FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT APRIL 20, 201 2 JOHN LEY [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 0 9-1547 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 06-01 289-C V-JDW -AEP ROB ERT M ORRIS, Pet iti one r-Appe lla nt,
ve rsus SECRETAR

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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (April 20, 2 012) Be fore E DMON DSON, B ARKETT a nd M ARC US, C irc uit

Jud ge s. MAR CUS, Ci rcui t Ju dge : Ro be rt M orris wa s c onvi ct ed in 1999 of first -deg ree m urde r, burgl ary

of a dwe lli ng, a

nd rob be ry

wit h a de ad ly we ap on a fte r the bruta l ki lli ng o f an 88-y ea r-old

wom an in he r Lak el an d, Flo rida

a pa rtm ent. H e wa s se nte nc ed to de at h. Aft er dire ct a ppe aland p ost co nvi ct ion

proc ee din gs i n st at e co urt, M orris fi le d hi s fe de ral ha be as pe tit ion , rai sin g fourt ee n c la im s of t ria l c ourt e rror and

ine ffec tiv e
as sis ta nc e of c ouns el . Thedis tric t c ourt d en ie d th e pe tit ion on a ll cl ai m s. W e have be fore u s on

a ppe alfour of t

he se c la im s: (1 ) the a lle ge d in effe ct ive
as sis ta nc e of c ouns elin ex cludi ng M orris from an un rec orde d be nc h c onfe renc e durin g th e pe na lty

pha se of hi s tri al ; (2) t

he a lle ge d in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e of
co unse l for fa ili ng t o a dvi seMo rris of h is ri ght to te sti fy at t he pe na lty

pha se or to
ca ll Morris to te sti fy

at t he pe na lty

pha se ; (3) a

n a lle ge d tri alc ourt e rror in
co nc lud ingtha

t M orris’ s pa st d

rug us e wa s “ not

m iti gatin g” ; a

nd (4) c um

ulativ e error. A fte r thoro ugh revi ew , we too c onc lud e that M orris i s no t e nti tle d to rel ie f
on a ny of th es e cl ai m s. Ac co rding ly , we a ffirm the judgm ent of t

he dis tric t c ourt
an d de ny thepe tit ion
. I. A. The vic tim

of th is b ruta l m

urde r, Viol et

Liv ing sto n, wa s 88 y ea

rs ol d. He r body wa s foun d in

he r ap art m ent by he r son on t

he m ornin g of Se pte m

be r 2, 19 94. Whe n th e pol ic e arriv ed , th ey found Liv ing sto n’ s bo dy

ly ingon t

he be droom

floor, wit h he r he ad

wrap pe d in

be d sh ee ts. Thepol ic e found blo od o n th e wa lls , som e

2furnit

ure, and t he vic tim ’s wa lki ng c an e. The m ed ic ale xam ine r who p erform ed the a uto psy , Dr. Al ex an de r Me lam ud, te sti fie d at t

ria l t hat t he vic tim die d a s a res ult of m ult ipl e inj urie s. In pa

rtic ula r, Dr. Me lam

ud t es tifi ed

tha t t he vic tim suffe red “ m

ult ipl e bruis es , la ce rat ion s, ab ras ion s, rib frac ture s, s uba rac hnoi d he m orrhag e of thebra in a nd m ec ha nic al
as phyxia due to suffoc ation .” Dr. M el am ud c oul d no t de te rm ine the orde r in wh ic h the inj urie s we re i nflic te d, but op ine d th at the vic tim

wa s a liv e for a s hort p eri od aft er t he atta ck be ga n. The Statepre se nte d four m ai n c at eg orie s of e vid en cea ga ins t M orris. First, the Sta te ’s DNA e xpe rts t es tifi ed tha t M orris c oul d no t be e xc lud ed a s th e sourc e of DNA o bta ine d from

two loc at ion s on

thevic tim ’s bod

y and from the vic tim ’s kit ch en c urta in. One of th e State ’s e xpe rts t es tifi ed tha t t he frequ en cy

of th e te ste d DNA pa tte rn in the Afric an -Am eri ca n data ba se woul d be 1 i n 7.1 m ill ion . The
expe rt te sti fie d th at

thi s num be r m ea nt t hat t he li ke lih ood of obt ai nin g th e DNA profil e from

an Afric an -Am eri ca

n ot he r tha n M orris wa s be twe en

1 out of 7 10,0 00
an d 1 o ut o f 71 mill ion . Se co nd, t he pol ic e obt ai ne d e le ve n fing erpri nts of va lue from the c rim e sc en e, and o ne of th em , from a li ght bulb outsi de of th e vic tim ’s ap art m ent, wa s m at ch ed

to Morris . Thi rd, th e pol ic e found in a nd a round Morris ’s
res ide nc e ite m s kn own t o ha ve be lon ge d to the vic tim , in cludi ng c oin wrap pe rs,

3co in c oll ec tio n bo okl et s, a c oin sort er, a nd a sm al l t el ev isi on. Fina lly , th e State pres ente d th e te sti m ony

of Dam ion

Sas tre , who rec ount ed

a ja ilh ousec onfe ssi on t o the m urde r by Mo rris. Sa strete sti fie d th at Mo rris ha d to ld h im

a bout e nte ring t

he vic tim ’s a pa rtm ent, m urde ring t he vic tim , a

nd t akingfrom

the vic tim ’s a

pa rtm ent a
sm al l t el ev isi on, j ew elry , ol d c oin s, a nd wh at ev er m one y

wa s a round. At t he c onc lus ion

of th e gui lt pha se , th e jury c onvi ct ed

Mo rris of firs t-de gree
m urde r, arm ed

burgl ary of a dwe lli ng o r batte ry

c om mitt ed durin g bu

rgla ry of a dwe lli ng, a

nd rob be ry

wit h a de ad ly we ap on. B. Morris ’s c la im s on

a ppe ala ll rel at e to t

he pe na lty

pha se of hi s tri al . The pe na lty pha se wa s c ondu ct ed

be fore t he jury on M arc h 8-11 , 199 9. At the pe na lty pha se , th e State rec al le d Dr. M el am ud, who t es tifi ed

tha t t he vic tim sus ta ine d at le as t t hirty -one bruis es , a

bras ion s, a

nd l ac eratio ns, i nc lud ingde fens ivewoun ds. He furthe r opin ed

tha t t he inj urie s wou ld h av e ca use d pa in whil e the vic tim wa s
co nsc iou s. T he State a lso c al le d a s vi ct im im pa ct wit ne sse s th e vic tim ’s two son s
an d tw o of he r gran dc hil dren
. Morris pre se nte d e le ve n la y wit ne sse s at t

he pe na lty

pha se . He c al le d
se ve ralfamily

m em be rs a nd fam ily frien ds t o te sti fy

to the unfort

unate ci rcum sta nc es of hi s c hil dhoo d, i nc lud ingpov ert y , ne gle ct , phy sic aland e m oti ona l

4ab use , a

nd h is m oth er’ s pa st s ubst an ce a buse . Thewit

ne sse s a lso te sti fie d a

bout Morris ’s li m ite d e duc at ion , pa st d rug us e an d a ddi ct ion , a

nd t he pos iti ve role he ha s pl ay ed

in his family ’s li fe a s a

n a dul t. M orris a lso c al le d a c lin ic al psy ch olo gis t, Dr. D ee , who gave e xpe rt m enta l he al th t es tim ony tha t M orris h ad

a borde rlineto dul l-norm alIQ, th at Mo rris de ve lop ed

a n ul ce r as a

y out h du e to stre ss, an d th at

Mo rris ha d a

buse d drug s si nc e ch ild

hood and wa s ne gativ el y affe ct ed by his troub le d c hil dhoo d. Al tho ugh Morris te sti fie d at t he gui lt pha se , he did not te sti fy durin g th e pe na lty

pha se . At t he c onc lus ion

of th e pe na lty

pha se , th e jury

rec om m en de d de at

h by a vot e of 8 t o 4. On Ap ril 3 0, 19 99, t he tria l c ourt s ente nc ed

Mo rris to de at

h. Th e
co urt fou nd fou r ag grav at ingfac tors, one sta tut ory m iti ga tin g fa ct or a

nd n um erou s
nons tatut ory

miti gatin g fa ct ors. T he four a ggravators we re: (1) the c rim e wa s
co m m itt ed whi le Mo rris wa s on

pa role from a pre vio us fe lony

(robbe ry ), Fla . Stat. § 92 1.14 1(5)(a), wh ic h th e tria l c ourt a cc orde d m ode rat e we ight; (2) Mo rris wa s prev iou sly

c onvi ct ed

of a fel ony inv olv ingthe useor threat of v iol en ce (robbe ry ), id. § 92 1.14 1(5)(b), whi ch the c ourt a cc orde d m ode rat e we ight; (3) the c rim e wa s
co m m itt ed for pe cu nia ry ga in, id. § 92 1.14 1(5)(f), whic h th e co urt ga ve gre at
we ight; an d (4) th e cri m e wa s e spe ci al ly he ino us, a

troc iou s, or c ruel , id . § 921. 141(5)(h), wh ic h th e co urt ga ve gre at we ight.

5The tria l c ourt a lso found the sta tut ory m iti gator t

ha t M orris h ad

a subs ta nti al ly im pa ire d c ap ac ity

to co nform

his c ondu ct

to the req

uire m ents o f la

w, id. § 92 1.14 1(6)(f), and

ga ve thi s m iti gator m ode rat e we ight. T he c ourt c onsi de red the foll owin g no nst at

uto ry m iti gators tog et

he r: (1) M orris wa s bo rn to a te en ag ed , unm arrie d m oth er; (2) Mo rris wa s phy sic al ly and e m oti ona lly

a buse d a s a

c hil d; (3) Morris suffe red ne gle ct a nd p hy sic alde priva

tio n a s a c hil d; (4) M orris’ s m oth er
wa s a drug a nd a lc ohola

buse r whe n M orris wa s a c hil d; (5) M orris g rew u

p in
extre m e pove rty ; (6) M orris wi tne sse d th e phy sic aland s exua l a buseof hi s m oth er
an d si ste rs; (7) M orris’ s fa the r was a

bse nt for m ost

of M orris’ s li fe; and (8) Morris ’s m oth er wa s a

rrest ed and h ad a c rim ina l re co rd whi le hewa s grow ingup. The c ourt g av e the se m iti gators grea t we ight c oll ec tiv el y . The tria l c ourt a lso c onsi de red ad dit ion alnon sta tut ory miti gators that i t
we igh ed ind ivi dua lly . It c onsi de red the foll owin g c ha rac te rist ic s re ga

rdingMo rris: (1) borde rlineIQ (giv en

li ttl e we ight); (2) l ea

rningdis ab ili tie s a s a

c hil d (giv en lit tle we ight); (3) d ev el ope d ul ce rs at a y ounga ge , refl ec tin g e xtre m e stre ss (gi ve n lit tle we ight); (4) u se of a lc oholand d rugs a t a y ounga ge and l ife lon g a ddi ct ion probl em s (gi ve n li ttl e we ight); (5) o bta ine d hi gh s ch ooldip lom a de spi te obs ta cl es (give n sl ight we ight); (6) h ad lov ingprote ct ive rel at ion ships wi th fa m ily , in cludi ng his da ught er (gi ve n so m e we ight); (7) a da pts we ll to p rison

li fe (gi ve n li ttl e

6we ight); (8) c an c ont inu e to s uppo rt, e nc oura ge , a nd n urture his family

whi le inc arc erate d (giv en

som e we ight); (9) a

li fe s ente nc e is s uffic ie nt (l itt le we ight);
an d (10) c ourtroo m

de m ea nor wa s su

pe rb (giv en

som e we ight). Of pa rtic ula r rele va nc e to t his a ppe alis findi ng (4) i n th e indivi dua l
nons tatut ory

miti gators. The e xte nt o f the tria l c ourt’ s di sc uss ion of M orris’ s pa st drug u se in its se nte nc ingorde r is fou nd i n a se ction la be le d “ Thede fend ant be ga n usi ng a lc oholand d

rugs a t a n e arl y a ge , a nd d ev el ope d a

li fel ong ad dic tio n probl em ,” and re ad s a s fol lows : Est ab lis he d an d unc ont

rove rte d. That the de fend ant use d drugs in the pa st is not m iti gatin g. Mo r eo ve r the re is no ev ide nc e that he wa s usi ng drugs in Sept em

be r, 1994 whe n he m

urde red Mrs. Livi ngst on. This fac tor i s e nti tle d to li ttl e we ight. On Fe brua

ry 21, 2002 , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt a ffirm ed Mo rris’ s
co nvi ction

and s ente nc e. Mo rris v. State , 811 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 200 2) (“ Morris I”). Morris rai se d fiveiss ue s, on e of whi ch is his pre se nt c la im

tha t t he tria l c ourt e rred by not c onsi de ring h is p as t druguse a s m iti gatin g e vid en ce . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt re je ct ed thi s c la im . Quo tin g th e entire ty of th e tria l c ourt’ s di sc uss ion in the
se nte nc ingorde r, the Florid a Suprem e Co urt firs t no te d th at the tria l c ourt h ad found es ta

bli she d a nd u nc ont rove rte d th e fac t t

hat M orris h ad

a li fel ong ad dic tio n to d rugs a nd a lc ohol . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt a gree d wi th M orris t hat pa st

7drug u se and a ddi ct ion a re v al id n onst at

uto ry miti gators, and t

hat t he de fend ant
ne ed not beund er t

he influe nc e of drugs or a lc oholat t he ti m e of them

urde r for thi s m iti gatin g e vid en ce to be we igh ed . Id. at 66 7 (c iti ng M ahn v. State , 714 So. 2d 3 91, 4 01 (Fla . 199 8)). But t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt t he n foun d th at

“ [a] lth ough

the tria l c ourt’ s orde r on t his poi nt i s c onfus ing , it

a ppe ars tha

t t he tria l c ourt d id fi nd a

nd we igh the prior h ist ory

of druga buseand a ddi ction .” Id. (e m pha sis a dde d). Th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt we nt o n to furthe r co nc lud e that, “ co nsi de ring a ll of theoth er ag grav at ion

and miti gatio n in

the c as e that t

he tria l c ourt e va lua

te d, . . . a ny ina cc urac y

in the tria l c ourt’ s st at em ents i s ha rm le ss b ey ond a rea sona

ble dou bt.” Id. C. Afte r his dire ct

a ppe al , Mo rris pu

rsue d po stc onvi ction

rel ie f unde r Fla. R. Cri m . P. 3.8 51. He file d hi s Se co nd Am en de d 3.8 51 M oti on o n De ce m be r 22, 2003 . He rai se d e le ve n c la im s, i nc lud ingthe two ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns el cl ai m s a nd t he c um ulativ e error c la im

at i ssu e in t

his a ppe al . M orris re ce ive d bo th
a Huff he ari ng a

nd a n e vid entia

ry he ari ng. Afte r the se he ari ngs, the tria l c ourt 1

See Huf

f v. State, 622 So. 2d 982, 983 (Fla . 1993) (holdingthat, beca use of the se verity 1 of punishment at issue in a dea th penalty postconviction case , the judg e must allow the attorne y s the opportunity

to appea r bef ore the court a

nd be hea rd on an initial postconviction motion). 8de nie d po stc onvi ct ion rel ie f. Mo rris th en

file d a sta te ha be as pe tition . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt a ffirm ed

the de nia l of p ost co nvi ct ion rel ie f an d re

je ct ed the sta te ha be as c la im s in

a una nim ous opi nio n is sue d on April20, 2006 . M orris v . Sta te , 931 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2006 ) (“ Morris II”). In a ddre ssi ng M orris’ s in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e of c ouns elc la im s, t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt di d no t de ci de whe the r Morris ha d e sta bli she d de fic ie nt pe rform an ce , in ste ad

c onc lud ingtha

t M orris h ad

fai le d to e sta

bli sh p rej udi ce . Morris II, 931 So. 2d at

832 , 834 . As for Morris ’s a bse nc e from

a be nc h
co nfere nc e durin g th e pe na lty pha se , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt firs t no te d th at it ha s re pe at ed ly

de nie d in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e cl ai m s re ga

rdinga de fend ant’ s a

bse nc e from a be nc h c onfe renc e “ whe n th e de fend ant ha s fa ile d to sho w th at anythi ng wa s dis cu sse d at t

he c onfe renc e tha

t re qui red the de fend ant’ s c onsu lta tio n.”Id. at 83 2 (ci tin g Orm e v. State , 896 So. 2d 725 , 738 (Fla. 200 5); Vi nin g v. State , 827 So. 2d 201, 218 (Fla. 200 2); Ha

rdwic k v. Dugg er, 6 48 So. 2d 1 00, 1 05 (Fla . 199 4)). The Florid a Suprem e Co urt e xpre ssl y ti ed thi s ob se rvat ion

to the pre jud ic e prong of the ine ffec tiv e as sis ta

nc e of c ouns elte st l ai d out i n Stric kla nd v . W as hin gto n, 46 6 U.S. 668 (1984), co nc lud ing : [E]v en if tria l co unse l wa s de fic ie nt in hol din g a be nc h co nfere nc e wit h the tria l jud ge out sid e of Morris ’s pres en ce an d wit hout a wa ive r by him , Morris ha s not es ta bli she d that anythi ng wa s dis cu sse d durin g thi s co nfere nc e that requ ire d his co nsul tation. Nor ha s he es ta bli she d 9that the co nfere nc e inv olv ed anythi ng but pure ly le ga l matte rs to

whic h his co nst itutio na l right to be pres ent doe s not exte nd. Thus , we co nc lud e that Morris ha s fai le d to de m onst rat e unde r Stric kla

nd that he wa s pre

jud ic ed by c ouns el ’s c ondu ct . Morris II, 931 So. 2d at

832
. As for M orris’ s c la im

tha t t ria l c ouns elwa s in effe ctive for fai lin g to a dvi se him of hi s c onst itutio na l rig ht t o te sti fy at t he pe na lty

pha se , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt firs t no te d th at

de fens e co unse l do es have an ob lig at ion to inform the de fend ant of h is ri ght

to te sti fy . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt s um m ed up t he rel ev ant t es tim ony

from Mo rris’ s po stc onvi ct ion

e vid entia ry he ari ng t his wa y : During the ev ide nti ary he ari ng on thi s cl ai m , tri al co unse l [Howa rd] Dim m ig an d Howa

rden e Garrett te sti f

ie d that the y ha d pret ria l dis cu ssi ons wit

h Morris co nc erni ng whe the r he woul d te sti fy at tria l. Dim m ig te sti f ie d that durin g the se dis cu ssi ons he ad vis ed Morris of his right to te sti fy but that he wa s uns ur e whe the r Morris unde rstoo d that thi s m ea

nt he ha d a right to te sti fy at bot h the gui lt an d pena lt y pha se s. Garrett wa s una ble to rec al l whe the r she dis cuss ed wit h Morris his right to te sti fy at the pe na lty pha se of his tria l. Morris te sti fie d at the ev ide nti ary he ari ng that al tho ugh he r ecal le d Garrett as kin g him whe the r he wante d to te sti fy durin g the gui lt pha se , ne ither Garrett nor Dim

m ig ad vis ed him of his right to te sti fy in bot h pha se s of his tria l. Morris II, 931 So. 2d at

834
. The Florid a Suprem e Co urt di d no t pa rse thi s te sti m ony

to de te rm ine whe the r tria l c ouns el ’s pe rform an ce wa s de fic ie nt, ins te ad a ga in d eny ingrel ie f 10unde r the pre jud ic e prong of Stric kla

nd. Id. (“ W e ne ed

not de te rm ine whe the r the re wa s de fic ie nt p erform an ce be ca use we c onc lud e that a

ny fai lure to ad

vis e Morris tha

t he ha d th e right

to te sti fy durin g th e pe na lty

pha se doe s no t un de rm ine
our c onfid en ce in the de at h se nte nc e an d th

us d id n ot p rej udi ceMo rris.” ). The
co urt no te d th at

at t he e vid entia

ry he ari ng M orris did n ot d isp ute the te sti m ony of the twe lve wit

ne sse s who ha d te sti fie d on his be ha lf at t

he pe na lty

pha se , nor d id he “ offer a

ny oth er e vid en ce be y ond that pre se nte d du ring t he pe na lty

pha se .” Id. Morris a lso te sti fie d at t

he e vid entia

ry he ari ng t hat he woul d ha

ve rea sse rte d hi s inn oc en cec la im s du

ring t he pe na lty

pha se . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt s tate d th at

“ [i] t i s qu es tio na

ble whe the r the jury

woul d ha ve found Mo rris’ s te sti m ony
cre dib le , e spe ci al ly

a s to his prote sta

tio ns o f inno ce nc e. ” Id. It the n c onc lud ed that, “ [b] as ed

on M orris’ s di m ini she d c redibil ity and t he fac t t hat hi s te sti m ony woul d ha ve be en c um ulativ e to t

he e xte nsi ve m iti ga

tio n e vid en ce pre se nte d at t he pe na lty pha se , . . . any

fai lure by

tria l c ouns elto inform

Mo rris of h is ri ght

to te sti fy in the pe na lty

pha se doe s no t un de rm ine thi s C ourt’ s c onfid en ce in the out co m e of thetria l.” Id. Havin g c onc lud ed

tha t M orris h ad

fai le d to e sta

bli sh t hat a ny of hi s c la im s ha d m eri t, t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt de te rm ine d th at Mo rris’ s c la im

of c um ulativ e error fa ile d a s we ll, and t

hat M orris wa s no t deprive d of a funda m enta lly fai r tria l.

11Id. at 83 7. D.

Morris file d hi s fe de ralha be as pe tit ion

on J uly 12, 2006 , in

the Uni te d State s Dist ric t C ourt fo r the Mi ddl e Dist ric t of Fl orida . Hi s pe tit ion rai se d fourt ee n cl ai m s. Aft er c onsi de ring t he sta te ’s res pons e an d M orris’ s re ply , th e dis tric t c ourt
ente red an

orde r an d sepa

rat e jud gm ent on

Sep te m be r 30, 2 009, de ny ingthe pe tit ion a s to e ac h of t

he fourte en

c la im s. Morris v. Se c’ y , De p’ t of C orr., 200 9 W L 317 0497 (M.D. Fla ., Se pt. 30, 2 009). As for M orris’ s in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e of c ouns elc la im

rel at ed to his a bse nc e from the unre co rded

be nc h c onfe renc e, the dis tric t c ourt h el d th at Mo rris ha d no t
m et his burde n of e sta

bli shi ng t hat t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s pre jud ic e de te rm ina tio n wa s c ont

rary to or an unrea sona

ble a ppl ic at ion of Stric kla

nd. 2009 W L 317 0497 , a

t *1 1-12. Thedis tric t c ourt n ote d th at Mo rris bo re t

he burde n of show ingtha

t hi s c ouns elwa s in effe ct ive , a nd t hat hi s sp ec ulatio n a

bout wha t might have be en dis cu sse d du

ring t he be nc h c onfe renc e wa s no t su ffici ent t o m ee t t his burde n. Id. at

*12
. As for M orris’ s in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e cl ai m c onc erni ng t

he fai lure of hi s tri al
co unse l t o a dvi se him

of hi s rig ht t o te sti fy

at t he pe na lty

pha se , th e dis tric t c ourt ag ree d wi th t

he Flori da

Supre m e Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at Mo rris ha d fa ile d to

12es ta

bli sh p rej udi ce und er Stri ckla nd, a nd t he refore Mo rris ha d no t sh own a n
entit le m ent t o ha

be as rel ie f unde r AEDPA. Id. at *15 . Afte r sum

m ari zi ng Morris ’s propo se d te sti m ony and t he e xte nsi ve miti gatin g te sti m ony tha t a ct ua lly
wa s pre se nte d at t

he pe na lty

pha se , th e dis tric t c ourt c onc lud ed tha t “ Morris ’ propos ed te sti m ony , in

li ght of bot h pa rtie s’ e vid en ce , doe s no t de m onst rat e a
rea sona ble proba bil ity tha t hi s se nte nc e woul d ha

ve be en diffe rent ha d he te sti fie d durin g th e pe na lty

pha se of th e tria l.” Id. at *1 6. Th e dis tric t c ourt e xpre ssl y

“ ag ree [d] wit

h th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at Mo rris’ propo se d te sti m ony woul d ha ve e sse nti al ly

be en not hin g m ore tha

n c um ulativ e to t

he oth er wit ne sse s’ te sti m ony .” Id. “ More ove r,” t he dis tric t c ourt a dde d, “ to t he e xte nt Morris woul d ha

ve rea sse rte d hi s innoc en ce of th e cri m es , th e jury c le arl y did not be lie ve Mo rris be ca

use the y ha d a lre ad

y found him gui lty be y ond a rea sona

ble doub t.” Id. As for M orris’ s c la im

tha t t he tria l c ourt e rred b y

not c onsi de ring h is p as t drug u se at se nte nc ing , th e dis tric t c ourt “ ag ree [d] wit h th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s c onc lus ion

tha t t he tria l j udge did

find an d we igh

the prior h ist ory

of drug ab use a nd a ddi ct ion .” Id. at *2 8 (quo tatio n omitt ed). Thedis tric t c ourt w ent on to not e: Furthe rm ore, ev en tho ugh the tria l co urt sta te d “ [t] ha t the def en da nt use d drugs in the pa st is not m iti gatin g” ( I d. [ D E 23, Ex. A-36 at 96] ), 13the tria l co urt none the le ss we igh ed the m iti gati ng fac tor be ca use it expres sly found that “ [t] his fac tor is enti tled to lit tle we ight.” (Id.) ( em pha sis ad de d). De spi te Morris ’ co nte nti ons, the sta te tria l co urt did not rej ec t Morr is ’ hi story of drug an d al co hol ab use as a m iti gatin g fac tor. Rather, the co urt co nsi de red his his tory of drug an d al co hol ab use an d found that it wa s entit le d to “ lit tle we ight” be ca

us e Morris wa s no t un de r the influe nc e of drugs at t he ti m e of them

urde r. Id. at *2 8. Ac co rding ly , th e dis tric t c ourt c onc lud ed tha t M orris “ha [d] not de m onst rat ed tha t t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de ci sio n wa s c ont rary to, or a n
unre as ona

ble a ppl ic at ion of, c le arl y

e sta bli she d fe de ralla

w or a n unrea sona

ble de te rm ina tio n of t he fac ts.”Id. a

t *2 9. Th e dis tric t c ourt fu rthe r co nc lud ed

tha t Morris ha d fa ile d to e sta

bli sh t hat a ny e rror on th e tria l c ourt’ s pa rt res ult ed in

“ ac tua l pre

judic e. ” Id. at *2 9-30 (qu oti ng B rec ht v . Abra ha m son, 507 U.S. 61 9, 637 (1993)). Fi na lly , th e dis tric t c ourt s um m ari ly dis pose d of t

he c um ulativ e error cl ai m . Id. at *3 9 (“ As a ll of Mo rris’ ind ivi dua l c la im s a re wi tho ut m eri t, h is
cum ulativ e error c la im

m ust fai l.” ). On No ve m

be r 23, 2 009, the dis tric t c ourt g rant ed in pa rt M orris’ s ap pli ca tio n for a Ce rtific at e of Appe al ab ili ty (“ COA ”), l im ite d to Mo rris’ s c la im s that t ria l c ouns elwa s in effe ctive for fai lin g to c al l M orris t o te sti fy in thepe na lty pha se , a nd t hat t he tria l c ourt e rred i n find ingtha t M orris’ s pa st d

rug us e wa s no t
m iti gatin g. On

Augu st 2 5, 20 10, t

his Co urt gra

nte d in pa rt M orris’ s m oti on t o
expa nd t he CO A, a ddi ng t

he c la im tha t t ria l c ouns elwa s in effe ct ive for 14pa

rtic ipa tin g in an unrec orde d be nc h c onfe renc e wit hout obt ai nin g a

wa ive r of Morris ’s pre se nc e an d th e cl ai m of c um ulativ e error. II. Be ca use Mo rris fil ed

his fed era l ha

be as pe tit ion

a fte r the 199 6 e ffec tiv e date of theAnt ite rrorism

and Effe ctive De at

h Pe na lty Ac t (“ AEDPA” ), 28 U. S.C. § 2254 , AEDPA g ove rns t

he pe tit ion

and t he sc ope of our re vie w. Pe nry v. J ohns on, 532 U.S. 782 , 792 (2001 ); Gross m an v. M cD onou gh, 4 66 F.3d 132 5, 13 35 (11 th Ci r. 2006 ). Unde r AEDPA, whe n th e sta te c ourt h as a dju dic at ed

the pe tit ion er’ s cl ai m on t he m eri ts, a fede ralc ourt may not grant h ab ea s re lie f unle ss t he sta te
co urt’ s de ci sio n wa s “ co ntra ry to, or invol ve d a

n unrea sona

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

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e Co urt of t

he Uni te d State s,” 28 U .S.C. § 22 54(d)(1), or “wa s ba se d on an unrea sona

ble de te rm inatio n of thefac ts i n li ght

of th e ev ide nc e pres ente d in the State c ourt p roce ed ing ,” id. § 2254 (d)(2). A st at e co urt’ s fa ct ua l fin din gs a

re p res um ed

c orrec t un le ss re but

te d by c le ar a nd c onvi nc inge vid en ce . Id. § 225 4(e); Ferre ll v. Ha ll, 640 F.3d 1 199, 1223 (11th

Ci r. 2011 ). AEDPA “ im

pose s a hig hly de fere nti alsta

nda rd for e va luatin g st at e-c ourt rulin gs” a nd “ de m an ds t

ha t st at e-c ourt d ec isi ons be giv en the be ne fit o f the dou

bt.” Re nic o v. Le tt, 130 S. C t. 1 855, 186 2 (201 0) (int erna l qu otatio n m arks omitt ed).

15“ A st at e co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at a c la im la ck s m eri t pre clude s fe de ralha be as rel ie f so l ong as fai rm ind ed juri sts c oul d di sa gree on t he c orrec tne ss o f the sta

te
co urt’ s de ci sio n.” Ha

rringt on v . Ric hte r, 131 S. Ct . 770 , 786 (2011 ) (inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed). The Supre m e Co urt ha s re pe at ed ly ins truc te d lo we r fede ralc ourts tha

t a n un rea sona ble a ppl ic at ion of la w req uire s m ore tha

n m ere
error or e ve n c le ar e rror. See , e .g., M itc he ll v. Es pa rza , 540 U.S. 12 , 18 (2003); Loc ky er v . And

rade , 538 U.S. 63 , 75 (2003) (“ The glo ss o f cl ea r error fa ils to giv e prope r de fere nc e to s tate c ourts by c onfla tin g e rror (eve n c le ar e rror) with
unre as ona

ble ne ss.” ); W ill ia

m s v. Tay lor, 5 29 U. S. 362, 410 (2000 ) (“ [A]n
unre as ona

ble a ppl ic at ion of fed era l l awis diffe rent from an in co rrec t or e rroneo us ap pli ca tio n of fe de ralla

w.” ). Fina lly , we rev ie w de nov o th e dis tric t c ourt’ s re soluti on o f que sti ons of la w
or m ixe d qu es tio ns o f la

w a nd fa ct . Se e Spen ce r v. Se c’ y , De p’ t of C orr., 609 F.3d 1170 , 117 7 (11t

h C ir. 20 10); Fot opou los v. Se c’ y , De p’ t of C orr., 516 F.3d 1 229, 1232 (11th

Ci r. 2008 ). W e revi ewfac tua l fin din gs m ad e by thedis tric t c ourt fo r cl ea r error. Spe nc er, 6 09 F.3d at 11 77. A. Morris first cl ai m s th at

his tria l c ouns elwa s in effe ct ive in ex cludi ng h im from a be nc h c onfe renc e wit

hout a wa ive r. To s uc ce ed

on a n in effe ct ive a ssi sta

nc e

16cl ai m , Mo rris m ust sho w bot h de fic ie nt p erform an ce and p rej udi ce : he m ust
es ta bli sh b oth tha t “ co unse l’ s re pres entatio n fe ll be low an obj ec tiv e sta

nda rd of
rea sona ble ne ss,”and t

hat “ the re i s a

rea sona ble proba bil ity tha t, b ut for c ouns el ’s unprofe ssi ona l e rrors, th e res ult of th e proc ee din g wou ld h av e be en diffe rent .” Stric kla nd, 4 66 U. S. at

688 , 694 ; a cc ord W igg ins v. Sm ith , 539 U.S. 51 0, 52 1-22 (2003); Da

rden v. W ai nwright, 4 77 U. S. 168, 184 (1986 ). TheSupre m e Co urt a lso
m ad e cl ea r in St ric kla nd t hat a c ourt n ee d no t a ddre ss b oth prong s if t

he pe tit ion er ha s m ad e an

ins uffic ie nt s howi ng o n on e of the m , a nd t hat “ a co urt ne ed

not de te rm inewhe the r co unse l’ s pe rform an cewa s de fic ie nt b efore e xa m ini ng t he prej udi ce suffe red by

thede fend ant a s a

res ult of th e al le ge d de fic ie nc ie s.” Stric kla nd, 4 66 U. S. at

697 ; a cc ord Hol la da

y v. Ha le y , 209 F.3d 1 243, 124 8 (11t h Ci r. 2000 ) (“ [T]h e co urt ne ed not a ddre ss t he pe rform an ce prongif th e de fend ant
ca nnot m ee t t he pre jud ic e prong, or vi ce ve rsa .” (ci tatio n omitt ed)). Furthe rm ore, a s a

fed era l ha

be as c ourt w e arenot

a ppl y ingStric kla

nd d e
novo , but rat he r throu gh t

he a ddi tio na l pri sm

of AEDPA d efe renc e. 28 U.S.C . § 2 2254 (d)(1). Thus , und er t his dou bly de fere nti alsta

nda rd, “ [t] he piv ota l qu es tio n is whe the r the sta

te c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ion of th e Stric kla

nd s ta nda rd wa s unrea sona

ble .”
This is true as to the pre judice prongof Strickland, which the Florida Supreme Court 2 unquestionably

adjudicate d on the merits for both of Morris’s inef

fec tive assistance of counse l claims. Morris I I , 931 So. 2d at 832, 834. 17Harringt on, 1 31 S. C t. at 78 5 (“ A st at e co urt m ust be grante d a

de fere nc e an d latit ude tha t a re n ot i n op eratio n whe n th e ca se inv olv es rev ie w und er t he Stric kla nd s ta nda rd it se lf.” ). And if, a

t a m ini m um , fai rm ind ed

juri sts c oul d dis ag ree a bout thec orrec tne ss o f the sta tec ourt’ s de ci sio n, t

he sta te c ourt’ s ap pli ca tio n of Stri ck la

nd wa s no t unrea sona

ble and AE DPA pre clude s th e grant of ha be as rel ie f. Id. at 78 6. The Supre m e Co urt ha s m ad e cl ea r that “ a de fend ant i s gu ara nte ed the right to b e pres ent a

t a ny sta ge of th e cri m ina l proc ee din g th at is cri tic alto its out co m e if his pre se nc e woul d c ont

ribut e to t he fai rnes s of t

he proc ed ure. ” Ke ntu ck

y v. Stinc er, 4 82 U. S. 730, 745 (1987 ); se e Illi noi s v. All en , 397 U.S. 33 7, 33 8 (197 0). In Stin ce r, the Co urt no te d th at “ due proc es s c le arl y

req uire s th at a de fend ant be al lowe d to be pre se nt ‘ to t he e xte nt t

hat a fai r an d ju st h ea

ring w oul d be thw art ed by his a bse nc e. ’” 482 U.S. at 74 5 (quo tin g Sny de r v. M as sa ch use tts , 291 U.S. 97 , 108 (1934)). The Florid a Suprem e Co urt di d no t a ddre ss whe the r co unse l’ s pe rform an ce
wa s de fic ie nt, ins te ad

de te rm ini ng t

hat M orris h ad

fai le d to m ee t hi s bu

rden of
es ta bli shi ng p rej udi ce und er Stri ck la nd. Morris II, 931 So. 2d at 832 . W e take the
sam e ap proa ch , a

nd h old tha t un de r the c irc um sta

nc es pre se nte d he re, t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at Mo rris fa ile d to e sta

bli sh p rej udi ce und er

18Stric kla

nd wa s no t unrea sona

ble . M orris h as fai le d to e sta bli sh t ha t t he re i s a
rea sona ble proba bil ity tha t, b ut for h is t

ria l c ouns ele xc lud inghim from the be nc h
co nfere nc e, the res ult

of th e proc ee din gs wo uld have be en

diffe rent , le t a lon e that the Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n on thi s po int wa s a n unrea sona

ble ap pli ca tio n of c le arl y

e sta bli she d Supre m e Co urt l aw . Stric kla nd, 4 66 U. S. at

694
.

“ A rea sona

ble proba bil ity is a proba

bil ity suffic ie nt t o un de rm ine c onfid en ce in the out co m e. ” Id. The be nc h c onfe renc e at

iss ue too k pl ac e durin g th e pe na lty pha se of th e tria l. M orris’ s tri alc ouns el , Mr. Dim m ig a nd M s. Ga

rrett , we re p res ent, a s wa s th e prose cu tor M r. Harb. Th e co nfere nc e too k pl ac e at the ve ry be ginnin g of t

he da y , be fore t he jury ha d e nte red the c ourtroo m . De fens e co unse l brou ght to the tria l
co urt’ s atte nti on t

hat on e of these ts o f Morris ’s finge rprint s th at ha d be en publ ish ed to the jury

the da y be fore wa s ta

ke n from an unrel at ed

arrest and h ad a not e on t he ba ck ind ic at ingtha

t t he arrest wa s for th e fel oni ous poss es sio n of a
co ntrol le d su

bst an ce . Thec ourt a gree d th at the se t of fi nge rprint s th at m ad e refe renc e to t

he prior a rrest sho uld be rem ove d, a

nd d isc uss ed

wit h th e la wy ers how t he State ’s e xhibit s wou ld b e m arke d. At tha t po int , th e follo wingc oll oquy too k pl ac e jus t be fore a

nd a fte r the unre co rded

be nc h c onfe renc e: THE C OURT: Anythi ng e lse ? MR . DIMM IG: Ye s, Yo ur Hono r. At t his ti m e ba se d on

-- 19MR . HAR B: W e ne ed

y our c lie nt h ere . MR . DIMM IG: Ye ah . W e woul d ne ed him in he re. MS. GAR

RE TT: I ha d on e ot he r thi ng be fore we go on to that I had one oth er thi ng I wanted to bring up that I prefe r to bring up out sid e m

y cl ie nt’ s pres en ce . It doe sn’ t ev en have to be on t

he rec ord. (Disc uss ion

off the rec ord.) (The de fend ant e nte red thec ourtroo m .) MR . DIMM IG: Y our Hono r, at thi s tim e the de fens e woul d m ake a

Mot ion for Mi stri al ba se d upon the erro ne ous publ ic at ion to thi s ju ry of what ha s now be en m arke d as S tate ’s Exhibit A-1. That is a f in ge rprint ca

rd whic h refle ct s that Mr. Morris was book ed int o a Mi sso uri ja il on the ch arge s of fel oni ou s poss es sio n of ill eg al na rcot ic s an d what ap pe ars to be a burgl ary , tho ugh it is abbr ev ia te d in som e fas hio n. At M orris’ s st at e post co nvi ct ion e vid entia ry he ari ng, M s. Ga

rrett te sti fie d that sh e ha d no ind ep en de nt re co lle ct ion of th e be nc h c onfe renc e, or of t he subs ta nc e of what wa s di sc uss ed at t he be nc h c onfe renc e. She furthe r te sti fie d th at she did not be lie ve tha

t sh e woul d ha

ve e xc lud ed

Mo rris from

a be nc h c onfe renc e at whi ch hene ed ed

to be pre se nt, an d th e fac t t ha t t he re wa s no rec onst

ruct ion of the be nc h c onfe renc e on t he rec ord le d he r to b el ie ve tha t the m at te r was not

a
co nse que nti alone . The Florid a Suprem e Co urt i m pli ci tly c redi te d M s. Ga

rrett ’s te sti m ony , es pe ci al ly in thea bse nc e of any

c ont rary sho wingby

Mo rris. It

found tha t “ Morris 20ha s no t e sta

bli she d th at

anythi ng wa s di sc uss ed

durin g th is c onfe renc e that requ ire d hi s c onsu lta

tio n. No r ha s he e sta

bli she d th at

thec onfe renc e inv olv ed
anythi ng b ut p urel y

le ga l m at te rs to whi ch

his c onst itutio na l rig ht t o be pre se nt doe s no t e xte nd.” Mo rris II, 931 So. 2d at 83 2. Ac co rding ly , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt he ld t

hat M orris’ s a

bse nc e from

the be nc h c onfe renc e did not und ermine it s
co nfide nc e in t

he out co m e of thepe na lty pha se proc ee din gs, a

nd t he refore Mo rris fai le d to de m onst

rat e prej udi ceund er Stri ck la nd. Ne ve rthe le ss, Morris , rely ingon Ariz ona v. Ful m ina

nte , 499 U.S. 27 9, 30 9- 10 (19 91), c la im s th at

theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt “ co uld not kno w whe the r the dis cu ssi ons at

the be nc h we re o r were not rel at ed to le ga l m at

te rs pe rta ini ng t o M r. Morris ’s tria l,” and t

hat hi s a bse nc e wa s a

stru ct urale rror that “ affe ct ed

the fram ew ork wi thi n whi ch

the tria l proc ee de d.” B ut i n Fulmina nte , th e Suprem e Co urt wa s di sc uss inga

ve ry li m ite d c at eg ory

of c onst itutio na l e rrors -- suc h a s “ the tot alde priva

tio n of t he right to co unse l at t

ria l” or “ a jud ge who wa s no t i m pa rtia l” -- that a re “ struc tura l de fec ts i n th e co nst itutio n of t he tria l m ec ha

nis m , whi ch

de fy
an al y sis by

‘ ha rm le ss e rror’ s ta

nda rds.” Id. T he a

bse nc e of a

de fend ant from

a sin gle be nc h c onfe renc e is n ot t he ty pe of fund am enta l e rror that i nfec ts “ [t] he
entire c ondu ct

of th e tria l from

be ginnin g to e nd.” Id. at 30 9. Sti ll an oth er probl em wit h M orris’ s c la im , wit

h re spe ct to es ta bli shi ng p rej udi ce und er

21Stric kla

nd, i s th at it sim ply a ssum es tha

t so m et hin g of c riti ca l i m

port w as dis cu sse d at t

he be nc h c onfe renc e wit

hout e ve r ad va nc ingany the ory of what i t
m ight ha ve be en or why tha t wa s th e ca se . W ith out

Mo rris e ve n atte m

pti ng t o art ic ulate what might ha

ve be en dis cu sse d at t

he be nc h c onfe renc e, we c an not
co nc lud e that he ha s m et

his burde n of e sta

bli shi ng a rea sona ble proba bil ity tha t but for tria l c ouns el ’s purpo rte d e rror in e xc lud inghim from the c onfe renc e, the
res ult of th e pe na lty

pha se proc ee din gs wo uld have be en

diffe rent , le t a lon e that t

he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n wa s a n unrea sona

ble one . More ove r, the c oll oquy

on t he rec ord a

nd t he surroun din g c ont ext su gge st that t ria l c ouns elwe re we ll aw are of M orris’ s rig ht t o be pre se nt. De fens e co unse l
we re a bout to m ove for a mist

ria l ba se d on

the e rroneo us p ubl ic at ion of a finge rprint

c ard, but sto ppe d whe n th ey

rea liz ed -- afte r the prose cutor c him ed in
-- that M orris n ee de d to be the re. Tria l c ouns elGa rrett the n brou ght

up a se eming ly
unre late d m at

te r with the tria l c ourt, an d th e be nc h c onfe renc e wa s c ondu ct ed off the rec ord, wi tho ut a

ny obj ec tio n from

the prose cutor. O nc e the y we nt b ac k on

the
rec ord a nd t he de fend ant e nte red the c ourtroo m , th e de fens e the n m ove d for th e
m ist ria l ba se d on

what t he pa rtie s ha d be en

dis cu ssi ng p rior to the be nc h
co nfere nc e. Not

hin g a bout thi s c ourse of e ve nts e ve n re m ote ly sug ge sts tha

t Morris ’s a

bse nc e from

the be nc h c onfe renc e ha d a ny e ffec t on the out co m e of the

22pe na lty

pha se . W e ac know le dge tha

t M orris fa ce s a

signific ant bu

rden in de m onst

rat ing prej udi ce und er t

he se c irc um sta

nc es . He wa s no t pre se nt a t t he be nc h c onfe renc e, the c onfe renc e wa s off th e rec ord, a nd h is t ria l c ouns elGa

rrett te sti fie d du

ring post co nvi ct ion

proc ee din gs t

hat sh e co uld

not rem em be r what wa s di sc uss ed . In that si tuatio n, i t i s a

ta ll orde r inde ed

for Mo rris to de m onst

rat e that hi s a

bse nc e from the c onfe renc e res ult ed

in prej udi ceund er Stri ck la nd. None the le ss, the la

w is cl ea r that M orris b ea

rs th is b urde n. Se e Stric kla nd, 4 66 U. S. at

687 (“ [T]h e de fend ant m

ust sho w th at

the de fic ie nt p erform an ce pre jud ic ed the de fens e. ”); John son v. Al ab am a, 256 F.3d 1 156, 117 6 (11t h C ir. 20 01) (“ The pe tition er b ea rs the burde n of pro of on t

he ‘ pe rform an ce ’ prong as we ll as the ‘ prej udi ce ’ prong of
a Stric kla nd c la im , a

nd b oth prong s m ust be prove d to pre va il. ”). In sho rt, M orris h as fai le d to e sta bli sh t hat t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de ci sio n on

thi s c la im

wa s e ith er c ont

rary to or an unrea sona

ble a ppl ic at ion of Stric kla nd, a nd we a cc ordin gly

de ny rel ie f. In so hol din g, we e m pha siz e that we do n ot c ondo ne the c ondu ct of th e sta te tria l c ourt, es pe ci al ly

in lig ht o f the grave sta ke s inhe rent

in ca pit alli tig at ion . Whe n a

tria l c ourt c ondu ct s a

ny proc ee din gs off the rec ord, i t unne ce ssa rily ren de rs m

uc h m ore diffic ult

a rev ie wingc ourt’ s ta sk o f en surin g th at

the de fend ant re ce ive d a

fai r tria l. B ut d iffic ult

is not

23im

poss ibl e, and M orris h as not provi de d a

nythi ng t hat wo uld pe rm it us t o gra

nt ha be as rel ie f on hi s first

Stric kla nd c la im
. B. Morris ’s se co nd Stri ck la

nd c la im is that hi s tri alc ouns elwa s in effe ct ive for fai lin g to a dvi se him

of hi s rig ht t o te sti fy

durin g th e pe na lty

pha se . Thi s C ourt, rel y ingon t

he Supre m e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Ro ck v. Arka nsa s, 48 3 U.S. 4 4 (198 7), ha s re co gni ze d th at

“ a cri m ina l de fend ant ha s a funda m enta l c onst itutio na l rig ht t o te sti fy in his or he r own b eh al f at tria l” und er s ev era l prov isi ons of the Co nst itu tio n, i nc lud ingthe Sixt

h a nd Fou rte enth Am en dm ents. Uni te d State s v. Te ague , 953 F.2d 1 525, 153 0-32 (11 th C ir. 19 92) (e n ba nc ) (em pha sis om itt ed).

“ This right

is pe rsona l t o th e de fend ant a nd c annot be wa ive d e ith er b y

the tria l
co urt or b y

de fens e co unse l.”Id. at 15 32. “ De fens e co unse l be ars theprim ary
res pons ibi lit

y for ad vis ingthede fend ant of h is ri ght to te sti fy or not to te sti fy , th e strate gic im

pli ca tio ns o f ea ch

c hoi ce , a nd t hat i t i s ul tim at el y

for the de fend ant him se lf to de ci de . Thi s a dvi ce is cruc ia l be ca use the re c an

be no e ffec tiv e wa ive r of a funda m enta l c onst itutio na l right u nle ss t he re i s a n ‘ int entio na l re lin qui shm ent
or a ba ndonm ent of a

kno wn rig ht o f privi le ge .’ ” Id. at 15 33 (foot not e om itt ed) (quot ingJohnson

v. Ze rbst, 304 U.S. 45 8, 46 4 (193 8)). W he re d efe nse c ouns elha s not inform ed thede fend ant of h is ri ght to te sti fy , de fens e co unse l “ha s no t a ct ed

24wit

hin the ran ge of c om

pe te nc e de m an de d of atto rney [s] in cri m ina l c as es .” Ga lle go v . U.S., 1 74 F.3d 119 6, 11 97 (11 th C ir. 19 99) (c ita tio n a nd i nte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed); se e Te ague , 953 F.2d at 15 34. He re, t he rec ord is unc le ar a s to whe the r Morris ’s tria l c ouns elprope rly ad vis ed him of hi s rig ht t o te sti fy

durin g th e pe na lty

pha se . As wit

h th e first Stric kla nd c la im , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt di d no t de te rm ine whe the r the re wa s de fic ie nt p erform an ce , a

nd i nst ea d we nt s tra ight t o th e prej udi ce prongand
co nc lud ed

tha t M orris h ad

fai le d to m ee t hi s bu

rden of e sta bli shi ng p rej udi ce . Morris II, 931 So. 2d at

834 . W e, a ga in, take the sa m e ap proa ch . M orris’ s ine ffec tiv e as sis ta

nc e of c ouns elc la im

fai ls b ec au se he ha s no t e sta bli she d th at

the Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s pre jud ic e de te rm inatio n wa s a n unrea sona

ble a ppl ic at ion of Stric kla

nd. Duringthe pe na lty

pha se , Mo rris’ s tri alc ouns elpre se nte d su bst antia l
m iti gatin g e vid en ce on h is b eh al f, inc lud ingte sti m ony from twe lvewit

ne sse s. Muc h of t he te sti m ony

foc use d on

Mo rris’ s se ve rel y

troub le d c hil dhoo d. For
ex am ple , Mo rris’ s m oth er Li nda Be ll an d si ste r Paul a Howa rd te sti fie d re ga

rding the rap e of four-y ea

r-old Ho ward whe n M orris wa s fiv e y ea rs ol d, a nd t hat M orris
wa s a ngry and u pse t a bout not be inga ble to prote ct

his sis te r. Mo rris’ s m oth er a nd sis te r al so t es tifi ed

tha t M orris’ s m oth er’ s bo y frien d, a m an nam ed Sante e,

25freque ntl y

be at Mo rris’ s m oth er, m ad e thec hil dren watc h hi m

be at the ir m oth er,
an d a lso be at

Mo rris whe n M orris t

rie d to he lp h is m oth er d

uringthe be at ing s. Morris ’s oth er s ist er, Sha ron W at son, furthe r te sti fie d th at the c hil dren

sa w Sante e be at the ir m oth er wi th a

wire ha nge r an d th at

he thre at en ed

Mo rris’ s m oth er wi th a kni fe. Morris ’s m oth er a lso te sti fie d th at Mo rris wou ld s te ala s a

c hil d, a nd t hat the y ha d be en arrest ed tog et he r for shop lift ing . A frie nd o f Morris ’s m oth er, Ma ndy Ca ndi e, te sti fie d th at

Mo rris’ s m oth er e nc oura ge d M orris t o st ea l for he r. Morris a lso pre se nte d e xpe rt he al th t es tim ony from Dr. De e, a

c lin ic al psy ch olo gis t a

nd n eu ropsy ch olo gis t. D r. De e te sti fie d th at Mo rris wi tne sse d a

nd
expe rie nc ed

“ sava ge ” ab usea s a

c hil d. Dr. De e te sti fie d th at Mo rris wou ld s te ala s
a ch ild to obt ai n hi s m oth er’ s a

pprova l. D r. De e al so t es tifi ed at l en gth reg ardi ng Morris ’s and M orris’ s m oth er’ s a buseof drug s, M orris’ s de ve lop m ent of a n ul ce r whe n he wa s a

c hil d, a nd M orris’ s lo w IQ le ve l. Morris doe s no t di sput e thec ont ents o f thete sti m ony offere d on

his be ha lf at the pe na lty

pha se . Not ab ly , at t

he pos tc onvi ct ion

e vid entia ry he ari ng, M orris d id not offer a ddi tio na l t es timony be y ond what wa s a lre ad

y pre se nte d. Whe n a ske d on dire ct e xam inatio n wha

t hi s te sti m ony

woul d ha ve be en at t he pe na lty

pha se , he
res pond ed

tha t “ I woul d ha

ve answe red whate ve r que sti ons the y a ske d m e. ” Morris a lso sta

te d at t he e vid entia

ry he ari ng t hat hewoul d ha

ve te sti fie d a s to his

26upbri ngi ng, h ow he fel t wh en his m oth er m ad e him

ste al , a nd h ow he c am e to b e dia gnos ed wit h ul ce rs. M orris a lso sug ge ste d th at he woul d ha

ve rea ffirm ed

his inn oc en ce : wh en

a ske d on c ross-e xam inatio n whe the r he woul d “ sti ll have de nie d that [he ] kil le d M rs. Li vin gst on” in his pe na lty pha sete sti m ony , Mo rris repli ed , “ I did n’ t do it .” Mo rris’ s a

rgum ents i n hi s ha

be as pe tit ion

are s im ila

r. He sta te s th at he woul d ha

ve de sc ribe d th e ab use he and h is fa m ily suffe red be ca

use of hi s
m oth er’ s bo y frien d, t

hat he woul d ha

ve dis cu sse d ho w hi s m oth er forc ed him to shop lift , th at

he c oul d ha

ve c la rifie d hi s vo ca

tio na l t rai nin g, a nd t hat hec oul d ha

ve de sc ribe d “ the num erou s fa ct ors i n hi s ba ck ground tha t wo uld m iti gate a ga ins t t

he im posi tio n of t

he se nte nc e of de at

h.” In hi s bri ef, M orris a ga in a rgue s th at he

“ suffe red prej udi ce be ca

use thejury

did not he ar h im de sc ribe , in

his own words, the a buseand t

raum a suffe red as a

c hil d.” In li ght of th e unre butte d fa ct findi ng b y theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt t hat Morris woul d no t ha

ve be en c redible in rea sse rtinghis inn oc en ce and t hat hi s propos ed te sti m ony

woul d ha ve be en c um ulativ e, Mo rris II, 931 So. 2d at 83 4, t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at any fai lure by

tria l c ouns elto inform Morris of hi s rig ht t o te sti fy did not und ermine it s c onfid en cein the out co m e of the pe na lty pha se wa s no t a

n unrea sona

ble one . Se e W ong v. B el m ont es , 130 S. C t. 383, 388 (2009 ) (per c uriam) (reje ct ingthe argum ent t hat pe tit ion er e sta

bli she d

27Stric kla

nd p rej udi cewhe n th e ad dit ion alm iti gatin g e vid en cetha t c ouns elfai le d to int roduc e wa s c um

ulativ e wit

h th e subs ta

nti alm iti gatio n e vid en cetha t ha d be en pres ente d to the jury); Ste wart v. D ugge r, 877 F.2d 85 1, 85 6 (11t h C ir. 19 89) (obse rvingtha

t a ddi tio na l c ha

rac te r witn es se s “woul d no t ha ve ha d a n e ffec t on [the jury ’s ] ve rdic t” be ca

use “ [s] uc h te sti m ony

woul d ha ve m ere ly be en
cum ulativ e” ). Mo reov er, t o th e exte nt M orris p la nne d to rea sse rt hi s innoc en ce at the pe na lty

pha se , th e te sti m ony

woul d no t ha

ve he lpe d hi m , be ca

use the sa m e jury ha d a lre ad

y found Mo rris gu ilt

y of th e m urde r. Inde ed , th is t es tim ony li ke ly woul d have ha rm ed Mo rris’ s pe na lty

pha se de fens e. In sh ort, M orris h as not de m onst rat ed a rea sona ble proba bil ity tha t hi s se nte nc e woul d ha

ve be en diffe rent ha d he te sti fie d du

ring t he pe na lty

pha se of th e tria l, m

uc h le ss t hat t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s c ont

rary c onc lus ion

wa s a n unrea sona

ble one . Ac co rding ly , we de ny Mo rris re lie f on hi s se co nd Stri ck la nd c la im
. C. Morris ’s ne xt c la im

is tha t t he sta te tria l c ourt e rred i n fa ili ng t o c onsi de r his his tory of il le ga l druguse a s a

non sta tut ory m iti gatin g fa ct or in its se nte nc ing orde r, in v iol at ion

of th e Fifth, Sixth , Eighth a nd Fou rte enth Am en dm ents. Mo rris rel ie s on Loc ke tt v. Oh io, 438 U.S. 586 (1978 ), an d it s prog eny for the now we lles ta bli she d prop osi tio n th at

the se nte nc er i n a

c ap ita l c as e m

ust c onsi de r any

28rel ev ant miti gatin g e vid en ce . Id. at 60 8; E ddi ngs v. Ok la hom a, 455 U.S. 10 4, 11 3- 14 (19 82) (“ Jus t a s th e State m ay not by sta tut e prec lud e these nte nc er from
co nsi de ring a

ny m iti gatin g fa ct or, ne ith er m ay the se nte nc er re fuse to co nsi de r, as a
m at te r of la w, a ny rel ev ant miti gatin g e vid en ce .” ); se e al so Gl oc k v. Moo re, 1 95 F.3d 62 5, 63 7 n.2 0 (11t

h C ir. 19 99). The ope rat ive word, h owe ve r, is “ co nsi de r.” The Supre m e Co urt ha s m ad e cl ea r that t he se nte nc er n ee d no t a cc ep t or a sc ribe any spe ci fic we ight t o th e
ev ide nc e that i t c onsi de rs. “ Ac cepta nc e of non sta

tut ory miti gatin g fa ct ors i s no t
co nst itutio na lly

req uire d; t he Co nst itutio n on ly

req uire s th at the se nte nc er c onsi de r the fac tors. ” Atk ins v. Sin gle ta ry , 965 F.2d 9 52, 9 62 (11 th C ir. 19 92) (c iti ng Bl y sto ne v. Pe nnsylva

nia , 494 U.S. 29 9, 30 8 (199 0)); a cc ord Ha rris v. Ala

ba m a, 513 U.S. 504 , 512 (1995 ) (“ [T]h e Co nst itutio n do es not req uire a State to as cribe
any spe ci fic we ight t o pa

rtic ula r fac tors, e ith er i n a ggravatio n or miti gatio n, t o be
co nsi de red by

the se nte nc er.” ). As t

he Supre m e Co urt l at er s tate d in Johnson v. Te xa s, 50 9 U.S. 3 50 (19 93), “ Loc ke tt an d it s prog eny sta nd o nly for the propos iti on t

hat a State m ay

not c ut o ff in a

n a bsolute m anne r the pre se ntatio n of
m iti gatin g e vid en ce ,” id. at 36 1. Morris wa s in

no w ay pre ve nte d from

pre se nti ng t o bo th t

he jud ge and j ury
ev ide nc e of his pa st d

rug us e as pot entia l miti gatin g e vid en ce , a nd t he Florid a

29Suprem e Co urt m ad e a fac tua l fin din g th at the tria l c ourt d id c onsi de r that
ev ide nc e. Mo rris I, 81 1 So. 2 d at 66 7. For us to grant re lie f on t his c la im , Mo rris woul d ha ve to provi de c le ar a

nd c onvi nc inge vid en ce rebutti ng t he Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s un am

biguous fac tua l fin din g th at “ the tria l c ourt d id fi nd a nd
we igh the prior h ist ory

of druga busea nd a ddi ct ion .” Id.; se e 28 U. S.C. § 22 54(e ). In a ddi tio n, t

he dis tric t c ourt m ad e its own fac tua l fin din g th at “ [t] his Co urt’ s revi ewof th e rec ord de m onst rat es tha t t he tria l c ourt c onsi de red an d we igh ed Morris ’ prior h ist ory

of druga buseand a ddi ct ion , but

ga ve the m iti gatin g fa ct or lit tle we ight.” 200 9 W L 317 0497 , at *2 9. Th is fa ct ua l fin din g is it se lf rev ie we d for cl ea r error. Spe nc er, 6 09 F.3d at 11 77. Morris ha s no t m et

his sub sta

nti alburde n of re buttin g th es e fac tua l fin din gs. Inde ed , Mo rris do es not

e ve n a rgue tha t t he sta te tria l c ourt fa ile d to we igh the
ev ide nc e. He sa

y s in ste ad tha t “ it is n ot c le ar h ow t

he c ourt c onsi de red the
nons tatut ory

miti gatio n. Th e co urt s tate d th at the prior d

rug us e in t

he pa st i s no t
m iti gatin g y et

the c ourt w ei ghe d th e m iti gatio n gi vin g it li ttl e we ight.” Mo rris
se em s to argue tha

t t he sta tetria l c ourt’ s c onfus ingla ngua ge it se lf am ount ed

to
co nst itutio na l e rror, be ca

use it “ co ntrib ute d to the c ourt’ s fin din g th at the
m iti gatio n [wa s] e nti tle d to li ttl e we ight.”Thu s, M orris c onc ed es tha t t he tria l
co urt di d c onsi de r an d we igh his pa st d

rug us e as m iti gatin g e vid en ce , but m ak es

30the pa ine d a

rgum ent t hat t he “ tria l c ourt w ent i nto the a na ly sis wit

h th e prec onc ei ve d no tio n th at

the drug u se wa s no t miti gatio n.” Whe n a tria l c ourt
co nsi de rs m iti gatin g e vid en ce durin g se nte nc ing , a s th e tria l c ourt d id h ere wit h
res pe ct to Morris ’s pa st d

rug us e, the re s im

ply is no c onst itutio na l e rror of the kin d Morris now urge s us to rec ogni ze . Se e Harris, 51 3 U.S. at 51 2; B ly sto ne , 494 U.S. at 307 -08; Atki ns, 9 65 F.2d at 96 2. Ac co rding ly , th e Florid a Suprem e Co urt’ s de ci sio n de ny ingrel ie f on t his c la im wa s no t c ont

rary to or an unrea sona

ble ap pli ca tio n of c le arl y

e sta bli she d fe de ralla

w. D. Fina lly , Mo rris c la im s th at c um ulativ e tria l c ourt e rrors de prive d hi m of hi s Sixth Am en dm ent rig ht t o a

fai r tria l. “ The c um

ulativ e error do ct

rine provi de s th at
an a ggre ga tio n of no n-reve rsibl e errors (i .e ., pl ai n e rrors fai lin g to ne ce ssi ta te
reve rsa l a nd h arm le ss e rrors) ca

n y ie ld a de nia l of t

he c onstitutio na l rig ht t o a fai r tria l, wh ic h c al ls fo r reve rsa l.” Uni te d State s v. Ba ke r, 432 F.3d 11 89, 1 223 (11th Ci r. 2005 ) (inte rnalquo tatio n m arks om itt ed). W e ad dres s c la im s of c um ulativ e error by first co nsi de ring t

he va lid ity

of e ac h c la im

ind ivi dua lly , a

nd t he n
ex amini ng a

ny e rrors tha

t we find in t

he a ggre ga

te a nd i n li ght

of th e tria l a s a whol e to d et erminewhe the r the a ppe lla nt w as a fforded

a funda m enta lly fai r tria l. See Uni te d State s v. Ca lde ron, 12 7 F.3d 1314 , 133 3 (11t h C ir. 19 97).

31Pla inl y , Mo rris’ s c um ulativ e error c la im

m ust fai l. A s de m onst

rat ed a bove , none of M orris’ s in div idu alc la im s of e rror or prej udi ce have any m eri t, a nd the reforewe have not

hin g to a cc um

ulate . Thi s C ourt h as m ad e cl ea r that wh ere

“ [t] he re [is ] no e rror in a

ny of th e [tria l] c ourt’ s rul ing s, t he a rgum ent t hat
cum ulativ e tria l e rror requi res tha t t his Co urt re ve rse [the de fend ant’ s] c onvi ct ion s is w ith out m eri t.” Uni te d State s v. Tay lor, 4 17 F.3d 117 6, 11 82 (11 th C ir. 20 05);
se e al so Un ite d State s v. W al don, 363 F.3d 1 103, 111 0 (11t h C ir. 20 04); Unit ed State s v. Ba

rshov , 733 F.2d 8 42, 8 52 (11 th C ir. 19 84). 3 Be ca use Mo rris is not

e nti tle d to ha

be as rel ie f on a

ny of th e cl ai m s ra ise d on ap pe al , we a ffirm

the jud gm ent of t

he dis tric t c ourt a

nd d eny Mo rris’ s pe tit ion

for

Citi ngtwo decisions from one of our sister c ircuits, the State furthe r argues that, in the 3 absenc e of Supre me Court prec edent spe akingto the issue of cumulative e rror claims in fede ral habea s, Morris’s cumulative e rror claim does not eve n prese nt a cognizable claim upon which habea s relief

may be grante d under A EDPA. See Willi ams v. Ander son, 460 F.3d 789, 816 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[C] umulative err or cla ims are not cognizable on habea s beca use the Supreme Court has not spoken on this issue.”); L orra ine v. Coyle, 291 F.3d 416, 447 ( 6th Cir. 2002), amende d on other grounds, 307 F.3d 459 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (“The Supreme Court has not held that distinct constitutional claims can be c umulated to grant ha beas r elief.” ). B ut see Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922, 928- 29 (9th Cir. 2007) (re cognizi ngclaims of cumulative e rror in fede ral ha

beas, stating that “the SupremeCourt has clea rly established that the c ombined eff ect of multipl e trial err ors may

g ive rise to a due proce ss violation if itrende rs a tria l fundamenta lly unfair, e ven wher e ea ch er

ror c onsidered individually would not require reve rsal” ( citing D onnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U .S. 637, 643 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S . 284, 290 n.3, 298, 302-03 (1973) )). We nee d not determine toda y whether , under the curr ent state of Supre me Court prec edent, c umulative error cla ims reviewe d through the lens of AE DPA can e ver suc cee d in showing that the state cour t’s decision on the merits was contra ry to or an unre asonable application of c lear ly

established law. F or our pur poses, it is enoug h to say

that Morris’s cumulative er

ror c laim clearly

fails in light of the absenc e of a ny individual error s to acc umulate.
32rel ie f. AFFIRM ED.

33