FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T October 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 7- 13 67 5 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 02 59 5 C V-TW T MELBERT RAY FORD, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us HILTON HA LL, W ard enGeor gi a Dia gn os ti c an d Cl as si fic at io n P ris on , Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a (Oc to ber 2 7, 2 00 8) Befo re DUBINA, BLACK an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es . DUBINA, Cir cu itJu dg e:Pet it io ne r, Mel be rt R ay Fo rd , a de ath ro w in m at e, ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ct
co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h im habe as rel ie f pu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Fo r th e
reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t. I. BACKG ROUND A. Fac ts W e rec it e th e fac ts fro m

th e o pi ni on of the Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaon di rectap pe al fro m

Fo rd ’s con vi ct io n a ndde ath s en te nc e. Afte r hi s re la ti on sh ip wit h M art haMat ic h b ro ke up , For d be ga n h aras si ng he r by tel ep ho ne . Two week s p rio r to he r de ath, Fo rdto lda fri en d o f hi s t ha t h e “ was go in g t o b lo w her
. . . br ai ns ou t.” Th e d ay

be fo re h er d eat h, Fo rdun su cces sf ul ly trie d t o c on vi nc e a fri en d t o d riv e h im

to th e co nv en ie nc e st or e whe re Ma ti ch work ed
. Fo rdto ldth e fri en d t ha t h e p la nn edto rob th e st or e an d wo rkrev en ge up on Mat ic h b y

ki ll in g h er. On M arch 6, 1 98 6, Fo rdtal ke d t o s ev eral pe op le ab ou t ro bb in g th e st or e. He to ldon e th athe in te nd edto ki dn ap Ms . Mat ic h, t ak e h er in to th e woo ds , m ak e h er b eg , andth ensh oo t h er i n t he for eh ead
. Fo rdtri edto tal k a no th er i nt o h el pi ng hi m wit h h is rob be ry

(Fo rdha d no car) . Whe n t hi s ef

fo rt f ai le d, Fo rdres po nd edth at“ th ere was n’t an y bo dy crazy

aro un d h ere a nym or e.” Fi na ll y , For d m et19 -y ear- ol d R og er Tu rn er, wh o was ou t o f a job an d n earl y

ou t o f m on ey . By

pl y in g h im

wit h a lc oh ol , and pr om is in g h im

th atth ey co ul d e as il y

acqui re ei gh t t ho us an d d ol la rs , Fo rdpe rs ua de d Turn er t o h el p h im
. The y dro ve in Turn er’s carto Ch ap m an ’s Groc ery, arri vi ng jus t aft er cl os in g t im e. Fo rdsh otaway th e lo wer h al f of

th e lo ck edan d ba rredgl as s d oo r an d e nt eredth e st or e. Turn er, wai ti ng in th e car , 2he ardscr eam s an d g un sh ot s. Th enFo rdran fro m th e st or e to th e car , carry in g aba g o f m on ey . At 1 0: 20 p.m ., th e st or e’s bu rg la r al arm so un de d. A Newto n Co un ty she rif

f’s de pu ty arriv edat 1 0: 27 p.m . Ms. M at ic h was lying de adbe hi ndth e co un te r, sh otth ree t im es . LisaCh ap m anwas di sc ov eredin th e b athr oo m , sh otin th e h eadbu t s ti ll ali ve , si tt in g o n a b uc ke t, b le ed in g fr om

th e h ead , andha vi ng co nv ul si on s. Sh e co ul d an swe r no qu es ti on s. Sh e d ie d l at er. Fo rdan d Tu rn er were arres te d t he ne xtda y . Turn er co nf es se d fir stan d was bro ug htin to Fo rd ’s in te rro ga ti onroo m to st at e to Fo rd th athe ha d t ol d t he tru th . Fordto ldhi m no t t o wo rry , th atTurn er was no t i nv ol ve d i n t he m

ur de rs . Afterwa rd s, Fo rdto ldhi s i nt erro ga to rs th atth e sh oo ti ng be ga n a fte r Marth a Ma ti ch pu sh edth e al arm bu tt on . He st at edth at , hadhe worn a m as k, i t wo ul d n otha ve happ en ed
. Fo rdcla im edat t ria l t ha t h e was to o d ru nkto kn ow wh atwas happ en in g, an d t ha t i t was Turn er wh o e nt eredth e st or e an d k il le d t he vi ct im s. For d v . St at e , 25 7 Ga. 4 61 , 46 1- 62 , 36 0 S .E.2d25 8, 2 59 (19 87 ). B. Pro ced

ur al His to ry A Newto n C ou nt y , Geor gi a, gr an d ju ry in di ct edFo rdform al ic e m ur de r an d fel on y m ur de r of Lis a Ch ap m an , m al ic e m ur de r an d fe lo ny m

ur de r of Martha Ch ap m anMat ic h, arm edrob be ry , po ss es si on of afir earm du rin g c omm is si on of a fel on y , andbu rg la ry . Fol lo win g t ria l i n Oct ob er 1 98 6, the jury fo un d F or d g ui lt y
on all co un ts . At th e se nt en ci ng ph as e, th e jury fou ndst atut ory ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces as t o e ach m ur de r. The ju ry

fou ndth atth e m al ic e m

ur de r of Lis a

3Ch ap m anwas c omm it te d wh il e Fo rdwas e ng ag edin th e co m m is si on of a no th er cap it al fel on y

– arm edrob be ry

– an d dur in g t he co m

m is si onof abu rg la ry . The jury fou ndth atth e m al ic e m ur de r of Mart haMat ic h was co m m it te d wh il e Fo rd
was en ga ge d i n t he co m

m is si on of t he cap it al fel on ie s o f arm edrob be ry an d
m ur de r an d dur in g the co m m is si on of abu rg la ry . The jury reco m m en de d t ha t Fo rdbe sen te nc edto de ath fo r th e two m al ic e m ur de rs . The tria l co urt fo ll owe d th e jury’ s re co m

m en da ti on an d s en te nc edFo rdto de ath o n b oth m al ic e m ur de r
co un ts , to run co ns ecu ti ve ly to ea ch ot he r; m erg edth e two fel on y m ur de r co un ts in to th e m al ic e m

ur de r co un ts ; an d i m

po se d aco ns ecu ti ve 20 -y ear s en te nc e fo r
arm edrob be ry , a co ns ecu ti ve fiv e-year sen te nc e fo r th e fi rearm po ss es si on , anda
co ns ecu ti ve 20 -y ear s en te nc e fo r bu rg la ry . The Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia affi rm edFo rd ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es ondi rectap pe al
. Se e For d v . St at e , 25 7 Ga. 46 1, 3 60 S.E.2d25 8 (1 98 7) . The Un it edSta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d
cer ti or ar irev ie w. Ford v . Geor gi a , 48 5 U.S. 9 43 , 10 8 S . Ct. 1 12 4 (1 98 8)
. InJu ne 19 88 , For d fi le d h is fir stst at e h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on in th e Newto n Co un ty Sup eri orCo urt. He am en de d t he pe ti ti on pri orto th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng in Sep te m

be r 19 92 . In Fe bruary

19 96 , th e st at e supe rio r co urt d ire ct edth e p art ie s to pre se ntad di ti on al ev id en ce t o i de nt ify any rem ai ni ng is su es an d s eta de ad li ne fo r fi li ng po st -h eari ng bri efs . The s ta te supe rio r co urt d en ie d F or d re li ef i n a n 4or de r fi le d o n Dec em be r 11 , 19 96 . In 2 00 0, the Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iade ni ed Fo rd ’s app li cat io n fo r pr ob ab le cau se to ap pe al th e st at e co urt’s d en ia l o f habe as rel ie f an d d en ie d F or d’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. Th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d cer ti or ar irev ie w on Ju ne 4, 2 00 1. For d v . Head , 53 2 U.S. 1 06 8, 12 1 S . Ct. 2 22 1 (2 00 1)
. Fo rdfil eda se co ndst at e h ab eas pe ti ti on in Sep te m be r 20 01 . Fordarg ue d th athi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e v io la te d b ecau se th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t t ha t di d n otco nt ai n a ny fin di ng of a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ces , andth athi s
co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e v io la te d b ecau se th e St at e supp res se d fa vo rab le in fo rm at io n abo utRo ge r Turne r’s drug us e o n t he ni gh t o f th e o ffen se . In a fo ot no te in hi s p et it io n, Fo rdcla im edth athi s t ria l co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e be cau se th ey

fai le d t o o bt ai n a ndeffe ct iv el y ut il iz e th e ex cu lp at ory

ev id en ce. The st at e supe rio r co urt d is m is se d t he pe ti ti onas s uc ces si ve un de r O.C.G.A. § 9- 14 -5 1 (2 00 6) . On Ma rch 12 , 20 02 , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iade ni edFo rd ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r pr ob ab le cau se to ap pe al
. The da y aft er h e fi le d h is sec on d s ta te habe as pe ti ti on , For d fi le d afed eral habe as pe ti ti on an d am ot io n t o p ro ceedin fo rma pa up er is . The d is tri ctco urt gr an te d t he m ot io n. InMarc h 2 00 2, Fo rdam en de d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on an d
m ov edforlea ve to co nduc t d is co ve ry on a ne w cla im

of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t.
5The Sta te res po nd ed , andth e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d F or d l eav e to co nduc t

di sc ov ery on hi s cl ai m

of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. Fo rdfil eda m ot io n reque st in g a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng an d am ot io n t o a m en d h is pe ti ti on on th e gr ou ndof p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. Fo rdall eg edth atth e St at e fai le d t o re ve al a de al wit h R og er Turn er wh erei n t he pro se cu to r pr om is edto writ e a l ette r to th e st at e p aro le bo ardon be ha lf o f Turne r. The St at e o pp os edth e m ot io ns . The di st ric t co urt g ran te d F or d’s m ot io n andco nduc te d an e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on Apri l 13 , 20 04 . After t he pa rti es fil edpo st -h eari ng bri efs , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d F or d rel ie f. For d v . Sch of

ie ld , 48 8 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 25 8, 1 28 2 (N.D. Ga. 2 00 7) . The di st ric t co urt al so de ni edFo rd ’s m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t. Ho wev er, th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d F or d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) o n t hr ee is su es . This co urt d en ie d F or d’s m ot io n t o e xp an d t he COA. II . ISSUE S 1. Whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin fin di ng th atth e St at e d idno t v io la te Fo rd ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts by its fai lu re t o d is cl os e an all eg edde al wit h R og er Turn er, the Sta te ’s key witn es s. 2. Whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly det erm in edth atth e st at e co urt’s
res ol ut io n o f Fo rd ’s cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e atsen te nc in g was reas on ab le
.

63. Whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly det erm in edth atth e st at e co urt’s

res ol ut io n o f Fo rd ’s Fift h Am en dm en t cl ai m was re as on ab le
. II I. STANDARDS OF REVI EW Thi s co urt re vi ews de no vo m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfactan d l eg al qu es ti on s, wh il e itrev ie ws t he di st ric t co urt’s fa ctfin di ng s fo r cl ear e rro r. Se e W il li ams v. Head , 18 5 F .3d12 23 , 12 26 -2 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 9) . This co urt i s pr ecl ud edfro m

gra nt in g h ab eas rel ie f on an y cla im th atwas a dju di cat edon th e
m eri ts inst at e co urt unl es s t he st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n “ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry

to , or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y
es tabl is he d F ed eral law [o r] resu lt edin a de ci si on th atwas b as edon an
un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he St at e co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1) , (2) (20 08 ). W e p res um e th at factua l fi nd in gs by the st at e co urt ar e co rrec t, b utth e fi nd in gs can be ov erco m e b y cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce. Se e id

. IV. DIS CUSSI ON A. Pro se cu to ri al

Mis co nduc t 1
For d raised this specific claim for the first time in fede ral district court. The district court 1 found that For d’s habea s counsel was diligent i n i nvestig ating this claim and lear ned for the first time during discovery in the federa l habea s act i o n t h at t he prosecutor at For d’s t rial wrote a letter on behalf of Rog er Tur

ner to the state parole board. The prosec utor stated that his le tter was not a part of any deal with Turner to testify at Ford’s trial, but Turner ’s attorney stated in an aff idavit that he reme mbere d a discussion about a p ar o le letter when making an agree ment with the prosec utor 7Fo rdco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h im habe as rel ie f ba se d o n h is cla im

of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. Sp eci fic al ly, Fo rdarg ue s tha t t he pr os ecu to r, in hi s ag reem en t wi th Turn er, p ro m is edto writ e th e st at e p aro le bo ard
on be ha lf o f Turne r inex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y ag ai ns t Fo rdat t ria l, an d t he St at e d idno t d is cl os e th e al le ge d a gr eem en t t o t he de fen se , in vi ol at io n o f Bra dy v. Mar ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) . Fordals o c la im s t ha t t he Sta te vi ol at ed Gig li o v . Uni te d Sta te s , 40 5 U.S. 1 50 , 92 S. Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ), by noton ly fai li ng to di sc lo se th e p aro le pro m is e, bu t al so kn owi ng ly pres en ti ng fal se te st im on y de nyin g the ex is te nc e o f th e p ro m is e. Fo rdarg ue s t ha t i n re tu rnforhi s tru th fu l t es ti m on y , Turn er t es ti fie d t ha t h e rec ei ve d a20 -y ear s en te nc e b as edon hi s g ui lt y pl ea t o a rm edrob be ry , andth e St at e’s pr om is e to dro p t he m ur de r ch arg es , whi ch carr ie d e ithe r a l ife term of i m pr is on m en t o r th e d eat h p en al ty. Fo rdco nt en ds th atth e im pl ic at io n fr om

Turn er’s t es ti m on y

is th atth e 2 0- y ear
se nt en ce was all th athe rece iv edforhi s t es ti m on y , bu t Fo rdco nt en ds th atin real ity , Turn er re cei ve d m or e – he rece iv eda pr om is e o f pa ro le ass is ta nc e. Thu s,
about Turner ’s testimony
. Ba sed on this information, the district court deter mined that Ford met the burden e nunciated in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (2)( A)(ii) to be entitled to a n evidentiar

y hearing on this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (2)( A)(ii) (stating that a district court can hold an evidentiar y hearing on a new claim if the petitioner was unable to discover the fac tual predic ate of the claim through the exercise of due diligenc e). We will not revie w the district court’s decision that For d was entitled to an evidentiar

y hearing in light of our dispositi on of this claim. In revie wing this claim, we will consider not only the evidence pr esente d at the evide ntiary hearing, but also, the evidence alrea dy in the rec ord. 8Fo rdcla im s t ha t t he Sta te pre se nt edfal se tes ti m on y , th ro ug h Tu rn er’s o m is si on

reg ard in g p aro le he lp , andth is vi ol at ed Gig li o . Fo ll owi ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng onth is cla im , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t th ere was no pre -tr ia l d eal or a gr eem en t b etween th e p ro se cu to r an d Turn er tha t th e p ro se cu to r wou ldwrit e a l et te r to th e st at e p aro le bo ardon Turn er’s b eh al f in
ex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y . The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er fo un d t ha t ev enif apro m is e to writ e a l et te r to th e p aro le bo ardwas p artof Tu rn er’s “ ag reem en t,” t he pr os ecu ti on was n otrequi redto di sc lo se th e p ro m is e u nd er Gig li o be cau se th e le tt er was of s uc h m arg in al be ne fitth atit s d is cl os ur e was no t warran te d. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d F or d re li ef o n t hi s cl ai m . In Bra dyv. Mar

ylan d , su pr a , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the supp res si on of m at eri al , exc ul pa to ry

ev id en ce b y

a pr os ecu to r vi ol at es du e p ro ces s. Th e
no nd is cl os edev id en ce i s m at eri al “ if t he re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, h adth e
ev id en ce b een di sc lo se d t o t he de fen se , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e be endi ffer en t. A ‘reaso nabl e p ro babi li ty’ is a pr ob ab il it y su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e
co nf id en ce i n the ou tc om e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Bagl ey , 47 3 U.S. 6 67 , 68 2, 1 05 S. Ct . 33 75 , 33 83 (19 85 ) (ci ti ng Stri ckl an d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 69 4, 1 04 S. Ct . 20 52 , 20 68 (19 84 )).

9“ Gig li o erro r, a sp eci es of Bra dy erro r, oc curs when ‘ th e u nd is cl os ed

ev id en ce d em on strat es th atth e p ro se cu ti on ’s cas e in cl ud edpe rjure d t es ti m on y an d th atth e p ro se cu ti on kn ew, orsh ou ldha ve kn own , of t he pe rjury.’ ” Dav is v. Ter ry , 46 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Ven tu ra v. Att ’y Gen ., Fla. , 41 9 F.3 d 1 26 9, 1 27 6- 77 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), cer t. d en ie d , 12 7 S . Ct. 3 01 0 (2 00 7) . To pr ev ai l o n a Gig li o cla im , a pe ti ti on er m us t es tabl is h t ha t “ (1 ) th e p ro se cu to r kn owi ng ly use d p erju redtes ti m on y or f ai le d t o c orrectwhathe subs eque nt ly le arn edwas fa ls e te st im on y ; an d (2 ) su chus e was m at eri al - i.e ., th atth ere i s ‘any
reas on ab le li ke li ho od ’ th atth e fal se tes ti m on y ‘ co ul d . . . ha ve affe ct edth e jud gm en t.’” Id

. at 1 25 3 (q uo ti ng Gig li o , 40 5 U.S. at15 4, 9 2 S . Ct. at76 6) . This st an da rdof m at eri al it y

is equi va le ntto th e Ch ap man v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 1 8, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 8 24 , 82 8 (1 96 7) , “ ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t” st an da rd
. Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. at67 9 n .9, 1 05 S. Ct. at33 82 n.9 . The d is cl os ur e requi rem en t
en su res th at“ ‘the jury kn ows th e fac ts th atm ig htm ot iv at e a wit ne ss in gi vi ng te st im on y .’ ” Bro wn v. W ai nw ri gh t , 78 5 F .2d14 57 , 14 65 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (quo ti ng Smi th v. Kemp , 71 5 F .2d14 59 , 14 67 (11 th Cir . 19 83 )). Acco rd in gl y , th e pr os ecu ti on ha s a dut y

to di sc lo se ev id en ce o f pr om is es m ad e to a wit ne ss in
ex ch an ge fortes ti m on y . Gig li o , 40 5 U.S. at15 4- 55 , 92 S. Ct. at76 6; Ta rv er v. Hop pe r , 16 9 F .3d71 0, 7 16 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).
10At t he fed eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng , pro se cu to r Jo hn Otttes ti fie d t ha t h e

en te redin to anag reem en t wi th Fo rd ’s co- de fen dantTurn er wh erei n i f Turne r te st ifi edtru th fu ll y

an d i n a cco rd an ce wi th hi s s ta te m en ts to th e p ol ic e, th e St at e
wou ldreco m

m en d tha t the tri al co urt s en te nc e Turne r to 20 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t ba se d o n h is gu il ty ple a to arm edrob be ry , andth atth e St at e wou lddro p t he
m ur de r ch arg es , whi chcarr ie d e it he r a l ife term of i m pr is on m en t o r th e d eat h pe na lty . Ott s ta te d e m

ph at ic al ly tha t t he pl ea ag reem en t d idno t i nc lu de hi s pr om is e to writ e a l et te r to th e p aro le bo ardon Turn er’s b eh al f, sa y in g tha t h e

“ kn ow[ s] with c ert ai nt y

th atth atwas n otpart o f th e d eal an d tha t [h e] woul d n ot ha ve co m m it te d [h im ]self

to writ in g alet te r pr io r to th e tr ia l.” (Di st ric t Ct . R. vo l. 10 , 48 .) Ottst at edth athe wou ldwantto waitun ti l af te r th e witne ss tes ti fie d be fo re h e ag reedto writ e su ch a le tt er. Otttes ti fie d t ha t h e “ wou ldne ve r wan t t o pu t [h im ]self

ina po si ti onof ade fen dantwho go t up o n t ha t s ta ndan d d idno t
m ak e a s tro ng witne ss , di d n ottes ti fy well , andth enaft er the tri al cam e to [hi m ]
an d s ai d, wel l, n ow you g otto writ e m e a l et te r to th e Par ol e Bo ard .” ( Id

. 36 -3 7.) Acco rd in g t o Ot t, t he de ci si on to writ e a l et te r to th e p aro le bo ardoc curredaft er Turn er t es ti fie d i n an i m

pr es si ve m an ne r atFo rd ’s tri al . ( Id

. 39 -4 0.) Ot t’s te st im on y is subs ta nt ia te d b y

th e le tt er h e wro te to th e p aro le bo ardin whi chhe st at edth ataft er Tu rn er t es ti fie d, Ot t t ol d Tu rn er tha t h e (Ot t) wo ul d d o wh at ev er 11he co ul d t o s ee t ha t Tu rn er was pa ro le d wh enth e ti m e cam e. Add it io na ll y , 2 Turn er’s t es ti m on y

co rro bo rat edOtt ’s reco ll ect io n o f th e p le a ag reem en t. Turne r st at edth atalt ho ug h h e an d h is co un se l d is cu ss edtrying to ge t Ot t t o h el p wi th th e pa ro le bo ard , hi s p le a ag reem en t wi th th e St at e d idno t i nc lu de su ch a pr om is e. ( Id

. 55 , 58 .) The di stric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g F or d re li ef o n t hi s cl ai m . After he ari ng all th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t t he re was no pro m is e o f pa ro le he lp un ti l af te r Turne r ha d t es ti fie d. Thi s fi nd in g i s n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. As a res ul t, t he re was no pro m is e o f pa ro le he lp forth e p ro se cu to r to di sc lo se at t he ti m e Turne r te st ifi ed , andev enif Tu rn er’s te st im on y di d i m pl ic it ly den y

su ch a pr om is e, th atde ni al was n otfal se . Becau se th ere was no pro m is e b y

th e p ro se cu to r of

pa ro le he lp to Turn er b efo re h e te st ifi ed , th ere i s n o v io la ti onun de r ei th er Bra dy or Gig li o .

Ott’s letter stated in pa

rt: 2 At the time of trial, I was impressed with Mr. [Turner’s] acc eptanc e of his illega l acts and strong desire to do whateve r he could to rec tify his wrong s, acc ep t h i s punishment and then continue wi t h his life.
. . . I told Mr. Turner , afte r he had testified, that I would do whateve r I could to se e that he was parole d when the time came . (District Ct. R., P et’rs Ex. 5.) 12Fu rth erm or e, ev enif the re was a pr e-t ria l ag reem en t b etween pro se cu to r Ott

an d Tu rn er, i t i s n otm at eri al un de r ei th er Bra dy or the m or e d efen se fri en dl y Gig li o st an da rd . The St at e h adtwo m ur de r ch arg es pe nd in g a ga in stTurn er atth e ti m e o f Fo rd ’s tri al . The St at e’s of fer t o g iv e Turne r a 2 0- y ear s en te nc e fo r hi s gu il ty ple a to arm edrob be ry in st eadof p ur su in g t he m ur de r ch arg es th atcarr ie d ei th er a t erm

of l ife im pr is on m en t o r th e d eat h p en al ty gav e Turne r a h ug e in cen ti ve to tes ti fy

th e way th e St at e wan te d h im

to tes ti fy . In o th er wo rd s, i f Turn er were go in g t o t es ti fy fal se ly to g eta de al , th e St at e’s pr om is e o f a 2 0- y ear
se nt en ce i ns te adof t he alt ern at iv es was a ll th e in cen ti ve he ne ed ed . Thu s, the re i s
no reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t i f th e jury hadkn own of the all eg edpa ro le pro m is e th atth e res ul t o f th e tr ia l co ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. No r is th ere areas on ab le li ke li ho odth atan y

fal se im pl ic at io ns fro m

Turn er’s t es ti m on y

wou ldha ve affe ct edth e v erd ic t o f th e jury. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d Fo rdrel ie f on th is cla im
. B. Se nt en ci ng

Co un se l Fo rdarg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredin fin di ng th atth e st at e co urt’s
res ol ut io n o f hi s cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f se nt en ci ng co un se l was
reas on ab le . Fordco nt en ds th athi s s en te nc in g c ou ns el fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te pr op erl y form it ig at in g e vi de nc e as m an da te d u nd er W ig gi ns v. Smi th , 53 9 U.S.
1351 0, 1 23 S. Ct. 2 52 7 (2 00 3) , and W il li ams v. Ta

yl or , 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 12 0 S . Ct. 14 95 (20 00 ). The Supr em e Co urt’s wel l-e st ab li sh edst an da rdenun ci at edin Stri ckl an d v

. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) , go ve rn s cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l. In Stri ckl an d , th e Co urt h el d t ha t i n o rd er t o p rev ai l o n a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, a p et it io ne r m us t s ho w bo th th at
co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d t ha t co un se l’s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edth e p et it io ne r’s de fen se or s en te nc in g. Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 06 4. Th e st an da rdgo ve rn in g c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce i s “ reas on ab le ne ss
un de r pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s.” Id

. at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 . “ W e are no t in te res te d i n g rad in g l awy ers ’ pe rfo rm an ces ; we ar e in te res te d i n wh ethe r th e ad ve rs ari al pro ces s attri al , in fact , work edad equa te ly.” W hi te v. Si ng le ta ry , 97 2 F.2 d 1 21 8, 1 22 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . The p et it io ne r’s bu rd ento pro ve by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was un reas on ab le is a he av y on e. Se e Ch an dl er

v. Uni te d Sta te s , 21 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ). The p et it io ne r m us t s ho w th at“ no co m

pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e ta ke n th e act io n t ha t h is co un se l d idtak e.” Id

. at 1 31 5. Injud gi ng th e ad equa cy

of c ou ns el ’s in ve st ig at io n o f po te nt ia l m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces , we con si de r “ ‘couns el ’s per sp ect iv e atth e ti m e’ inv es ti ga ti ve 14de ci si on s ar e m ad e” an d g iv e “ ‘a heav y m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to co un se l’s jud gm en ts .’ ” Romp il la v. Bear d , 54 5 U.S. 3 74 , 38 1, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 2 (2 00 5) (quo ti ng Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 9, 6 91 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 52 ). Co un se l i s n ot requi redto in ve st ig at e an d p res en t al l av ai labl e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e in ord er fo r
co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti on to be reas on ab le
. Bur ge r v. K emp , 48 3 U.S. 7 76 , 79 4- 95 , 10 7 S . Ct. 3 11 4, 3 12 6 (1 98 7) . The co urt s ho ul d “ fo cu s o n wh ethe r th e in ve st ig at io n s up po rti ng co un se l’s d eci si on no t t o i ntro du ce m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o f [p et it io ne r’s] back gr ou nd wa s i ts el f r ea so na bl e. ” W

ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 3, 1 23 S. Ct . at 2 53 6. Fu rth erm or e, in ev al ua ti ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e in ve st ig at io n, “ a
co urt m us t co ns id er n oton ly the qu an tu m of e vi de nc e al read y

kn own to co un se l, bu t al so whet he r th e kno wn ev id en ce wo ul d l eada reas on ab le att orne y to in ve st ig at e fu rth er.” Id

. at 5 27 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 38
. Pu rs uantto th e Ant i-Te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct (“ AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) , whi ch go ve rn s t hi s h ab eas act io n, an ap pl ic at io n fo r habe as rel ie f can on ly be g ran te d i f th e ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m

in st at e co urt re su lt edina de ci si on th atwas c on trary to , or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f, cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law o r res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts in li gh t o f th e ev id en ce pr es en te d i n t he st at e co urt p ro ceed in g. W il li ams , 52 9 U.S. at37 6, 1 20 S. Ct. at
1515 04 (O’Con no r, J.). A st at e co urt d eci si onis “ co nt rary to” Supr em e Co urt

pr eced en t i f a s ta te co urt ap pl ie s a t es t t ha t co nt rad ic ts th e g ov ern in g o ne , or a st at e co urt re ach es a di ffer en t re su lton a subs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar s etof f

act s. Id

. at 40 5- 06 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 19 -2 0. “ Und er the ‘ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n’ claus e, a fed eral habe as co urt m ay gra ntth e wri t i f th e st at e co urt i de nt ifi es th e co rrec t go ve rn in g l eg al pri nc ip le fro m th is Co urt’s d eci si on s b utun reas on ab ly app li es th at pr in ci pl e to th e fac ts of the pri so ne r’s cas e.” Id

. at 4 13 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 23
. Bec au se Fo rdon ly chal le ng es th e “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” claus e, we m us t de te rm in e whe th er the st at e co urt’s re so lu ti onof t hi s cl ai m in vo lv edan
un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e Stri ckl an d st an da rd
. 3 Sp eci fic al ly, Fo rdco nt en ds th athi s t ria l co un se l, J oh n Ho well an d B en Hen dr ic ks , were d efi ci en t fo r fai li ng to in te rv ie w m or e fam il y m em be rs , sch oo l 4 te ach ers , anda m in is te r an d fo r fai li ng to pre se ntm it ig at io n e vi de nc e, su ch as
For d contends that W

iggins and Rompilla set forth a new standard for eff ective assistance 3 of counse l. We reje cted a simil ar a rgument in W

illiams v. Allen , 458 F.3d 1233 ( 11th Cir. 2006). W illiams , 458 F.3d at 1244 (“A lthou gh W i l l i am s urg es us to apply W iggins to his case , the controlling Supreme Court prec edent with reg ard to claims of ineffe ctive assi s t an ce of counsel is Str i ckl a nd .”), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1874 (2007); see also In re Hutcherson , 468 F.3d 747, 749 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The Court’s decision in Rompilla was another interpre tation of the Court’s longstandingprinciples set for th in Strickland .”). At the time of For d’s trial, Howell had been prac ticing law for fourtee n years an d h ad 4 participated in over two hundred felony trials, including two capital case s. The trial court appointed Hendr icks to assist Howell. Hendr icks had b een a member of the state bar for approximately ten year s and had been involved in sever al serious criminal case s prior to repr esenting For d. (State Trial R. 1074-75; State Habea s Procee dings, Ex. 3, Doc. 17, 85, 295.) 16m ed ic al , ps y ch ia tri c, an d s ch oo l re co rd s. Acco rd in g t o F or d, h adtri al co un se l

co nduc te d a n a de qu at e in ve st ig at io n, t he y wou ldha ve di sc ov eredth e fo ll owi ng im po rta ntm it ig at io n e vi de nc e: th atFo rdha d ahi st ory of p ro bl em s wi th alc oh ol
an d l eg al an d i ll eg al dru gs ; t ha t Fo rdha d p eri od s o f bl in di ng he ad ach es an d bl ack ou ts ; t ha t Fo rdha d ahi st ory of s ev ere a st hm a, al le rg ic reac ti on s, an d o th er ph y si cal pro bl em s; th atFo rdto okm ed ic at io n t ha t h adth e p ot en ti al to cau se
nu m ero us de le te rio us si de effe ct s; th atFo rdha d ahi st ory of s ev ere e m ot io na l pr ob le m s; th atFo rdha d re cei ve d p sycho lo gi cal tre at m en t; th atFo rd ’s fathe r ha d be enad di ct edto alc oh ol an d p ai n k il le rs ; t ha t Fo rd ’s fam il y was fi na nc ia ll y
un st ab le ; t ha t Fo rdpe rfo rm edpo or ly in s ch oo l; th atin th e week s p rece di ng th e
m ur de rs , For d h adbe enab us in g d ru gs an d a lc oh ol ; an d t ha t Fo rdha d acari ng pe rs on al it y . Inreject in g t hi s cl ai m

fol lo win g an e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng , th e st at e h ab eas
co urt h el d: Mi ti ga ti on ev id en ce fr om anin de pe nd en t p sychi atris t an d fr om th e Pet it io ne r’s m othe r was pre se nt ed . Peti ti on er ca nn otde m on st rat e an y co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n i n h is ownfai lu re t o p res en t o th er ev id en ce. The Co urt fi nd s t ha t Pe ti ti on er ag reedwit h c ou ns el ’s de ci si on no t t o p res en t ce rta in ot he r wit ne ss es th atco un se l an d Pet it io ne r ha d d is cu ss ed . Peti ti on er ca nn otno w be h eardto co m pl ai n ab ou t a s tra te gi c d eci si on he an d h is att orne y m ad e.

17Fu rth er, s om e, if no t al l, o f th e ev id en ce Pe ti ti on er al le ge s sh ou ldha ve be enpre se nt ed(ot he r fam il y m em be rs , a fo rm er s ch oo l te ach er, an d am in is te r) wo ul d h av e b een cu m ul at iv e o f so m e o f th e te st im on y an d e m ot io na l p le as off

eredby the two m it ig at io n wit ne ss es . The h ab eas co urt ca nn otsec on d g ue ss th e d eci si on of a de fen da ntan d h is co un se l re ga rd in g wh enen ou gh m it ig at io n ev id en ce h as be enpre se nt ed . The fac t i s, t he op po rtu ni ty to p res en t su ch ev id en ce was gi ve n a ndth ere c anbe no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n whe n ade fen da ntan d h is co un se l d eci de th atth ey ha ve ex erci se d t ha t rig htto th e fu ll es t ex te ntde si rab le . Dem on st rat in g i n t he habe as pr oc eed in g t ha t t he re were ot he r wit ne ss es who co ul d h av e te st ifi edat tri al do es no t, b y

it se lf, p ro ve th atco un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r no t pr es en ti ng th em

at tria l. (St at e Hab eas Pro ceed in gs , Ex. 2, Do c. 16 , 65 -6 6 (r eco rdan d c as e ci ta ti on s
om it te d) ). The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he st at e h ab eas co urt’s d eci si onwarran te d de fere nc e an d fo un d t ha t co un se ls ’ pe rfo rm an ce atsen te nc in g was effe ct iv e. The di st ric t co urt re as on edas f ol lo ws: The reco rdfro m

th e st at e h ab eas pro ceed in g s ug ge st s t he po ss ib il it y

th attri al co un se l d idno t p erfo rm a th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n of th e Pet it io ne r’s ba ck gr ou nd . Howev er, tria l co un se ls ’ fai lu re t o in te rv ie w a nu m

be r of th es e wit ne ss es or t o i nv es ti ga te cert ai n a sp ect s of th e Pet it io ne r’s ba ck gr ou ndm ay ha ve be endu e to what , if an y , in fo rm at io n t he Pet it io ne r supp li edto tri al co un se l. The Supr em e Co urt h as st at edth atth e rea so nabl en es s o f co un se l’s ac ti on s s ho ul d be ev al ua te d b as edon “ strat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e b y th e d efen da ntan d on in fo rm at io n s up pl ie d b y th e d efen da nt .” W it h re ga rdto po te nt ia l m it ig at io n wi tn es se s, M r. Howel l t es ti fie d a t t he st at e h ab eas he ari ng th athe co ul d n otreca ll whet he r th e Pet it io ne r ev er p ro vi de d h im wit h th e n am es of a ny add it io na l wi tn es se s tha t m ig htbe he lp fu l dur in g t he se nt en ci ng ph as e. Acco rd in g t o Ho well , if t he Pet it io ne r ha d a sk ed
18hi m

to co nt actor t o c al l an y

wit ne ss es to tes ti fy

inm it ig at io n, t he y wou ldha ve be ensubp oe na edfor tri al . Sim il arl y , Howel l t es ti fie d th atth e Pet it io ne r di d n otale rt h im to an y hi st ory of p hysic al pr ob le m s o r subs tant ia l d ru g o r al co ho l ab us e th atsh ou ldbe in ve st ig at edfurth er. Inad di ti on , th e Pet it io ne r al so ass ert s t ha t t ria l co un se l fa il edto pre se ntev id en ce t ha t h e h adask edform en ta l h eal th as si st an ce i n R oc kd al e Co un ty sev eral week s b efo re the m ur de rs . Howev er, the re i s n ot hi ng in th e rec or d t o i nd ic at e th attri al co un se l were g iv enth is in fo rm at io n. As su ch , tri al co un se l s ho ul d n otbe fau lt edforfai li ng to un co ve r th e ev id en ce o n t he ir o wn. Un de r su ch ci rcu m st an ces , tri al co un se ls ’ in ve st ig at io n wo ul d n otbe de em ed co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t. Hav in g fo un d t ha t t ria l co un se l m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si on alo ng wit h t he Pet it io ne r reg ard in g wh atm it ig at in g e vi de nc e to pre se nt , th e st at e h ab eas co urt d idno t ex pr es sl y ad dr es s t he pre

jud ic e p ro ng of t he Stri ckl an d

tes t. Ho wev er, thi s C ou rt f in ds th atev enif t ria l co un se ls ’ pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , th e Pet it io ne r ha s n otsh own pre jud ic e st em m in g fr om

th e al le ge d fa il ur es . Alth ou gh th e Pet it io ne r ch al le ng es tri al co un se ls ’ fai lu re t o c al l a n um be r of witne ss es in m it ig at io n, t he Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t t ria l co un se l i s n ot requi redto pre se ntall av ai labl e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e dur in g t he se nt en ci ng ph as e. Sim il arl y , th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t h as st at edth at “ [t]he m ere f

actth atot he r wit ne ss es m ig htha ve be enav ai labl e o r th at ot he r te st im on y

m ig htha ve be eneli ci te d fr om th os e who tes ti fie d i s no t a s uf fic ie ntgro un d t o p ro ve in effe ct iv en es s o f co un se l. Fu rth erm or e, as th e st at e h ab eas co urt fo un d, t he m ajor it y of t he affi da vi t t es ti m on y

pre se nt eddu rin g t he st at e h ab eas pro ceed in g was no t s ub st an ti ve ly diff

eren t t ha n t he ev id en ce ac tu al ly pres en te d t o the jury. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e Pet it io ne r te st ifi eddu rin g the gu il t-i nn oc en ce ph as e ab ou t h is dru g a ndalc oh ol us e. At the sen te nc in g p ha se , Dr. Newki rktes ti fie d e xt en si ve ly abo utth e Pet it io ne r’s em ot io na l an d ps y ch ol og ic al pro bl em s. Dr. Newk irktes ti fie d t ha t as a ch il d, t he Pet it io ne r ha d b eh av io ral pro bl em s an d h adrece iv edps y ch ol og ic al tre at m en t b eg in ni ng in ele m en tary sch oo l, i nc lu di ng a two weekin
pa ti en t p sychi atric st ay

aft er dro pp in g o utof h ig h s ch oo l. Sh e al so te st ifi edth atth e Pet it io ne r ha d re si du al att en ti ve de fic ie ntdi so rd er 19an d a nt is oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd er, the ha ll m arkof t ha t d is or de r be in g the em ot io na l i nabi li ty to co nt ro l o ne ’s im pu ls es . Accor di ng to Dr. Newki rk , in th e m on th s l ead in g up t o t he m ur de rs , th e Pet it io ne r ha d b eco m e ex tre m el y

de pr es se d a ndwas u si ng dru gs an d a lc oh ol , whi ch in te ns ifi edth e d ep res si on an d e xa cerb at edth e im pu ls e co nt ro l pr ob le m s. Th e se co ndde fen se wit ne ss , Geor gi a Fo rd , agr eedwith Dr. Newki rk ’s ass es sm en t o f th e Pet it io ne r’s em ot io na l p ro bl em s, ch il dh oo d a ndbe y on d. Sh e te st ifi edth atth e fam il y tri ed , un su cces sf

ul ly, to ge t t he Pet it io ne r he lp forhi s emoti on al pro bl em s by tak in g h im

to sch oo l co un se lo rs an d m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al s. Alt ho ug h o th er wi tn es se s co ul d h av e te st ifi edto th e Pet it io ne r’s ps y ch ol og ic al pro bl em s o r to hi s b eh av io r le ad in g up t o t he m ur de rs , tri al co un se l wer e n otrequi redto cal l ad di ti on al wit ne ss es to pre se nt redun da ntor c um

ul at iv e ev id en ce. It app ears th atth e o nl y

is su es ad dr es se d i n the affi da vi t te st im on y th atwere n otpre se nt eddu rin g t he sen te nc in g p ha se co nc ern ed : (1 ) th e Pet it io ne r’s hi st ory of h ead ach es , all erg ie s, an d as th m a; an d (2 ) th e Pet it io ne r’s fat he r’s ad di ct io n t o p ai n k il le rs an d al co ho l. The Pet it io ne r al so ass ert s t ha t t he wit ne ss es co ul d h av e te st ifi edto hi s ca rin g p ers on al it y . In o rd er t o e st ab li sh pre jud ic e, th e Pet it io ne r m

us t s ho w th at“ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, ab se ntth e err or s, t he sen te nc er . . . wou ldha ve co nc lu de d tha t t he ba la nc e o f ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces di d n otwarran t de ath.” Here, th e jury fou ndth ree s ta tu to ry ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces with re ga rdto th e m al ic e m ur de r of Mart haMat ic h, i.e., t ha t t he m

ur de r was co m

m it te d dur in g t he co m

m is si on of t wo cap it al fel on ie s (a rm edrob be ry an d m ur de r) an d dur in g t he co m m is si on of abu rg la ry , andtwo st atut ory ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces ass oc ia te d wi th th e m al ic e m ur de r of Lis a Ch ap m an , i.e., t ha t t he m

ur de r was co m

m it te d dur in g t he co m

m is si on of a cap it al fel on y

(arm edrob be ry ) an d dur in g t he co m m is si on of a bu rg la ry . In l ig htof the weig htof t hi s an d o th er ag gr av at in g ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng th e fac t t ha t t he Pet it io ne r sh ota ch il d i n t he he ad atclo se ran ge , th e n ew ev id en ce ci te d b y th e Pet it io ne r is no t co m pe ll in g m it ig at io n e vi de nc e, ev enwhen co m bi ne d wi th th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t s en te nc in g, s uc h t ha t t he re i s a r eas on ab le
20pr ob ab il it y th atha d t he jury he ardth is tes ti m on y th e se nt en ci ng ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. The Pet it io ne r’s cl ai m of in effe ct iv en es s b as edon a fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te an d p res en t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e is wit ho utm eri t. (Dis tri ctCo urt R. v ol . 5, Do c. 69 , 15 0- 56 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)
. W e ag ree tha t Fo rdis no t en ti tl edto rel ie f on hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve
as si st an ce o f se nt en ci ng co un se l. As t he reco rdde m on st rat es , m uc h o f wha t
co un se l p res en te d a t t he gu il t-i nn oc en ce p ha se was re le va ntto an d c arri edov er t o th e se nt en ci ng ph as e. Howel l t es ti fie d a t t he st at e h ab eas he ari ng th athe vi si te d th e cri m e sc en e, rev ie wedTurn er’s v id eo -tape d s ta te m en t, an d c on ferr edwith Fo rda nu m

be r of ti m es . Accor di ng to Howel l, Fo rd ’s reco ll ect io ns of e ve nt s wer e
so m ewh atclo ud eddu e to Fo rd ’s alc oh ol an d m ari juan a u se , andFo rdin di cat ed th athe was s o i nt ox ic at edonth e n ig htof t he cri m e th athe co ul d n otha ve go tt en
ou t o f th e car . Cou ns el fil edap pr ox im at el y twen ty-th ree p ret ria l m ot io ns , in cl ud in g am ot io n fo r anin de pe nd en t m en ta l h eal th expe rt, wh ic h t he tri al co urt gr an te d. Co un se l re vi ewedbo th th e p ro se cu to r’s an d t he Geor gi a Bu reau of In ve st ig at io n’s (“ GBI”) fil es . Howel l s ta te d t ha t h e o r hi s co -co un se l i nt erv ie wed
ev ery wit ne ss of wh om

th ey were awar e. He st at edth athe ob ta in edm os t o f Fo rd ’s bac kg ro un d fr om

Fo rdhi m se lf. Ho well tes ti fie d t ha t the ir d efen se th eo ry fo r th e g ui lt -in no cen ce p ha se was t o s ho w th atRo ge r Turne r co m m it te d t he

21m

ur de rs , th atFo rdwas i n n o c on di ti on to co m m itth e cri m es , andth atFo rdha d n o real m ot iv e to co m

m itth e m ur de rs be cau se he st il l l ov edhi s ex -g irl fri en d, o ne of th e v ic ti m s. (St at e Hab eas Pro ceed in gs , Ex. 3, Do c. 17 , 85 -2 95 .) Fo rdag reedon th e rec or d wi th hi s co un se ls ’ de ci si on s n otto cal l s om e wit ne ss es at t ria l. (St at e Tria l R. 6 62 .) For d’s au nt , si st er-i n- la w, m ot he r, an d Fo rdhi m se lf t es ti fie d a t t ria l. Co un se l s ta te d t ha t h e d eci de d t o m ak e h is fin al de ci si on ab ou t s en te nc in g p ha se wit ne ss es aft er wh athapp en edat t he gu il tin no cen ce p ha se . (Sta te Habe as Pro ceed in gs , Ex. 3, Do c. 17 , 25 9 (i nd ic at in g Howel l’s s ta te m en t t ha t a l otof wh athe m ig htha ve do ne at s en te nc in g was di ct at edby the Sta te ’s st rat eg y )). Co un se l s ecu redth e se rv ic es of aps y ch ia tri st , Dr. Cas sa nd ra Newk irk . Cou ns el ask edDr. Newki rkto pre pa re as m uc h in fo rm at io n a s p os si bl e co nc ern in g F or d’s fa m il y ba ck gr ou nd , hi st ory , chi ld ho od , an d d ev el op m en t fo r us e n oton ly at tri al , bu t al so at t he sen te nc in g p ha se . Co un se l al so so ug htto qu es ti on Dr. Newki rkab ou t an y dru g o r al co ho l ab us e b y Fo rdor o bs es si ve rel at io ns hi ps in whi ch Fo rdwas i nv ol ve d. At t he pe na lt y

ph as e, Dr. Newki rktes ti fie d e xt en si ve ly abo utFo rd ’s
em ot io na l an d p sycho lo gi cal pro bl em s. Dr. Newk irkno te d t ha t Fo rd ’s par en ts ha d
so ug htm en ta l h eal th ass is ta nc e fo r Fo rdin hi gh sch oo l. Sh e st at edth atFo rdwas
ev al ua te d a t Ce nt ral Sta te Hos pi ta l wh ere h e was di ag no se d wi th res idua l at te nt io n 22de fic itdi so rd er an d a nt is oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd er. Dr. Newki rkop in edth atFo rd ha d i m pu ls e co nt ro l d is or de r th atwas “ li ke wate r in a po t t ha t’s b oi li ng an d t he li d is onan d the y

ge t s o ang ry

at t im es th atth e li d b lo ws.” (S ta te Trial R. 10 00 .) Dr. Newki rkals o p ro ffer edth atFo rdwas d ep res se d b efo re the cri m e an d p ro babl y di d
no t h av e co nt ro l atth e p oi ntwhen th e m ur de rs oc cu rred
. The reco rdsupp orts th e st at e co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Fo rd ’s tri al co un se l wer e
no t d efi ci en t. Ho well tes ti fie d e xt en si ve ly tha t h e h adreg ul ar co nt actwit h F or d
an d h is fam il y , andth athe go t m os t o f th e b ack gr ou ndin fo rm at io n o n F or d fr om th em . He st at edth atFo rddi d n otale rt h im to an y ba ck gr ou ndof a lc oh ol or d ru g ab us e, an d F or d g av e h im no reas on to qu es ti on hi s (F or d’s) co m pe te nc y . Howel l al lo wedFo rda gr eatde al of o pp ortu ni ty to h av e inpu t i n t he de fen se de ci si on s. Howel l co m

m en te d t ha t h e “ fel t l ik e itwas [F or d’s] rig htto no t o nl y be co ns ul te d bu t i f itwas atac ti cal de ci si on or ade te rm in at io n o f wha t wi tn es se s t o c al l o r
an yth in g l ik e th atth athe ou gh t t o h av e so m e – no t ju stso m e inpu t, b utth e fi na l
wor d o n t ha t s ort o f th in g.” (Sta te Habe as Pro ceed in g, Ex . 3, Do c. 17 , 19 5.) Cf

. Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at69 1, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 66 (“ The reas on ab le ne ss of c ou ns el ’s act io ns m ay

be de te rm in edor s ub st an ti al ly infl ue nc edby the de fen dant ’s own st at em en ts or a ct io ns . Cou ns el ’s act io ns are u su al ly bas ed , qu it e p ro pe rly, on in fo rm edst rat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e b y th e d efen da ntan d o n i nf orm at io n s up pl ie d b y 23th e d efen da nt . In p art ic ul ar, wh atin ve st ig at io n d eci si on s ar e rea so nabl e d ep en ds

cri ti cal ly on s uc h i nf

orm at io n.” ); se e a ls o N

ewl an d v . Hal l , 52 7 F .3d11 62 , 12 02 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (“ Inev al ua ti ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f a d efen se att orne y ’s in ve st ig at io n, we wei gh he av il y th e in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y th e d efen dant .”). Howel l m ot io ne d fo r th e as si st an ce o f a p sychi atris t, wh ic h t he co urt g ran te d. Howel l t es ti fie d t ha t h e rel ie d o n Dr. Newk irk ’s th or ou gh ps y ch ol og ic al
ev al ua ti onto pro vi de hi m wit h n eces sa ry

tri al an d s en te nc in g i nf

orm at io n. Mo reo ve r, Fo rdackno wled ge d o n t he sen te nc in g re co rdth athe ag reedwit h
co un se ls ’ de ci si on reg ard in g wh atm it ig at io n e vi de nc e to pre se nt . (Sta te Trial R. 98 3.) B as edon th is tes ti m on y an d o urrev ie w of t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th at Fo rd ’s cou ns el were n otde fic ie ntin th ei r in ve st ig at io n o f Fo rd ’s bac kg ro un d. Howev er, ev enass um in g t ha t Fo rd ’s cou ns el were d efi ci en t, Fo rdcan no t
sa ti sf y th e p reju di ce p ro ng of Stri ckl an d . The m ajor it y of t he affi da vi t t es ti m on y pr es en te d a t t he st at e h ab eas he ari ng was n otsubs ta nt iv el y di ffer en t fr om

th e
ev id en ce p res en te d t o t he jury atsen te nc in g. Fo rdhi m se lf t es ti fie d a t t he gu il t/ in no cen ce p ha se ab ou t h is dru g a ndalc oh ol us e. Mo reo ve r, Dr. Marc Zimm erm an n’s cl in ic al ps y ch ol og ic al rep ort d ia gn os edFo rdwith Dysth ym ia , or
m ajorde pr es si on , andbo rd erl in e p ers on al it y di so rd er. Not hi ng in th is rep ort
co nt rad ic te d Dr. Newk irk ’s ass es sm en t an d t es ti m on y . 24Co un se l i s n otrequi redto cal l ad di ti on al wit ne ss es to pre se ntredun da ntor

cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce. Se e Jen ni ng s v. McDo no ugh , 49 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 44 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ), cer t. d

en ie d , 12 8 S . Ct. 1 76 2 (2 00 8) ; Mar qu ard v . Sec ’y f or Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 42 9 F .3d12 78 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W ith re sp ectto th e ev id en ce t ha t t he jury didno t h ear –Fo rd ’s hi st ory of h ead ach es , all erg ie s an d a st hm a, hi s fa th er’s ad di ct io n t o p ai n k il le rs an d a lc oh ol , andth atFo rdwas acari ng pe rs on – t he re i s
no reas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su lt , m ean in g o ne su ffi ci en t t o
un de rm in e o urco nf

id en ce i n t he ou tc om e. Inli gh t o f th e jury’ s fi nd in g o f th ree st atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces , andth e fac t t ha t Fo rdsh ota ch il d i n t he he ad atclo se ran ge , th is om it te d m it ig at io n e vi de nc e is no t co m pe ll in g. Acco rd in gl y , Fo rdis no t en ti tl edto rel ie f onhi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f se nt en ci ng
co un se l. C. Fif th Amend men t Ri gh t Fo rdcla im s t ha t h is Fif

th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el was v io la te d dur in g hi s p ol ic e in te rro ga ti on . Bot h t he st at e co urts an d t he fed eral di stric t co urt d en ie d Fo rdrel ie f on th is cla im . W e ag ree wi th th ei r fi nd in gs . On d ire ctrev ie w, th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iafou nd : Fo rdwas a dv is edof h is rig ht s u nd er Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 43 6, 8 6 S .Ct. 1 60 2, 1 6 L.Ed .2d69 4 (1 96 6) , as s oo n a s h e was tak en

25in to cu st od y . He was t ran sp orte d t o Newt on Co un ty, re-a dv is edof

hi s Mir an da rig ht s, an d the n i nt erro ga te d. Afte r itwas re la y edto Fo rdth atco -d efen da ntTurn er h adadm it te d h is in vo lv em en t i n t he rob be ry an d t he m

ur de rs , andon e o f th e in te rro ga to rs to ldFo rdth athe be li ev edFo rdto ha ve be enres po ns ib le fo r th e v ic ti m s’ dea th s, Fo rdask edif h e co ul d “ cal l h is att orne y .” GBI ag en t Ni ch ol so n a dv is edFo rdth athe co ul d. Th enFo rdbe ga n qu es ti on in g a ge ntNich ol so n abo utTurn er’s s ta te m en t. Nic ho ls on st op pe d F or d a ndto ldhi m th atbe cau se he ha d a sk edforanatt orne y , th ey “ co ul d n otco nt in ue th e in te rv ie w un ti l h e ta lk edto on e, un le ss he ch an ge d h is m in d a ndwant edto co nt in ue wit ho utit .” Fo rd res po nd edth athe wou ldli ke to co nt in ue th e in te rv ie w witho uthi s at to rn ey . Late r on , Nich ol so n o ffer edth e d efen da nta ch an ce t o re co rdhi s st at em en t o n v id eo tape . Fordst at edth athe wou ldli ke to co nf er wi th anatt orne y

be fo re m ak in g a ny reco rd edst at em en ts . Nich ol so n a sk ed hi m “ if h e wan te d t o t al k t o a n a tt orne y be fo re co nt inui ng on an d h e sa idhe wis he d t o c on ti nu e th e in te rv ie w, bu t h e d idn’t wan t t o m ak e an y reco rd edst at em en ts un ti l h e ta lk edwit h a n a tt orne y .” If an accu se d a ss ert s h is rig htto co un se l dur in g c us to di al in te rro ga ti on , he “ is no t s ub ject t o fu rth er i nt erro ga ti on by the au th or it ie s u nt il co un se l h as be enm ad e av ai labl e to hi m , un le ss th e accu se d h im se lf i ni ti at es furth er co m m un ic at io n, ex ch an ge s, o r co nv ers at io ns wit h t he po li ce.” Edw ar ds v. Ari zo na , 45 1 U.S. 4 77 , 48 4- 85 , 10 1 S .Ct.1 88 0, 6 8 L.Ed .2d37 8 (1 98 1)
. Fo rdarg ue s t ha t h is reque st s fo r co un se l wer e n otho no redan d t ha t hi s ri gh ts un de r Edw ar ds v. Ari zo na , supr a, were v io la te d. We do no t ag ree. Noton ly w as hi s que st io n abo utcal li ng anatt orne y no t a c le ar in vo cat io n o f hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el , com pa re Smi th v. Ill in ois , 46 9 U.S. 91 , 10 5 S .Ct. 4 90 , 83 L.Ed.2d48 8 (1 98 4) , th e d efen da nt“ hi m se lf” in it ia te d fu rth er co nv ers at io n wi th th e p ol ic e. At thi s p oi nt , hi s 26in te rro ga to r was jus ti fie d i n s to pp in g h im an d d et erm in in g wh ethe r he wan te d t o c al l h is att orne y or t o c on ti nu e th e in te rv ie w. Fo rd ’s lat er i nv oc at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el wit h re ga rdto a vi de o tape d s ta te m en t was anin vo cat io n o f a l im it edrig ht on ly , whi ch th e po li ce were requi redto ho no r to no gre at er ex te ntth anth e ex pr es s li m it s o f hi s re se rv at io n. The tri al co urt d idno t err by fin di ng th atFo rd ’s st at em en ts were vo lu nt ary an d t ha t t he de fen dant ’s rig ht s as setforth in Mir an da v. Ari zo na , su pr a, an d Edw ar ds v. Ari

zo na , supr a, were n otvi ol at ed
. For d v . St at e , 25 7 Ga. 4 61 , 46 5- 66 , 36 0 S .E.2d25 8, 2 62 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. As t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y fou nd , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia ’s de ci si on on th is is su e was no t an ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e cl earl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co urt p rece de ntth atex is te d a t t he ti m e. The re co rd
supp orts th e st at e co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Fo rd ’s reque stfor co un se l was am

bi gu ou s. The st at e co urt’s fi nd in gs are en ti tl edto a pr es um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). Se e Is aa cs v. Head , 30 0 F .3d12 32 , 12 51 , 12 53 (11 th Cir
. 20 02 ). For d c an no t re bu t thi s p res um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s. Fu rth er, ev enif Fo rd ’s reque stwas n otequi vo cal , For d h im se lf i ni ti at edfurth er co nv ers at io n wi th th e po li ce. Any po li ce que st io ni ng of F or d a fte r he ask edwhet he r he co ul d c al l an at to rn ey was l im it edto cla rif

y in g wh ethe r Fo rdwant edto cal l an att orne y or
wan te d t o c on ti nu e th e in te rv ie w. Fol lo win g t he att em pt s t o c larif

y Fo rd ’s st at em en t, Fo rdres um eddi sc us si on s re la ti ng to th e cri m es by que st io ni ng GBI
27Age ntNich ol so n abo utTurn er’s s ta te m en t t o t he po li ce. Mo reo ve r, Fo rd ’s waiv er

of hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el was v ol un ta ry . There is no th in g i n t he reco rdto in di cat e th atth e p ol ic e co erce d o r pr es su redFo rdin to m ak in g h is st at em en ts . There fo re,
we co nc lu de th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iadi d n otun reas on ab ly app ly clear ly
es tabl is he d fe de ral law b y ho ld in g t ha t Fo rdwaiv edth e ri gh t t o c ou ns el by
vo lu nt ari ly ini ti at in g fu rth er d is cu ss io ns wit h t he po li ce. Acco rd in gl y , he i s n ot
en ti tl edto rel ie f on th is cla im
. V. CONCLUSIO N The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atFo rdwas n oten ti tl edto habe as rel ie f on hi s cl ai m s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t, i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f
se nt en ci ng co un se l, an d aFif th Am en dm en t v io la ti on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t d en y in g F or d h ab eas rel ie f. AFFIRMED
.

28