## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3251 J EREM Y D AVI D G RO SS, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. S TAN LEY K NI GHT, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on.

No . 07 C547

—Richar d L . Y oun g, Judg e.
A RGUED D ECE MBE R 10, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 26, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . On A ugust 2 6, 1998 , J er em y Gro ss shotand kil l ed Chri sto pher Beer s whil e r obbi ng a conve ni ence sto re i n I nd i anapol i s. Gross was co nvi cted o f m urder and sentence d to l i f e in pri son w i th ou t par ol e, i n acco rdance w i th a j ury’ s r eco m m endati on. Gross cl ai m s that he re cei ved ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel be c a us e hi s a t t o r ne y ne v e r a dv i s e d hi m o f hi s r i g htto te st i fy a t th e se nt en ci ngpha se o fhi s tr i al

. The I ndi an a co ur ts de ni ed Gr o ss po st
- co nv i ct i o n r el i effr o m hi s se n-2 N o. 07

- 3251
tence , hol ding that he had suff er ed no prej u d ice from his coun sel’s con d uc t. G ross fi led a p etition for a w ri t o fhabea s corpu s in the dist ri ct c ourt, wh i ch deni ed hi s cl ai m bec ause the s tat e co urts r eason abl y a pp l i ed f e d e r a l l a w. We n o w a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D I n the ear l y m or ni ng hour s o n A ugust 2 6, 19 98, Gros s an d a cc o m pl i ce J o sh ua S pea r s en te re d the Co nv en i en t Foo d M ar t in w est er n I nd i anapol i s w here Gross w as a par ttim e e m p loy ee . G ro ss , w h o h ad be en sm ok in g m ar ij ua na , b r an di sh ed a g un a nd f i r ed si x r o unds , s tr i k i ng th e c as h ier C h ris to p h er B ee rs th re e t im es an d m or ta lly woundi ng h im. Gr o ss a nd S pea r s st o l e $6 50 fr o m the store, r i pp ed out the phone l i nes, gr abbed the vi deo r ec o r der, a nd fl ed. Gr o ss a dm i tt ed to the rob berya nd shoo ti ng wh en he w as ar re ste d l ate r that m or ni ng. G ross w as ch arged w ith m urd er, felony m urd er, cons p irac y to com m i t r obbe ry, and robber y. Defense l aw yer R ob er t H ill w as ap p oin te d to d efe n d G ro s s . H ill an d h is te am pr es en te d a n i nt o xi ca ti o n de f en se a t tr i al, b ut thei r pri m ar y focus w as on the p en alt y s tag e o fthe proceedi ngs. F o r ty
- two wi tn ess es t es ti fi ed f o r the de f en se dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ngpha s e to te l l the s t o r y o fGr o s s ’ s c hi l dh o o d. The tes ti m ony re veal ed that Gross and hi s s i ste r had suffer ed physi calvi ol ence, se xuall y inapp ro pri ate i nter acti ons, and ra m pant subst ance abuse. A t o ne poi nt, Gross ’ s m othe r Cindy spr aye d l i ghterfl uid o nto a co uchN o. 07

- 3251 3

w h er e h i s fat h er w as sle ep in g a n d lit it on fire. A fte r h is p a r e n t s d i v o r c e d , G r o s s wa s f o r c e d t o s h a r e h i s h o me w i th a var i et y ofundesi rabl e ho use guests , i ncl ud i ng a ch i l d m o l es te r a nd a pr o st i tu te who s l ept nude o n the c o uc h wi th a s s o r t e d me n. Att i mes du r i ngh i s c hi l dh oo d, Gross did w el l i n str uctured e nvi ro nm ents such as f ost er ca r e, a y o uth c en ter, a nd the I ndi an a Bo y s S ch o o l, b uthe al w ays r etu rn ed to hi s m othe r’ s ca re , wh er e he i nevi tabl y r eve rt ed to a l i f e o fdri nki ng and drugs. G r o s s d i d n o tt e s t i fy b e f o r e th e j u r y . The o n l y t i me the j ury hear d him speakwas i n excer p ts f ro m a taped ne ws c o nfer en ce i nt r o duce d i nt o e vi den ce . The j ury co nv i ct ed Gr o ss a nd un an i m ou sly r ec o m m en ded a se ntence o fl i f e in pri son w i thout paro l e. On J une 9 , 2 00 0, the c o ur t co nd uct ed a se nt en ci ng hear i ng. The j ud ge em plo yed a tw o- phase analysi s t o deter m i ne the appropr i ate se ntence. Fi rs t, he a dd re sse d the s t a t e ’ s a r g ume nttha tthe c o ur ts ho ul d o v e r r i de th e j u r y ’ s r e c o mme n d a t i o n a n d i mpo s e th e d e a th p e nal ty. The j ud ge agr eed with the j ury that the s tat e ha d p r o v e d a n a g g r a v a t i ngf a c t or

— th e intent to kill

—be y o nd a r ea so nabl e d oubt, a nd tha t ag g r av at i ng f ac to r s o ut wei g he d m i ti g at i ngf ac to r s. None th el es s, the cour t decl i ned to i m pose the death penal ty. The c o ur t th enpr o ce ede d t o the s ec o nd pha se a nd co nduc te d i ts o wn an al y si s to de te r m i ne whethe r the sente nce s houl d be life witho ut paro l e o r a t er m o fye ar s. The c o ur t he ar d t es ti m o ny r eg ar di ngv i cti m im pac t, a nd G ross ex p ressed his rem o r s e and ap ologi zed to Bee rs’s fam il y. A fter co ns idering th is testim ony and the infor-4 N o. 07

- 3251

G ross w as als o se ntence d fo r the re lat ed charges ofrobb ery 1 and c ons pi ra c y t o c om m i tr obbe ry . On di re c tappe al, the I nd i a na S up r e m e Co ur tr e duc e d Gr os s ’ s c on vi c ti on f orr ob

b ery fro m a C la ss A t o a C lass B felon y an d rem an d ed the ca se fo r r es en te n ci n g o n th a t c h a rg e. G ro ss v . S tate , 769 N

. E.2d 1136, 11 40 ( Ind

. 20 02 ). H ow ev er, it reje c t e d G ro ss’ s arg u m en t that a se n t e n ce of life in p rison w as m an ifestl y un rea son ab le a n d u p h el d h is m u rd er sen te n ce . Id. at 1140- 41. The pe t i t i o n a l s o p r e s e n t e d o th e r a l l e g a t i o n s , i n c l u di ng 2 do ub l e j e op a r dy vi ol ati on s a nd i ne ff e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e o fa ppella te counsel

. N one ofthe se cl aim s are r el evant f or purp oses of this ap p eal. m ati on co ntai ned i n the prese ntence i nvest i gat i on rep ort, the c o ur t se nt en ce d Gr o ss t o l i f e i n pr i so n wi th

out paro l e f orthe m urder charg e. 1 G ross fi led a P e t it ion f or Post C onv iction Relief, alle gin g t h at h is t ria l co u n se l w as ine f f e c t i v e d u e t o h is f a i l u r e t o a p p r i s e Gr o s s o f h i s r i g h t t o t e s t i fy a t the s en tenci ng phase of tr ial

. A t a post
- convi cti on r el i ef 2 h ea rin g on M ar c h 18 , 20 05 , H ill, G ro ss ’s tria l c o u n se l, tes ti fi ed to the f ol l owing: Q : D id yo u ev er d isc u ss w ith Jere m y t h e p os sib ility of te st ifyin g a t t h is t ria l? A : Idon’ t r em em berdi scussing w i th [ si c] J er em y. I’m su re w e d id it an d I’m su re I j u st to ld h i m it was n’ t g o i ngt o ha ppen . Q: Do you re m em ber, o r w oul d i t be yo ur pra cti ce to advi se hi m thathe had a ri ght to tes ti fy at e i ther the guil t phase orthe penal ty phase?N o. 07

- 3251 5

The c our tgr ant ed c er t ai n r el i efr eg ar di ng Gro s s ’ s c on- 3 sp iracy senten ce tha t is no t relev an t to this ap p eal. T h i s c o n fu si o n a r o se fr o m th e f a c t th a tJe r e m y G r o ss ’s 4 father , Jeffrey G ro ss, testified d u ring the tria l. A : Idon’ t r em em berwh etherId i d ornother e. I’m su re I w ou ld h av e m e n t i on ed it, bu t I w ou ld have i nstructed hi m thatno, i t wasn’tgo i ng to ha ppen . Q: So i fyo u spoke to hi m abo u t it, would yo u chara cter i ze i t a s a r ealdi scussi on about i t o r j ust m o r e o fa uni l at er alde ci si o n? A : I t w ou ld be m ore of a kind of a d iscus sion I ’d ha ve wi thm y 9- y ea r - o l d abo utwhethe r he ’ s g o i ng to c l ea n h i s r o o m , tha t th i s i s th e way i t’ s g o i ng to be, thatkind o fdi scussi on. N o, th er e w asn’t a g i ve a nd t ak e, i ftha t’ s whaty o u mea n. H i l l l ate r cl ar i fi ed that i t wo u l d have be en hi s pra cti ce to let G ross kn ow th at he h ad th e ri gh t to testify. H ow ever, he s tated th athe woul d ha ve “ [ to l d] hi m i t’ s no t g o i ng to happ en” be cause, i n h is vie w , i t i s a “huge m i sta ke” f ordefendants to te sti fy in death penal ty tr i al s. G ro ss ’s p et itio n for p os t-c on vic tio n relie f from h is m urd er se nt en ce w as d en ied. Th e po st-con viction cou rt 3 base d i ts deci si on i n pa rt on an er ro neous concl usi on that Gross had i n f act tes ti fi ed at the s entenci ng phase o fhi s tr i al

. Notw ithsta ndi ngthi s er r o r, the I ndi an a 4 C ou rtof A p p ea ls a ffirm ed on Ju ly 1 8, 20 06 . I t a c kn ow led ge d th e p os t-c on vic tio n co u r t ’ s fau lty find in g, bu t h eld6 N o. 07

- 3251

Gr os s m ade s e ve r a l a ddi t i on a l c l a i m s tha ta r e n otthe s ub

5 ject of this ap p eal. that Gross had suff er ed n o prej ud i ce b ecause he ha d p resen ted no evid en ce th at he ever d esired to testify d u rin g t h e p en alt y p h as e o f h is t ria l. OnApr i l 3 0 , 2 0 0 7, Gr o s s fi l e d a p ro sep et itio n for a w rit ofhabeas c or pu s in the So uthern Dist ri ct o fI nd i ana. H e c laim ed on c e a ga in th at H ill w as co n st itu t i o n ally i neff ecti ve f or fai l i ng to di scuss w i th hi m the opti on o f testifyi ng at th e pe na lty ph ase of tri al. Th e d istri ct cou rt 5 d en ied G ross’ s p etition, hold ing tha t the I nd iana C ou rt of A p p ea ls t oo k t h e c on st itu tio n al s ta n d ar d se riou sly an d di d no t appl y i t unr ea so nabl y t o the f ac ts o fthe case . Gros s no w appeal s.

II. A NA LYSIS To be enti tl ed to federa l habea s r el i effro m a sta te co ur t j udg m en t, a pe tit i o ne r musts ho w tha t he i s be i ng he ld i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n o rl aws o fthe U n ite d Sta te s. 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (a); Virsni ek s v . Sm it h , 52 1 F. 3d 707, 72 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. W here an a l l ege d vi ol ati on w as adj ud i cate d on the m er i ts i n sta te cour t, federa l cour ts m ay gr ant re l i ef onl y i fthe sta te deter m i nati on was c on tr ar y t o, or a n u n re as on a b le a p p lica tio n of, cle ar ly es tabli shed federa l l aw , o r base d on an unre aso na b le d et er m in at ion of th e fac ts
. 28 U .S.C . § 2 2 54 (d ); Arre dond o v. H uibreg tse, 542 F.3d 115 5, 1167 -68 ( 7th Cir. 2008). W e re v i e w the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni a l o fGr o s s ’ s p e t i t i onN o. 07

- 3251 7 deno vo and i ts factu al dete rm inations f or clear err or. Wi l l i am s v. Bar t ow , 481 F.3d 492 , 497 (7th C ir. 2007). Gross cl ai m s th at he r ecei ved i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o f c ou n se l in v iola tio n of th e Si x t h A m en d m en t. T o p re va il on th is cla im , Gros s m us t show that ( 1) his coun sel’s p e r fo rm an ce w as d efi cient ; and ( 2) this deficient p erform an c e p rej u d ice d h im
. St rick land v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U

. S. 66 8, 68 7 (1 98 4); O s a g i e d e v . U nited Sta tes , 54 3 F

. 3d 399, 40 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The Ind i ana Courto fA pp eal s deni ed Gross ’ s cl ai m b ec au se he pr es en te d no e vi den ce tha t he eve r desi re d to tes ti fy a t tri aland thus s uffer ed no prej ud i ce fro m hi s cou nsel ’ s co nd uct. I t di d not add re ss w hetherH i l l ’ s co nd uct was deficient. Because w e a gr ee that Gross has f ai l ed to m eethi s b u rd en to sh ow the p rej ud ice requ ired u nd er St ri ck l and, we c on fin e o u r re vie w to th is p ro n g a s w ell. To dem onst rate that he suff er ed prej ud i ce, Gros s m ust e stabl i sh thatther e i s a r eas on able probabi l i ty that th e r es ul t o fthe pr o ce eding w oul d ha ve b ee n di ff er en t b u t fo r c ou n se l’s d efi c ien t p er for m an c e. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U S. at69 4. Gro ss d oe s not nee d to show that i t was m or e l i kel y th an n ot that H i l l ’ s co nd uct al ter ed the outc om e of t h e c as e. Julia n v . B a rtley, 49 5 F

. 3d 487, 49 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 07 ). In st ea d , th is cou rt h as d efin ed a “ r e as on ab le p ro b ab ility ” a s a “b et te r th an n eg ligib le” ch an c e. Id. ; U nite d State s ex rel

. Ham pton v. Lei bach , 34 7 F.3 d 219, 24 6 (7th C ir. 2003). The deter m i nati on o fthe I nd i ana Courto fA pp eal s that Gross fai l ed to dem onst ra te prej ud i ce w as not base d on an unreas onabl e a pp l i cati on offedera l l aw o r deter m i nati on8 N o. 07

- 3251

Bec aus e we f oc us s ol el y onthe pr ej udi c e pro ng o fthe 6 a n a l y s i s , w e e x p r e ss n o o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g w h e th e r H i l l ’s t ypi c al c our s e of c onduc t was defi c i en t i n l i ght o f p re vai l i ng p ro fessi on al no rm s. of the facts. Th e only ev id e n c e G ross cites to sup p ort thi s cl ai m i s Hill’s t es tim ony at the he ar i ng. H i l l di d not re m embe r a nys pe c i fi c c o nv e r s a t i o n wi th Gr o s s r egar ding hi s r i ght t o tes ti fy, an d he m er el y s pecula ted as to w hat hi s typi cal pract i ce w oul d b e. I n f act, H ill sta ted th a th i s u s u a l p r a c t i c e w o u l d h a v e b e e n t o i n f o r m a defend ant th athe ha d a r i g htt o t es ti fy, b uttha t he woul d ha ve i ns tr uct ed hi m no t to
. He di d no t, a t an y 6 ti m e duri ng h is t est i m ony, i nd i cate thatGros s had a ctuallye xp r e s s e d a de s i r e t o t e s t i fy o r tha th e h a d p ro hibi ted hi m fro m doi ng so . I n f act, he re fer re d to Gross as an “e asycl i ent” w ho f ol l owed hi s r eco m m endati ons. A s the I nd i ana Courto fA pp eal s no ted, Gros s had eve ryo pp or tuni ty to ex pla i n at hi s pos t- convi cti on hear i ng th at H i l l neve r i nfo rm ed hi m o fhi s r i ght t o tes ti fy a nd thathe woul d have t est i fi ed had he bee n so i nf o r m ed. He f ai l ed to do s o . Gr o ss m ad e s uch a n a r g um en t in br iefs to t h e I n d i a n a C ou rtof A p p ea ls a n d th is cour t, but ar gum ents ar e no t e vi dence. I n f act, Gros s dec l i ne d t o t es ti fy a t th e he ar i nga ltogethe r, a nd he neverpre sente d any actual evi dence thathe was not advi sed o fthi s r i ght t o begin w i th . Th e o nl y e vi dence was Hi l l ’ s spe cul at i o n. I t w as th er efo r e en ti r el y r ea so nabl e f orthe sta te cour t t o fi nd thatGros s h ad fa i l ed to d em ons trate p rej ud ice as requ ired u nd er St r i ck l and

.N o. 07

- 3251 9 Gr o ss r el i es he av i l y o n U nd erw o o d v. C l a rk, 93 9 F

. 2d 473 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) , f orhi s a rgum ent that hi s t est i m ony w as unne ce ss ar y t o e st ab l i shpr ej udi ce . I n U nde r wood, we rej ec te d a ru le re q u irin g t h at th e d efe n d an t p ro te st h is l a w y er ’s a c tio n s d u rin g t h e t ria l. Id. a t4 7 6

. I n s o do i ng, w e n ot ed th at “ th e d efe n d an t m igh t w ell fee l too int im id at ed to sp ea k ou t o f tu rn .” Id. W e hel d that t o l ater m aint ain a n a ct i o n for i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o unsel, “ [t ] he de f en dan t ne ed no t pr o te st[ att r i al ] a nd the j ud ge need not questi on hi m . ” Id. T h u s, U nde r wood es tabl i shed a pr i nci ple tha t a lack ofev i dence att r i al de m o nst r at i ngthat a de f en dan t was pr o hibi te d fr o m t es ti fy i ng is n otfat al t o h is c laim

. Se ei d. Butthe s i tu at i o n we di sc us se d i n U nde r wood i s no t before us. Th e I nd iana C ou rt of A p p eals did not inq uire as to w hetherGros s h ad e xpresse d a desi re to te sti fy a t tr i al ; i t s i m plyr evi ew ed the re cor d fr om the post- convi ct i o n r e l i e fh e a r i ng . Co ns i de r i ngthat Gr o s s h a d a l r e a dy bro ug ht a cl ai m ag ai nst hi s t ri alat torney fori neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel, the concern t h at he would be “to o i nt i m i dat ed to s pea ko uto ftur n” doe s no t appl y t o the he ar i ng . Nothi ngi n U nde r wood c ha ng e s the f a c tthat G ross w as req uired to p r esen t the pos t-con viction cou rt wi th som e evid en ce th at he w ou ld h ave lik ed to testify orthathe was pro hibi ted fro m doi ng so . I n f act, we rej ecte d the defendant’s i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce of couns elc l ai m i n U nde r wood because he ha d not pro

du ced s uffi ci ent e vi dence to es tabl i sh thathe was pre

ve n te d from te st ifyin g. Se ei d. at 475- 76

. W e he l d tha t “the defe nd ant m ust pro du ce s om ethi ng m or e than a bare ,10 N o. 07

- 3251

Ind ian a law h a s ch an g ed since G ro ss’ s trial. Fo r d efend an ts 7 s en t en c ed af terJ une 30 , 20 02 , the c our tm us ti m pos e the se n te n ce re co m m en d ed b y th e ju ry . In d . C o d e § 35 -5 0 -2 -9 (e). unsubstanti ate d, thor oughly sel f

- ser vi ng, and none t oo pl a us ib l e s t a t e men t tha t hi s l a wy e r . . . f o rb a de hi m to t a k e the s t a nd. ” Id. at47 6. W e s u gg es te d th at an affidavi t fro m the defe nd ant’ s l aw yerm ight suffi ce. Gros s now ar gues that H i l l ’ s t est i m ony i s a dequ ate ev i dence bec au se it establi sh es t h a t h e either fai led to inform Gr o ss o f hi s r i g ht o r f o rba de hi m f r o m te st i fyi ng . But th i s m i sc o nstrue s H i l l ’ s te st i m o ny . Hi l l mer el y s pec ulat ed a s to w h at c ou rs e of ac tio n h e w ou ld ta ke if, hypo thet ically, a de f en d an t ina de ath pe na l tyt r i ale xpr es se d the desi re to te sti fy. Thi s is c er tainl y no t s uffi ci ent t o re n d er th e d ec isio n oft h e In d ian a C ou rtof A p p ea ls unreas onabl e in l i ght o fthe f acts
. M o r e o v er , eve n if G ro ss h ad p ro ve d th at h e w ou ld have tes ti fi ed i fpro perl y a dvis ed, we are notper su aded th atthe r e i s a be tt ertha n n eg l i g ibl e ch an ce hi s te st i m o ny wo u l d ha v e r e s u l t e d i n a d i ff e r e n to u t c o me . A tth e t i me Gross was s e nt e nc e d, the j ud g e wa s n o tb o un d t o f o l l o w the j ur y ’ s s e nt e nc i ngr e c o mm e nd a t i on. I nd

. Co de 7 § 35- 50- 2- 9( e) ( 2000 )

. To i m pose a sente nce of life in pri son, t h e j ury w as re quir ed to fi nd thatthe sta te prove d an agg ra vating ci rcum sta nce and thatthe agg r av at i ng c ircum stanc e o ut wei g he d the mit i g at i ng fac to rs , i d. § 35- 50- 2- 9( k) , but the cour t m ade th e final sen ten cing dete rm ination after taking the sam e fa ctors in to ac c ou n t, i d. § 35-50-2-9( e).N o. 07

- 3251 11 The agg ra vating f acto r i n thi s ca se w as the intenti onal k i l l i ngofChri st o phe r Be er s. Co ns i der i ngthe v as t amoun t of m iti gating ev id en ce th e d efense offered on G ross’s behal f, we do not bel i eve thatthere is a “bet terthan negl i gible” c hance that Gro ss’ s e xpressi on o fr em or se w oul d hav e been suffi ci ent to convi nce the j u ry th at an int en ti o na l murde r di d no t o ut wei g h the mit i g at i ng f acto rs . Once the j ury m ade thi s fi nd i ng, the j ud ge w as free to disregard i ts recom m en d a t io n an d i m p ose a term ofye ar s. I nstea d, the j ud ge concl ud ed that l i f e in pris on was war r an te d a fte r c ond uct i nga c ar efula na l y si s co nsi deri ng the ev i de nce pre sente d at t ri al, vi cti m i m pact st a t e men t s , a nd G ross’s ex pressio n o f rem o rse a tth e s en tenci ng hea ri ng. W e do not fi nd a “bet terthan negl i gibl e” chance that the r esul t would have bee n diff er ent had Gross te sti fi ed bef or e the j ury, r atherthan the j ud ge al one.

III. C ON CLU SI ON The deci si on o fthe I nd i ana C ourto fA pp eal s that Gro ss did notsuff erprej ud i ce a s r equi re d by St r i ck l andwas not unr ea so nabl e i n l i g hto ffed er all aw o r the f ac ts i n the re cor d. Gross has not de m on str ate d that he would have te st ified attria l, n or h as h e c on vin c ed u s t h at h is t es tim ony coul d have alte red his se ntence. The j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

3- 26- 09