## 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

- 2486 H OWARD A. A LLE N , J R ., Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v.
E DWI N G. B USS, S UPE R I NT EN DE NT, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 01 C1658

—Jo hn Dan ielTi nder , Judg e.
A RG UE D J UL Y 25, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 11, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge. In 1 988, c ons istentw ith a j ury’s ver dictand sent enci ng r eco m m endati on, the M ar i on Sup erior C ou rt i n I nd iana sen ten ced H ow ard A
. A ll en, J r. to d eath by l eth al injection for th e m urd er and robbery o fEr ne st i ne G riffi n. S i nc e th en, Al l enha s be ena sk i ng th e In d ian a s ta te co u rt s t o co n sid er h is c laim th at h e is men t a l l y r e t a r de d a nd the r e f o r e s ho ul d n o tb e e xe c uted. Fi rs t, he s ought re l i efwh en I nd i ana ba nned the exec uti on2 N o. 07

- 2486

o fment al l y r et ar ded person s i n 1 99 4, b utthe Indi an a c o ur t s he l d tha t the ne w s t a t ut e di d no t a pp l y r etr oac ti ve l y t o Al l en . Ins tead , the s ta te t r i alc o ur t, wi th o ut hol ding a hea ring, co nsi dered hi s m entalr eta rdati on a s a m i ti g at i ngf ac to ra nd f o und i t d id no t o ut wei g h the ag g ravati ngc i r cumst an ce o fhi s cr i m e. In 2 00 2, a fte rthe Su p re m e C ou rtiss u ed its op in ion in A tk ins v. Virgini a , 53 6 U. S
. 3 0 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , wh i c h c a t e g o r i c a l l y b a n n e d th e e xecuti on o fthe m ental l y ret ar ded , A l l en ag ai n so ught r el i ef from h is ex ecu tion. B ut th e Ind iana Su p rem e C ou rt de term in ed th at be c au se A llen h ad alre ad y li t i g at ed h is c laim th a th e w a s me nt a l l y r e t a r d e d a s a mi t i g a t i n gc i r c u msta nce, he woul d not be al l owed to r el i ti gat e hi s Atki ns c l a i m. We th i n kth i s d e c i s i o n i s c o n t r a r y t o th e S u p r e me C ou rt’s ho l di ngi n Atki ns , w hich recogn ized that there i s a d i ffer ence between usi ng m entalr eta rdati on a s a m itig at in g fac to r an d c at eg or ica lly ex c lu d i n g m en ta lly retard ed pers ons from the d eath p e n alty altogether. B ec au se A lle n h a s p re se n te d ev id en c e t h at h e is m en ta lly retard ed , w e vac a t e the district cou rt’s den ialof A ll en ’s ha beas p e t ition an d rem an d the ca se to the district cou rt f oran e vi denti ar y hea ring to address w h etherA l l en i s me n t a l l y r e t a r d e d u n d e rIn d i a n a l a w. I n l i g h to fo u rs t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w o nh ab e a s c l a i ms , we rej ect A l l en’ s r em ai ni ng two ar gum ents. A l l en m ai ntai ns, pur su an t to the S uprem e C o ur t’ s o pi ni o n in Eddi ngs v. Ok l a h o ma , 455 U
. S. 104 ( 1982 ) , that he should have r ec eiv ed a ne w pena l typha se he ar i ngb efo r e a j ur y a nd th atthe s en te nc i ngc o ur t i g no r ed so m e o fhi s m i ti g at i ng ev i den ce . Be ca us e All endi d no t r ai se the fi r sta r g um en t i n the I nd i ana co urts , we fi nd thathe pr oce du ra l l y de-N o. 07

- 2486 3 f aul ted thi s cl ai m , wh i ch prec l ud es u s fro m r eachi ng i ts m er i ts
. As to hi s cl ai m r eg ar di ngmit i g at i nge vi den ce , the se n te n c in g c ou rt ’s o r d e r d oe s n otm ak e c lea r th at it i gnor ed A l l en’ s e vi dence r atherthan choos i ng to gi ve i t l i tt l e wei g hts o we ar e co ns tr aine d b y the Indi an a Suprem e Cour t’s fin ding that the t ri alco urt consi dered the e vi dence, wh ich i s no t obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. A l l en al so cl ai m s that hi s sta te m ents w er e t ake n i n vi ol ation of M i r anda v. A r izona , 3 84 U. S
. 4 36 ( 19 66 ) , a nd w er e i m proper l y a dm i tte d at t ri al
. H ow eve r, he f ai l s t o est abl i sh that the state cour t’ s a dj ud i cati on o fhi s M i r anda cl ai m s r esul ted i n a deci si on that was con tr ar y t o, o r an unreas onabl e a pp l i cati on o f, S up re m e C ou rt prec edent, orbas ed o n an unre aso nabl e dete rm i nati on o fthe f acts
. See2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) & ( 2 )
. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we affi rm the j ud gm ent ofthe dist ri ct c ourto n A l l en’ s Eddi ngs a nd M i r anda cl ai m s.

I . B AC KGR OUND Because All en has ra i sed thr ee dist i nct i ssue s, w e s et for th h er e a b rie f su m m ar y of t h e fa c ts an d d isc u ss in gr ea te r d et ail th e fa c ts ap p lica b le t o e ac h i s su e b elo w . In 19 88 , a j ur y c o nv i ct ed All en of th e m ur der, fel o ny m urder, and robber y of Ernestine Gri ffi n. The S tat e o f I n d i a n a s o u g h tth e d e a th p e n a l t y b a s e d o n th e c i r c u msta n ces ofthe cri m e ( i ntenti onalki l l i ng duri ng a robber y)
. The tri alcourt f ol l owed the j ury’ s r eco m m endati on an d s en te nc ed All ent o de ath. A ll en ap p ealed , bu t before the Ind iana Su p rem e C o u rt consi dered h i s a pp eal, i t r em anded the case to the tr i al4 N o. 07

- 2486

cou r t an d di r ec te d i t to i ss ue a wri tt ens en te nc i ngorder. Inth e s am e o rd er , i t s ta te d th at th e t ria l co u rtsh ou ld consi der All en’ s e vi d en ce o fm entalr eta rdati on a s a m i ti g at i ngf ac to r . In 1 99 6, the t r i alc o ur t, w itho utho l di ng a h ea rin g, co n sid er ed A llen ’s e vid en c e a n d co n c lu d e d in a wri tt ens en ten cingo r dertha t “the po ss ibi l i tyo fthe m i ti g at i ngc i r cumst an ce of [ All en ’ s] ment alr et ar dat i o n” d id n otou tw eig h th e a gg ra va tin g c irc u m st a n c e o f h is cri m e. I n that or der, the cour t al so consi dered an d ru l ed out othe r m i ti gat i ng ci rcum sta nces, s u c h as A l l en’ s a ge and cri m i nalhi sto ry . The I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t then or dered supple m ental bri efi ng and c on sidere d A l l en’ s a pp eali n full
. I t a ffi rm ed A llen ’s c on vic tio n an d s e n te n c e. A ll en v. State, 68 6 N
. E.2 d 760 (I nd
. 1997) (“ All e n I”)
. The I ndi an a S upr eme Cou rt co ns i der ed no l ess tha n s ev en te eni ss ue s butthe fol low ing hold ings are th e o n ly relevan t ones : ( 1) A ll en ’s sta tem ents to the pol i ce a t the ti m e o fhi s inter ro gat i on were m ad e vo l unt ar i l y ; ( 2) Al l enwas no t en ti tl ed to the be nefi t o fIndi an a’ s amende d l aw pr o hibi tingthe e xe cution of th e m en tally retard ed ; and ( 3) the trialcou rt’s se nt en cingo r derpr o per l y c o nsidere d a nd wei g he d the evi dence in fav oro fand aga i nst i m posi ng the death p en alty and refl ec t ed no con stitut ional or statu tory error. A l l en the n so ught post

- convi cti on r el i efo n a num bero f i s s u e s n o t r e l e v a n tt o th i s a p p e a l
. T h e In d i a n a S u p r e me C ou rtd en ied h is c laim s. A ll en v . S tate, 74 9 N
. E.2 d 1158 (Ind
. 2001) (“ A ll en II”). I n M ar ch 2 00 2, A l l en fi l ed a pet i ti on f orhabea s r el i ef i n federa ldi str i ct c ou rt. W hi l e that pet i ti on was pending,N o. 07

- 2486 5 th e U n ite d Sta te s Su p re m e C ou rtiss u ed its op in ion in A tkins v. Virgini a , 53 6 U.S
. 30 4 ( 2002 ) , wh i ch hel d th at “d ea th is n ota su ita b le p u n ish m en t fo r a m en ta lly r et ar ded cr i m i na l, ” an d c at eg o r i call y b anne d the e xe cuti on o fm ental l y r eta rded pers ons. 53 6 U.S
. at32 1. A l l en the n m ove d the Ind i an a S up re m e Cour t for perm i ssi on t o fi l e a successi ve peti ti on fo r post- convi cti on re l i ef
. In that m oti on, A l l en cl ai m ed th at hi s e xecuti on w as prohibi ted by Atki ns . T he c o ur th e l d tha tb e cause A l l en had al re ady l i ti gat ed that c laim , he woul d not be al l owed to r el i ti gat e i t. Alle n v. State, No
. 4 9 S 0 0

- 0 3 0 3

- S D122, 20 03 I nd
. LEX I S 581 ( I nd
. Jul y 1 5, 20 03) ( unp ubl i shed ord er) ( “ A ll en III” )
. J u s t i c e B o e h m d i s s e n t e d , c o n t e ndi ng that the i ss u e w as , in f act, notl i ti gat ed and that A l l en shoul d be per m i tte d to l i ti gat e i t. O n Sep tem ber 19, 2006, th e d istri ct court d en ied A ll en ’s habe as pe ti ti o n wi th o uta he ar i nga nd e nt er ed j udg m en t a g a i ns t hi m. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tS u p r e me C ou rtca se law d id n ot e n t i t l e A llen to h ab ea s re lief. It al so de ni ed All en ’ s m o ti o n t o a l te ro r am en d j udg m en t on M ay 30, 20 07.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . Standard o fRevie w W e r evi ew de novo the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa habeas p e t i t i o n . A rredo nd o v. H uibreg tse, 54 2 F
. 3d 1155 , 11 67 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08 ). Pursuant to the Antit er ro ri sm and Effecti ve D ea th Penal ty A ct ( A ED PA ) , we m ay gr ant habe as re l i ef onl y i f : ( 1) the sta te cour t’ s deci si on w as “ c on trar y t o, o r6 N o. 07

- 2486 i nvol ved an unre aso nabl e a pp licati on o f, cl ear l y e stablish ed Fe d er al la w as d et er m in ed by th e Su p re m e C ou rt,” 28 U
. S. C. § 2254( d)( 1) , or (2 ) “the d eci si on . . . was base d on anunr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe evi denc e p r e s e nt e d in the s t a t e p r o c e e di ng . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2254 (d)(2). A deci si on i s “ contr ar y t o” clea rl y e stabl i shed federa l l aw “i fthe state c ou rt ar ri ves at a co ncl usi on o pp osi te to that re ached b y [ the S uprem e Cour t] o n a quest i on o f law o r i fthe sta te cour t deci des a case di ffer entl y than [ th e S upr eme Co ur t] ha s o n a s eto fmate r i al l y i ndi st i ngui shabl e f acts
. ” Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 529 U
. S. 362, 413 (2000). A decis ion repre sents an “ unreas onabl e a pp l i cati on” of cl ear l y e stabl i shed federa ll aw “i fthe sta te cour t i denti fi es th e c o r r e c tg o v e r n i n gl e g a lp r i n c i p l e fr o m [ th e S u p r e me C ou rt ’s] d ec isio n s bu t un re as on ab ly a p p lies th at p rin c ip le to the f acts o fthe pri son er ’s ca se. ” Id. Factual i ssues deter m ined by sta te cour ts ar e pr esum ed to be cor re ct, an d th e p et iti o n e r b ea rs th e b u rd en of re b u tt in g th is presum pti on bycl earand convinci ng ev i dence. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(e)(1)
.
B . Al l e n i s e nt i t l e d t o a n Atk i ns hear i ng. All enc l ai m s th athi s e xe cuti o n wo ul d v i o l at e th e E igh th A m en d m en t b ec au se h e is m en ta lly re ta rd e d . In A tkins v. Virgini a , the S upr eme Co ur t co ns true d the E igh th A m en d m en t t o p r oh ibitth e e x ec u tio n of m en ta lly re ta rd ed p er so n s, re as on in g t h at su c h p u n ish m en t w ou ld be “e xc e s s i v e . ” 5 3 6 U. S
. a t3 2 1
. T he Co ur tdi d n o tpro v i d e a d e fi n i t i o n f o r“ me n t a lr e t a r d a t i o n, ” e n t r u s t i n gt heN o. 07

- 2486 7 sta tes with the “t asko fdevelop i ng appro pri ate ways to enf or ce t h e consti tuti onalr est ri cti on” up on the exec uti on of th eir se n te n c es . Id. at 317 (q u ot i ng For d v
. Wai nwr ight, 47 7 U .S. 39 9, 41 6-1 7 (1 98 6)). A tk ins is re t r o ac tiv e o n co ll a t e r a lr e v i e w. Pe nry v . Ly nau gh , 4 9 2 U. S
. 3 0 2 , 3 3 0 ( 1989 ) ( a ho l di ngtha t “ th e Ei g hth Am en dm en t pr o hibi ts the ex ec u tio n of m en ta lly r e t a r d e d p er so n s s u c h as P en ry . . . w ou ld fall u n d er th e firs t e x c ep tio n to th e g en er al ru le ofnonr etr oac ti vi ty and woul d be a pp l i cabl e t o defe nd ants on c o l lat er al re vie w ”); se e also D avis v. Norris , 42 3 F
. 3d 868, 879 (8th C ir. 2005) ( Atki ns r etr oac ti ve pu rs uant to P enry ); In reHol l aday, 331 F.3d 116 9, 1173 ( 11th Cir. 2003). I nd i ana defi nes a m ental l y ret ar ded i nd i vi du alas som eone w ho, “bef or e be com i ng twenty- tw o ( 22) ye ar s o f age , m ani fest s: ( 1) si gni fi can tly subav er age i ntel l ectual functi oni ng; and ( 2) subst anti ali m pai rm ent o fadapti ve behavi or . . . .” I nd
. Code § 35- 36- 9- 2. Ind i ana e nacted thi s s tatute in 1994, p ri orto the Suprem e Cour t’ s deci si on i n Atki ns , but by th at ti m e All en ha d al r ea dy be en convi cted and se nt en ce d t o de ath. Tha t sa m e y ea r, Indi an a al so ban ned the e xecuti on o fthe m ental l y r eta rded. Pri or to 1994, Ind i ana co urts c ou l d consi der m entalr eta rdati on as a m i ti gat ing f acto r w hen deci ding w hetherto i m pose the death penal ty. A llen sought appell ate r el i effro m hi s death sent ence u n d er th e In d i an a s ta tu te , claim in g t h at h e w as m en ta lly re ta rd e d , a n d su b m itt ed affid av its in s u p p or t o f h is cl ai m . In 19 96 , the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t r emande d the case to the tria l cou rt and directe d i t to cons ider A ll en ’s affi davi ts as m it igating e vidence
. Cr i ti ca l l y, the Indi an a8 N o. 07

- 2486

W e not e thatthi s i s no tane xh aust i ve s um m ar y ofthe 1 evi den ce p re s en t ed by All en . W e s etf or th o nl y s om e ofthe re l eva nte vi denc e f or pur pos es ofthe di s c us s i on. Suprem e Cour t di d not va c ate the death se ntence, nor di d i t i ns t r uc t the t r i a l c o ur t t o c o ns i de r e v i dence of m en ta lr et ar dat i o n as a po te nt i alb art o Al l en ’ s ex ec ut i o n. Se eAl l e n I

, 68 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 88. A llen su b m itt ed th e fo llow in g e vid en c e t o s u p p or t h is cl ai m t ha th e i s me nt a l l y r e t a r de d. I Q t e s t s a dmi ni s ter ed 1 w h en A llen w as se v e n y ea rs old rev ea led h e h ad an IQ of70
. H e was pl aced i n sp ecialeducati on cl ass es f or men t a l l y r e t a r de d c hi l dr e n whe n he wa s e i g hty e a r s o l d. A t the age of ten, he w as retest e d and received a score of 68, so he rem ained i n sp ecial e d u c a t ion classes. M ary J o Dare A ver s a nd Dr. Ri chard Deverpro vi ded affi davi ts on be hal fo fA l l en. Dr. Deverco nc lu d ed , bas ed on t est s ad m in ist er ed to A llen w h en h e w as a c h i l d an d h is IQ sc o r es , that A l l enwas ment al l y r et ar ded. Ave r s, the D ire c to r of Sp ec ial E d u c at ion for th e In d ian ap olis P u b lic Scho olC or pora ti on, o pined thatA l l en had diffi cul ty proce ssing l anguage as a chi l d and coul d h ave diffi cul ty und erst an ding the c onse quences o fhi s co nd uct and be eas i l y l ed. Dr. Devero pined thatA l l en m ani fest ed defi ci ts i n ad apti ve behavi orduri ng the devel opm entalper i od i n hi s l i fe. There was no e xpert w ho co n tr ad i cted these concl usi ons. W i thout hol ding a hea rin g, the tr i alco urt i ssued an ord er stating th at it had exam ined th e “ m it igating circum sta nces” and concl u d ed thatdeath was appro pri ateN o. 07

- 2486 9 base d on the j ury’ s r eco m m endati on. In so doi ng, the tr i al co ur t ex pl aine d tha t th e “inf o r m at i o n c o nt ained in the affi dav i ts
. . . t en d [ si c] t o s ho w a m i ti g at i ngf ac to r, b ut i s a ve rysl i ght m i ti gat i ng f act or .” I t di scusse d other evi dence i n the re cor d, such as the r epor ts of t w o cour tappo i nt ed psy ch i at r i st s i n 1 975 who r epo r te d tha t he wa s “we l lo r i en te d a nd ha d the c apa ci tyt o unde r st an d hi s be havi or, ” the f act that n o w i tness cal l ed by A l l en at hi s se nt en cingm ent i o ne d m en ta lr et ar dat i o n, a nd the co ur t ’ s o wno b s e r v a t i o n s o fAl l e n d u r i n gth e t r i a la nd sente nci ng hea ring. I t a l so note d that the pre

- sente nce rep ort stated that A ll en “ha d an IQ of 10 4
. ” Th e cou rt then con cl ud ed that “the agg ra vating ci rcum sta nce o utw ei ghs the poss ibi l i ty ofthe m itig ating ci rcum sta nce o f m entalr eta rdati on” a nd ag re ed w i th the j ury that death wa s th e a pp r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . T h e In d i a n a S u p r e me C ou rtaffirm ed A llen ’s c on vic tio n an d se n te n c e. A lth ou gh A ll en attem p ted to seek r eli ef un d er Ind iana’s n ew st at u te p ro h ibit in g t h e e x ec u tio n of th e m en ta lly re ta r d e d , t h e c ou rth eld th at th e s ta tu te d id n otap p ly r et r o ac ti ve l y t o Al l en . Al l e n I , 68 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 86. Aft erthe S upr eme Co ur t i ss ue d its o pi ni o n in Atki ns , A l len m oved the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t forper m i ssi on to fi le a su cce ssive p etition forpos t-con v ic t io n reli ef, cl ai m i ng tha t hi s e xecuti on i s pro hibi ted by Atki ns . The I nd i ana S up re m e Cou rtdeni ed the m oti on. I t e xplained that because the I nd i ana co urts h ad alr eady c onsi dered evid en ce o fAl l en ’ s m en ta lr et ar dat i o n a s a m i ti g at i ng f acto r, A l l en coul d not re l i ti gat e hi s Atki ns cla im
. A ll en III , 2003 Ind
. LEX I S 581, at* 14.10 N o. 07

- 2486 The cour t acknowle dged that the i ssue ofA l l en’ s m ental ca pac i tywas pr es en te d t o the t r i alc o ur t i n the c o nte xt o fwhethe rAllen’s ment alr et ar dat i o n was a mit i g at i ng ci r cu m sta nc e su ffi ci en t to o ut wei g h the a g g r av at i ng c ir c u m stan ce. Bu t it reason ed that the factu al inq uiry r equi r ed bythi s ba l ancing testi s th e sa m e as the o ne re quir ed by Atk i ns : “i s the per son m ental l y r eta rded?” Id. at * 12. A fterr evi ew i ng the paper evi dence su b m i tte d b y A llen in 1 99 6 a n d th e t ria l co u rt ’s d ec i s i o n t o g ive it litt le w eig h t a s a m itig at in g fa c to r inligh t o fo t h er ev idence, the I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t co ncl ud ed th at A l l en “had a fulland f ai r opportunity t o l i tig at e the i ssue of w hetherhe i s m ental l y r eta rded. ” Id. at * 14. Thi s dec i si o n i s co nt r ary t o the S upr eme Co ur t’ s ho l di ng in Atki ns , wh i c h r e c o g ni z e d tha tthe r e i s a di ffe r ence between usi ng m entalr eta rdati on a s a m itig ating f acto r an d c at eg o r i ca l l y e xc l udi ngment al l y r et ar ded per so ns fr o m the de ath pe na l tya l to g ethe r . 5 36 U
. S
. at32 0- 21
. One i s a b al anci ng te st and the o theri s a ban. A ccor ding to th e S upr eme Co ur t, the di ffer en ce bet wee n the se i nquir i es m att er s. The S up re m e Cour t hel d t h at re l i ance o n m en tal retarda tion as a m iti gati n g fact or w as insu ffi ci ent t o p ro tectm ental l y r eta rded defendants be cause th ey are les s a b le t o giv e m ea n in gfu l as sis ta n c e t o th eir counsel, and thei r dem eanorm ay cre ate an unw ar ra n ted im p re ss ion of lac k of re m or se . Id. ( noting the “l ess er abi l i ty ofm ental l y r eta rded defendants to m ake a per suasi ve showing ofm i ti gat i on in the f ace ofpro secutor i al evi dence ofo ne o r m or e a ggr avat i ng f acto rs ”)
. Because “[ m ] ental l y r eta rded defendants .
. . face a speci alr i sk of w ro ngful ex ecuti on, ” the S up re m e Cour t found itnece s-N o. 07

- 2486 11

sa r y to “c at eg o r i ca l l y ” ex cl ude ment al l y r et ar ded per so ns fro m th e d ea th p en alt y. Id. at32 0- 21. Ind eed, the sta te co ur t i n Atki ns cons idered eviden ce of the d efend an t’s m en ta lr et ar dat i o n as a mit i g ati ngf ac to r, b utthe S upr eme Co ur t he l d tha t w as no t su ffi ci en t unde rthe Consti tu tio n . A nd i t be ar s no ti ng tha t the st ate co urt on re m and hel d a hear i ng r ega rdi ng Atki ns ’s m entalr etar dati on e ven though a j ury al re ady hear d evi dence re gar ding hi s m ental re tar dati on du ring th e penalty p h as e o f h is t ria l. H er e, A l l en’ s claim r ega rdi ng m entalr eta rdati on r ec e i v e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o n l y a s a mi t i g a t i ngf a c t o r . We sim p ly can not reconc il e the Ind iana Su p rem e C o u r t’s deter m i natio n

— th at A llen h ad alre ad y litig at ed h is Atki ns cl ai m b ec au se he was abl e to pr es en t i t as mit i g at i ng evi dence

— wi ththe S upr eme Cou r t’ s dec i si o n tha t th e co ns ider at i o n o fment alr et ar dat i o n a s a m i ti g at i ng fac to r d oe s n o t s u fficie n tly p ro te c t t h e rig h ts of m en ta lly re ta rd ed p er so n s. Se e, e . g. , Hal l v. Q uar t e r m an , 53 4 F
. 3d 36 5, 37 1-7 2 (5 th C ir. 20 0 8 ) (r em an d in g d efe n d an t’s cla im to d is trict courtto cond uc t an ev iden tiary hearing w he re sta te onl y c onsi dered defendant’s m en talr eta rdati on ev id en c e onp a p er ); H i l l v. Ande rs on , 30 0 F
. 3d 679, 68 2 ( 6th Ci r. 20 02) ( re m anding de fen dant’s cl ai m to st ate c o urt s to cons ider Atki ns i ss ue e ve n tho ug h j ur y c o nsi der ed ev i den ce o fment alr et ar dati o n a s m i ti g at i ng factor in sent en cing). The St ate m ai ntai ns thatthe I nd i ana cour ts f ound A l l en to be no t m ental l y r etard ed and argues that s uch fi n d i n g s a r e p r e s u me d c o r r e cto n h ab e a s r e v i e w. Ho w-12 N o. 07

- 2486

eve r, the sta te cour ts i n thi s ca se neverco nsi dered whe th e rAl l e n i s me n t a l l y r e t a r d e d u n d e rth e In di an a st an d ar d for m e n t a l ret ar d at ion
. C f. M urphy v. O hio , 55 1 F. 3d. 48 5, 50 6 ( 6th Ci r. 20 09) ( sta te c ou rt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t p et i tio n er w as n otm en ta lly re ta rd ed w as a “r ea so n ab le ap p li cati o n o f an d i n ac cord an ce w ith Sup rem e C ou rt pr ec ede nt ” when st at e co ur t he l d a n e vi den ti ary he ar i ng an d ut i l i ze d a ppr o pr i at e st an dar d)
. Ins te ad, the Indi an a Suprem e Cour t r el i ed o n the tr i alco urt’ s pre -Atki ns deter m i nati on that Allen ’s m entalr eta rdati on was not su fficiently m iti gating to overc om e an agg ravatin g circum sta nce. That dete rm inati on was a bal anci ng te st, not a binaryi nquir y. A nd the tr i al cour t’ s anal ysi s m ake s cl earthati t e ngage d i n a s ubstanti vel y d i ffer ent inquir y fro m thatm andated by Atki ns . F i r st, the t r i al c o ur t di d no t det er m i ne w heth erA l l en i s m ental l y r eta rded und erInd i ana’ s t est f orm entalr eta rdati on. That t estwould have re quir ed c on sid er at ion of w h et h er A llen “m an ifes t[e d ] .
. . sign ifica nt l y su ba ve r ag e i nt el l ec tu al func ti o ni ng ” an d “ su bs ta nti ali m pai r m en t o fa dapt i ve b eh av i o r ” be f o r e be co m i ng twe nty - two y ea r s o fa g e. Ind. Co de § 35

- 36

- 9- 2. The tr ial co ur t’ s se nt en cingo r derdo es no t ev enment i o n, m uchl es s di sc us s, thi s te sto rhow i t appl i es t o Al l en . S ec o nd, th e tr i al co ur t’ s se nt en cing o r der do es no t concl ude tha t All eni s notment al l y r et ar ded. The s en te nc i ng ord er states th at th e inform ation c o n tained i n A ll en ’s affi davi ts “ t e nd [ si c] to show a m i t igat i ng f ac t or, but i s a ve r y s l ightmit i g at i ngf ac to r . ” Lat er, i t st at es tha t th e “ag gr avat i ng ci rcum sta nce o u tw ei ghs the pos s i b i l i ty of the mi t ig a t i n gc i r c u ms t a n c eo f me n t a l re t a r d a t i on . ” ( Em phasesN o. 07

- 2486 13 add ed. ) A s J usti ce Boe hm ap tl y no tes i n hi s di sse nt to th e I ndi ana S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ul i ngi n A ll en III , i t i s no t c lea r w h et h er t h e t ria l co u rtm ea n t t h at A llen is on ly m ild ly (or sligh tly ) m en ta lly re ta rd ed , or w h e th er it m eant that, though A l l en m i ght be m ental l y re tar ded , that f act does n ot m i ti gat e a gainst putting hi m to death ( orbo th)
. 20 03 I nd
. LEX I S 581, at* 16- 17. N one ofthes e re ad i ngs a m ounts to a co ncl usi on that All en was not, in f ac t, ment al l y r et ar ded. In l i g hto fthe se s ta te m ents an d th e ent irel y d ifferent sta nd ard utili zed by the t r ia l cou rt in r each ing its conclu sion, th e I nd iana Su p rem e C ou rt’s d et er m i nati on that the tr i alco urt f ound A l l en to be not m en tally re t a r d e d f or the p urp oses of A tk ins i s obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. The St ate al so ar gues that A l l en i s no t e nti tl ed to an e v i de nti a r y h e a r i ngo n whe the rh e i s m ental l y r e t a r de d. “W h er e t h e fa c ts are i n d i sp u te , th e fe d er al c ou rtin habe as c o r pus mustho l d a n e vi den ti ary he ar ing i fthe h ab ea s a p p lica n t d i d n otrec eiv e a fu ll an d fair evi denti ar y hearing in a st ate co urt. ” Tow nse nd v. Sain , 37 2 U .S. 29 3, 31 2 (1 96 3), ove r r ul e d on othe rgroun ds , K eeney v . Ta m a yo -R eyes , 50 4 U.S
. 1, 5- 6 ( 1992 )
. W e hav e e x pla i ned th a t a he a r i ng i s r e qu i r e d i f : “ ( 1 ) the pe t i t i o ne ral l ege s f ac ts whi ch, i fpr o ve d, woul d ent i tl e hi m t o r el i efa nd ( 2) the s ta te c o ur ts , f o rr ea so ns beyon d the c o nt r o lo fthe p et itio n er , ne ve r c on s i d e r ed th e c laim in a fu ll an d fair hear i ng. ” D a vis v . Lam bert, 388 F.3d 105 2, 1061 ( 7th Cir. 2004 ). A s di scusse d above , A l l en has pu t forth evi dence that he i s m en ta l l y r et ar d ed a s I ndi an a defi ne s th atc o ndi ti o n,14 N o. 07

- 2486

W e di s agr ee with the St at e that All en ’ s c l ai m thathe is 2 m ental ly r etar ded can be r ej ect ed on the basi s ofthe record c om pi l ed i n the s t at e c our t s . The re ar e di s put es thatcannot be res olved w ithout a hearin g . W e nam e only a few ex am ples he re . The I ndi ana c ourts r el i ed h ea vi l y ona “t es tus ed by the D epartm ent ofCorrect ions f or ass es si ng p ri soner s” thats how ed A ll en had an IQ of104. That te st, unli ke the te sts adm ini st ered w hen Allen was a c h il d, was adm ini st ered w hen Allen was m or e than22 ye ar s old. T he r ec or d re vea l s thatthe s c or e di d not resu lt fro m a stan d ard W ech sler A d u lt Intellig en ce Sca les test ( w hat the Suprem e Court acknow le dg ed to b e the “the s tandard ins tr um ent in the United Stat es f or as se ss ing i ntel le ctual functi oning, ” A t k i ns , 53 6 U .S. at 30 9 n .5) or a com p a r a b l e test, b u t rath er a “B eta” test. T he reco rd d oe s no t m ak e clear w ha t a “Be t a” t es ti s , or e veni fi tis reliabl e. M or e i m por t ant l y, the reco rd d oe s no t ind icate th at a sco re o f 10 4 o n a B eta test is com parab le to a s core of104 on a s tandard W echs le r te st or a S t a n f o r d B i n e tI n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e . T h e I n d i a n a S u p r e me Co urt a l s o no t e d Al l e n’ s m othe r ’ s t e s t i m on y tha th e wa s an “aver a ge s t ude nt
. ” But the r e c or d r e ve a l s tha t Al l e n w as alway s in s pecial education c las se s f or m en ta lly re ta rd ed c h ildren
. That he was an av erage stud ent in speci al edu cat ion c las se s do e s n ots ho w tha th e wa s n otm e nt a l l y r e t a r de d. an d a d et er m in at ion th at h e is m en ta lly re ta rd ed w ou ld en ti tl e hi m to re l i ef
. The St ate disputes that A llen is m en ta l l y r et ar ded, r ely i ngon ev i den ce tha t r emai ns fre e fro m cr oss - exam i nati on. B ecause the I nd i ana s tat e 2 c o u r t s n e v e r c o n s i d e r e d Al l e n ’ s e v i d e n c e u s i ng t he p rop er Atki ns i nquir y ( w hi ch w oul d h av e r equi re d them to ap plythe appropri ate st andard f orm entalr eta rdati on) , i t i s obj ecti vel y unreaso nabl e to concl ud e that All enN o. 07

- 2486 15

For thi s r easo n, Al l en ’ s ar gum en ti n a pos t
- c onvi c t i on pro 3 c e e di n g ( p r e - da t i ng A t k i ns ) thathe was m is diagno se d as m en tally retar d ed ha s no b ear ing on his A t k i ns c l a i m. had a “fulland fai r” hear i ng o n hi s A tk ins c l a i m. See, e.g., 3 Wal ke rv. Tr ue, 39 9 F.3d 31 5, 32 7 ( 4th Ci r. 20 05) ( dist ri ct cour t’ s r efusalto h old ev i denti ar y hea ring was er ro r w here peti ti oneral l ege d fa cts that w oul d enti tl e hi m to reli ef un d er Atki ns ). The St ate r esponds that28 U
. S. C. § 2254 ( e) ( 2) bl ock s A l l en fro m r ecei vi ng a hear i ng. But by i ts own term s, that sta tute “app lies o nl y t o pri sone rs wh o have ‘ f ai l ed to dev elo p the f actualbas i s o fa cl ai m i n St ate co urt proc e e di ng s. ’ ” Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 52 9 U.S
. 42 0, 43 0 ( 2000 ) ( quo ting§ 2 25 4( e) ( 2) )
. A ll en di d no t f ai lt o de ve l o p the f ac tu alb as i s o fthi s cl ai m . Inde ed ( an d s o m ewha t co nfu sin gly ), th e St at e c on te n d s t h at “A llen h as fu lly d ev elo ped th e f ac tu alb as i s f o rhi s cl ai m . ” Appel l ee Br. 2 4. To the e xtent that what the St ate m eans to ar gue i s that Al l e n h a d a fu l l a n d f a i ro p p o r t u n i t y t o l i t i g a t e th i s c l a i m, w e hav e a l re ady r ej ecte d thi s a rgum ent. One poi ntofcl ar i fi ca ti o n re m ains . A t o r alar g um en t, the St ate ar gu ed t hat i fwe re m anded A l l en’ s ca se f oran Atki ns hearing, the d istri ct cou rt w ou ld n eed to det erm i ne wh etherA l l en sa ti sfi es the “ cl i ni caldefi ni ti on” of men t a lr e t a r da t i o n ( us i ngInd i a na ’ s s tandar d) a nd a lso “w hethero r not A llen is am ong the c l ass o fo ffenders of w hi ch ther e i s a tot al nati onal conse nsus. ” Th is n ati onal co ns e ns us , a c c o r di ngt o the S t a t e , r e qu i r e s the di str i ct c o u r tt o fi n d th a tAl l e n h a s a n I Q o f6 0 o rb e l o w.16 N o. 07

- 2486 W e rej ect th is argum en t. C ont r ary to the Stat e’s assertio n, the S upr eme Co ur t i n Atki ns di d not e s t ab l i sh a n at ion al s ta n d a r d f or m en ta l ret ar d at ion bu t e x p re ss ly l eft to th e st at es th e ta sk o f defi ni ng m en tal r et ar dat i o n. 53 6 U .S. at 3 17 . A n d to th e ex te n t t h at th e C ou rtac kn ow ledged any l i m i ti ng I Q scor e, that sco re w as w el labo ve 60. See id
. at 30 9 n. 5 ( no tingtha t anI Q s co r e “b etwee n 7 0 an d 7 5 or low er . . . is ty p ica lly c on sid er ed th e c u to ff IQ sc o r e f o rthe i nt el l ec tu alfunc ti o ni ngprongo fthe m en tal retarda tion d efi nition.”). A s t raightforw ard ap p li cation of Atki ns to the f acts o f thi s ca se enti tl es A llen to a hear i ng r ega rdi ng wh ether he i s m en ta l l y r et ar ded an d the r efo r e cate g o r i ca l l y e xcl ud ed fro m the death penal ty. W e r em and thi s ca se to the dist ri ct cour t. On r em and, the dist ri ct cour t s h ou ld giv e A llen th e c h an c e t o d ev elo p th e fa c t u a l b a sis of h is cl aim a nd pr es en t i t ata n e vi den ti ary he ar i ng . The cour t m ust then deter m ine, usi ng Ind i ana’ s s tandard f or m entalr eta rdati on, wh etherA l l en i s e nti tle d to re l i ef un d er Atki ns .
C. Eddi ngs claim N extAl l enc l ai m s th athi s se nt en ce was i m po se d i n a ma n n e rth a tv i o l a t e s th e r u l e a n n o u n c e d b y th e S u p r e me Cou r t i n E d d i n g s v . Ok l a h o ma , 455 U .S. 10 4 (1 98 2). Sp ec ifical ly, A l l en ar gues that he sho uld have r ecei ved a new pen al typ h a s e h e a r i n gb e f o r e a j u r y ( r a th e rth a n the tr i alco urt) , and that the t ri al c ourtf ai l ed to co nsi der hi s m i ti g at i nge vi den ce . Af te rs et tingo utthe r el ev an t f ac ts , we addr es s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.N o. 07

- 2486 17

The r ec or d i ndi c at es that All en ’ s f athe r aba ndone d All enan d 4 the res t of th e fam il y bo th physic all y and financi all y w hen A llen w as v ery yo u ng . A llen’s m oth er suffered fro m alco ho lism a n d l e ftA l l e n w i th h i s y o u n g e r s ib l i n g s f o r d a y s a ta t i me w hen she w ent on d ri nking binges. This aband onm en t forced A ll en t o prov ide f ood f or his youn ger s ibli ngs w hen Allen w as too young to get a j ob. All en re sorte d to st eal ing t o get f ood a nd w as inc ar c er at ed as a j uven i l e i n th e 19 60 s . D ur i ng the i nc ar c er at i ons , he e ndur ed s eve re c or por al punishm en t b efore a cou rt step p ed in to en d the tra u m atic b eatin g s. The I nd i ana t ri alco urt se n tence d A l l en to death b ase d o n th e r ec o m m en dat i o n o f th e j ur y th atc o nv i ct ed hi m . The I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t pr ovi d ed a l i m i ted r em and bec a us e the t r i a lc o ur th a d i mpo s e d i ts s e nt e nc e o r a l l y a nd , a tthe t i m e o fAl l e n’ s a pp e a l, Ind i a na l a w r e qu i r e d a w ri tte n sent en c in g or der. I t o rder ed the tr i alco urt to i ssue a wri tte n sent enci ng o rderan d di re cted i t t o “b al an ce the a g g r av at i ngc i r cumst an ce s . . . aga i ns t th e evi dence ofm i tig ating ci rcum sta nces ( i ncl ud i ng bo th sta tutory and non-s tatutor y c i rcum sta nces)
. ” Se eAl l e n I , 686 N
. E.2 d at 7 88 n. 32. A s di scusse d above, it al so or dered the co urt to consi der All en’ s newlypre sente d evid en ce of m en tal retarda tion as a m iti gating factor. The tr i alco urt i ssued a w rit ten o rderco ncl ud i ng tha t th e ag g r av ati ngc i r cumst an ce o ut wei g he d a ny miti g at i ng c i r c ums t a nc e s and s e nt e nc e d Al l e n t o b e e xe c ut e d. D es p ite th e fa c t t h a t A llen p re se n te d ev id en c e o f h is trau m atic and dy sfun ctiona l ch il d hood to the trial cou rt o n r emand, the t r i alc o ur t’ s se nt en ci ng ordermake s no 4 speci fi c m enti on o fi t. The se ntenci ng o rderr evi ew s a18 N o. 07

- 2486

n u m b er of cir c u m st an c es , s u c h as A llen ’s a ge an d h is m en ta l r et ar dat i o n, an d th en st at es th at i t “find s no othe r ci rcum st an ces appropri ate f orco nsi derat i on a s a m itig at in g fa c to r.” W he n All en appe al ed th e tr i alc o ur t’ s se nt en ce i n All e n I , he arg u ed ( am ong othe r thi ngs) thatthe tr i alco urt “i gn or ed ” m i ti gat i ng ci rcum sta nces othe r than wh ethero r n o th e wa s me n t a l l y r e t a r d e d
. T h e s e mi t i g a t i n gc i r c u mst an c es inc lu d e d h is d ys fu n c tio n al c h ild h oo d an d h is m en ta lfr ai l tya s a ch i l d. Al l en’ s S upp. Br
. 1 1- 14
. The I ndi an a S upr em e Co ur t r ej ec te d hi s ar g um en t, fi ndi ng th atthe t r i alc o ur t ha d pr o per l y c o ns i der ed hi s m i ti g at i ng e v i d e n c e a n d w e i g h e d i ta g a i n s tthe ag g r a v a t i n gc i r c u ms t a nc e . I ts t a t e d fur the rtha t“ [ a ] c c e pt i ngthe f a c t s al l ege d about A l len ’s chil dh oo d does no t co m pel a fi nd i ng o f m i ti gat i ng ci rcum sta nces. ” All e n I , 68 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 90. W e fi rs t co nsi der w h at cl ai m s a re pro perl y b ef or e us. Feder alhabea s r el i efi s no t a vai l able ifthe peti ti oner h as n otex h au st ed h is s ta te co u rtrem ed ies
. See 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4(b )(1) (A ). Th is m ea n s A llen firstm u st h av e “ fair ly prese nted the i ssues ” t o the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t. Si m ps on v. Bat t agl i a, 45 8 F
. 3d 585, 59 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. A l l en ar gues that the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t e rr ed i n 199 6 w hen i t r em anded hi s ca se to the t ri alco urt to consi der m i ti gat i ng evi dence ra ther than or deri ng a ne w penal ty p h as e b efo r e a j u ry . A c c or d in g t o A llen, a j u ry sh ou ld h a v e h ea rd all of th e m itig at in g e vid en c e a n ew . Th is ar gum ent s houl d hav e been ra i sed o n A l l en’ s a pp ealafter the t ri alco urt i ssued i ts sente nci ng o rder
. Contr ar y t o A ll en ’s strenu ou s assertion s, ou r review of the recordN o. 07

- 2486 19

A ll en direct s us to pag e 24 of his supp le m ental brief(fil ed 5 aft erthe t ri al c our ti s s ued i t s wri t t ens en t en c i ng orde r on rem and )
. N ow here in that se ct ion, or anyw here in h is su pp le

m e n t a l b r i e f, d o e s h e a r g u e th a tth e In d i a n a S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s order to the tr ial court to consi der new m it iga tin g evidence w as constituti onal er ror becaus e i t s hould have rem and ed the c as e t o a j ur y. All en h as m ade no “s howi ng o fc aus e and pr ej udi c e f or the 6 def aul t, ” n or ha s he m ade “a s howi ng thata f ai l ur e t o gr ant h im re lie f w o u ld w o rk a fu n d a m en ta l m isc a rr ia g e o f ju sti ce .” Thom as v. M cC aught ry, 20 1 F .3d 99 5 , 99 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ). re veal s he never ra i sed thi s ar gum ent i n the I nd i ana state co ur ts
. Our co nc l us i o n i s but tr es se d b y the f ac t th atthe

5 I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t di d not a dd re ss the i ssue on ap p ea l. Se eAl l e n I

, 68 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 88 (reci ti ng ar gum ents 6 ra ise d by A llen on ap p ea l); A ll en II , 749 N
. E.2 d at 1 177. Therefor e i t i s no t pr oper l y b ef or e us. See 28 U. S
. C. § 2254 (b)( 1)(A ). W e turn to A l l en’ s a rgum ent r ega rdi ng the subst ance o f th e tr i alc o ur t’ s m i ti g at i on a na l y si s. Al l ena r g ue s th atthe tr i alco urt f ai l ed to co nsid er a n d gi ve effect to m iti g at i nge vi den ce s ucha s hi s tr au m at i c ch i l dho o d a nd hi s ab ility to adj ust in an i nsti tuti onalse tting. A l though Al l e n r a i se d th e a r g u me n ta s t o th e fi r s to fth e s e t wo m i ti g at i ng facto r s i n the Indi an a co ur ts , we fi nd no mentio n of hi s abi l i ty to adj ust in an i nsti tuti onalse tting. Therefor e, w e consi der o nl y All en’ s cl ai m thatthe tr i al c o ur ti g no r e d the e v i de nc e r e g a r di ngh i s c hi l dh o o d. I n Eddi ngs , the S upr eme Co ur t he ld th atb ec au se the i m posi ti on o fa death se ntence dem ands i nd i vi du al i zed20 N o. 07

- 2486

co ns i der at i o n o fe ac h de fen dan t’ s ci r cumst an ce s, a s en tencing co urt m ust a dm i t and c onsi der al l re l evantm i ti gat
i ng advi ce. 45 5 U.S
. at11 4- 15. In that case , the s ta te tr i al j ud ge sta ted thathe c oul d not b e p er su aded by the f act th atEddings was s i xt ee n y ea r s o l d a t th e ti m e o fthe c rim e. T h e jud ge co n ti n u e d , “ N or ca n th e C ou rtin fo llow in g t h e la w , in m y op in ion, con sid er th e fa c t o f th is young m an’ s v i ol ent b ackg ro und
. ” Id. a t 10 9. The Suprem e Cour t r em an ded the case f orthe sta te cour ts to co n sid er all rele va n t m itig at in g e vid en c e a n d w eig h it aga i nst the ev i dence o f t he ag gr avat i ng ci rcum sta nces, a s s e r t i ng, “ J us ta s the S t a t e ma y n o tby sta t ut e p r e c l ud e th e sen ten cer from cons idering an y m it ig ating factor, n eit h er m ay th e s e n te n c er refu se to co n sid er , a s a m a tter of l aw , any re l evantm i ti gat i ng ev i dence. ” Id. a t1 1 3

- 14 (em p ha sis in origi na l)
. T he rule of Eddi ngs i s that a se ntenci ng c ourtm ay not ex c lu d e re lev an t m itig at in g e vid en c e. Se eal s o L oc ke t tv. O hio , 43 8 U.S
. 58 6, 60 4 ( 1978 )
. But ofco urse , a cour t m ay choos e t o give m i ti gat i ng ev i dence l i ttl e o r no wei ght. Eddi ngs , 45 5 U.S
. at114

- 15. A l l en m ai ntai ns the tr i al cour t’ s s en te n c i ng o rdervi ol ate s Eddi ngs . He po i nt s o ut that the or der d i scusse s vari ous m i ti gat i ng ci rcum sta nces ( su cha s All en ’ s m en ta lr et ar dat i o n and ag e) t o the e xcl usi on o fhi s t ra um ati c c h ild hood, and then s tat es that i t “ fi nd s no o therci rcu m st an ces appropri ate f or consi derat i on a s a m i ti gat i ng f acto r. ” A llen i nter prets th es e s t a t em en ts to ge th er to m ea n th at th e t ria l co u rtd id n otco n sid er (an d th er efo re ex c lu d ed ) h is t ra u m at ic ch il d hood as an ap p rop riate cir cu m stan ce for consid erat ion . W er e t h at to b e t h e c as e, Eddi ngs would m andate re lie f for A llen
. See, e . g., Wright v. Walls , 28 8 F
. 3d 937,N o. 07

- 2486 21 942- 45 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( dist ric t cour t pr oper l y v acat ed W ri ght’ s death sent ence pursuant to Eddi ngs b e c a u se t he sente nci ng j ud ge i m perm i ssibl y r efused to consi der propos ed m i ti gat i ng ev i dence r el ate d to W ri ght’ s ba ckgrou nd ). A l though we acknow l edge that the se ntenci ng o rd er i s so m ewha t cr y pti c, the r e i s no s ta te m ent i n the s en te nc i ngo r dertha t ex pr es sly i ndi ca te s th atthe s en te nc i ng c ou rtign or ed A llen ’s c h ild h oo d
. C f. E dd ing s, 45 5 U
. S. at 113-14. W ithou t tha t, it i s p lausi b le that the trial cou rt’s st at ement

— that i t found no other ci rcum stan ces appropri ate forconsi derat i on a s a m i ti gat i ng f acto r

— m ea ns the tr i al cour t did not fi nd A l l en’ s chi l dh oo d to be a “m i ti gat
in g” circ u m st an c e. C f. Wr ight, 28 8 F. 3d at 942- 45 ( re j ec tin g a s u n re as on ab le Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d et er m ina ti o n tha t th e sentenci ngj udg e co ns i der ed m i ti g at i ng ev i den ce o fthe pe ti ti o ne r ’s tra um at i c hi st o r y whens en tencing co urt used l anguage o fexcl usi on in rej ecting tha t e v i d e n c e )
. I mp o r t a n t l y, th a ti s h o w th e Ind i a na S u p r e me C ou rtsa w th in gs . All e n I , 68 6 N
. E. 2d at7 90
. In l i g hto fo ur sta nd ar d ofr evi ew , we m u st defe r to thi s f actualfi nd i ng. See, e . g., To dd v. Schom ig, 28 3 F
. 3d 842, 85 5 ( 7th Ci r. 200 2) ( defe rring to the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t’ s co ncl usi on that the s entencing co urt did co nsi der a l lthe m itig ati on ev i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d e v e n th o u g h th e r e c o r d wa s a mb i g uou s).

D. M i rand a claim A llen als o c laim s t h at th e t ria l co u rt ’s a d m is s i o n of h is st at em en ts t o th e p olic e, w h ich h e c on te n d s w er e t ak en in22 N o. 07

- 2486 viol ation of M i r anda v. Ar izona , 384 U
. S. 436 (19 66) , vi ol ate d hi s F i fth A m endm ent r i ghts. In part i cul ar, he a rgues that the pol i ce di d n ot adequatel y a dvis e hi m o fhi s M i r anda rights an d that his confess ion w as c o erced and therefore i nvol untary
. See D ick erson v. U nited Sta tes, 530 U
. S. 42 8, 43 3- 34 (2000). The re l evantf acts ar e not in dis pu te. On J uly14, 19 87, Ernestine Gri ffi n’s n e xt
- do o rn e i ghb o rfo un d G ri ffi n’s dead body in herhom e. She h ad been m urdere d w i th a butcher kni fe. The nei ghborto l d offi cer s that a m an n am ed H oward A l l en had bee n at Gri ffi n’s house ea rl i erthatday. T h at aft er n oo n, tw o d et ec tiv es qu es tio n ed A llen ath is wor k pl ac e (a c ar was h) a nd t o o khi m t o the s ta ti o n. The sta te conte nd s, and A l l en does notdi spute, thathe was not a s uspect then and w as fre e t o l eave . W hi l e he w as being q ue stioned at the sta tion, crim e scen e investigators discov er ed a sl i p ofpaper w i th A l l en’ s phone num bero n i t in the vict im ’ s ho use. A t that point, Detect i ve Croo ke re ad him h is M i r anda r i ghts, and A l l en waiv ed hi s r i ghts in w riting . De tect ive Crooke then proc eed ed to int erro ga te A llen
. Du ring thi s quest i oni ng, Detect ive Croo ke tol d A l l en he di d no t think h e was b eingt r uthful, a nd Al l env o l untee re d to tak e a l i e d et ec to r tes t. A t 1 1: 00 p. m . that e v e ning, Al l e n wa s g i v e n a l i e de t e c t o rt e s tb y De t e c t i ve Lo g sdo n, a p ol y g r aphs pec i al i st
. Be f o r e g i vingAl l enthe tes t, De tect ive Logs d on gav e ano th er M i r anda war ni ng or ally an d p ep p er ed it w ith qu es tio n ab le (a n d larg ely u n tr ue) st ate m ents. Fo r exam ple , Detect i ve Logsdon sta ted thatthe ri ght to re m ai n si l ent “ som eti m es . . . canN o. 07

- 2486 23 h elp an d so m et im es . . . c an h u rt ” d efe n d an ts , w ro n gly expla i ned that “co unsel ” didn’t necess ar i l y m ean law yer butc o ul d b e “ pr et tymuch a nybo dy, ” o ffer ed to he l p the d efe n d an t h im se l f, an d st at ed th at th e c ou rtw ou ld a pp o i ntc o un s e ltha tthe de fe nd a ntc o ul d n o ta ff o r d. A l l en, wh o did notas k quest i ons du ring Detec tive Logsdon’ s s peech, si gned a seco nd waiver for m thatwas i denti calto the fi rs t for m he ha d s ign ed w i th Detec ti ve Cr o o k e . De t e cti ve Lo g s do n a dmi ni s t e r e d the p o l y g r a ph an d i nt er r o g at ed All en . He thr ea te ne d A ll en wi ththe death p enal ty and re prese nted that the sta te had evi dence ag ain stA llen t h at it d id n otac tu ally h av e. A llen to ld Det ec tiv e L ogs don that he had bee n to Gri ffi n’s house , th at s h e had chas ed hi m fro m herhouse with a butcher kni fe, and that he had h it her i n the f ace. H e deni ed hi ttin g her w i th a toa ste r orst abbi ng herwith a kni fe, and he neve r confess ed to ki l l i ng her
. A t 3 : 00 a. m . , A l l en w as pe r m i tt ed to s l ee p a nd g av e a f o r m als ta te m en t th e ne xtda y a fterb e i ngg i v e n a thi r d M i r anda warni ng by D et ec tiv e W rig h t. H e s ta te d th at h e st ru c k G riffin in the f ace. A lth ou gh A llen d id n otob j ec t t o th e in tr od u c t i on of h is st at em e n t s a t t ria l, h e ra ise d Fifth A m en d m en t is su es in hi s di re ct a pp eal
. The Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t co nsi dered hi s M i r anda cl ai m s no tw i thsta nd i ng All en’ s fa i l ure to ob j ec t in th e t ria l co u rt
. All e n I , 68 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 69. The Ind i a na S up r e me Co ur tc i t e d M i r anda a nd r ej e c t ed A l l en’ s a rgum ents that he was not gi ven a n adequate M i r anda warni ng an d t h at hi s wai verwas not vol untary
. Fir st, al though the co urt ackno w l edged thatDetect i ve24 N o. 07

- 2486

W e not e that A ll endi d notar gue , e i the r he re or be f or e the 7 s t at e c our t s, thathi s m en t al r et ar dat i on had a ny e ffec tonthe k n o wi n g , i n t e l l i g e n t, o r v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e o fh i s w ai ve r . S o we d o n ot co nsid er it. Lo gsdon’ s M i r anda w ar n in g w as “d ep lora b le,” i t no ted that All en h ad si g ne d a wai ve rf o r m a fte rpr o per l y b eing advi sed o fhi s r i ghts the fi rst tim e, and then a gain si gned ani den ti ca lwai ve r f o r m a fte rDet ec ti ve Lo g sdo n’ s war ni ng . Be ca use th e two war ni ng s wer e cl o se i n t i m e, a nd because A l l en had c onfi rm ed he und er sto od hi s righ ts be f o r e spe ak i ngt o D et ec ti ve Lo g sdo n, the c o ur t co nclud ed that D etec tive Log sd on’s w arn ing d id “n ot nu ll ify th e p rior , pr op er ad vis em en t A llen rec eiv ed .” Id. at 772. On this bas i s the co urt f ound that All en had r ecei ved adequate M i r anda war ni ng s. S ec o nd, the c o ur t f o und All en ’ s wai ve ro fhi s r i g ht s was v o l unt ary . Di sc us singthe tot al i ty of the c i rcum sta nces, speci fi cal l y All en’ s “ conduct, a p p a r e n t l y n o r ma lme n t a lc a p a c i t y, a n d e x t e n s i v e c r i min al re c or d ,” th e c ou rtd et er m in ed th at A llen vo lu n ta rily w aiv ed h is rig h ts
. Id. at 773 (f ootn ote om itted ). 7 All en ’ s ar g um en t be f o r e th i s co ur t i s th atthe Indi an a Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec isi on th at D e t e ctive L ogsd on’s im p rop er M i r anda warni ng and A l l en’ s s ubsequent waiv er d id n ot null i fy an ear l i er val i d warni ng and wai veris contr ar y t o Suprem e Cour t a uthor i ty. W e di sag re e. A t the o utsetwe note that A l l en does n ot dis pu te that he tw ice w aived his ri gh ts p urs ua nt to tw o prop er M i r anda w ai ver s. ( Recal lthatA l l en wa s given a M i r anda war ni ng when he fi r stb ec ame a s us pec t, a nd then again theN o. 07

- 2486 25

Th e In di a na Su pr e m e Cou r tdi d n otdi s c us s the thi r d M i ra nda 8 w aiver. n ex t d ay be for e h e g av e a st at em en t t o D et ec tiv e W rig h t.) N o rdoe s he di spu te the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t’ s fi ndi ng that the fi rs t o fthose tw o w ai ver s was m ade vo l untari l y. 8 Se eAl l e n I

, 68 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 72. Inste ad , A ll en f ocuse s ex cl us i ve l y o n h i s encou nt erwi thDe te ct i ve Lo g sdo n, whi cho cc ur r ed i n b etwee n tho se t wo warni ng s, a nd ar gues that the e ncounterta i nted A l l en’ s pri orand subsequent wai ver s. R a th e rth a n c i t i n ga n y ca s e l a w fr o m th e S u p r e me Court that dir ectly s upp or ts thi s pro posi ti on, A l l en d ir ec ts ou r at te n tio n to th e E lev en th C irc u it’s op in ion in Har tv. A t t or ney Gene r al of St at eof Fl or i da , 32 3 F
. 3d 884 ( 11th C ir. 20 03 ). Hart he l d tha t a defen dan t’s wai ve rwas the product o fdecepti on wh er e poli ce o ffi cer s m ade st ate
m en ts th at con trad icted their earli er M i r anda warni ng. 32 3 F. 3d at 894- 95. A ED PA , however, r equi re s us to l oo k a t Suprem e Cour t a uthor i ty f or“c lea rl y e stabl i shed federa l law ,” an d th e Su p re m e C ou rth as n otes ta b lish ed a ru le th at w ou ld giv e u s c lea r gu i d a n c e o n th is iss u e. See, e.g., D uc kwor t h v. Eagan , 49 2 U.S
. 19 5 ( 1989 ) ( offi cer ’ s m i ssta tem ent o fst ate l aw di d not inval i date M i r anda w aiver); Jac ks on v. Frank, 3 48 F
. 3d 65 8, 6 64 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( “the u n c e r t a in t y after D uckw orth a s to ho w to b al an ce . . . the ve r ac i tyo fa n o ffi ce r ’ s st at emento fstate l aw a nd the p rovisi on of prop er M i r anda w ar n in gs -p re ve n ts t h is cour t fro m co ncl ud i ng tha t the [ sta te] co u rt s un re as o n ab l y a p p l i e d c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e d fe d e r a ll a w. ” )
. S o we26 N o. 07

- 2486

ar e unabl e to fi nd tha t th e d eci si o n o fthe Indi an a Su p re m e Cour t was “co ntra ryto ” cl ear l y e stabl i shed federa ll aw as deter m i ned by the S up re m e Cour t. Tur n in g t o w hetherthe I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t unre aso n ab ly a p p lied cle ar ly es ta b lish ed fed er al la w to th is cas e, we com e up equal l y s hor t. A l l en ar gues that Detecti v e Lo g s do n’ s c o nd uc tc o e r c e d h i m i nt o ma k i ngs t a t em ents and i nvol untari l y wai vi ng hi s r i ghts. Purs u an t t o S upr eme Co ur t au th o r i ty, a “de fen dan t m aywai ve e ffec tu
ati on” ofthe ri ghts conve yed i n the M i r anda warni ngs “pr o vi ded th e wai ve ri s m ade v o l unt ar i l y, kno wi ng l y a nd i ntel l i gently. ” M o r a n v . B urbin e, 475 U.S
. 41 2, 42 1 ( 1986 ) ( quoti ng M i r anda , 38 4 U.S
. at44 4, 475)
. The vo l untariness test tak es into con side ration “ t h e to tality of al l th e surround i ng ci rcum sta nces

—b o th th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o ft he accused and the detai l s o fthe i nter ro gat i on. ” Schneckloth v. B ust am onte, 4 1 2 U. S
. 2 1 8 , 2 2 6 ( 1 9 7 3 )
. T he s e c i r c u mst an ce s m ayi nc l ude the l en g tho fthe i nt er r o g ati o n, the defe nd ant’ s m atur i ty, educati on, and m entalheal th, as w ell as w h e t h e r th e d efe n d an t w as ad vis ed of h is M i r a n da r i g h ts
. Wi t h r o w v . Wi l l i a ms , 50 7 U.S
. 68 0, 69 3- 94 (1993). B ut the elem en t of coe r c io n i s “cru cial” to a d eterm in at ion th at a c on fes sio n w as inv olu n t ar y. Id .; Colorado v. C o nn elly, 479 U
. S. 15 7, 16 7 ( 1986 ) (“ c oe rci ve pol i ce acti vi ty i s a nece ssa rypre dica te to the fi nd i ng tha t a con fession is not ‘vol un tary’ ”). H ere, th e I nd iana Su p rem e C ou rt cons idered the circumst an ce s su r r o undi ngAl l en ’ s i nt er r o g at i o n a nd f o und that ther e was no coe rci on. 686 N
. E.2 d at 7 72- 73 ( discu ssing A ll en ’s first vol un tary w aiv er tw o hou rs beforeN o. 07

- 2486 27 th e se co nd wai ve r, hi s co nduc t dur ing th e i nt er r o g at i o n, hi s “a ppar en tly no r m al m en ta l ca pac i ty, ” an d his “exten sive crim in a l r ecord ” an d f am il iari ty w ith th e interr o g at i o n pr o ce ss )
. W e ar e no t ab l e t o s ay th atfi ndi ng w as “obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. ” Jac ks on , 348 F. 3d at 662 ( quoti ng Lockye rv. Andrade, 538 U
. S. 63 (2003)).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ric t co urt i s A FF I RMED in pa rt a nd R EV ER S ED i n part
. W e R EMA ND the c ase f orfurther pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

3- 11- 09