Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule47 .5, th e co urt has determined that this o pinion should * not be publishe d and is no t pre cedent except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70013

M I CHAEL ADAM S I GALA , P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t , v. N A TH A N I E L Q U A R TE R M A N , D i r ec t or , Texas D epar t m ent of C r i m i nal J u s tic e , C o r r e c tio n a l In s tit u tio n s D iv is io n , R espon den t

- A pp el l ee .

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas, T exark an a D i vi si on U SD C N o. 5: 05- C V

- 177

B ef ore S M ITH , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T exas st ate pri soner M i cha elA

. S i gala f i l ed a federal p et i t i on fora w ri t of h a b e a s co r p u s s e e k in gto v a c a te th e d e a th s e n te n c e h e re c e iv e d fo llo w in gh is
c o nvi c t i o n f

o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r . Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d S i g a l a t h e wr i t , b ut gr ant e d a c e r t i f

i c at e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y o n t hr e e i s s ue s . Af t e r c ar e f

ulr e vi e w o f

t he
r e c o r d and ap pl i c ab l e l aw, and f o l l o w i ng o r ala r gum e nt , w e a f f i r m t he j udg m e nt
o f t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de nyi ng t he pe t i t i o n. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70013

2 I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS S ig a la ’ s g u ilt is n o t a t is s u e in th is a p p e a l. A s ta te ju r y co n v ic te d S ig a la
o f c a p i t a lm u r d e r f

o r c a u s i n gt h e d e a t h o f K l e b e r D o s S a n t o s d u r i n ga h o me i n vasi on . Si gala al so m u rdered an d sexu al l y t ort u red K l eber’ s w i fe, L i l i an D os S a n to s, du ri n g t h e sam e epi sode. Foll ow i n g a on e- w eek p ost

- convic t i on p u n is h m e n t tr ia l, th e ju r y fo u n d th a t th e r e w a s a p r o b a b ility th a t S ig a la w o u ld
c om m i t ac t s of

c r i m i nal vi ol enc e a nd con sti tu t e a c ont i nui ng t hre at t o s oc i et y, a n d tha t t h ere w e re n ot su ff i ci en t m i ti ga ti n g circu m stan ces to w a rra n t a
s e n t e n c e o f

l i fe i mp r i s o n me n t r a t h e r t h a n d e a t h

. I n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h T e x a s l a w, t he s t at e t r i alj udg e t he n s e nt e nc e d Si ga l a t o de at h. S i gala f i l ed a d i rectapp eal w i t h t h e T ex a s C o u rtof C ri m i n al A pp eal s,
w h ic h a ffir m e d h is co n v ic tio n a n d s e n t e n c e . S ig a la v. S ta te , 2004 W L 231326 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . J a n . 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d )

. A f t e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u r t d e n ie d ce r tio r a r i, Siga l a v. Te x as , 542 U

. S

. 909 ( 200 4) , Sigal a peti t i on ed t h e T exas st ate c ou rtf or c ol l ater al rel i ef

. Th e st ate t ri al court i ssued proposed f i n di n gs of

fact an d concl u si on s of l aw an d r ecom m en ded den yi n g rel i ef

. B y per c u r i a m o r d e r , t h e T e x a s C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls a d o p t e d th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s fin d in g s a n d c o n c lu s io n s a n d d e n ie d re lie f. Exp a rte S ig a la , N o. 62, 283- 01 ( Tex. C rim

. A p p . A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). Si ga l a t i m e l y f

i l e d a fe de r alpe t i t i o n for a w ri t o f ha be as c o r pus . The fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d re lie f, Siga l a v . Q uar t e r m an , No

. 5 : 0 5

- CV

- 1 7 7 ( E. D. T ex. M ar. 28, 200 8) , bu t gran t ed a cert i f i cat e of app eal abil i t y ( C O A ) on three
c l ai m s . The s e c l ai m s , c har ac t e r i z e d by t he di s t r i c t c o ur t as Cl ai m s I I , I I I , a nd I X , al l ege , r es pec t i vel y, vi ol at i ons of Si gal a’ s r i ght t o i ndi vi dual i ze d s ent enc i ng, i nef fec t i ve as si st ance of c ounse li n pre se r vi ng t ha t righ t, and i nef fec t i ve as si st ance of

c ounse l i n deve l opi ng and i nves t i gat i ng m i t i gat i ng fac t or s at
s e nt e nc i ng. Thi s a ppe alf o l l o w e d.N o. 08- 70013

3 I I . DI S CU S S I ON A

. S t an d ard of

R evi ew 1. Th e An t i

- Terr or i sm and E f fec t i ve D eat h P enal t y Act of 1996 Bec aus e Si ga l a f

i l e d hi s ha be as pe t i t i on a f t e r t he e f

fe c t i ve da t e o f

t he A n t i t e r r o r is m a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“A E D P A ”), 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 25 4, r e vi e w o f

hi s pe t i t i o n i s g o ve r ne d b y t he pr o c e dur e s a nd s t and ar ds p r o v id e d th e r e in

. Se e Par rv. Q uar t e r m an , 4 7 2 F .3d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1

– 5 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W h en a st ate c ou rtha s a dju d ic ated a pri soner’ s c l ai m on the m eri t s, w e m u st d ef er t o t he st at e c our t and deny t he pri so ner ’ s habeas c l ai m unl es s th e sta te
c o u r t’s a dju d ic a tio n o f th e cla im ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hat w as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvol ved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f, c l ear l y e st abl i sh ed F ede r all aw , as determ i n ed by t h e Su prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S t ates; or ( 2 ) r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le de t e r m i nat i o n o f

t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n t he St at e Courtpr oc ee di ng. § 2 25 4( d) ( 1) –( d) ( 2)

. I n Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U

. S

. 3 6 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , t h e S u p r e me C ou rtcl ari f

i ed these provi si on s. Ju st i ce O ’ C on n or w rot e i n her m aj ori t y opi n i on t h at a s t ate c ou rt ’ s deci si on
w i ll c e rta i n l y be contrary t o [ t h e U n i t ed S t ates S u prem e C ou rt ’ s] c l ea r l y e st abl i she d pr ec ede nt i f t he s t at e c our t appl i es a r ul e t hat c o nt r ad i c t s t he g o ve r ni ng l aw s e t f o r t h i n o ur c as e s . . . [ o r ] i f t he s ta te co u r t c o n fr o n ts a s e t o f fa c ts th a t a r e m a te r ia lly i ndi s t i ngu i s hab l e f

r o m a de c i s i o n o f

t hi s Cour t a nd n e ve r t he l ess a rrives a t a resu l t dif feren t f rom ou r p rece d en t. Id

. at405–06
. 2. R evi ew of

cl ai m s n o t deci ded on the m eri t s by t h e st ate c ou rt AE DP A s t a n d a r d s d o n o t a p p l y , h o we v e r , wh e r e a fe d e r a l c o u r t r e v i e ws t h e den i al of

a cl ai m on p rocedural groun ds becau se i n such cases t h ere has n ot been an “ adj u d ic ati on on the m eri t s” by the st ate c ou rtw i t h i n t h e m ean i n g ofN o. 08- 70013

Sigalamet with Dr. Slaughterfour ti mes i n s ession s la sting app roximate lyfifte en 1 minutes e achdurin g his time in custodyatth e C ollin Cou ntyDetentionC ente r. 4 A E D P A w ith re s p e c t t o s u c h a cla im

. H ugh e s v . Q uar t e r m an , 530 F. 3d 336, 340 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t
. den i ed , 129 S. C t
. 2378 ( 2009)

. W e r evi ew c onc l usi ons by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r p r o c e d u r a l l y d e fa u l t e d o n a c l a i m de no vo . Ki t t e l s on v. D r e t ke , 4 2 6 F .3d 3 0 6 , 3 1 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). B

. C l aim I

I:R igh t t o I

n d i vi d u ali zed S ente n ci ng u n d er L o c k e t t Sigala argues t hat hi s E i ght h A m endm ent r i ght t o i ndi vi dual i ze d sen ten c i ng i n t he c api t al
c o nt e xt , f

i r s t a r t i c ul at e d i n L o ck ett v
. O h io , 438 U

. S

. 5 86, 604–05 ( 1978) (plura l i ty op i n i on ), w a s violated

. “[ T ]he E i gh th a n d F ou rteen th A m e n d m en ts
r e q u ir e th a t t h e s e n te n c e r . . . n o t b e p r e c lu d e d fr o m co n s id e r in g , as a m i t iga t i ng f act or , a n y a s p e c t o f a d e fe n d a n t ’ s c h a r a c t e r o r r e c o r d a n d a n y o f t he ci rcum st an ces of

t h e of fen se t h at t h e defen da n t prof fers as a basi s f

or a sentence l ess tha n de a th

. ” Eddi ngs v . O kl ahom a , 4 55 U

. S. 1 04 , 1 10 ( 19 82 ) ( quo t i ng L o ck ett , 4 38 U

. S

. at 604 )

. Th e f ocus of Sigal a’ s L o ck ett c la im is t h e t r ia l c o u r t ’s rul i n g regardi n g t h e adm i ssi on of t h e t est i m on y of

a psy ch ia trist , D r. L au ra S l au gh t er, an d h i s m edi calrec ords.

1 1. Li m i t at i o ns o n ps yc hi at r i c t e s t i m o ny and m e di c alr e c o r ds T h e sta te f

i l ed a p retrial m oti on req u esting th a t th e cou rt ord er S i ga l a to sub m i t t o a psy ch ia tric exam i n ati on by the st ate’ s expert on h i s f u t u re da n gerousn ess if

he sou gh t t o present t est i m on y on t h e subj ect
. Th e court
c o nduc t e d a vo i r di r e he ar i ng o f D r . Sl aug ht e r , w ho s e t e s t i m o ny Si ga l a s o ugh t t o present. Si gala’ s t ri al coun selcom pl ai n ed that t h e j u ry ough t t o be perm i t t ed t o he arhe r t e s t i m o ny w i t ho ut hi s cl i e nt ’ s havi ng t o s ubm i t t o e xa m i nat i o n b y t he st ate’ s expert , ri ski n g sel f

- i n cri m i n ati on . C ou n sel ’ s t h eory w as t h at D r. S l au gh t er “ i s a factw i t n ess i n this case. . . S h e w as not hi red by M r. B rew er or
m ysel f on beh al f

of M r. Sigal a. ” T h e t ri al court gran t ed t h e st ate’ s m ot i on over S ig a la ’ s o b je c tio n . In th e w a k e o f th e tr ia l c o u r t ru lin g , S ig a la d e c lin e d to s u b m itN o. 08- 70013

5 t o t h e exam i n ati on of t h e st ate’ s expert
. A ccor di n gl y, t h e t ri al court perm i t t ed D r . S la u g h te r to te s tify to “ (1 ) th e fa c t t h a t s h e o r d e r e d th e d is p e n s in go f c e r ta in
m e d i c a t i o n s ; ( 2 ) t h e n a m e s o f t h o s e m e d i c a t i o n s b u t n o t t h e i r p u r p o s e ; ( 3 ) t he
n u m ber of

t i m es s h e m et w i t h app el l an t ; an d ( 4) t h e fact th a t app el l an t nev er ca u sed h er a n y p rob l em s. ” S ig a la , 200 4 W L 231 326 , at *9. D r. Slaugh t er t h en t e s t i f i e d t o t he s e fac t s . T he t r i alc o ur t a l s o o r de r e d t he de fe ns e t o r e da c t t he porti on of

t h e m edi calrec ords f rom t h e j ai lt h at c on t ai n ed the di agn osi s by D rs. S h oop an d S l au gh t er t h at Si gala had bi pol ar di sorder. C la im II (a n d C la im II I, in d ir e c tly ) r e q u ir e s u s to d e te r m in e w h e th e r th is
r u lin gn a r r o w e d th e s c o p e o f D r . S la u g h te r ’ s te s tim o n y a n d S ig a la ’ s r e c o r d s in
a w ay t hat vi o l at e d Si ga l a’ s c o ns t i t ut i o nal r i ght t o i ndi vi dua l i zed sent e nc i ng
u n der L o ck ett
. In h is b r ie f, S ig a la c h a r a c te r iz e s t h e p a r t o f D r . S la u g h te r ’ s v o ir di re t est i m on y t h at he w as not perm i t t ed to present t o t h e j u ry as f ol l ow s: D r. L au ra S l au gh t er t est i f i ed t h at h er predecessor , D r. [ Jam es] Sh oop, ha d been a contr act , gov e rn m e n t al em pl oyee, w or ki ng at t he C ount y D et ent i on C ent er . O ne o f hi s pat i ent s had been M r. Sigal a. W h en t h e contr act t erm i n ated, D r. Slaugh t er t ook o v e r th e d u tie s a n d p a tie n ts o f D r . S h o o p . L i k e D r. S h oo p , D r. S l a u gh ter also h a d be en a co n tract, govern m en t al em pl oyee, w orki n g at t h e C ol l i n C ou n t y D et en t i on C ent er. . . . D r . Sl aught erhad bee n M r . Si gal a’ s t r eat i ng physi c i an w h i l e h e w as d et ai n ed i n the C ol l i n C ou n t y D et en t i on C en t er. D r. Sl aug ht e r s aw M r . Si ga l a o n four o c c as i o ns . As a t r e at i ng physi ci a n , D r . Sl aught erhad di agnos ed M r . Si gal a as havi ng a hi st or y o f

m ent ali l l nes s, and s he had t r eat ed hi m f orbi pol ar di sorder, dep ress i on an d sl eep p robl em s r el ated t o t h at di sorder.
S i gala al so c om pla in s h e w as not abl e t o present t h e f ol l ow i n g porti on of

D r. Sl aught er ’ s voi r di r e t es t i m ony r egar di ng bi pol ar i t y: B ip o la r d is o r d e r is a m o o d d is o r d e r . It ’ s a l s o ca lle d m a n ic dep ress i ve di sorder, an d i t ’ s c h aract eri zed by epi sodes of a very h i gh , oft en i rrit a b l e, ex p a n sive m oo d th a t ca n b e a ccom p a n i ed w i th t h i n gs l i ke i m pu l si ve beh avior , d i st u rbed sl eep, decreased need f orN o. 08- 70013

F oradis cu ssiono f th e ef fe cto f thisru lin g , se e n ot e 3 , infra

. 2 6 sl eep, rap i d speech, those t yp es of things. T h ose are m an i c epi sodes. And t h e n t h e r e ’ s a l s o s e p a r a t e d e p r e s s i v e e p i s o d e s wh i c h a r e l o w, dep ress ed, sad m oods t h at al so hav e sl eep/ ap peti t e di st u rban ces. D r. Slaugh t er f

u rt h er t est i f

i ed that “ t h e act u al m ood ep i sodes can cl ear up on t h ei r ow n , bu t t h ey t en d t o be recurri n g t h rough ou t t h e person’ s l i fe. ” Sh e al so st ated t h at s h e adop t ed D r. S h oop’ s f i n di n gs, rec ords, an d i n t ervi ew s i n her t r eat m ent of

Si gal a. T h e si gn i f

i can ce Si gala at t ach es t o t h e tri al cou rt ’ s ru l i n g i s that the court preven t ed D r. S l au gh t er “ f rom t est i f

yi n g as t o h er an d D r. S h oop’ s di agn oses of M r. Sigal a’ s m en t al i l l n ess an d i t s s ym ptom s, an d [ w rongly] order[ e] d t h at D r. [ M ark] C u n n i n gh am , a d efen se f orensi c p sychol ogi st , coul d n ot use t h e redact ed in fo r m a tio n to fo r m h is o p in io n a b o u t M r . S ig a la .” 2 2. C ol l ater al revi ew of t h e t ri al court ’ s or der As d i s c us s e d sup ra , Sigal a att acks th e st ate t ri al court ’ s r u l i n g on D r. Sl aug ht e r ’ s t e s t i m o ny and hi s m e di c alr e c o r ds on gr o unds t hati t deni e d hi m t he ri gh t to p r ese n t “ a n y re l ev a n t m i ti ga ti n g e vid en ce” as pa rt of the E i gh th A m en dm en t i n di vi du al i zed sentenci n g determ i n ati on to w h i ch h e w as enti t l ed
u n der L o ck ett
. The Te xa s Cour t o f Cri m i nal Appe al s , o n ha be as r e vi e w , f o und t h at Si gala had procedu ral l y defaul t ed on t h i s c l ai m becau se he fai l ed to rai se i t both at t ri al an d i n hi s di rectapp eal

. It a lso fo u n d that t h i s fai l u re di d n ot
ren d er S i ga l a ’ s tri a lco u n sel con sti tu ti on a l l y in effective b eca u se S i ga l a fa i l ed to dem on st rat e t h at t h e t ri al court ’ s or d e r vi ol ated his ri gh t s un der L o ck ett
. Ex p a rte S ig a la , sli p op . a t 6 (“ [C ]ou n sel w i l ln ot be f ou n d i n effective for fa i l i n g to pr e s e r ve a n a l l e ge d e r r o r w he r e t he l aw w as no ne xi s t e nt o r no t de f i ni t i ve att he tim e o f tr ia l. .

. . A p p e lla te co u n s e l is n o t r e q u ir e d to p r e s e n t fr iv o lo u s o r fu tile
c l ai m s orev en e ver y c ol or abl e c l ai m . ” ) ( c i t i ng V a ug h n v. S ta te , 931 S. W

. 2d 564,N o. 08- 70013

7 5 6 8 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (p e r cu r ia m ), Jon es v. B arn es , 463 U

. S. 745, 751–75 4 ( 198 3) )

. Final l y, t h e court rej ect ed the L o ck ett cl ai m ( C l ai m II) on the m eri t s, h ol di n g t h at an y errorby the t ri al court i n l i m i t i n g t h e t est i m on y of D r. S la u g h te r a n d th e a d m is s io n o f S ig a la ’ s m e d ic a l re c o r d s w a s h a r m l e s s . In h is federal ha beas peti t i on , Sigal a renew s hi s L o ck ett c l a i m. A s an i ni t i alm at t er , w e m ustdec i de w het her t he Texas C our t of C r i m i nal A ppeal s’ al t er nat i ve hol di ngs c ons t i t ut ed r ul i ngs on t he m er i t s oron pr oc edur al groun ds. “ [ T ] h e rul e i n t h i s ci rcui t is tha t , w h en a stat e cou rtb ases i t s deci si on
u pon t h e al t erna t i ve groun ds of procedu rald efau l t a n d a rej ect i on of t h e m eri t s, a f ede r alc our t m ust , i n t he abs enc e of goo d ‘ c ause ’ and ‘ prej udi c e, ’deny habe as rel i ef becau se of

t h e p rocedural defaul t ” rather t h an reeva l u ati n g t h e cl ai m on th e m e r its

. H ug he s v . Dr e t ke , 4 1 2 F. 3d 582, 592 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng C ook
v. Lynaugh , 8 2 1 F .2 d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 7 7 (5 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 )). B e c a u s e p r o c e d u r a l d e fa u lt do e s no t c o ns t i t ut e a n “ adj udi c at i o n o n t he m e r i t s ” f o r AE D PA pur po s e s , t he
s t at e c o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ng o f

pr o c e dur alde faul t it sel f i s r e vi e w e d de no vo , how ever. V a ld ezv. C o ck re ll , 2 7 4 F .3 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 6

– 4 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )

. I n h i s b r ie f to th is
c o ur t , Si ga l a do e s no t di s put e t hathi s t r i alc o uns e lpr o c e dur al l y de faul t e d o n t he L o ck ett c l ai m ( C l ai m I I )

. Acc or di ngl y, w e m ustex am i ne w het her Si gal a c an e s ta b lis h “g o o d ‘ c a u s e ’ ” a n d “p r eju d ic e ” to e x c u s e th e d e fa u lt. H ugh es , 412 F. 3d at 592. A s g o o d c a u s e fo r th e d e fa u lt, S ig a la cit e s th e in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f h is t ri al coun sel

. Th i s ar g u m e n t necessari l y bri n gs hi s L o ck ett c la im b a c k w ith in A E D P A ’ s reach, h ow ever: as w e di scuss i nf ra , the state cou rt di d adj u di cat e, on t he m e r i t s , t he cl ai m ( Cl ai m I I I ) t hatSi ga l a’ s co uns e lw as i ne f fe c t i ve i n fai l i ng t o rais e hi s L o ck ett c l ai m ; i t r ej e c t e d i t
. U nde r AE D PA , t he n, t hi s c o ur t , l i ke t he di st ri ctcourt , m u stdefe r to t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s f i n di n gs on C l ai m I II un l ess t h eyN o. 08- 70013

B ec au seweh ol d th at Si g alaha s fail edto de mo n strategoo d cau sef orhisd ef

au lt , we 3 nee d n ot r eachth e pr ej udic e analysis. However, we agree with the state court th at anyerror byth e trialcourt was har mless and without pre ju dice to S ig ala

. Sigalacompl ain s that Dr. S lau ghter was no t ableto testify to the conclusi ons she and Dr. Sho op, h er p redece ssor in treating Si gala, reached after treating Sigala

. B ut his coun sel cross-ex amin ed th e state’s e xpe rt, Dr. Lisa Cl ayton, on that verysubje ct. Specifically , Si gala’ s coun sel elicited from Dr. Cl ayton that she h ad trained Dr. Slaughter , an d th at she thou ght Dr. Slaughterwas agood psychiatrist. Sigala’s co unsel a dmitted Sigala’s medical recor ds (Defendant’s Exhib it 4), into evidence, and asked Dr. Cl ayton abo ut them

. D r. C layton te stif ie d, onth e b a si s o f th os e re co rd s, th at Dr. S lau ghte r h a d di a gn os edhima s b ip ol ar. She thenexplained what bipo lar meant. She furth er stated that two psychiatrists h ad diagnosed Sigalaas bipo lar and had also prescribed medicationfor him. Sh e e xpl ain ed what th at medicationdid, specifically its effect on controlling a person’s urges. Althou ghshen oted all th es e thin g s, Dr. C layto nsaidsh e si mp lydis a gre edwithDr

. S laughte r’s ( andDr

. Sh oo p’ s) di a gn os is

. At closingar gu ment, Sigala’s co unse l r evisite d this i ssu e, a r gu ing : “And look at the evidence. Dr. Cl ayton, again , what di d she say? I had her review the recor ds from the Collin Cou ntyj ail . Two psychi atri sts haveseenMich aeland diagnosed hi m as bipo lar, put him on medicat ionto treat th at disease , th at mental illn ess, but toh er thatwas j ust abi g waste. Th os e twop sychiatris tswe rewron g . S h e n everev enl oo ke d at th os e re co rd s.” Giv e n th at S i g al a ’ s c o u n s e l s u c c e e d e d i n a d m it ti n g all thi s evi d e n c e , t o sayth at li m iti n g Dr

. S l au ght e r ’ s t e s ti m o ny wa s n o t m e r e ly e rr o r , o r c o n s tit u ti o n al e rr o r , b u tth at it would probablyh ave re sulte d ina differe nt outc ome, i s untenable

. 8 vi ol ate § 225 4( d). For t h e reasons expl ai n ed in P a rt II.C

. , w e f i n d they d o not vi o l at e t hatpr o vi s i o n. 3 C

. C l aim I

II :S i xt h A m end m ent C l aim of I n effect i ve A ssi st an ce as G roun d s f or Pr o c e dur alD ef

aul t o n L ock ett C laim ( C laim II) I n S t ri ckl an d v. W

ash i ngt on , 4 66 U

. S

. 668 ( 198 4) , t h e Su prem e C ou rt est abli shed a t w o- pron g t estf or c l ai m s of

i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce of

cou n selun der t h e Sixt h A m en d m e n t. To p revai lon su ch a cl ai m , a peti t i on er m u st d em on strate b oth th a t “ (1) cou n sel’ s p erform a n ce w a s d efi ci en t [ “cau se p ron g”]
a n d (2 ) c o u n s e l’s d e fi c ie n t p e r f o r m a n c e c a u s e d a c t u a lp r ej u d i c e t o t h e p e t it io n e r ’s d efen s e [ “p r e ju d i ce p ron g”]. ” R i c har ds v . Q uar t e r m an , 56 6 F

. 3 d 55 3 , 56 4 ( 5 th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ng St r i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 ). T o m e e t t h e ca u s e p r o n g , S ig a la
m u stest abli sh that hi s c ou n sel ’ s act i on s w ere obj ect i vel y u n reasona bl e. St r i c kl and , 4 66 U

. S. at 687–9 1. “ [A ] show i n g t h at t h e fact u al or l egal basi s f or a c l ai m w as n ot r ea so nabl y ava i l abl e t o c ounse l , ort hat s om e i nt er fer enc e b yN o. 08- 70013

De xte r E

. Gilf

or d, C o ns t r u c t i v eW

a i v e ra n dC

o m p e l le dDef

e n da n tI

n t e r v i e ws: 4 Understand ing

t he La gro ne Doctr ine and Implemen tin g St rat egies for L imitin g its Effectpart one , VO I CE F O R T H E D EF ENSE , Mar. 2 006 , at14 , 19
. 9 o ffic ia ls m a d e c o m p lia n c e im p r a c tic a b le , w o u ld c o n s tit u te c a u s e u n d e r t h is stan d a rd

. ” M u rray v. C arri er , 477 U

. S

. 478 , 488 ( 198 6) ( ci t ati on s an d qu ot ati on
m arks om i t t ed). T o m eet the prej u di ce p rong, h e m u stdem on st rat e t h at t h ere i s a r e as o nab l e pr o ba bi l i t y t hatt he r e s ul t i n t he ca s e w o ul d ha ve b e e n di f fe r e nt h a d h is co u n s e l p e r fo r m e d re a s o n a b ly

. St r i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 2

– 9 6
. S i ga l a ’ s i n effective a ssistan ce claim w a s d ecide d on the m erits b y th e sta te
c o u r t. A c c o r d in g ly , A E D P A g o v e r n s . T o p r e v a il o n C la im II I, th e r e fo r e , S ig a la
m u s t s h o w th a t t h e rig h ts h e cla im s w e r e in e ffe c tiv e ly re p r e s e n te d w e r e “c le a r ly
e sta b li sh e d ” a t th e tim e h is co n v iction b e ca m e fi n a l. § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1). I n rej ec t i ng Si gal a’ s i nef fec t i ve as si st ance c l ai m on t he m er i t s, the Texas Cour t o f Cr i m i nalAppe al s he l d t hat“ [ t ] r i alc o uns e lw as no t i ne f fe c t i ve f o rf a i l i ng t o lodge a n E i gh t h A m en dm en t ob j ect i on ” b ecau se Si gala had not dem on st rat ed t h at hi s L o ck ett r ig h ts h a d b e e n v io la te d

. Exp a rte S ig a la , s l i p op. at6.

“ [ C ] ounse lw i l lnotbe found i nef fec t i ve, ” t he c our t f

ound, “ f orfai l i ng t o pr es er ve an al l eged err or w h ere t h e l aw w as n on exi st en t or n ot def i n i t i ve at t h e t i m e of tri a l

. ” I d. A lth o u g h h is p o s t-t r ia l p r o c e e d in g s a r e n o w in th e ir e ig h th y e a r , S ig a la
rem ai n s un able t o substanti vel y al l ege t h at hi s L o ck ett c la im , h a d it b e e n tim e ly
r ai se d and deve l ope d, w as “ c l ear l y e s t a b l i s he d ” a tt he t i m e hi s c onvi c t i on be c am e f i nal ( orev en w het her i t i s t oday)

. H e po i nt s t o s eve r aldec i si ons of t he Texas C o u r t o f C r i mi n a l A p p e a l s i n o t h e r c a s e s a n d a s e c o n d a r y s o u r c e t h a t h e c l a i ms 4 d is t in g u ish b e tw e e n th e tes tim o n y of a tre a tin gp h y sicia n a n d th a t of a psych i atr i c expert ret ai n ed f or l i t i gati on . B ecau se t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s deci si on on C l a i m III w a s o n th e m erits, A E D P A req u i res th a t w e d efer u n l ess the state
c o u r t d e c is io n co n flic ts w ith U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. S ee §N o. 08- 70013

E. g., Pe nry v. Lynaugh , 492U.S. 302 , 31 9 (1 989) (conclu ding th at “‘evidence about th e 5 defen d an t’s b ackgroun d an d ch aracter is re lev antbe cau se of the belief, lon g hel d bythis society, that defe ndants who commit crimin al act s t ha tar e attrib utableto a di sadv ant aged bac kgrou nd, o r toemotion al an d mental prob lems, may be less culpablethan defen dant s who have no suc h excus e.’ ” (quo ting C al if orn iav . B ro wn , 4 7 9U .S

. 5 3 8 , 5 4 5( 1 9 8 7) (O’ C onn or , J ., co n currin g)) , ov er ru le do no t h er gro u n ds by Atk ins v. V ir g in ia , 5 3 6U .S

. 3 0 4( 2 0 0 2 ); McCleskey v. K em p , 4 8 1 U .S

. 2 7 9 , 3 0 6( 1 9 8 7); Sk ipper v. Sou thC arolina , 4 7 6U .S

. 1 , 4

– 5( 1 9 8 6). 10 2254( d) ( 1) ( c hal l enged st at e co urtrul i ng m usthave c ons t i t ut ed “ a dec i si on t hat
w as con t rary to, or i n vol ved a n u n reasona bl e a pp l i cat i on of, cl earl y est abli shed F e d e r a l la w , as d et erm i n ed by t h e S u prem e C ou rtof t h e Un i t ed S t ate s ” i n order f orfederalc our t t o g r ant habeas ) ( em phasi s added)

. D ec i si ons of t he Texas
c o u r ts in o th e r ca s e s , e v e n if th e y w e r e o n p o in t, p la in ly w o u ld n o t s a tis fy th is req u i rem en t. In a d d itio n to th e s e c o n d a r y s o u r c e a n d T e x a s C o u r t of C r im in a l A p p e a ls p rece d en ts, S i ga l a claim s th a t L o ck ett an d ot h er U n i t ed S t ates S u prem e C ou rt d e c is io n s s u p p o r t o v e r tu r n in gth e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n re g a r d in gC la im II I. A st at e c our t ’ s dec i si on i s c ont r ar y t o Su pre m e C our t pre c ede nt , and t hus habeas
m ay be gran t ed by a federal court i n an A E D P A c a se , i f ( 1) “ t h e st ate c ou rt
ar r i ve s a t a c o nc l us i o n o ppo s i t e t o t h at reac he d b y [ t he Supr e m e Cour t ] o n a q u e s tio n o f la w ,” o r (2 ) “t h e s t a t e c o u r t co n fr o n ts fa c ts th a t a r e m a te r ia lly i n d i sti n gu i sh a b l e from a re l ev a n t Su p rem e C ou rt pre ced en t an d arrive s a t a
resu l t op p o s ite t o [th a t of the S u p rem e C ou rt]

. ” Wi l l i a ms , 529 U

. S. at405. A l t hough t he deci si ons Si gal a r ef er enc es r equi r e t hat ev i denc e o f m i t i gat i on be 5 p e r m itt e d a t s e n te n c in g , a n d th a t a d e fe n d a n t b e g iv e n co n s id e r a b le la tit u d e in pre se nt i ng s uch e vi denc e, i ncl udi ng evi denc e of a de fendant ’ s psy c hol ogi c al
m ak e- u p, t h ey do not pl ai n l y st an d f or S i gala’ s proposi t i on . N o Su prem e C ou rt d ecisi on h a s l oo k ed at L o ck ett and i t s i m pa c t i n a s i t uat i o n l i ke Sig al a’ s , s o he
can n ot argu e t h at t h e st ate c ou rt reached a concl u si on opp osi t e t o t h at r each ed b y t he Su pre m e C our t
. H e t her ef or e c annot m ee t t he A E D PA r equi r em en t t o show a “ cl earl y est abli shed ” ri gh t t o h i s pref erred presentat i on of such evidenceN o. 08- 70013

B ec au se Si g ala can n ot sati sf yth e firs t pron go f St ricklan d here , we n eed not reach 6 the qu estionof prej udic e. However , w e b eli eve, fo r th e re ason s explained supra at note3, that Si g alawa s notp re

j u dice d b yth e curt ail me nt of th e ri ght h e se ek s t o cl aim

. 11 u n der L o ck ett
. A c c o r d in g ly , w e m u s t d e fe r to th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n th a t h is
coun sel ’ s fai l u re t o att em pt t o “ preserve” such a ri gh t w as not un reasona bl e. 6 D

. C l aim I

X :I n ef f ect i ve A ssi st an ce of

C ou n selin P res enti ng Mi t iga t i ng E vi d ence S i gala ass erts in C l ai m I X a sec on d cl ai m of i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce of
coun sel : at t h e pu n i shm en t ph ase of hi s t ri al , he all eges, hi s t ri al coun selfai l ed t o i n vest i gate, dev el op, an d present cruci al m i t i gati n g evi den ce, i n vi ol ati on of h i s Si xth A m en dm en t ri gh t s un der St r i c kl and . T h e s ta te co u r t d e c id e d th is
c la im o n th e m e r its , Exp a rte S ig a la , sl i p op. at 21; t h eref ore, A E D P A governs. T o overcom e t h e deference t o w h i ch t h e st ate court i s enti t l ed u n der t h at s t atute, S i gala m u stf

i rstshow t h at t h e st ate court’ s adj u di cat i on of t h i s cl ai m w as ei t h er c o n t r a r y t o , o r a n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f, c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a ll a w, a s d eterm i n ed by the U n i ted S tates S u p rem e C ou rt. § 22 5 4 (d)( 1 ). If d em on strate d , this w ou l d satisf y th e fi rst St r i c kl and p r o n g , ca u s e , b e c a u s e it
w ou l d sh ow t h at hi s c ou n sel ’ s r epresentati on w as un reasona bl e. T h e federal di st ri ctcourt concl u ded t h at S i gala’ s cou n selha d m ad e poor st rat egi c deci si on s r egard i n g m i t i gati on t h at are “ preci sel y t h e course of condu ct t h e Su prem e C ou rtdeem ed u n rea so n able [ f or St r i c kl and c a u s e p u r p o s e s ] in Wiggins [ v . S m ith , 53 9 U

. S

. 51 0 , 52 4 ( 2 0 0 3 )]

. ” S ig a la , sl i p op . at 18. B u t even as sum i ng argue ndo t h at t h e st rat egi c deci si on s of Sigal a ’ s c ou n selw ere
unr e as o nab l e , Si ga l a c anno t de m o ns t r at e , a s he i s r e qui r e d t o b y t he s e c o nd St r i c kl and pron g, t h at t h ey prej u di ced his m i t i gati on case. T h e T exas C ou rtof C ri m i n al A pp eal s hel d that Si gala “ presented
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e fa ir ly p o r tr a y in g[ S ig a la ’ s ] b a c k g r o u n d t h a t th e ju r y co u ld hav e v i e w e d a s m i t i ga t i ng” but t hatbe c aus e t he cr i m e s had b e e n e gr e gi o us , he had a c r i m i nal hi st or y, and he di d notexp ress re m or se , “ i t i s i m pro babl e t hatN o. 08- 70013

Sigala also cont ends that two respon ses to jury que stionnaires support his clai m that 7 the jury would have b eenmoresen sitive tomoremiti gating fac tors h ad theybe en info rmed of th em . W e d isa gree. Both ans we rs r es pondt o t he ques tio n, “Wha t is th e mos t per sua sive argume ntf

or se ntencin g someon e toa term o f life i mprison ment who i s guilty of murder?” Th e first response was, “If there were mitigatin g circu mstance s w hich would callfor lifean d not deat h” ; th e sec ond was simply“individual instab ility.” These answers merelyin dicate cons ide rat ions in the abst rac t thatmight di sin clinethes e jur ors t o s upp ortt he dea th pen alty. It is unlikely that th ese questionn airerespo nses, given the substantial evi denceof mitigatio n a n d of S igala’sme ntal prob le ms th at th e j u rydidhear—inclu din gth e te stim onyo f hiso wn foren sic psychologist, Dr. Cu nningham; his medical records; and thefavorableinformation he elicited on cross e xa minationfrom the state’ s expert, Dr. Cl ayton—would allo wS ig al a t o sati sf yth e de ma n din gb u rd eno f St ricklan d , i.e ., to estab lisha reaso nab le probabilityth at the 12 a d d i ti on a l , esp eciall y cu m u l a ti ve , ev i d en ce w ou l d h a ve be n efi tted [S i ga l a ]. ” Ex p a r te S ig a la , s l i p op. at21. I n or dert o g r ant r el i ef f orSi gal a’ s i nef

fec t i ve a s s is ta n c e cla im , w e w o u l d h a v e to fin d th e s ta te co u r t’s d e c is io n n o t m e r e ly
e r r o n e o u s , b u t o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b le

. S ee Nea l v. P u ck ett , 286 F. 3d 230, 246 (5th C i r. 20 0 2 ) (en b a n c). W e a gr ee w i th the distri ct cou rt, an d the state cou rt, t h at t h e add i t i on a l e vi den ce of m i t i gati on Sigal a contend s hi s t ri al coun sel sho ul d h a ve i nt r oduc ed w oul d have bee n un l i kel y t o he l p hi m , and t hat accordi n gl y, he i s u n able t o dem on st rat e St r i c kl and p r eju d ic e . S ee S ig a la , slip op. at19–21. T h e tr a n s c r ip t o f t h e p u n is h m e n t p h a s e o f th e tr ia l s u p p o r ts th is
c o nc l us i o n. Dur i ng t hats t ag e , t h e j ur y l e ar ne d t hatSi ga l a ab us e d d r ugs a nd h a d a tt e n d e d d r u gre h a b ilita tio n ce n te r s ; h a d b e e n e x p e lled f rom s c h o o l; th a t h is
m ot her had t aken pai ns t o t ake c ar e of hi m f i nanci al l y and m edi c al l y; and t hat he ha d ha d a s ubs t ant i alc r i m i nalhi s t o r yi n v o l v i n gt h e f t s , mar ij u a n a p o s s e s s i o n, and ro bber y. H e a l so par t i c i pat ed i n gang ac t i vi t i es . I n addi t i on , h e w as d ia g n o s e d w ith a n tis o c ia l p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r a n d d e s c r ib e d a s a “s a d is tic
sexu al preda t or. ” I t i s h ard t o see h ow t h e ad di t i on al evi den ce Si gala c l ai m s D r. Sl aug ht e r w o ul d hav e o f fe r e d, o r t he fac t t hat i t w o ul d hav e c o m e f r o m a t r e at i ng phy s i c i an, w o ul d ha ve a dde d so si gni f i c ant l y t o hi s m i t i ga t i o n c as e t hatt he
ou t com e w ou l d l i kely h ave been di f ferent. A ccor di n gl y, u n der A E D P A , w e m u st

7N o. 08- 70013

sente nce wo ul dh ave b eendiffe rent . This is e speciallytru e given the gri sly nature of th e crim e. See St ricklan d , 46 6 U .S. at69 9 (f in d in g no prej udic e given that “th e a ggrav atin g circ u mst a n ce s we re u tt erly overwhe lm in g”) ; Jon es v. Joh nson , 17 1 F .3d 2 70, 277(5th Cir. 1 9 9 9) (s im il ar a n aly si s). Fora dis cu ssiono f th e de tail s o f th e crim e, se e S igala , 20 04 WL 2 3 1 3 2 6 , at *1 ; S igala , slip op. at 1–2
. At oralar gu ment, coun sel for Sig alaraised for the first ti me th e a dditio nalar gu ment 8 that Sigala’s trial coun sel had fail ed to intro duce duringth e pu nish ment phase“h ard scientific evidence” rath er thanevidence o f “what [psychologist] Dr. Cu nningham did.” Cou nsel cont ende d atoral argu ment that “th e sch olarlyliterature” sugge sts that Si gala’ s dru g addic tionmea nt “the re’s a veryreal likelihoo d th ath e c ou ldbe b raindama ge d,” a nd that Sigala’s tri al co un s elw ere ther efore“onn oticeof

. . . possibl e b raindama ge , th eywere on notice thatth eyn eeded to hire some sort of

. . . have the neurotestingdon e and have th e MRI’ s do n e tod et er mi n e wh eth ero r n otth er e wa s inf a ctb raind a ma ge. ” Argu me ntsrais edforth e firs t ti meatoral argu me nt aredee me d waived

. E.g., Walk er Int’l H old ingsLtd. v. Rep ubli c of Congo , 39 5 F .3d 229 , 2 32 (5th C ir. 2 004). Were we to consi dert hi s a r gu ment, however, the result in this case would be no differe nt. Si gala’ s appellatec ou ns el has fail ed tocite anyauthority establi shin g the propositionth at the Con stitutionperse requires coun sel for de fendants with a histo ry of drug use to proffer at the punishment ph ase the results of “n euro testin g” and an MRIin stead of, o r in addition to, th e psych ological , ch aracter, and othe r miti gat in g evidence theych oose to proffer. This court certainly has not so h eld. 13 de fe r t o t he s t at e co ur t ’ s re as o nab l e f i ndi ng t hatSi ga l a has notsho w n t hatt he sentenci n g ou t com e w ou l d p robably hav e been di f ferent but f

or t h e asser t ed
error . 8 I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reasons setf ort h above, w e A F F IR M the j u dg m en t of the di st ri ct
c o u r t
. T h e p e t i t i o n f o r a wr i t o f

h a b e a s c o r p u s i s DE NI ED

.