ‘ fair oppor tunity to present his def

ense.’ ” B r. of Appe llant at 40. 33 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 33 of 69(ci tatio ns o m itt ed). As i f the Ci rcui t C ourt’ s a ppoi ntm ent of Dr. Ma

uli on d id n ot
satis fy Ake ’s due proc es s re qui rem ent of t he provi sio n of c om

pe te nt p sy ch iatric
as sis ta nc e, theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt no te d th at “ in a ddi tio n to a

ppoi nti ng Dr. Ma uli on, t he c ourt a ppoi nte d, at c ount

y e xpe nse , a

psy ch olo gis t, a
ne urops y ch olo gis t, a

ne urolo gis t, a

nd a soc iol ogi st t o a ssi st i n B la nc o’ s de fens e. ” Bl an co , 706 So. 2d

at 10 . In s hort, we ne ed

not he sit at e to c onc lud e tha

t t he tria l jud ge a ct ed

rea sona bly in m akingtheini tia l a

ppoi ntm ents o f Dr. Ma

uli on a s we ll
as the oth er e xpe rts wh o a ssi ste d hi m , a nd i n do ingso, the c ourt c le arl y satis fie d Ake ’s due proc es s re qui rem ent. That m ay be we ll an d go od, B la

nc o sa y s, but Dr. M au lio n’ s tri al pe rform an ce—hi s te sti m ony —wa s in effe ct ive , a

nd t his sho rtc om ingren de red the
se nte nc ingpha seof th e tria l fund am enta lly unfa ir. Put

anot he r way , B la

nc o a rgue s that, wh ileDr. M au lio n a ppe are d c om

pe te nt o n pa

pe r at the ti m e of his ap poi ntm ent, h is i nc om

pe te nc e did

not be co m e ap pa

rent unt il he te sti fie d a

t t ria l. In a dva nc ingthi s a

rgum ent, h owe ve r, Bl an co ove rlook s th e funda m enta l propos iti on t

hat t he de nia l of d

ue proc es s in

theAke se nse m

ust be due to tria l
co urt e rror: it

m ust be thetria l j udge , not

them enta l he al th e xpe rt, who de nie s th e de fend ant du e proc es s by ta kin g so m e ac tio n th at

ren de rs th e proc ee din g funda m enta lly unfa ir. Se e Co nkl in v . Sch ofie ld, 366 F.3d 11 91, 1 206 (11th Ci r.

34 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 34 of 692004 ). As w e ins truc te d in Cl isb y , 960 F.2d at 92 8–29 , 934 a nd l at er i n Provenza no v . Sing le ta

ry , 148 F.3d 1 327, 133 3–34 (11th Ci r. 1998 ), the

4 6 de fend ant m

ust poi nt t o a

n e rror of the tria l c ourt t

ha t deprive d hi m

of dueproc es s of la w to m ak e out

an Ake c la im . In t

his c as e, howe ve r, Bl an co fai ls t o e xpre ssl y te ll us wh en

or how thetria l j udge de nie d hi m dueproc es s du

ring re se nte nc ing
. If Mol dof th ought t

hat Dr. M au lio n’ s te sti m ony ren de red the se co nd p en al ty pha se of th e ca sefunda

m enta lly unfa ir, he sho uld

have a ske d th e tria l j udge to bringthese nte nc inghe ari ng o f Ja nua ry 6, 1 995 to a

ha lt an d gra

nt B la nc o a ne w pe na lty pha se proc ee din g be fore t he jury on t he groun d th at

thec ourt h ad

fai le d to provi de him

wit h c om pe te nt p sy ch ia

tric a ssi sta

nc e. Or M old of c oul d ha ve wa ite d unt il aft er t

he c ourt i m

pose d a de at h se nte nc e an d m ove d th e co urt, wi thi n te n da y s, pursu ant t o Flori da

Ru leof C rim ina l Proc ed

ure 3.59 0, t o va ca

te thejury ’s ve rdic t
an d gra nt B la nc o a ne w pe na lty -pha se . Ha d M old of pursu ed e ith er c ourse and 4 7

The c ourt in Provenzano commented, “ Clisby holds that Ake is a due pr ocess doc trine, 4 6 which re quires the pe titioner in all but the most unus ual circ umstances to show that he reque sted from the tria l court somethingin the way of mental he alth expert assistance that the trial court ref used to g ive him.” Provenzano v. Single tary , 148 F.3d 1327, 1333–34 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted)) Rule 3.590(b), states, in pe rtinent part: 4 7 (b) Time f

or F iling in Capital Cases Where the Death Penalty I s an I ssue. A motion for new tria l or arr est of judgment, or both, or for a new penalty phase hearing ma

y be made within ten day s after written final judgment of convic tion and sente nce of

life imprisonment or death is filed. The motion may addre ss grounds which a

rose in the g

uilt phase and the pe nalty phase of the trial. Separ ate 35 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 35 of 69the c ourt d en ie d hi s m oti on, h e co uld ha ve c ont en de d on

a ppe altha t t he c ourt h ad
erre d a nd t hat t he e rror am ount ed

to a de nia l of d

ue proc es s be ca

use it ren de red the
se nte nc ingproc ee din g fund am enta lly unfa ir. Ins te ad , he c hosene ith er c ourse . Bl an co a ppa rent ly be lie ve s th at

Mo ldo f’s c oll oquy

wit h th e tria l j udge on Ja nua ry 6, 1 995—

the da y thejudge im

pose d th e se nte nc e an d e ight m ont hs a fte r the jury m ad e its se nte nc ingrec om m en datio n—s om eh ow ob lig at ed thejud ge to int erve ne , a

nd t hat t he judge ’s fai lure to int erve ne ren de red the se co nd p en al ty pha se funda

m enta lly unfa ir. Th e subj ec t of t

he c oll oquy

wa s Dr. M au lio n’ s pe rform an ce be fore t

he jury . M old of sa id t

hat “ [Dr. Ma

uli on] wa s re al ly

not a force ful wi tne ss for t

he de fens e. ” But, i n ne arl y his ne xt s tate m ent, h e co nfes se d that hedid

not rai se theiss ue be fore t

he c ourt a ny e arl ie r be ca

use , “ qui te frank ly , I gue ss . . . i f that’ s m

y fau lt, the n it ’s m

y fau lt. One of th e probl em s is
. . . psy ch iatry

is as m uc h a n a rt a s a sc ie nc e to m e. ” Mo reov er, i t i s be y ond dis put e 4 8 that, e ve n a fte r thi s c oll oquy , Mo ldo f sti ll ne ve r as ke d th e tria l j udge to take any pa rtic ula r ac tio n.
motions for the guilt phase and the pe nalty phase ma y be filed. The motion or motions m ay

be ame nded without leave of cour t prior to the expiration of the ten day period, a nd in the discretion of the court, a t any other time bef

ore the motion is determined. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.590(b). See supra

part I .A.3. 4 8 36 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 36 of 69Eve n putti ng a sid e Bl an co ’s fai lure to ide nti fy any e rror to t he tria l c ourt, the Florid a Suprem e Co urt c ont inu ed tha t “ [t] he fac t t

hat M au lio n’ s te sti m ony

did not liv e up t o B la

nc o’ s e xpe ct at ion s c annot in any wa y bec at eg oriz ed

a s tri alc ourt error.” B la

nc o, 70 6 So. 2 d at 9. W e ag ree . Tho ugh Dr. Ma uli on did n ot 4 9
ove rwhe lm , nor n ec es sa

rily pe rsua de , th e jury

or tri aljud ge , Dr. M au lio n di d te sti fy fav orab ly

to Bl an co , opi nin g th at

ba se d on his in-pe rson e va luatio n of Bl an co , rev ie w of do cu

m ents p rovid ed

by oth er e xpe rts, a

nd s tud y of pre pa rat ion
m at eri al s, t

wo st at uto ry m iti gatin g c irc um sta

nc es we re p res ent. Tha

t M old of wa s 5 0 not ple as ed wit h Dr. M au lio n’ s pe rform an ce on c ross-e xam inatio n di d no t, sta ndi ng a lon e, ren de r Dr. Ma uli on i nc om

pe te nt. And , what’ s m ore, tha t M old of 5 1 ch ose to follo w up Dr. Ma uli on’ s favora

ble opi nio n te sti m ony

wit h Dr. B ukst el ’s le ss fa vora ble opi nio n—t

hat, c ont rary to Dr. Ma

uli on’ s vi ew , onl y

one -hal f of one

At least one othe r circ uit also agree s with this proposit ion. See Parke r v. Norris, 64 4 9 F.3d 1178, 1185 ( 8th Cir. 1995) (“[E]ven if the prosec utor ultimately cross e x amined [an expert] more e ffe ctively

than standby

counsel c ross examined [an ex pert], that does not establish that the trial court pr eviously

deprive d [the def

endant] of constitutionally -mandated psychiatric assistance .”). Although D r. Maulion’s preparation included a one- hour mee ting with B lanco a nd 5 0 focuse d mainly

on revie w of other

rec ords, we f

ound such per formanc e ade quate in Clisby
. Clisby v. J ones, 960 F .2d 925, 931, 932 (11th Cir. 1992) (e n banc) (notingthat the psychiatrist examined the defe ndant for mitig atingfac tors for only forty-five minutes to one hour). The State e ffe ctively

cross-e x amined Dr . Maulion on sever al key portions of his 5 1 testimony . For

example, Dr. Maulion could not identify Bla nco in the cour

troom, failed to re call the names of

witnesses, and c ould not remember the spec ific re sults of Dr. B ukstel’s testing tha t supported his diagnosis. 37

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 37 of 69sta

tut ory m iti gator a

ppl ie d—h ardl y

sup ports the c la im

tha t Dr. M au lio n wa s ine ffec tiv e. 5 2 In sum , B la

nc o’ s c la im , a lbe it im

pli ci tly , is tha

t t he tria l j udge , a ct ingon i ts own i nit iativ e, sho uld

have grante d B la

nc o a ne w pe na lty

pha se tria l on

the groun d that Dr. M au lio n’ s pe rform an ce be fore t he jury ren de red the jury

proc ee din g funda m enta lly unfa ir. Th ere is not

hin g in Uni te d State s Supre m e Co urt pre ce de nt that wo uld

sup port s uc h a

c la im suc h a s th e one Bl an co rai se s be fore u s. As a
res ult , th e tria l c ourt did n ot a ct c ont rary to cl ea rly e sta bli she d Fe de ralla

w, a nd i ts de ci sio n wa s no t ba se d on a n unrea sona

ble de te rm inatio n of t

he fac ts i n li ght

of th e
ev ide nc e pres ente d. Th e Dist ric t C ourt’ s de nia l of B la

nc o’ s Akec la im

is
ac co rding ly

a ffirm ed
. B. W e m ovenow to t

he c la im tha t M old of ren de red ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e in fai lin g a de quate ly

to inform Bl an co be fore t

he ne w pe na lty

pha seof hi s c as e be ga

n that t he State ha d offe red him

a li fe s ente nc e, wit

h pa role e lig ibi lit

y a fte r twe nty five y ea rs. Th e ne w pe na lty

pha se of B la

nc o’ s c as e be ga

n on Mo nda y , April18, 1994 . B la

nc o c la im s th at

on T hursd ay

or Frida y of th e prev iou s we ek , State Att orne y Satz inform ed

Mo ldo f that t

he State woul d a

ba ndon it s pu rsuit of a de at h

For a summary

of their testimony , see supr a par t I .A.2. 5 2 38 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 38 of 69se nte nc e if B la nc o a ba ndon ed his Ru le 3.85 0 c ha lle ngeto his c onvi ct ion s, wh ic h
wa s th en pe ndi ng i n th e Brow ard Co unt y Ci rcui t C ourt. If Bl an co a cc ep te d th e 5 3 offer, t he Ci rcui t C ourt w oul d se nte nc e him to priso n for li fe, s ubj ec t t o hi s rig ht t o ap ply for pa rolea fte r se rvingtwe nty -five y ea rs of th e se nte nc e. B la

nc o sa y s th at 5 4 Mol dof in form ed

him tha t Satzoffere d a

li fe s ente nc e, but

fai le d to e xpl ai n th at

he woul d po te nti al ly

be a ble to ge t ou

t a fte r twe nty -five y ea

rs. B la nc o a sse rts t

hat, ha d M old of tol d hi m

a bout thepos sib ili ty

tha t he c oul d be pa

role d, t he re i s a
rea sona ble proba bil ity tha t hewoul d ha

ve a cc ep te d th e offer. G ive n th es e fac ts, Bl an co c ont en ds t

ha t hem ad e out

a c la im of in effe ct ive a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns el unde r Stric kla

nd. See Stric kla

nd v . W as hin gto n, 46 6 U.S. 6 68, 6 87, 1 04 S. C t. 2052 , 206 4, 80 L. Ed . 2d 674 (1984) (ho ldi ng t hat, i n orde r to p reva il, a

pa rty m ust show(1) tha

t hi s c ouns el ’s pe rform an ce wa s de fic ie nt a nd (2) t hat t he de fic ie nt pe rform an ce pre

jud ic ed thede fens e). In e xam ini ng t

he rec ord, t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt fou nd n o e vid en ce of the offer B la

nc o ha s de sc ribe d. Th e Dist ric t C ourt, howe ve r, co nc lud ed tha t t he
rec ord wa s no t c le ar o n th e poi nt a nd t he refore sc he dul ed

an e vid entia

ry he ari ng t o
Moldof testified bef

ore the District Court that he went to see Bla nco at the B rowa

rd 5 3 County J ail the pre vious week: “ My best rec ollection, Your Honor , is Iwent to see Mr. B lanco, I want to say

right before the hea

ringbeg an. I

think it was either, you know, may be like the Thursday [April 14, 1994] or F riday [April 15, 1994] befor e.” Florida law would re quire the c ourt to impose such sentenc e. See supr a note 9. 5 4 39 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 39 of 69res olv e the iss ue . And , a s in dic at ed in pa rt I.C .2, s upra , ba se d on

thete sti m ony ad duc ed at t he he ari ng, t

he Dis tric t C ourt t

he n foun d th at

thea lle ge d offe r ha d be en m ad e; tha

t B la nc o, de spi te his te sti m ony to the c ont

rary , kne w th at

the offer 5 5
wa s for a li fe s ente nc e subj ec t t o pa role e lig ibi lit

y a fte r twe nty -five y ea

rs; a nd t hat Bl an co de lib erate ly

rej ec te d th e offer, o pti ng i nst ea d to pre se nt h is c as e to t he jury
. Bl an co c ha lle nge s th es e findi ngs of fac t a s c le arl y e rroneo us, a

rguin g th at the Dis tric t C ourt s houl d ha ve a cc ep te d hi s te sti m ony and g rant ed

the writ. W e are not pe rsua de d. To e xpl ai n why , we be gin wit h th e ev ents t

hat t ook pla ce be twe en the iss ua nc e of them an date in Bl an co v. Sin gle ta ry , 943 F.2d 1 477 (11th

Ci r. 1991 ), on M ay

29, 1992 , foll owin g th e Unit ed Sta te s Supre m e Co urt’ s de nia l of
ce rtiora ri rev ie w, and t

he im pa ne lm ent of t

he se nte nc ing -pha se jury

on April 18, 5 6 1994 . W e the n e xpl ai n why theDis tric t C ourt’ s fa ct

ua l fin din gs a

re n ot c le arl y
errone ous. 1.
a. The Ma y 29, 1992 , m an date req

uire d th at theret ria l of t he se nte nc ingpha se

L ike the District Court, we a lso conclude that we nee d not determine whether there 5 5 was a firm offe r bec ause theclaim fa ils on other grounds; we a ssume in this opi nion that an offe r was made . We also do not decide if the District Court corre ctly require d a fe dera l evidentiary hearing on whether

a plea offe r, in fac t, was made by the State. See supra

note 12. 5 6 40 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 40 of 69be gin

wit hin thi rty da y s. T o sa tis fy tha t re qui rem ent, t

he Ci rcui t C ourt s et

thec as e for tria l be fore a

jury on J une 22. On J

une12, the c ourt h el d a

sta tus c onfe renc e. Bl an co , who ha d be en

ret urne d to theBro ward C ount y Ja il for the ret

ria l, a ppe are d be fore t he c ourt. The c ourt i nform ed Bl an co tha

t t he se nte nc ingpha se of hi s c as e woul d be gin

on J une 22, an d a ske d hi m

if he wa nte d th e co urt t o a

ppoi nt c ouns el
. Bl an co sa id t

ha t hedid , a nd, a fte r a b rie f int erlude , th e co urt a ppoi nte d M old of. Be ca use Mo ldo f co uld

not pos sib ly be rea dy for tria l on

Jun e 22, a

nd b ec au se Bl an co c onse nte d to a

c ont inu an ce , th e co urt c ont inu ed thetria l, e ve ntu al ly
sc he dul ingit

to be gin on April 18, 1 994. B la

nc o re m ai ne d in

the Bro wa

rd C ount y Ja il al l t he whi le
. One of B la

nc o’ s c el l m at es at t

he ja il wa s Ed

ua rdo C hong , who ha d be en
se nte nc ed to a se ve nte en -y ea

r priso n te rm

for arm ed

kid na pin g. On Ma rch 3, 1993 , th e StateAtt orne y ’s offic e rec ei ve d a le tte r from

Ch ong, who wa s th en hous ed at t he South Florid a Re cepti on C ente r in Da de Co unt y . C hongwrote : Mr. B la nc o ha s c onfid ed

in m e of them

urde r he c om

m itt ed , a nd I woul d li ke to be of so m e as sis ta nc e in c ourt & te sti fy

a ga ins t Om ar. He c onfe sse d to m e that he did a ct ua lly c om m it the m urde r an d a lso whe re h e pla ce d th e m

urde r wea pon whic h he kil le d hi m . He a lso tol d m e . . . [t hat] he ha d a

c onve rsatio n wi th Robe rto Al onso tha t l as te d ab out forth-fivem inute s. An d th e nature of th is c onve rsatio n wa s ba sic al ly tha t M r. Alon so t es tifi es in [sic ] Mr. B la nc o’ s be ha lf a

nd giv e a fal se te sti m ony

[sic ], tha t Al onso ’s broth er wh ic h is de ad [sic ], did the a ct ua l ki lli ng wi th t

his oth er guy

tha t go t deporte d ba ck

to Cu ba , a nd i n re turn i f Bl an co win s th e ca se , he ha s promise d th em 41 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 41 of 69m one y from them ill ion s of d oll ars hepla ns t o ge t from

his sue [sic ] ag ai nst theState . Thi s fa lse wit

ne ss [s ic ] an d M r. Bl an co ke ep in tou ch throu gh l et

te r [sic ] that t

he y se nd t o B la

nc o wi fe, a s th e m

utu al ag ree m ent t o whi ch

the y have arrive d [si c] a lon g wi th s om e sto rie s to ba ck his fal sete sti m ony . If in anywa y I’m a ble to be som e as sis ta

nc e [sic ], ple as e giv e m e a res pons e at South Florid a Re cepti on C ente r. On M ay 7, 1 993, theState , a

nti cipatin g th at

Bl an co woul d c ont en d be fore the jury tha t so m eo ne e lse c om

m itt ed the Ry an m urde r, m ove d th e Ci rcui t C ourt i n limine to ba

r Bl an co from

doi ng t hat. In Bl an co ’s res pons e to t he m oti on fil ed

on Jul y 26, 1993 , Mo ldo f m ove d th e co urt to a llo w th e De fend ant t

he opp ortun ity

to rebut t he [antic ipate d State te sti m ony ] tha

t t he De fend ant c om

m itt ed thec rim e, . . . an d a s ground s th ere fore . . . a lle ge [d] : 1. Th at theDe fend ant OMAR BL ANC O, wa s c onvi ct ed of Murd er i n th e First D egree and B urgla ry whi le Arm ed

on J une 11, 1 982. 2. Th at theState of Flori da

is cu rrent ly pursu ingthe im

posi tio n of thede at

h pe na lty [.] 3. Th at theDe fend ant ha s lo ca

te d a wit ne ss, Ro be rto Al onso , who h as te sti fie d he wa s pre se nt i m m ed iate ly a fte r the kil lin g, an d th e De fend ant wa s no t on e of theind ivi dua ls i nvolve d in the kil lin g. Robe rto Al onso is thebroth er o f the pa rtic ipa nts in the kil lin g[.]

. . . . 10. That t he State m

ust prove an a ggravatin g c irc um sta nc e, be y ond an d to thee xc lus ion of e ve ry rea sona ble dou bt. 11. That t he De fend ant ha s a

n a bsolute right

to rebut t he
42 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 42 of 69te sti m ony put forth b y the State to int erj ec t a

rea sona ble dou bt. The Ci rcui t C ourt h ea

rd theState ’s m oti on i n li m ineon Augus t 10 , 199 3. At the c onc lus ion

of th e he ari ng, t

he c ourt ru le d from

thebe nc h th at

Florid a ca se la

w pe rm itt ed theState to pres ent e vid en ce of th e m urde r, “ so t

hat t he jury doe s no t have to m ak e an

a dvi sory se nte nc e in a

va cu um ,” a nd t hat B la nc o wou ld b e prec lud ed from int roduc ing“ ev ide nc e as to lin ge ring d oubt or res idu aldou

bt.” b. On Ja nua ry 12, 1994 , B la

nc o m ove d th e Ci rcui t C ourt p ursua nt t o R ule 3.85 0 for “ An Ev ide nti ary He ari ng o n Ne wly

Dis co ve red Evid en ce .” In th e 5 7
m oti on, M old of rep res ente d th at the “ne wly

dis co ve red ev ide nc e, whi ch c oul d no t have be en dis co ve red by

rea sona ble dil ige nc e at

the ti m e of thetria l, s ugge st[e d] that t he De fend ant wa s no t t

he ind ivi dua l t

hat wa s re spon sib le for the homic ide ”
an d th at his c onvi ction s sh oul d be va ca te d a nd a ne w tria l orde red. Mo ldo f repre se nte d th e follo wing : 3. Th at a fte r unde rtakin g th e repre se nta tio n of M r. Bl an co for rese nte nc ing , [Mo ldo f] wa s put i n c ont ac t wi th Robe rto Al onso a s a n ind ivi dua l wh o ha d pe rtine nt i nform at ion reg ardi ng t

he sho oti ng[.] 4. Th at upo n th e [Mol dof] ’s spe akingwit h Robe rto Al onso , whi le Mr. Al onso ha s be en

inc arc erate d [in] Co lli er C orrec tio na l Ins tit uti on, it wa s th e subs ta

nc e of Mr. A lon so’ s te sti m ony tha t hewa s pre se nt i n

This was the third motion for Rule 3.850 re lief B lanco submitted to the Circuit Court. 5 7 43 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 43 of 69the hom e of his broth er, Ray Alo nso, whe n Ray

Alo nso, Fide l Rom ero an d Enri que Gonz al ezret urne d from

theburgl ary

tha t re sul te d in

the homic ide of th e vic tim [.] 5. Th at throu gh d

ue dil ige nc e an d a ll oth er a ve nue s of d isc ove ry , the re wa s no m et

hod for the de fens e to h av e dis co ve red thi s e vid en ce at theti m e of theorigi na l t

ria l. M r. Bl an co c am e in c ont ac t wi th Ro be rto Al onso a fte r his inc arc eratio n for hi s c onvi ct ion for Mu rder in t he First De greewhi le in a fac ili ty whe re Robe rto Al onso wa s be inghe ld. At t

hat t im e, Ro be rto Al onso rec ogni ze d M r. Bl an co and dis cu sse d th e fac ts w ith

Mr. B la nc o in dic at ingtha

t he pos se sse d inform ation

tha t t en de d to ne gate thegui lt of Mr. B la nc o. 6. Th at Mr. B la nc o, a fte r be en

ret urne d to theBro ward C ount y Co urtho use for re-se nte nc ing , to ld t he und ers ign ed

thi s in form at ion , at whic h ti m e [Mol dof] loc at ed Ro be rto Al onso and we nt t o M r. Alon so to q ue sti on h im

wit h re ga rd to the se fac ts. Bo th t

he State and d efe nse we re p res ent at t

he ini tia l qu es tio nin g of Mr. Alon so, a nd [M old of] ne ve r spok e to M r. Alon so b efore ha nd. At t hat t im e, Mr. A lon so m ad e a sta

te m ent t hat hewa s in

pos se ssi on o f inform at ion tha t reve al ed tha t M r. Bl an co wa s no t t

he ind ivi dua l wh o c om

m itt ed the kil lin g of t

he vic tim [.] 7. Th at by rea son of thi s ne w in form at ion , th e De fend ant wo uld de sire to pres ent t

his inform at ion

to the jury

c onsi de ring t

he se nte nc e of theDe fend ant wh ere thi s ne wly dis co ve red ev ide nc e te nds to ne gate thegui lt of theDe fend ant. Follo wingthe se rec ita ls, Mol dof re que ste d th at the Ci rcui t C ourt re co nsi de r its Augu st 1 0, 19 93, rul ingba rring B la nc o from pre se nti ng t

he jury wit h th e lin ge ring d oubt

e vid en ce he proffere d in

Bl an co ’s res pons e to t

he Sta te ’s m oti on i n limine . M old of remind ed thec ourt t

hat i t ha d m ad e theruli ng wi tho ut t he be ne fit of an e vid entia

ry he ari ng. He the refore “ requ es t[e d] an e vid entia ry he ari ng t o

44 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 44 of 69de te rm ineif th e De fend ant wi ll be a llo we d to pre se nt a ny e vid en ce of hi s no ninv olv em ent i n th e ev ents whic h le d to the de at h” of Jo hn R

y an , i.e ., “ ne wly dis co ve red ev ide nc e, whi ch c oul d no t ha

ve be en dis co ve red by

rea sona ble dil ige nc e at

theti m e of the[1982 ] tria l su gge sti ng t hat t he De fend ant wa s no t t

he ind ivi dua l t

hat wa s re spon sib lefor the homic ide .” In sum , B la

nc o wa s pu

rsuin g tw o ob

je ctive s. Fi rst, h e wante d th e Ci rcui t Co urt t o va ca

te his m urde r an d a

rm ed burgl ary c onvi ction s a

nd t o gra nt a ne w tria l. Sec ond, a bse nt a ne w tria l, h e wa

nte d a n op portu nit y to es ta bli sh h is i nnoc en ce be fore t he jury in the se co nd p en al ty

pha se of th e ca se . On Fe brua

ry 25, 1994 , th e Ci rcui t C ourt h el d th e ev ide nti ary he ari ng B la

nc o requ es te d. M old of c al le d tw o wi tne sse s to e sta bli sh B la nc o’ s innoc en ce of th e Ry an m urde r, Ro be rto Al onso and C arm en Co ngora , th e wife of Alo nso’ s brot he r, Ra y Alo nso. C ongo ra t es tifi ed tha t, o n th e nig ht o f the Ry an m urde r, she wa s at hom e wit h R obe rto Al onso , who wa s vi siting , whe n Enri que Gonz al ezarrive d wi th he r husb an d, R ay . Gon za le z wa s we ari ng a pul lov er. It wa s c ove red wit h bl ood, so h e too k it

off. R ay Alo nso as ke d Gonza le z why he“ we nt a fte r the guy

wit h a gun. ” Gonz al ezrep lie d th at “ he did n’ t wa nt t o go a fte r [the vic tim ] but theguy
ca m e an d th e gun we nt o ff a l ot o f tim es .” Ro be rto Al onso te sti fie d th at Gonz al ez wa s a rm ed a nd “ha d a bun ch of

45 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 45 of 69blo od o n th e le ft si de of hi s sh irt. That’ s why he too k hi s c lot

he s off a nd m y broth er t ook it an d put i t i n [the ] ga rbag e[.] ” In a ddi tio n to thete sti m ony of th es e two wit

ne sse s, B la

nc o pre se nte d th e
co urt wi th a

sta te m ent from

his m oth er, Z en ai da

Bl an co , who wa s in

Cu ba . She wrote tha t sh e ha d sp oke n to a

wom an , Ma

ria De l C arm en

Gue rra, wh o sa id t

hat he r son, Jul io Gue rra, wa s in pris on wi th G onz al ez(in C uba) an d th at Gonz al ez
co nfes se d to Jul io t

hat hec om

m itt ed theRy an m urde r. B la

nc o th en pre se nte d le tte rs from

Ma ria De l C arm en

Gue rra a nd J uli o Gue rra. In his le tte r, Jul io Gue rra wrote tha t heha d he ard the c onfe ssi on d ire ctly from Gonz al ez . The Statevig orous ly

c ross-e xamine d C ongo ra a nd Robe rto Al onso . Satz 5 8 got Co ngora to ac know le dge tha

t i n th e sta

te m ent sh e ha d gi ve n th e State Att orne y ’s offic e in April 1982 , shefai le d to m entio n th e nig ht-of-th e-m urde r
ev ent sh e de sc ribe d on

dire ct e xam inatio n. Satza lso e sta bli she d in co nsi ste nc ie s be twe en he r te sti m ony

on d ire ct e xam inatio n a

nd s worn s ta

te m ents s he ha d gi ve n the Sta te Att orne y ’s offic e in Februa ry 199 3 a nd m ad e in a

Jul y 199 3 deposi tio n take n by Mo ldo f. Theinc onsi ste nc ie s in clude d, for e xa m ple : (1) on

dire ct
ex aminatio n, sh e sa id t

ha t Go nz al ez ’s pul lov er wa s c ove red in b loo d, wh ilein

On cr oss-examination, Congora admitted that she had me ntal health issues and w as 5 8 easily confuse d.
46 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 46 of 69ea

rlie r state m ents C ongo ra h ad sa id t hat bo th Fi de l Rom ero an d Enri queGonz al ez arriv ed at he r hous e wit

h c lot hin g c ove red in b loo d; a

nd (2) o n di rec t e xam inatio n, she de nie d e ve r se ei ng B la nc o wi th b loo d on

his c lot hin g, wh ere as in ea

rlie r sta te m ents s he sa id t

hat sh e ha d se en

Bl an co wit

h bl ood on h is c lot

hin g on two
oc ca sio ns. Sim ila

rly , c ross-e xa

m inatio n re ve al ed

an in co nsi ste nc y

be twe en Co ngora ’s te sti m ony

and Al onso ’s te sti m ony . On dire ct e xa m inatio n a

nd i n he r
ea rlie r sworn s tate m ents, Co ngora sa id t hat at t he ti m e of them

urde r she wa s li vin g wit h he r husb an d, R ay , a

nd t hreeunn am ed

pe opl e, and t

hat Robe rto Al onso jus t ha ppe ne d to be vis iti ng h er wh en Gonz al ezand h er h

usba nd a rrive d th e nig ht o f the Ry an m urde r. R obe rto t es tifi ed , on dire ct e xam inatio n, t

hat at t he ti m e of the
m urde r, he wa s no t vi sit ingCo ngora ; hewa s li vin g wi th h er a nd h er h usba nd be ca use he ha d ju st g ott en

out of jail an d ne ed ed

a pla ce to sta

y . 5 9 Afte r Mol dof c om

ple te d hi s pre se ntatio n, Satzc al le d th ree wit ne sse s to the sta nd, E dua rdo C hong , C arl os R

uiz , a nd J orge Gonz al ez . Allthre e ha d be en 6 0 inc arc erate d wi th B la

nc o. C hongrep ea

te d wha t he ha d writ

te n in his Ma rch 3, 1993 le tte r to t

he StateAtt orne y

—t hat B la nc o a dm itt ed

to co m m itt ingthe m

urde r

On cr oss-examination, Alonso admitt ed that he ha d been c onvicted of murde r, ar son, 5 9 arme d burg lary , and grand the ft. The State a lso presente d a summary of the e vidence on which the jury found B lanco 6 0 guilty in 1982 in a memorandum. 47 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 47 of 69an d wa s invol ve d wi th fa bric atingthesto ry

tha t Go nz al ezwa s th e rea l ki lle r. Ch ong ad m itt ed on c ross-e xam inatio n th at he ha d three or four pri or c onvi ct ion s, that hewa s c urrent ly

inc arc erate d, t

hat he ha d re ac he d out t o th e State , a nd t hat he
m ight be ne fit from

his te sti m ony

a ga ins t B la

nc o. R uizte sti fie d th at

whi leBl an co at first cl ai m ed

he wa s innoc ent, B la

nc o la te r ad m itt ed tha t he wa s pre se nt d

uring the robbe ry

at t he Ve zo s’ s re sid en ce and t hat “ thi ngs we nt b ad .” R uizsa id t hat Bl an co did

not a dm it, tho ugh, tha

t he wa s th e onewho shot thevic tim . R

uiza lso te sti fie d th at

he wa s pre se nt whe n B la nc o a ske d Jo rge Gonz al ez to giv e fal se te sti m ony to dis cre dit

Ch ong. Gon za le z co nfirm ed tha t B la nc o a ske d hi m

to giv e fal se te sti m ony

in orde r to d isc redi t C hong . At thee nd o f the State ’s pre se ntatio n, Satz argu ed

tha t B la nc o’ s ne wly

dis co ve red ev ide nc e wa s in suffic ie nt t o c rea te any doub t a bout Bl an co ’s gui lt an d di d no t wa rrant a ne w tria l. The Ci rcui t C ourt re se rved ruli ng o n B la

nc o’ s m oti on u

nti l Ap ril 2 8, 19 94, whil e the se co nd p en al ty

pha se be fore t

he jury wa s un de rway . In a

n orde r file d that da y , th e co urt de nie d th e m oti on, fi ndi ng t he te sti m ony

of C ongo ra a

nd Al onso not c redible and t ota lly

refut ed by thete sti m ony

and p hy sic ale vid en ce int roduc ed at tria l i n 19 82. In sho rt, if a fforded a ne w tria l, B la

nc o wou ld b e found gui lty a s be fore. 6 1

In rea chingits decision, the court found that “the letter s from Cuba statingthat 6 1 Enrique Gonzalez conf

essed to the murde r of John Ryan would not be a dmissibl e in a r etrial of

48 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 48 of 69c.

The Dis tric t C ourt a lso ha d be fore i t fa ct s th at furthe r illust

rat ed Bl an co ’s stron g be lie f in h is o wn i nnoc en ce from the Ru le 3.85 0 m oti on h e pres ente d to the Ci rcui t C ourt o n Se pte m

be r 16, 1 999, and from

sta te m ents h e m ad e in v ari ous brie fs he file d be fore t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt. W e sta rt wit h th e fac ts s ta

te d in the Ru le 3.85 0 m oti on B la nc o fil ed on Sept em be r 16, 1 999. The Sta

te ’s offer o f a l ife se nte nc e wit h pa role e lig ibi lit

y ap pe ars in two of thec la im s B la nc o’ s m oti on p res ente d, C la im s XV a nd XV I. Cl ai m XV, Vi ola

tio n of t he Sixt h Am en dm ent, a lle ge s th e follo wing : 120. Afte r co m

ple tin g it s e xte nsi ve inv es tig at ion s a nd p repa rat ion s for the se co nd p en al ty

pha se and j ust

pre ce din g th e co m

m en ce m ent of that ph as e of tria l, t

he sta te offere d a

li fe s ente nc e ple a ba

rgai n. Co unse l be gge d th e de fend ant t o a cc ep t t he offer [a lth ough

he ne ve r co m m uni ca te d th at it woul d be m an datory

li fe a s op pose d to poss ibi lit y of pa role a fte r 25 y ea

rs] but OMA R B LANC O refus ed m ai nta ini ng a s he ha d te sti fie d at [hi s 19 82] tria l t hat hedid not kil l JOHN R YAN. 121. Thede fend ant c hoseto as se rt hi s c onst itutio na l rig ht t o a jury rec om m en datio n of pe na lty

and t he c as e proc ee de d to thejury
. Follo wingtha

t se co nd p en al ty

pha se , th e jury

rec om m en de d de at

h wit h a gre at er m argi n th an

theorigi na l j ury

tha t he ard the gui lt pha se

Mr. B lanco.” Bla

nco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (F la. 1997). The court found, alternatively , that assuming theletters’ a dmissibi lity , “ther e is no probability that [the re trial] would result in an ac quittal . . . , consideringall of the testimony at the trial a

nd the testimony

of Thalia Ve zos at the 3.850 hearingthat Enrique Gonzalez . . . was not the pe rson who committed the crime.” I d. 49

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 49 of 69tria l. T he n th e sta te sou ght thede at h pe na lty at se nte nc ingwit

h gre at vig or. Th e fac ts a s th ey

sto od b efore the jury ’s rec om m en datio n we re the sa m e as thefac ts p rove n at t he tria l. B oth

sid es ha d e ve ry ind ic at ion of what proo f woul d be forthc om ingat t he se co nd p en al ty pha se proc ee din g. Th ere is no fa ir a nd re as one d e xpl an at ion

for the ch an ge in the sta

te ’s pos iti on o n th e de at

h pe na lty be ingina ppropri at e in t his c as e from

jus t be fore a

nd j ust foll owin g th e ve rdic t ot

he r tha n vin dic tiv en es s a ga ins t t

he de fend ant for a sse rtinghis c onst itutio na l right to tria l. 122. In si m ila

r fash ion , th e tria l c ourt w as full y inform ed by thesta te (upon the kno wn fa ct s a

nd e vid en ce whi ch

woul d be prove d a

t t he se co nd p en al ty

pha se if th e pa

rtie s proc ee de d) tha

t t he a ppropri at e pe na lty for co nvi ction

of first -deg ree m

urde r in t his pa rtic ula r ca se woul d be a

li fe s ente nc e an d no t t

he de at h pe na lty . Thetria l c ourt proc ee de d to se nte nc e de fend ant t o de at h. Th ere is no fa ir a

nd rea sone d e xpl an at ion

for the c ha

nge in the tria l c ourt’ s po sit ion on t he de at h pe na lty be ingina ppropri at e in t

his c as e from

jus t be fore t

he se co nd p en al ty

pha se and t

he n be co minga

ppropri at e jus t fol lowi ng the ve rdic t, o the r tha

n vi ndi ct ive ne ss a ga ins t t

he de fend ant for as se rtinghis c onst itutio na l rig ht t o tri al
. 123. Thee ffec t of t

he a ction s by

thesta te and t he tria l c ourt, take n tog et he r, wa s to pla ce a

c hil lin g e ffec t on

de fend ants a sse rtingthe ir funda m enta l rig ht t o ju

ry tria l a nd t o pu nis h th ose de fend ants who ch ose to as se rt th ei r right

to tria l. (Em pha sis a dde d). Cl ai m XVI, Ine ffec tiv e Assi sta

nc e of C ouns el , a lle ge s th e follo wing : 124. Afte r co m

ple tin g it s e xte nsi ve inv es tig at ion s a nd p repa rat ion s for the se co nd p en al ty

pha se and j ust

pre ce din g th e co m

m en ce m ent of that ph as e of tria l, t

he sta te offere d a

li fe s ente nc e ple a ba

rgai n. 125. Theoffer o f a l ife se nte nc e in a c ha rge co m m itt ed und er t he la w as it sto od i n 19 82 wo uld

m ea n a li fe-se nte nc e wit

h th e poss ibi lit

y of pa role a fte r 25 y ea

rs. It w oul d furth er h av e take n th e de fend ant off

50 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 50 of 69de at

h row a nd p la ce d hi m

[in] ge ne ralpop ulatio n for th e rem ai nde r the ret o [i.e ., no m an datory orange uni form

de pic tin g de at

h se nte nc e; no m an datory

ha nd a nd foo t re stra int s, e tc .]
. 126. De fend ant do es not

und ers ta nd t he Am eri ca

n ju dic ia l sy ste m

and in C uba a li fe s ente nc e m ea

ns a pe rson w illdie in priso n wi th n o ch an ce to be pa

role d e ve r[.] 127. De fend ant wa s sh oc ke d to le arn tha t hi s atto rney s di d no t prope rly c om m uni ca te thea ct ua l offe r to h im

in 1994 . Hesim

ply ha d no u nde rsta ndi ng o f the offer t

hat wa s m ad e. He nc e he c oul d no t know ing ly

and u nde rsta nda bly rej ec t i t. H ad

he kno wn t

hat hec oul d have pos sib ly

be en pa role d a fte r 25 y ea

rs a nd d ep orte d ba ck

to Cu ba he ve ry we ll m ay have e xpl ored

tha t op portu nit y for suc h a

res olutio n of his li tig at ion
. 128. C ouns elha d th e dut y to co m m uni ca te a de quate ly

to the ir c lie nt any ple a offers t

hat we re re nde red in h is l iti ga tio n. B oth

c ouns el fai le d to e ffec tiv el y

c om m uni ca te theoffer i n te rm s th at

he wa s a ble to u nde rsta nd a nd m ak e a rea sone d de ci sio n up on. The fai lure to co m m uni ca te theoffers co nst itute s in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e an d th e de fend ant sh oul d no t beforce d to fac e the de at h pe na lty unl es s a nd unt il he c onsi de rs th e offer of ‘ life ’ an d c an m ak e an int el lig ent de ci sio n on

sa id o ffer. Int erpre te rs m ust be m ad e av ai la

ble to thi s de fend ant so tha

t hec an full y c onsi de r the offer. (Em pha sis a dde d). Re ad tog et he r, the se c la im s a lle ge tha t be fore t he jury wa s im pa ne le d to be gin these co nd p en al ty

pha se of B la

nc o’ s tri al(1) bot

h pa rtie s we re a

wa re o f the
ev ide nc e that wo uld

be put to the jury ; (2) t

he e vid en ce woul d e sta

bli sh t he sa m e fac ts e sta bli she d at t

he 198 2 tri al ; (3) t

he State ’s pos iti on wa s th at , ba se d on tho se fac ts, a de at

h se nte nc e woul d be “ ina

ppropri at e” ; (4) t

he tria l j udgeha d be en

full y

51 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 51 of 69inform ed

of su ch fac ts a nd, l ike theState , a gree d th at a de at h se nte nc e woul d be ina ppropri at e; (5) Bl an co rej ec te d th e State ’s offer o f a l ife se nte nc e ple a ba rgai n
an d c hoseto go t o tri albe ca use , a s he te sti fie d at hi s 19 82 t ria l, h e did

not kil l Jo hn Ry an ; (6) t

he State and t

ria l j udge c ha

nge d th ei r posi tio ns a s to thea ppropri at en es s of a de at h se nte nc e; and (7) t

he State urge d th e jud ge to im posea de at h se nte nc e
an d th e judge im

pose d it to puni sh B la

nc o for e xe rci sin g hi s c onst itutio na l rig ht t o take his c as e to t

he jury
. In a ddi tio n to the se prote sta tio ns o f inno ce nc e, therec ord be fore t he Dis tric t Co urt c ont ai ne d a ddi tio na l su pport for Bl an co ’s pos iti on t

hat he wa s a ct

ua lly inn oc ent, i nc lud ingsta

te m ents m ad e in b oth

(1) the brie f Bl an co sub m itt ed to the Florid a Suprem e Co urt i n B la nc o v. State , 702 So. 2d

125 0 (Fla . 199 7), hi s a

ppe al from the Ci rcui t C ourt’ s de nia l of h is J an ua ry 6, 1 994, Ru le 3.85 0 m oti on; and 6 2 (2) the brie f he sub mitt ed to the Florid a Suprem e Co urt i n a ppe al ingthe de at

h
se nte nc e he rec ei ve d on

ret ria l, i n B la

nc o v. State , 706 So. 2d

7 (Fla . 199 7). 6 3

In its opini on aff

irming theCircuit Court’s denial of Rule 3.850 re lief, the Supreme 6 2 Court cited B lanco’ s claim of innoce nce w ith these words: “D uringthe pende ncy of the rese ntencingproce eding , Bla nco filed [a] rule 3.850 motion, seekingto present ne wly discovere d evidenc e. The trial court he ld an evidentiar y hearing on F ebrua

ry 24, 1994, and B lanco advanc ed the theor

y that another

man, Enrique G onzalez, was the killer.” B lanco v. State, 702 So. 2d at 1251. Bla nco’s brief, in arguing that the death se ntence was not wa rra nted, af fix ed the 6 3 followingfootnote to his statement that the application of the death sentence is reser ved for the “most ag gravated” a

nd “most indefensible of

crimes.” Brief for

Appellant at 56, B lanco v. State, 706 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1997) (No. 85118) ( citations omitt ed). The footnote is to the eff ect that B lanco 52 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 52 of 692.

In fine , we c onc lud e that B la nc o fa ile d to e sta

bli sh e ith er Stri ck la

nd p rong
an d is the refore not

e nti tle d to rel ie f. B la

nc o’ s c ouns elwa s no t i ne ffec tiv e in t he
co nve y an ce of th e ple a offer be ca use therec ord is rep le te wit h e vid en ce tha

t Bl an co und ers too d th at

a li fe s ente nc e m ea

nt l ife wit h a n op portu nit y to ge t out of ja il (parol e el igibil ity

a fte r twe nty -five y ea

rs) an d, t hus, tha t B la nc o kn ewwhat t

he Statea lle ge dly

offere d in

theple a de al . Se e Ch an dle r v. Uni te d State s, 21 8 F.3d 1305 , 131 3, 13 15 (11 th C ir. 20 00) (e n ba nc ) (hold ingtha

t t he ine ffec tiv en es s prong of Stric kla

nd i s a hig h ba r, requ iringa

sho wingtha

t “no c om pe te nt c ouns el woul d ha ve ta ke n [thea ct ion

in que sti on] ”). For ex am ple , in a he ari ng b eforethe tria l c ourt o n August

10, 1993 —we ll be fore t

he date of th e al le ge d pl ea offer— the follo wingwa s said a

t a pre -rese nte nc inghe ari ng i n th e pres en ce of bot h M ike Bu ch , a Spanis h inte rpret er from

the Co urt Ad

m ini strator’ s Offic e, and B la nc o: [MR . MO LDOF: Arguin g th at thetria l c ourt s houl d gra nt B la nc o’ s
chose to take his case to the jur y , wher e, pre sumably , he could de monstrate his innocenc e. As in another c ase r educe d on proportionality grounds, the pre -pena lty

phase life plea of fer if Omar B lanco would withdra w his newly

discovere d evidenc e cla im, shows that “the state itself orig inally conclude d that the crime did not warra nt imposit ion of the dea

th penalty and agree d to a plea ba

rg ain of life imprisonment until [ the def

endant] himself insist ed other wise.” Ela

m v. State, 636 So. 2d 1312, 1315 (F la. 1994). Brief for Appellant at 56, f

n. 8, Bla nco v. State, 706 So. 2d 7 (F la. 1997) (N o. 85118) (c itations omitted). 53

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 53 of 69m oti on i n li m ine to prev ent t he State from

be inga ble to sugg es t t o th e jury tha t B la nc o m ight bepa

role d so m e da

y ]. MR . SATZ: My

res pons e is, Your Ho nor, t ha t y ou’ re g oin g to ins truc t the m tha t t he re’ s tw o pe na lti es the y

c an c onsi de r, life wit

h tw enty -five y ea rs be fore h e is e lig ibl e for pa role is oneof th em . Tha

t’ s th e la w, so I ca n a rguetha t. T he Co urt’ s go ingto te ll the m the y ’re e lig ibl e for pa role a fte r twe nty -five y ea rs.

. . . . MR . MO LDOF: So, I rea d [thec as e la w to sa y tha t] at no ti m e ca

n [the State ] argu e to t

he jury tha t t he pos sib ili ty

he ’s goi ng t o ge t pa role som ed ay

is the rea son y ou s houl d pu t hi m in the de at

h c ha ir. Aga in, the log ic ha s to bein ev ery de at h pe na lty c as e de at h is the right se nte nc e, theonly

oth er o ne the y

c an giv e y ou i s li fe wi th a

pa role date . TheState woul d th en be a ble to argu e in e ve ry

c as e we autom at ic al ly

sho uld se nte nc e him

to de at h be ca use thea lte rnat ive is [Bl an co ] is g oin g to be a

bleto ge t out on e da

y [.] You c an ’t m ak e that a

rgum ent wh ere it ’s a

—y ou’ re u sin g it

to ge t ba ck to whe re e ve ry

c as e de se rves the de at

h pe na lty be ca use tha t woul d be thec as e. If y ou l ook at theoth er p en al ty , he ’s goi ng t o ha ve to b e pa role d on e da

y . MR . SATZ: I’ m

not goi ng t o a

rguese nte nc e thi s pe rson t o de at h be ca use he wil l bepa

role d. Th ere ’s a

bigdiffe renc e. The re’ s tw o pe na lti es y ou c an

c onsi de r, de at

h or l ife in priso n for tw enty -five y ea rs be fore e lig ibl e for pa

role
. I’m not goi ng t o sa

y e le ct rocutethi s m an

be ca use hec an

be pa role d so m e da

y . (Em pha sis a dde d). As i ndi ca te d in thehe ari ng q

uot ed a bove , B la nc o wa s pre se nt, al ong wit h a transl at or, whe n Satzand M old of dis cu sse d th at the re we re t

wo pe na lti es pos sib le : de at h or l ife wit

h pa role a fte r twe nty -five y ea rs. If th e de at

h pe na lty wa s no t
54 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 54 of 69im

pose d, M old of de sc ribe d th e life se nte nc e “ al te rnative ” to m ea n th at “ [Bl an co ] is goi ng t o be a

bleto ge t out on e da

y .” Thu s, t

he rec ord m ak es c le ar t

hat B la nc o ha d he ard that t

he onl y oth er o pti on a

va ila ble m ea nt t hat hec oul d ge t out of p rison
som ed ay ; B la

nc o m ay or m ay not have und ers too d th e te rm “pa role ” but he
ce rta inl y ha d be en tol d th at thenon -dea

th o pti on m ea

nt h e co uld

pot entially

ge t out of pris on a fte r twe nty -five y ea rs. B ec au se Bl an co a dm itt ed he und ers too d so m e
co m ple x le ga l t erm s; d id n ot q ue sti on M old of a

bout theoffer; e xpre sse d ot

he r le git im at e rea sons for rej ec tin g th e offer; ha d a cc es s to an inte rpret er b efore
res ente nc ing ; a

nd, a s in dic at ed , ha d he ard the non -dea th p en al ty opt ion at so m e poi nt d uringthepre vio us t

we lve y ea rs, in cludi ng t

he te rm “pa role ,” tra nsl at ed to
m ea n th at he c oul d ge t out of j ai l, t

he Dis tric t C ourt’ s fin din gs t hat B la nc o suffic ie ntl y

und ers too d th e ple a offer we re n ot c le arl y e rroneo us. Sim ila

rly , th e Dist ric t C ourt d id n ot e rr in re ac hin g it s c onc lus ion tha t M old of’ s pe rform an ce wa s not de fic ie nt i n hi s c onve y an ce of th e ple a offer. In a ddi tio n to fai lin g to de m onst rat e de fic ie nt p erform an ce on M old of’ s pa rt, Bl an co fai le d to sho w pre judic e. See Stric kla

nd, 4 66 U. S. at

687 , 104 S. C t. at 2064 . Ac cepta

nc e of theState ’s li fe s ente nc e offer wo uld have req uire d B la nc o to ab an don his pos iti on t

hat En rique Gonz al ezc om

m itt ed them urde r an d a dm it that he , in ste ad , wa s th e cu lprit . TheDis tric t C ourt fo und that B la nc o di d no t wa

nt t o

55 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 55 of 69ad

m it to t he kil lin g be ca

use heste ad fas tly

be lie ve d th at

he wa s innoc ent a

nd t hat Enriq ue Gonz al es a ct

ua lly c om m itt ed them urde r. The c ourt w as a

ware t hat Bl an co c onsi ste ntl y

c la im ed tha t he wa s innoc ent of t

he c rim e, a s is e vid en ce d by the fac t t hat heprote ste d hi s innoc en ce durin g hi s 19 82 t ria l; in h is J

uly 26, 1993 , res pons e to t

he State ’s m oti on i n li m ine ; at t he he ari ng t

he c ourt h el d on

tha t
m oti on o n August

10, 1993 ; i n pros ec uti ng t he Ru le 3.85 0 m oti on h e file d on Ja nua ry 12, 1994 ; i n th e Ru le 3.85 0 m oti on h e file d on Sep te m be r 16, 1 999; in brie fs he sub m itt ed

to theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt; in t he Dis tric t C ourt; and i n th is
co urt. T he Dis tric t C ourt d id n ot c le arl y e rr in fin din g th at

Bl an co ’s be lie f in h is inn oc en cem oti vate d hi s re je ct ion of th e offer a

nd, l ike wise , th e Dist

ric t C ourt
co rrec tly de te rm ine d th at

Bl an co c oul d no t sh ow pre judic e as a

res ult of th e rej ec tio n on

thi s ba sis
. In sum , gi ve n th e rec ord be fore t he Dis tric t C ourt, we rej ec t B la nc o’ s Stric kla nd c la im
. C. Bl an co ’s fina l c la im , ba se d on the Supre m e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Bra dy v. Ma ry la nd, 3 73 U. S. 83, 8 3 S. C t. 1 194, 10 L . Ed. 2d 2 15 (19 63), is that i n th e 6 4

Bla nco asse rts this claim under the F ifth, Six th, Eighth a nd Four teenth Amendme nts to 6 4 the United States Constitut ion. In a criminal prosecution under state law, the claim lies under the Due Proc ess Clause of the Four teenth Amendme nt. Bra dy , 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct . at 1196–97. 56

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 56 of 69tim e pe riod i m m ed ia te ly pre ce din g hi s re se nte nc ing(1992 to 1994 ), the State wit hhe ld m at eri al , e xc ulp at ory e vid en ce rel at ingto his Ma rch 14, 1 984,
co nvi ction s for th e arm ed robbe ry and a rm ed burgl ary of a n Em era ld H ill s
res ide nc e on De ce m

be r 29, 1 981, and t

he reby de nie d hi m

dueproc es s of l awin the
se co nd p en al ty

pha se of hi s c as e. A B rady c la im arise s whe n th e prose cutors fai l to d isc los e ev ide nc e m at eri alto the prose cu tio n, e ve n whe n “ the re h as be en no requ es t by

thea cc use d.” Stric kle r v. Gre en e, 527 U.S. 26 3, 28 0, 11 9 S. C t. 1 936, 1948 , 144 L. Ed . 2d 286 (1999) (c iti ng Un ite d State s v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 107 , 96 S. C t. 2 392, 239 9, 49 L. Ed . 2d 342 (1976). To e sta bli sh a Bra dy vio latio n, a de fend ant m

ust sho w threee le m ents: (1) tha t t he e vid en ce at i ssu e is fa

vora ble to the a cc use d; (2) t

hat t he State sup pres se d th e ev ide nc e, e ith er wi llful ly or ina dve rte ntl y ; a

nd (3) t hat t he e vid en ce is m at eri alto the gui lt or pun ishm ent of t he de fend ant su ch

tha t t he de fend ant su ffere d pre jud ic e as a

res ult . Se e Stric kle r, 527 U.S. at 28 1–82 , 119 S. C t. at 19 48. Bl an co rai se d th is c la im

for the first tim e in h is fo urth R ule 3.85 0 m oti on, the a m en de d ve rsion

of whi ch wa s fil ed on M ay , 29, 200 1. Th e Ci rcui t C ourt rej ec te d th is c la im , rea soni ng t ha t no inform at ion

wa s wi thh el d a

nd t hat, e ve n if i t
wa s no t a ffirm at ive ly

dis cl ose d, B la

nc o ha d e qua l a cc es s to theinform at ion
co nta ine d in

c ourt re co rds. T he tria l c ourt a lso inc orporate d from the State ’s brie f

57 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 57 of 69ad dit ion alrea soni ng t hat t he c la im wa s proc ed

ural ly ba rred i f Bl an co wa s at te m pti ng t o c ha lle nge theva lid ity of th e Ma

rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ct ion s. On ap pe al , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt a ffirm ed , a ddre ssi ng t he c la im a s if i t ch al le nge d on ly

theva lid ity

of th ose c onvi ct ion s a

nd t he refore findi ng i t t o be proc ed ural ly ba rred. Bl an co v. Sta

te , 963 So. 2d

173 , 178 (Fla. 200 7) (statin g th at the c la im “ that t he State unl aw fully

proc ured thea bse nc e of Enriq

ue Gonz al ezand Fide l Rom ero, whom

Bl an co c la im s a

re t he a ct ua l m urde rers,” c oul d ha

ve be en brought i n prio r Ru le 3.85 0 proc ee din g). Th e Dist ric t C ourt, on h ab ea s re vie w, de cl are d th e cl ai m

“ se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve ” an d di sm iss ed it be ca use Bl an co ha d no t obt ai ne d a

uth oriz at ion

to file it pursu ant t o 28 U.S.C . § 2 244(b)(3)(A). As w e 6 5
expla in, the c la im

is ne ith er s uc ce ssi ve nor pro ce dura lly de faul te d; w e the refore
co nsi de r it o n th e m eri ts. 1. This is not

a se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve pe tit ion giv en theSupre m e Co urt’ s re ce nt hol din g in

Ma gwoo d v. Patte rson, — U. S. —, 1 30 S. C t. 2 788, 177 L. Ed . 2d 592 (2010). In M ag wood , a s in Bl an co ’s c as e, a

writ of ha

be as c orpus wa s is sue d pursu ant t o 28 U.S.C . § 2 254 va ca tin g th e pe tit ion er’ s de at

h se nte nc e. Id. at — , 130 S. Ct . at 27 91. A ne w se nte nc inghe ari ng wa s he ld, an d th e pe tit ion er wa s
See supra

note 42. 6 5 58 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 58 of 69ag ai n se nte nc ed to de at h. Id. He a

ppe al ed thene w se nte nc e unde r § 225 4, a rguin g that t he c onvi ct ion

wa s im prope rly ba se d on an a ggra vatin g fa ct or, e ve n th ough thi s fa ct or ha d be en

rel ie d up on t o su

pport his origi na l se nte nc e an d th e de fend ant ha d no t ra ise d th is a

rgum ent i n hi s § 2 254 at

ta ck on h is o rigin alse nte nc e. Id. at 6 6 —, 1 30 S. C t. a

t 27 92, 2 794. The Uni te d State s Di stri ct Co urt for t

he Mi ddl e Dist ric t of Al ab am a rej ec te d th e State ’s argum ent t hat t he pe tit ion

wa s su cc es siv e
an d is sue d th e writ, the reby va ca tin g th e pe tition er’ s se nte nc e. Id. at — , 130 S. C t. at 279 4–95 . W e reve rse d. M ag wood v. C ull ive r, 555 F.3d 96 8, 97 6 (11t h C ir. 2009 ). W e he ld t

ha t, b ec au se the pe tition er c oul d ha ve inc lud ed

the argum ent at iss ue in his § 22 54 a

tta ck on h is fi rst d ea

th s ente nc e, he wa s pre clude d by 28 U.S.C . § 2 244(b) from

a sse rtingit

in his § 22 54 atta ck

on h is s ec ond de at

h
se nte nc e. Id. T he Supre m e Co urt re ve rse d. M ag wood , — U.S. at — , 130 S. C t.

6 7
The a g grava

ting f actor in Magwood v. Patterson wa s that the defe ndant murder ed a 6 6 sheriff while on duty

or bec ause of

some offic ial act pe rfor

med by the sherif

f. See Ma gwood v. Patterson, — U.S. —, 130 S. Ct . 2788, 177 L . Ed. 2d 592 (2010) ( citing A labama Code § 13–11–2(a) (5) in support of its conc lusion that, while there wa s no statutory ag gravating circ umstance a

pplicable, prior Alabama ca se law a llowed the cour t to find a sufficie nt ag grava ting f actor to support the death pe nalty when the de fenda

nt committed the crime of “murde r of a

ny . . . sheriff

. . . while . . . on duty

or bec ause of

some offic ial or job-re lated ac t.”). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) states, in pertinent pa rt: 6 7 (b)( 1) A c laim presente d in a sec ond or succ essive habe as cor pus application under se ction 2254 that was pre sented in a prior applica tion shall be dismis sed. (2) A c laim presente d in a sec ond or succ essive habe as cor pus application under section 2254 that wa s not presente d in a prior a pplication shall be dismissed unless - (A) the applicant shows that the c laim relies on a ne w rule of 59 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 59 of 69at

280 3. It he ld t

hat t he first § 22 54 a

ppl ic at ion the pe tit ion er fil ed

c ha lle ngi ng h is
ne w se nte nc e wa s no t a

“ se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve ” pe tit ion ba rred b y 28 U .S.C. § 2244 (b). Id. Th is w as so e ve n th ough thepe tition er c oul d ha

ve pre se nte d th e prec ise argum ent hewa s us ingto at ta ck his ne w se nte nc e in h is fi rst § 225 4 pe tit ion . Id. at — , 130 S. C t. at 27 92, 2 801. As t he Co urt e xpl ai ne d, This is Ma gwoo d’ s first a ppl ic at ion c ha lle ngi ng t

hat i nte rven ing jud gm ent. T he e rrors he a lle ge s a re n ew . It i s ob vio us t o us—a nd t he State doe s no t di sput e—

tha t hi s c la im

of in effe ct ive a ssi sta

nc e at res ente nc ingturns upo n ne w e rrors. B ut, ac co rdingto the State , hi s [cl ai m ] doe s no t, b ec au se the sta te c ourt m ad e the sa

m e m ist ak e be fore. W e dis ag ree . An error m ad e a se co nd t im e is s til l a ne w e rror. That i s e spe ci al ly

c le ar h ere , whe re t

he sta tec ourt c ondu ct ed

a full res ente nc inga

nd re vie we d th e ag grav at inge vid en ce a fresh
. Id. at — , 130 S. C t. at 28 01 (e m pha sis in origi na l). This de sc ribe s th e sit

uatio n we fac e he re. The fac tua l pre dic at e for Bl an co ’s Bra dy c la im wa s a va ila ble whe n he file d th e § 22 54 p et iti on atta ckinghis first de at h se nte nc e. B ut w ith

res pe ct to the jud gm ent be fore u s, t he “ int erve nin g jud gm ent,” theBra dy

c la im is ne w. Th e Dist

ric t C ourt t

he refore e rred i n dis m iss ingthec la im

a s se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve .

constitutional law, made re troac tive to case s on collateral reviewby the Supreme Court, that wa s previously unavailable ; or (B ) (i) the f

actua l predica

te for the claim could not have been discovere d previously

through the exercise of

due dilige nce[.]
60 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 60 of 692.

As no te d a

bove , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt t reate d B la

nc o’ s B rady

c la im a s
an atta ck on h is M arc h 14 , 198 4, c onvi ct ion s for a rm ed robbe ry and a rm ed burgl ary and h el d th e cl ai m

proc ed ural ly ba rred. That t

he c ourt d id s o is unde rsta nda ble ; B la nc o’ s M ay

29, 2001 , R

ule 3.85 0 m oti on a lle ge d th at he did not
co m m it tho se c rim es and t

he c ourt re as ona

bly c onc lud ed

tha t t he m oti on s ought t

he
va ca tur of t hosec onvi ct ion s a

nd a ne w tria l. W e rea d th e m oti on a s th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt re ad

it , but we a lso be lie ve tha

t i t a lle ge d th at

the Bra dy

m at eri al the Sta te wit hhe ld i n 19 92 t o 19 94 re nde red the se co nd p en al ty pha se of hi s tri al funda m enta lly unfa ir. B la

nc o po sit s th at

them at eri alwoul d ha

ve e na ble d hi m to im pe ac h th e we ight of t

he Ma rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ct ion s a s st at uto ry a ggravatin g ci rcum sta nc es by sho wingtha

t hewa s wron gly

c onvi ct ed . And

und er Lo ck et

t v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 58 6, 98 S. C t. 2 954, 57 L . Ed. 2d 9 73 (19 78), e vid en ce tha t hedid not c om m it the c rim es woul d c onstitute a non -statut ory

m iti gatin g c irc um sta

nc e. 6 8 Eve n th ough

Bl an co rai se d th is c la im

in the first poss ibl e proc ee din g foll owin g hi s
In L ockett, the Supre me Court held that, 6 8 the Eighth and Four

teenth Amendme nts require that the sentenc er, in a ll but the rar est kind of ca

pital case , not be pre cluded f rom considering, a s a mitigating fac tor, any

aspec t of a de fenda

nt's c hara cter

or re cord a

nd any of the circ umstances of

the offe nse that the de fenda nt proffe rs as a

basis for a

sentenc e less than death. L ockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 2965, 57 L . Ed. 2d 973 (1978). 61 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 61 of 69res ente nc ing , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt c onc lud ed tha t B la nc o’ s B rady

c la im wa s proc ed ural ly ba rred. The Dis tric t C ourt s houl d ha ve rec ogni ze d th is e rror and ad dres se d th e m eri ts o f the c la im . Thec la im ne ed not be rem an de d to the Dis tric t Co urt for a

m eri ts d et erminatio n, ho we ve r, for, a s wede m onst rat e be low, the c la im cl ea rly fai ls. 6 9 3. Bl an co ’s Bra dy

c la im is tha t t he State wit

hhe ld e vid en ceof th e de al s it m ad e wit h Fide l Rom ero an d Enri que Gonz al ez to ai d it s pros ec uti on o f Bl an co for the cri m es tha

t t ook pla ce at t

he Em era ld H ill s re sid en ce on D ec em be r 29, 1 981. W e ad dres s th e cl ai m

in two steps. First, we rev ie w th e his tory of th e prose cu

tio n, inc ludingwhe n a

nd h ow t he State m ad e de al s wi th Rom ero an d Gon za le z. Sec ond,
we ide nti fy

at wh at poi nt B la nc o or hi s c ouns elbe ca

m e aw are of th e de al s. On Ap ril 9 , 198 2, a

jury c onvi ct ed

Bl an co and En

rique Gonz al ezof a

rm ed robbe ry and a rm ed burgl ary for the ir role s in

thethe ft of a

te le vis ion

from an Em era ld H ill s re sid en ce . Fide l Rom ero, who wa s in dic te d wi th B la nc o a nd Gonz al ez , wa s tri ed

sepa rat ely and c onvi ct ed . R om ero ap pe al ed his c onvi ct ion s,

We decide this issue de novo be cause the Supreme Court of F lorida did not make a ny 6 9 deter mination on the merits. Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114, 1119 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (“When, howeve r, a c laim is properly prese nted to the state c ourt, but the state cour t does not adjudicate it on the merits, we r eview denovo.” (c iting Cone v. B ell, 556 U.S. 449, 472, 129 S. C t. 1769, 1784, 173 L . Ed. 2d 701 (2009)) ). 62

Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 62 of 69but

the y we re a ffirm ed

on J uly 13, 1983 . Se e Ro m ero v. State , 435 So. 2d 318 , 321 (Fla. 4th

Dis t. C t. Ap p. 19 83). B la nc o a nd Go nz al eza lso a

ppe al ed . The ir
co nvi ction s we re re ve rse d on Augu st 3 1, 19 83, b as ed

on a n im prope r se arc h a

nd
se izure. See Bl an co v. Sta te , 438 So. 2d

404 , 405 (Fla. 4th

Dis t. C t. Ap p. 19 83). The Statec hoseto ret

ry Bl an co for bot

h offe nse s. T o do tha

t, t he State de ci de d to e nli st Rom ero’ s a nd Go nz al ez ’s c oope rat ion . To obt ai n R om ero’ s, t he Statee nte red int o th is a

rrange m ent i n De ce m

be r 1983 : Rom ero’ s se ve nty -five
y ea r priso n se nte nc e woul d be red uc ed to a se nte nc e of 791 da

y s, wi th c redi t for 791 da y s ti m e alrea dy

se rved , a nd a probatio n te rm

of se ve n y ea

rs’ and s ix
m ont hs’ ; Rom ero woul d te sti fy trut hfull y a ga ins t B la

nc o, ke ep in tou ch

wit h th e StateAtt orne y ’s offic e, and s ubmit to p sy ch olo gic ale va luatio ns a nd t he rapy , if
ne ce ssa ry . The red

uc tio n of Rom ero’ s se nte nc e oc cu rred o n M arc h 22 , 198 4, 7 0 whe n th e Brow ard Co unt y Ci rcui t C ourt re se nte nc ed Ro m ero on t

he c ha rges for whic h he ha d be en

c onvi ct ed
. The Sta te ’s de alwit

h Gon za le z, rea ch ed

on J an ua ry 10, 1984 , req

uire d hi m to p le ad gui lty to bot h th e robbe ry

a nd b urgla ry c ha rges ; bese nte nc ed

to priso n for

This information is drawn f rom the re sentenc ing order e ntere d on Marc h 16, 1983. At 7 0 various points duringhis testimony in Blanc o’s re trial, Romero stated that the te rms of his deal wer e that his sentenc e would be r educe d from 75 year s to 5 y ear s. This appea rs to be somewhat in conflict with the sentenc ing or der, but the pr ecisereduc tion is of no moment. The key fac t is that the State made a

deal with Romero to re duce his sente nce f rom 75 year s to some drastically smaller time in exchang e for his truthful testimony

ag ainst Blanc o. 63 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 63 of 69two y ea

rs, wi th c redi t for t

wo y ea rs a lre ad y se rved ; a nd p ay a pub lic de fend er fe e of $2,6 00. The Bro ward C ount y Ci rcui t C ourt a

pprove d th e arra

nge m ent on 7 1 Ma rch 23, 1 984, ta

kin g Gon za le z’ s pl ea

to the c ha

rges and i m

posi ng t he a gree d upon se nte nc e. The date for Bl an co ’s ne w tria l wa s ori gin al ly se t for Ja nua ry 16, 1984 . On Ja nua ry 13, 1984 , B la

nc o’ s c ouns elpre se nte d th e Ci rcui t C ourt w ith two m oti ons. The first wa s a

m oti on for a

c ont inu an ce . Thegroun ds for t he m oti on we re, i n rel ev ant pa

rt: 1. Prior t o th e State purc ha sin g th e te sti m ony of th e Co -defe nda

nt, Fide l Rom ero, theDe fens e wa s re ad y for tria l. 2. Th e Stateinform ed

theDe fens e of it s inte nti on t o us e Fide l Ro m ero as a

wit ne ss whe n it

provi de d a

State W itn es s Li st o n De ce m be r 20, 1 983, rec ei ve d by De fens e co unse l De ce m

be r 21, 1 984 [sic ]. 3. Fid elRo m ero wa s no t a va ila ble for de posi tio n untila fte r Ja nua ry 4, 19 84, a nd, b ec au se Fide l Rom ero’ s st at em ent t o De te ct ive Ri os sta te d on ly who wa s in

vol ve d wi th n o de ta ils of what ha ppe ne d or t

he ple a offer, t

he De fens e ha d no ide a what he wa s go ingto sa y unt il Ro m ero’ s deposi tio n on

Ja nua ry 9, 1 984, onewe ek

be fore t ria l. The se co nd J an

ua ry 13 m oti on wa s a

m oti on t o re qui re t

he State to div

ulg e ple a ne got iatio ns. It rea d, i n re le va nt p art : COM ES NOW

thea cc use d, Om ar B la

nc o, by and t hrough his unde rsign ed

atto rney , a

nd m ove s th is H onora

ble Co urt t o re qui re t

he Although not e x pressly

a ter m of his deal, Gonzalez was subseque ntly deporte d. 7 1 64 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 64 of 69State Att orne y to rel at e the e nti re p le a ne got iatio ns b et we en the State an d/o r an d ot

he r la w e nforce m ent a ge nc y

and t he De fend ant, Fid el Ro m ero, and/ or any

oth er p rose cu

tio n wi tne ss, inc lud ingany ag ree m ent “ off the rec ord” be twe en theState and t

he De fend ant, Fid el Ro m ero, or hi s/h er atto rney whi ch c oul d c onc ei va

bly influe nc e sa id wit ne ss’ te sti m ony [.] Fina lly , on Ja

nua ry 18, 1984 , c ouns elm ove d th e Ci rcui t C ourt t o di sm iss the inform at ion

or, in thea lte rnat ive , to e nte r an orde r ex cludi ng Fid elRo m ero from te sti fy ing . Thi s m oti on s tate d, i n re le va nt p art : De fend ant m ove s th e Co urt for a n Orde r dis m iss ingtheInform at ion he rei n or, i n th e al te rnat ive , for a n Orde r ex cludi ng t

he c o-de fend ant, Fide l Rom ero from

te sti fy ingin thetria l a

nd a s grou

nds woul d sh ow that: 1. On De ce m be r 20, 1 983, Fide l Rom ero, a c o-de fend ant i n th is c as e wa s li ste d by

theState a s a

wit ne ss a ga ins t Om ar B la

nc o. 2. Du ring h is t ria l on Feb ruary 3, 1 982, Fide l Rom ero . . . t es tifi ed that Om ar B la

nc o wa s in

theKe y s on

thee ve nin g of t

he Ro bbe ry . 3. On De ce m be r 13, 1 983 Fide l Rom ero gave a sta te m ent un de r oath to D et . B ob Rios whi ch

brie fly sa id t ha t he , Enri que Gonz al ezand Om ar B la nc o ha d c om

m itt ed theRo bbe ry

/B urgla ry .

. . . . 5. C le arl y

in ei the r his tria l t es tim ony of Feb ruary

3, 1 982, or in

his [late r state m ents] Fide l Rom ero co m m itt ed thec rim e of Perj ury . 6. In o rder t o ob ta in a

c onvi ct ion

on t he ret ria l of Om ar B la

nc o, [th e State ] obt ai ne d th e te sti m ony of Fide l Rom ero by

offeri ng h im

a de al whe re i f he te sti fie d favora bly , Fide l’ s se nte nc e woul d be m iti gate d from 75 y ea rs Florid a State Prison

wit h re te nti on for 2 5 y ea

rs to five y ea rs Florid a State Prison

wit h c redi t for t

wo y ea rs ti m e se rved

and n o
65 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 65 of 69ret entio n[.]

Bl an co ’s tria l be ga

n on Ma rch 12, 1 984, and t ook two da y s. Rom ero te sti fie d for th e State . R om ero’ s di rec t e xa m inatio n, t

hrough an inte rpret er, provi de s so m e ins ight i nto theBra dy c la im be fore t his c ourt: [PROSEC UTOR ]: What wa s y our se nte nc e aft er y ou we re c onvi ct ed ? [ROM ERO] : Se ve nty -five y ea r [sic ]. [PROSEC UTOR ]: Allright . Now, y ou h av e m ad e an a gree m ent wi th the State of Flori da , through m e, to te sti fy in thi s c as e; is that c orrec t? [ROM ERO] : Ye s. [PROSEC UTOR ]: Te ll the se la die s a nd g entle m an

of th e jury

what the a gree m ent i s. [ROM ERO] : Th e propos alwa s th at if I te sti fy

the trut h, i nst ea d of 75 y ea rs, it wil l go down

to five
. Addi tio na lly , a

rel ev ant po rtion

of R om ero’ s te sti m ony

on c rossex aminatio n wa s a s fol lows : [BLAN CO’ S ATTOR

NEY] : [Li eute na

nt Rios of th e Fort La

ude rdal e Polic e De pa

rtm ent] c am e an d to ld y ou [R om ero] a bout a de altha t t he State Att orne y

wa s wi lli ng t o m ak e wit

h y ou, i f y ou wo uld

te sti fy ag ai nst Mr. B la nc o; i s th at

c orrec t? [ROM ERO] : Ye s, s ir. [BLAN CO’ S ATTOR

NEY] : An d th at

de al , Mr. Ro m ero, wa s th at in ex ch an ge for y our te sti m ony , y our 75 y ea rs se nte nc e woul d be redu ce d to five y ea

rs, is tha t c orrec t?

66 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 66 of 69[ROM ERO] : Ye s, s ir.

Duringhis c los ingargum ent t o th e jury —on Ma rch 14, 1 984—

Bl an co ’s
co unse l c ont inu ed

to hig hli ght

tha t t he State ha d m ad e a de alwit h Rom ero in
ex ch an ge for his te sti m ony : [BLAN CO’ S ATTOR

NEY] : So, Rom ero ge ts u p th ere , de nie s th e whol e thi ng, t

he first tim e; the n lo a

nd b eh old , he c om es down he re, aft er h e ha s go tte n th is great de alwit h th e State , whi ch , by

the wa y , he tol d m e— an d y ou h ea

rd him —t ha t he woul d do anythi ng, a nythi ng to g et out of ja il[.] On M arc h 14 , 198 4, t

he jury found Bl an co gui lty

a s c ha rged . On Ma

rch 27, 1985 , hi s c onvi ct ion s we re a ffirm ed on a ppe al . Se e Bl an co v. Sta

te , 466 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 4th

Dis t. C t. Ap p. 19 85). Fast -forwardi ng e ight y ea rs late r to t

he res ente nc ing , B la

nc o c la im s th at

the Statefai le d to dis cl oseit s de al s wi th Rom ero an d Gon za le z whe n it annou nc ed tha t it woul d us e the Ma

rch 14, 1 984, c onvi ct ion s to e sta bli sh a n a ggravatin g ci rcum sta nc e be fore t

he jury . Thu s, hi s B rady

c la im
. The probl em

Bl an co fac es in prose cutin g th e cl ai m is that t he rec ord
es ta bli she s th at

his atto rney s kne w of th e al le ge dly wit hhe ld i nform ation

in 1984
. 7 2 The thre e m oti ons Bl an co file d in Ja nua ry 198 4 prio r to h is re tria l re ve alse ve ral im porta nt fa ct s: fi rst, t

ha t B la nc o’ s atto rney s we re a

ware t hat t he State m ad e a de al
Two attorne y s repr esente d Bla nco at his re trial for the Emera ld Hills robbery and 7 2 burg lary charg es. 67 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 67 of 69wit

h Rom ero; se co nd, t

hat B la nc o’ s atto rney s we re a

ware o f at le as t t he m ost im porta nt t erm s of t

he de al ; t hird, that B la

nc o’ s atto rney s ha d a

n op portu nit y to de poseRo m ero whe re, p res um ab ly , hi s de alwit h th e State wa s th orough ly
explo red; and fou

rth, t hat t he State , in

que sti oni ng Rom ero on d ire ct e xam inatio n at tria l, re ve al ed

thede aland i ts t erm s. M oreo ve r, bot h R om ero’ s a

nd Go nz al ez ’s ple a arra nge m ents w ere file d in

the Ci rcui t C ourt i n M arc h 19 84 (M arc h 22 , 198 4, for Ro m ero; and M arc h 23 , 198 4, for Gonza le z). Bl an co ’s atto rney s ha d e qua l
ac ce ss t o th at

inform ation , whi ch

dis cl ose d th ose arrange m ents a nd t he ir te rm s. 7 3 See Parke r v. Al le n, 56 5 F.3d 1258 , 127 7 (11t h C ir. 20 09) (“ [T]h ere is no supp res sio n if t

he de fend ant kn ewof th e inform at ion or ha d e qua l a cc es s to obt ai nin g it .” (ci tin g M ah ara j v. Sec ’y of th e De p’ t of C orr., 432 F.3d 1 292, 131 5 n.4 (11 th C ir. 20 05))); M ah ara j, 4 32 F.3d

131 2–13 (reje ct inga

Bra dy c la im e ve n whe re t he State did

not turn ove r the a ct

ua l re port a

t i ssu e whe n de fens e co unse l

Current F lorida Rule of Criminal Procedur e 3.852 would haveallowed B lanco to see k 7 3 the information included in public r ecor ds. See F la. R. Crim. P . 3.852. Whil e Rule 3.852 did not exi st at the time, Blanc o nonetheless c ould have a cce ssed public re cords a nd could have compelled the pr oduction of public re cords f rom the State Attorney ’s offic e and the local law enfor ceme nt ag encie s that had investig ated the c rime. See, e .g ., Reed v. State, 640 So. 2d 1094, 1098 (F la. 1994); Hoff

man v. State, 613 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla . 1992); Tribune Co. v. Public Records, e tc., 493 So. 2d 480, 482 (Fla . 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1986), cert de nied, 503 So. 2d 327 (F la. 1987); State v. Gillespie, 227 So. 2d 550, 555 (F la. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1969) (“B y taking copious and dilig ent adva ntag e of the se rules a

defe ndant in a criminal case in F lorida ca n now avail himself of e very

thing r easona

bly rele vant and mate rial to the ca se save Gra nd J ury proce eding s (which we will discuss later), a nd that class of e vidence , contemplated by Br ady , which the pr osecution would knowing ly intentionally

suppress.”) ; see a lso Fla. Stat. § 119, et. seq. (1984) (desc ribingpublic rec ord policy ). 68 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 68 of 69ha d kn owle dge of th e rel ev ant fa ct s, ha d e qua l a cc es s to the e vid en ce , ha d a n oppo rtuni ty

to de posetheim

porta nt w itn es s to dis co ve r m at eri al , a nd h ad an oppo rtuni ty

to cros s-e xam ine thewit

ne ss a nd d id c ross-e xa

m ine the wit

ne ss o n th e ke y iss ue s). W e, the refore , c onc lud e that be ca use his atto rney s we re m ad e fully
aw are of th e inform at ion

at i ssu e an d ha d a cc es s to it be fore t he a lle ge d B rady vio la tio n oc cu rred, B la nc o’ s B rady

c la im is m eri tle ss. III. For the foreg oin g re as ons, the jud gm ent of t he Dis tric t C ourt d eny ing Bl an co ’s pe tit ion

for a writ o f ha

be as c orpus is AFFIRME D.

SO ORD ERED.

69 Case: 11-11993 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 69 of 69