F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT JANUARY 6, 2 011 JO HN LEY CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 15 86 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 14 03 6- CV-WPD HAROLD LEEHARVEY, JR.,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us WARDEN, UNION CORREC TIONAL INSTITUTION WARDEN, FLORIDA STATE PRIS ON, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 6, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es .TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Haro ldLee Harv ey , Jr. i s an in m at e o n F lo rid a’s de ath ro w, hav in g b een co nv ic te d o f two co un ts of f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r in 19 86 . This cas e co m es to us aft er s ev en te eny ears of p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs inth e Fl or id a co urts , in cl ud in g t wo ev id en ti ary he ari ng s an d t wo ap pe al s t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. Befo re thi s co urt, Harv ey ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us by the Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. Each of h is fou r cl ai m s fo r rel ie f fo cu se s o n t he co ns ti tu ti on al de fic ie nc y of h is tri al co un se l dur in g b ot h t he gu il t an d p en al ty pha se s o f hi s t ria l. PartI di sc us se s t he fact s o f Harv ey ’s cri m e an d t he pro cedur al hi st ory . Part II d is cu ss es th e rel ev an t s ta nd ardof r ev ie w andge ne ral pri nc ip le s fo r cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Part II I ad dr es se s Harve y ’s cla im th attri al
co un se l fa il edto st rik e a b ia se d juro r. PartIV ad dr es se s Harve y ’s cla im th attri al
co un se l co nc ed edHarv ey ’s gu il t dur in g h is op en in g s ta te m en t t o the jury witho ut Harv ey ’s con se nt . PartV add res se s Harve y ’s two cla im s t ha t tria l co un se l d idno t co nduc t an ad equa te in ve st ig at io n i nt o m it ig at io n e vi de nc e, wit h p artV.A di sc us si ng tri al co un se l’s s oc ia l h is to ry in ve st ig at io n a ndpa rt V.B d is cu ss in g t ria l
co un se l’s m en ta l h eal th in ve st ig at io n. Pa rt VI c on cl ud es . I. 2The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d es cri be d the fact s o f Harv ey ’s cri m e as

fo ll ows : On Fe br

ua ry 23 , 19 85 , Haro ldLee Harv ey m etwith S co tt St it el er, h is co de fen da ntat tria l, an d dro ve to th e h om e o f W il li am an d R ub y Bo y d, i nt en di ng to rob th em . Upo n t he ir a rri va l, St it el er kn oc ke d o n t he fro ntdo or . In the m ean ti m e, Harv ey grabb edMrs . Bo y d a s s he was wal ki ng aro un d fr om th e si de of t he ho us e an d t oo k he r in to th e h ou se wher e Mr. Bo y d was lo cat ed . Harve y ha d api st ol an d S ti te le r was ho ld in g Harve y ’s AR-1 5 ri fle whi ch ha d re cen tl y be enco nv ert edin to anau to m at ic weap on . Harve y an d S ti te le r to ld th e Bo y ds th ey

ne ed edm on ey . Mr. Bo y d the n wen t i nt o the be dr oo m an d g othi s wal le t. So m et im e dur in g t he co ur se of the rob be ry , Harv ey an d S ti te le r ex ch an ge d g un s s o t ha t Harve y no w had po ss es si on of t he au to m at ic weap on . After g et ti ng th e m on ey fro m th e Bo y ds , Harv ey

an d S ti te le r di sc us se d wh atth ey were g oi ng to do with t he vi ct im s an d d eci de d t he y wou ldha ve to ki ll th em . Sen si ng th ei r im pe nd in g d an ge r, th e Bo y ds tri edto run , bu t Harve y fir edhi s gu n, s tri ki ng th em

bo th . Mr. Bo y d app aren tl y di edin st an tl y . Harve y le ft t he Bo y ds ’ ho m e b utreen te redto retrie ve th e g un sh el ls . Upo n he ari ng Mrs . Boyd m oa ni ng inpa in , he s ho t h er i n t he he adat p oi nt bl an k rang e. Harv ey

an d S ti te le r th enlef

t an d t hr ew th ei r weap on s away al on g t he roa dwa y . On Fe br ua ry 27 , 19 85 , Harv ey

was s to pp edfora dr iv in g in frac ti oninOkee ch ob ee Co un ty andsubs eque nt ly pla cedun de r arre stforth e Bo y ds ’ m

ur de rs . He was re adhi s M ira nd a ri gh ts at t ha t ti m e. He was t he n tran sp orte d t o t he Okee ch ob ee Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t an d a ga in readth e Mi ran dawarn in g. Harv ey was qu es ti on edan d i nt erro ga te d, an d a fte r sp eak in g wi th hi s wi fe, g av e a st at em en t i n wh ic h h e ad m it te d h is in vo lv em en t i n t he Bo y ds ’ m ur de rs . Harv ey v. St at e, 52 9 S o. 2 d 1 08 3, 1 08 4 (F la . 19 88 ).

3On M arch 7, 1 98 5, an Okee ch ob ee Co un ty gran d ju ry in di ct edHarv ey

an d St it el er o n t wo co un ts of f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r, un de r bo thpre m ed it at io n a ndfel on y m ur de r th eo rie s. Th e two de fen da nt s wer e tr ie d s ep arat el y . Harve y ’s tri al an d 19 93 po st -co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs to okpl ace i n t he Cir cu itCo urt fo r In di anRiv er Co un ty ; Harve y ’s 19 98 po st -co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs to okpl ace i n t he Cir cu it

1 Co urt fo r Oke ech ob ee Co un ty. The c ou rt app oi nt edRo be rt Wats on , a pr iv at e at to rn ey , to rep res en t Harve y . Adm it te d t o t he ba r in19 79 , W at so n b eg anhi s 2
care er wi th th e Publ ic Defen de r’s of fic e an d wo rk edth ere u nt il 19 81 . Duri ng hi s 3 ti m e th ere, h e rep res en te d d efen da nt s i n t encap it al m ur de r cas es , always as sec on d ch ai r. Fo ll owi ng hi s ap po in tm en t, Wats on reque st edan d re cei ve d fu nd s fo r pr iv at e in ve st ig at or s an d m en ta l h eal thex am in at io ns . He als o m ov edth e co urt t o
Okee chobee County

and I ndian River County

are part of the Ninetee nth J udicial Circuit 1 of F lorida. The indictment wa s returne d to the Okee chobee County Circuit Court. J udg e Dwight Geig er, a judge of the Nine teenth Judi cial Circuit, was a ssigne d to the case . He pr esided throughout the trial and post-c onviction proce eding s. Judg e Ge ige r transf err ed the ve nue for Har vey ’s trial fr om Okeec hobee County to Indian River County

due to pre -trial publicity
. Har vey was orig inally

repr esente d by

the Off ice of the Public Defe nder, which was 2 appointed on Mar ch 7, 1985. The Public Defe nder w ithdrew fr om Harve y ’s re prese ntation citing conflict of inter est bec ause it also represe nted Har vey ’s co- defe ndant, Stiteler. Watson was appointed on Mar ch 25, 1985. Watson repre sented Ha

rvey unassisted. He move d to appoint co-c ounsel for Phase I (guilt-phase) on August 20, 1985. The cour t denied his reque st on August 29, 1985. Watson was an assistant in the Off icer of the Public Def

ender for the N ineteenth 3 J udicial Circuit. 4supp res s Harve y ’s po st -arr es t co nf es si on to th e p ol ic e. The co urt h el d a n 4
ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e m ot io n o n Jun e 1 1 a nd12 , 19 86 , andde ni edth e m ot io n on Ju ne 13 , 19 86 , bef

or e th e co urt co nc lu de d t he fin al da y of ju ry sel ect io n. Ju ry sel ect io n b eg anonJu ne 9 an d e nd edon Ju ne 13 , 19 86 . Marl en e Bru ne tt i was ch os enas a n a lt ern at e juro r on Ju ne 13 , 19 86 . Her vo ir d ire ex po se d po te nt ia l b ia se s b utW at so n d idno t m ov e to st rik e h er wi th a pe rem pt ory ch al le ng e o r fo r cau se . Duri ng th e tr ia l, a juro r to okil l an d B ru ne tt i was sea te d 5
on th e jury. Harv ey ’s tri al be ga n o n Jun e 1 3, 1 98 6, i m m ed ia te ly after ju ry

sel ect io n co nc lu de d. In h is op en in g s ta te m en t t o t he jury, W at so n c on ced edth e fac ts of t he

6
m ur de r, bu t s ai d t ha t Harve y was n otgu il ty of fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r be cau se he
co m m it te d t he ho m ic id es witho utpre m ed it at io n a ndaft er the rob be ry ha d a lre ady ta ke n p la ce. In st eadof f

irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r, th e ev id en ce wo ul d s ho w th athe was
Watson filed three motions to suppress Har vey ’s statement: the fir st moti on was filed 4 on J une 7, 1985; the sec ond motion was filed on Octobe r 9, 1985, which a mended the June 7 motion; t he third motion was filed on January 29, 1986, which ra ised diffe rent grounds for suppression. Watson filed sever al other pr e-tria l motions not pertinent her e. Har vey ’s first ineff

ective- assistance claim ce nters on Watson’s dec ision to seat Brune tti. 5 Part I I Iprovides B runetti’s voir direin detail. Acc ordingto the trial transc ript, Br unetti was seated duringa cour t session beg inning at 6 2:00 p.m. on J une 13, 1986. Ope ning statements beg an duringa cour t session beg inning at 2:45 p.m. on the same date. 5gu il ty of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. W at so n p res en te d n o e vi de nc e dur in g t he gu il t

7 ph as e o f th e tr ia l an d m ai nt ai ne d h is co nc es si on st rat eg y inhi s cl os in g a rg um en t t o th e jury. The jury un an im ou sl y co nv ic te d Harve y

of t wo co un ts of f

irs t-d eg ree m ur de r. The pe na lt y

ph as e fo r th e m

ur de r co un ts be ga n t wo d ay s l at er, b efo re the
sa m e jury. The Sta te , init s ca se inch ie f, rel ie d o n t he ev id en ce i t p res en te d dur in g th e g ui ltph as e an d t he tes ti m on y of t wo wi tn es se s t o p ro ve ag gr av at in g fa ct or s. A pr is on in m at e n am edHub ertBern ardGriff in tes ti fie d t ha t, wh il e in carc erat edin a jail cel l ad

jacen t t o Harve y ’s (pr io r to Harv ey ’s tri al ), he saw t ha t Harve y ha d writ te n t hr eat en in g l an gu ag e o n t he wall s o f hi s o wn ce ll : “ If I ca n’t k il l i t the n i ts al read y de ad .” Geor ge Mi ll er, a co rrec ti on s o ffi cer i n t he same j ai l co rro bo rat ed Grif fin ’s tes ti m on y ; h e h adsee n t he same writi ng . W at so n, i n Harve y ’s def

en se , end eav or edto sh ow t ha t Harve y was a“ go od pe rs on ,” fo r who m

th e m ur de rs were an ab erra ti on , andth us wou ldbe wort hy of
m ercy. To tha t en d, h e cal le d s ev en te enm it ig at io n wi tn es se s. Si xt eenwitne ss es were fa m il y

an d fr ie nd s wh os e te st im on y pa in te d t he pi ctur e o f a n ic e, sh y y ou ng Watson’s openingstatement is the subject of H arve y ’s sec ond ineffe ctive-a ssistance 7 claim. Specific ally , Har

vey argues that Watson did not get Ha rvey ’s conse nt to the strategy of conce ding guilt for second- degree murder a nd, that even if

he conse nted, Watson’s opening statement ac tually

conce ded first-de gree murder w ithout his consent. Part IV pre sents Watson’s openingstatement in greater de tail. 6m an , who lo ve d h is fam il y ve ry m uc h. Near ly all m it ig at io n wi tn es se s ex pr es se d sh oc k a t Harve y ’s arres t an d s ai d t ha t wh athe ha d d on e d idno t fi t wi th hi s ch arac te r. Some of th es e witne ss es als o p ortra y edhi m as b ei ng do m in at edby his wife of o ne y ear—he r li fes tyle d em an ds servi ng as m ot iv e fo r ro bb in g t he Bo y ds
. W at so n a ls o c al le d aps y ch ol og is t, Dr. Fra nkPetril la , to tes ti fy to th e res ul ts of th e p ers on al it y

ev al ua ti on he pe rfo rm edon Harv ey pri orto tri al . Dr. Petri ll a di ag no se d Harve y

with “ dysth y

m ic di so rd er, ch ro ni c d ep res si ve reac ti on an d de pe nd an t an d p ers on al it y di so rd er.” Dr. Pet ril laals o n ot edth atHarv ey ha d a

“pa ss iv e” p ers on al ity

an d abe lo w ave rag e IQ. He sa idth atHarv ey ha d p oo r co pi ng sk il ls th atwou ldha rm hi s ab il it y

to reas on du rin g t im es of s tre ss . The jury reco m

m en de d t he de ath p en al ty for eac h m ur de r by a vo te of 1 1- 1. The co urt fo un d fo ur

ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces : the m ur de rs were co m

m it te d (1 ) whi le th e d efen da ntwas e ng ag edinth e co m m is si on or a n a tt em

ptto co m m it
ro bb ery an d b ur gl ary, Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(d ) (1 98 5) ; (2 ) fo r th e p ur po se of
av oi di ng or p rev en ti ng a la wfu l arres t, i d. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(e) ; (3 ) ina co ldcal cu la te d
an d p rem ed it at edm an ne r, id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (i) ; an d (4 ) th e m ur de rs were es pe ci al ly he in ou s at ro ci ou s an d c ru el , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (h ). The co urt fo un d o nl y on e m it ig at in g fa ct or

—the no n- st atut ory

cat ch -al l, “ an y

ot he r as pe ctof t he de fen da nt ’s

7ch arac te r orreco rd ” : Harve y ’s lo w IQ (86 ), po oreduc at io n a ndso ci al sk il ls , and 8 in ab il it y to reas on ab st ract ly, co m bi ne d wi th lo w sel f-co nf

id en ce an d fe el in gs of in ad equa cy . The co urt re jecte d t hr ee s ta tu to ry

m it ig at in g fa ct or s: (1) lac k o f si gn ifi can t h is to ry

of p rio r cri m in al act iv it y , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (a); (2) ag e o f th e de fen da nt , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (g ); a nd(3) m ur de r co m

m it te d u nd er the in flu en ce o f
ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce, i d. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(b ). The co urt fo un d th atth e ag gr av at in g fa ct or s o ut weig he d t he m it ig at in g fa ct or s an d s en te nc ed Harv ey to de ath o n b oth m

ur de r co un ts . Harv ey ap pe al edhi s m

ur de r co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h s en te nc es to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. His bri ef ra is edcla im s n otat i ss ue inth is ap pe al . On Ju ne 16 , 19 88 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed . Harve y , 52 9 S o. 2 d a t 1 08 8. Th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari . Harve y v. Fl or id a, 48 9 U.S. 1 04 0, 10 9 S . Ct. 1 17 5, 1 03 L. Ed. 2d23 7 (1 98 9) . The Go ve rn orsi gn edHarv ey ’s
ex ecu ti on warran t o n M arch 29 , 19 90
.

This miti g atingfac tor was subseque ntly codified in F la. Stat. § 921.141(6)(h) (2008) 8 (“The exis tence of any

other fa ctors in the def

endant' s background that would mitigate ag ainst imposit ion of the death penalty .”).
8On Au gu st27 , 19 90 , Harv ey fil eda m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti onrel ie f un de r Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0 i n t he tri al co urt. In h is m ot io n, Harve y 9 rai se d s ev en te encla im s— se ve ral with v ari ou s s ub pa rts . The co urt d is m is se d a s 1 0
Har vey filed a c orre cted c opy

of that motion on September 24, 1990. 9 The F lorida Supreme Court summarized Ha rvey ’s claims: 1 0 (1)( a) tria l counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto make seve ral a rguments in support of his motion to s uppress Ha rvey ’s conf

ession; (1)(b) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for

failingto challeng e juror B runetti for c ause or pere mptorily

afte r she stated she could not be impartial; (1) (c) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto object to the trial cour t’s chang e of ve nue to Indian River County ; (1)(d) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for makingclaims in his opening statement that wer e not later e stablished; (1)(e ) trial counse l was ineff ective f or fa iling to ra ise a va lid objection to the admission of hea rsay testimony

rela ting to Ha rvey ’s pre trial esca pe; (1)( f) tria l counsel wa s ineffe ctive for admitting Ha

rvey ’s guilt during openingstatements; (2)( a) tria l counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto adequately investigate and pr esent mitigating e vidence ; (2)(b) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for f ailing to e stablish the substantial domination m itigatingfac tor; (2)(c ) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive duringhis penalty -phaseclosingarg ument; (2)(d) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto waive the no significant history mitigating fac tor; (2)(e ) trial counse l was ineff ective f or allowingthe State to anticipatorily rebut e vidence of re morse whe n such an a rgument was not made ; (2)(f ) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto present e vidence or argument at the fina l sentenc ing he aring ; (2)(g ) trial counse l was ineff ective f or fa iling to investig ate and conf irm that the victims overhea rd Ha rvey and the c o-def

endant de cidingto kill them; (3) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto ensure that Harve y rec eived a

competent menta l health examination; (4) Har vey was tried by

a de fac to eleven- person jury ; (5)(a) the trial c ourt rende red tria l counsel ineff ective by ref using to he ar a

nd rule on Ha

rvey ’s motion to suppress prior to jury selec tion; (5)(b) the trial c ourt rende red tria l counsel ineff ective by denying c ounsel’s motion for co-c ounsel; (5)(c ) the trial c ourt rende red tria l counsel ineff ective by denying c ounsel’s motion for continuanc e made betwee n the guilt and penalty phases of the trial; (6) the trial court f ailed to expressly

evaluate all mitigating fac tors, failed to find e ach pr oposed mitigating c ircumstance , and fa iled to weigh those fac tors ag ainst the ag grava ting f actor s; (7) fundamental cha ng es in the law require rese ntencingbeca use the trial c ourt improperly reje cted the no significant history mitigatingfac tor based on of fense s committed after

the murder s but before sentenc ing; ( 8)(a ) the trial c ourt failed to properly instruct the jury

reg ardingthe 9faci al ly ins uf fic ie ntall cla im s s av e o ne : tha t Wats on ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n n otst rik in g t he “ adm it te dl y bi as edjuro r,” Bru ne tt i. The
co urt h el d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng on th atcla im

on Marc h 1 1, 1 99 3. OnMarc h 1 7, 19 93 , th e co urt d en ie d t he cla im an d Harve y ’s Rul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. Harv ey ap pe al edth e tr ia l co urt’s Ru le 3.8 50 rul in gs to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. OnFeb ru ary 23 , 19 95 , itren de redit s d eci si on . Harve y v. Du gg er, 6 56 So
.
heinous, atroc ious, or crue l and cold, ca lculated, a nd preme ditated ag gravating fac tors; (8)(b) the pena lty -phase jury instructions and the prose cutor’s c losing argument prec luded the jury from conside ringsy

mpathy in rec ommending a sentenc e; (8)( c) the trial court e rre d in refusingto answer two jury questions relating to whe n Har

vey would be elig ible for pa

role a nd whether

life sentenc es would be imposed conse cutively ; (8)(d) the trial cour t erre d in deny

ing H arve y ’s specia l reque sted pena lty -phase instructions; (9) the pena lty -phase jury instructions improperly

shifted the burde n to Harve y to prove that the mitig ating fac tors outweighed the a g gravating f actor s, and trial counse l was ineff ective f or failingto object to them; (10) the he inous, atrocious, or c ruel instruction wa s unconstitutionally

vague, and trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto object to the lack of

a limiting instruction; (11) the c old, calculated, and pr emeditated instruction was unconstitutionally vague, and trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto object to the lack of a limiting instruction; (12)(a) the State withheld the fac t that witness Griffin ha d been use d as a ja il-house informant in other case s; (12)(b) the State withheld the f act that Ha

rvey reque sted counsel a fter his a rre st; (13) F lorida Rule of Criminal Procedur e 3.851 violates Ha rvey ’s rights to due proce ss, equal prote ction, and ac cess to the c ourts; (14) the jury was improperly instructed that its role wa s merely advisory ; (15) the State imprope rly argued victim-impact evidenc e; (16) trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto object to the admission of evidenc e that Ha rvey threa tened to kill a fe llow inmate; and (17) Florida ’s sy stem for fundingthe def ense of indige nt capital def

endants violates due proc ess and e qual protec tion. Har vey v. Dug g er, 656 So. 2d 1253, 1254–55 (F la. 1995). The court c onsidered H arve y ’s ineffe ctive assistanc e cla ims to have bee n prosec uted under the standar d established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1984). H arve y , 656 So. 2d at 1257. 102d12 53 (Fl a. 19 95 ). The co urt af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f m os t o f Harv ey ’s cla im s, b utfou ndth atanev id en ti ary he ari ng wou ldbe ne ces sa ry to res ol ve fou r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s, thr ee o f whi chare p ert in en t h ere: (1) W at so n re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y co nc ed in g Harve y ’s gu il t dur in g h is op en in g s ta te m en t t o t he jury witho utHarv ey ’s con se nt ; (2 ) W at so n d idno t ad equa te ly inv es ti ga te li fe-h is to ry m it ig at io n e vi de nc e; an d (3 ) W at so n d idno t ad equa te ly inv es ti ga te m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n, wh ic h wo ul d h av e in cl ud ed
ev id en ce o f or ga ni c b rai n d am ag e. Id . at 1 25 6– 57 . InAug us t 1 99 8, the tri al co urt h el d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on th e d es ig na te d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s, jud gi ng W at so n’s p erfo rm an ce u nd er the st an da rd
es tabl is he d b y

Str ic kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2, 8 0 L. Ed. 2d67 4 (1 98 4) . The co urt fo un d t ha t Wats on ’s per fo rm an ce s at is fie d t ha t s ta nd ard
an d, i n J anua ry

19 99 , ent eredanord er d en y in g e ach of t he de si gn at edcla im s. Harv ey ap pe al edth e co urt’s ru li ng s t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. On J ul y 3, 2 00 3, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re ve rs edth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l of Ru le 3.8 50 rel ie f as to th e fi rs t o f th e d es ig na te d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m s, va cat edHarv ey ’s m

ur de r co nv ic ti on s an d d eath s en te nc es , andrem an de d t he cas e fo r a n ew tr ia l. Harv ey

v. St at e, No. SC 95 07 5, 2 00 3 F la . LEXIS 11 40 (Fl a. Ju ly 3, 20 03 ). It h el d t ha t Wats on ’s op en in g s ta te m en t co nc ed edfir st -d eg ree m ur de r an d 11th atth e co nc es si on was the “ fu nc ti on al equi va le ntof agu il ty ple a.” Id . at * 11 . As

su ch , W at so n d idno t “ subjec t the pro se cu ti on ’s cas e to m ean in gf ul adve rs ari al te st in g” un de r Uni te d S ta te s v . Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. 6 48 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 03 9, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 65 7 (1 98 4) . Harvey, 200 3 F la . LEXIS 11 40 , at * 11 . Harve y th eref or e d idno t ne edto sh ow p reju di ce u nd er St ric kl an d; rathe r, th e co urt p res um edpre jud ic e un de r Cro ni c. Harv ey , 20 03 Fla . LEXIS 11 40 , at * 11 . The co urt re li edon Nix on v. Si ng le ta ry , 75 8 S o. 2 d 6 18 (Fl a. 20 00 ), whi ch he ldth atco nc es si on s wi th ou t the de fen da nt ’s con se ntco ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce p er s e u nd er Cr on ic . Harve y , 20 03 Fla . LEXIS 11 40 , at * 11 –1 2. The Sta te pe ti ti on edth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo r reh eari ng . Whi le it s pe ti ti on was p en di ng , th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt re ve rs edth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s p er s e ru le in Flo rid a v . Nix on , 54 3 U.S. 1 75 , 18 7, 1 25 S. Ct. 55 1, 5 60 , 16 0 L. Ed. 2 d 5 65 (20 04 ). Rel y in g o n t hi s d eci si on , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt v acat edit s 2 00 3 o pi ni on an d, o n J un e 1 5, 2 00 6, re jecte d t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m at i ss ue ina ne w op in io n. Harv ey v. St at e, 94 6 S o. 2 d 93 7, 9 40 (Fl a. 20 06 ). The co urt ad he redto it s ea rli er fi nd in g t ha t Wats on ’s op en in g s ta te m en t co nc ed edfir st -d eg ree m ur de r wit ho utHarv ey ’s con se nt , id . at 94 2– 43 , bu t fo un d t ha t Harve y ha d n otsh own Str ic kl an d p reju di ce b ecau se th e jury recei ve d i n Harve y ’s con fes si onth e sa m e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinW at so n’s 12co nc es si on , id . at 9 43 –4 4. Th e co urt re jecte d t he cla im s t ha t Wats on fai le d t o in ve st ig at e ad equa te ly H arv ey ’s li fe-h is to ry an d m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n ev id en ce. Id . at 9 47 , 94 8. Two jus ti ces co nc urredin pa rt a nddi ss en te d i n p art . In the ir v ie w, W at so n’s co nc es si on to fir st -d eg ree m ur de r an d “ supe rfi ci al [m it ig at io n] in ve st ig at io n” lef

t “ no ge nu in e ad ve rs ari al tes ti ng of t he ap pr op ria te pe na lty .” Id
. at95 1 (An st ead , J., co nc urrin g i n p artan d d is se nt in g i n p art ). On J anua ry

18 , 20 08 , Harv ey

pe ti ti on edth e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). His pe ti ti on pre se nt edtwel ve cla im s, in cl ud in g t he fou r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f 1 1
co un se l cl ai m s ra is edin th is ap pe al . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on . He th enreque st eda cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c) fo r si x o f hi s
Har vey ’s claims we re that Watson had render ed inef fec tive assistance of counse l in (1) 1 1 failingto perfor

m mental a hea lth investigation; (2) f ailing to pe rfor

m a non-menta l health investigation; (3) conce ding guilt in t he openingstatement without first disclosing the strategy to Har vey or obtaininghis consent; (4) f ailing to strike a

n admittedly

biased juror , Br

unetti; (5) failingto use a bookingsheet that a lleg edly indicated Ha

rvey ’s re quest for a

lawyer be fore his interrog ation by

police as a

basis to suppress his confe ssion; (6) failingto object to the trial court’s c hang e of ve nue; (7) making c laims in the openingstatement that we re not prove n to the jury duringHar

vey ’s ca se in chief

; (8) fa iling to ra ise a va lid objection to certa in hear say testimony ; (9) allowingthe State to anticipatorily rebut the non- statutory

mitigatingcirc umstance of re morse whe n the def

ense did not argue that such mitig atingcirc umstance e x isted; (10) fa iling to investigate the evide nce suppor ting the he inous, atrocious and c ruel a g gravating c ircumstance ; and (11) failingto waive the statutory mitigatingcirc umstance of no signific ant history

of prior criminal ac tivity , and that trial c ourt (12) violate d his Si x th Amendment rights to an “impartial and qualifie d jury” by

failingeither to strike juror Br unetti sua sponte or obtain a n on-the-r ecor d waiver from Ha rvey when it seated juror B runetti.

13twel ve cla im s. Fi ve were cl ai m s t ha t Wats on ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f

co un se l i n (1 ) fai li ng to in ve st ig at e m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n, (2 ) fai li ng to in ve st ig at e n on -m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n, (3 ) co nc ed in g g ui ltinhi s o pe ni ng st at em en t t o t he jury witho utHarv ey ’s pri orau th or iz at io n, (4 ) fai li ng to st rik e juro r Brune tt i, an d (5 ) fai li ng to in tro du ce a b oo ki ng sh eetsu gg es ti ng th atHarv ey reque st eda la wy er b efo re co nf es si ng to th e m

ur de rs . The fi na l cl ai m

was t ha t the tri al co urt erredin (6) fai li ng su a sp on te to st rik e juro r Bru ne tt i. The d is tri ct 1 2
co urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al for is su es (1) –( 4) an d (6 ), bu t d en ie d t he cert ifi cat e fo r is su e (5 ). Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed
. II. A. The Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct(“ AEDPA”) go ve rn s Harv ey ’s hab eas co rp us pe ti ti on . Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), a fed eral co urt can no t o ve rtu rna st at e co urt co nv ic ti on on co ll at eral att ackun le ss th e st at e co urt de ci si on (1 ) . . . was co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt of th e Uni te d S ta te s; or

Har vey did not address this argument in his brief. It is therefor e wa ived. 1 2 14(2 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edonanun 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 ). As the Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct ed , Und er the “ co nt rary to” claus e, a fed eral habe as co urt m ay grantth e writif t he st at e co urt arriv es at aco nc lu si on op po si te to th atreac he d by thi s C ou rt o n aqu es ti on of l aw orif t he st at e co urt d eci de s a c as e di ffer en tl y

th anth is Co urt h as on a se t o f m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fact s. Un de r th e “ 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 ut un reas on ab ly app li es th atpri nc ip le to th e fac ts of t he pri so ne r’s cas e. W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 2– 13 , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 52 3, 1 46 L. Ed. 2d 38 9 (2 00 0)
. Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r we sh ou ldov erturn the st at e co urts ’ reject io n o f th e cl ai m at i ss ue , we rev ie w th e h ig he stst at e co urt d eci si on di sp os in g o f th e cl ai m . See S he re v . Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 53 7 F .3d13 04 , 13 10 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (“ [O]ur
rev ie w is li m it edto ex am in in g wh ethe r th e h ig he stst at e co urt’s re so lu ti on of a pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m

is co nt rary to, o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y es tabl is he d l aw . . . . ”). The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s 1 99 5 a nd20 06 de ci si on s 1 3 are t he refo re o urrefe ren ce p oi nt s. 1 4
Har vey v. Dug g er, 656 So.2d 1253 (F la. 1995), a nd Har vey v. State, 946 So. 2d 937 1 3 (F la. 2006). Although w e ar e re viewingthe district court’s de cision deny ing H arve y

habea s corpus 1 4 relief , beca use that dec ision was based solely on the district court’s de termination that the F lorida 15B.

The Six th Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n s ta te s t ha t “ [i]n a ll cri m in al pro se cu ti on s, the accu se d s ha ll en joy th e ri gh t . . . to ha ve th e Ass is ta nc e of Co un se l fo r hi s d efen se .” U.S. Con st . am en d. VI. Thi s cl au se ha s b een 1 5 in te rp ret edto m ean th atth e acc us edsh al l h av e th e ri gh t t o t he effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. See , e.g., Mc Man n v . Ric ha rd so n, 3 97 U.S. 75 9, 7 71 n.1 4, 9 0 S . Ct. 14 41 , 14 49 n.1 4, 2 5 L. Ed. 2 d 7 63 (19 70 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . W e d et erm in e whe th er the accu se d h as rece iv edsu ch ass is ta nc e u nd er the st an da rdforco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce es tabl is he d b y Str ic kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 20 52 , 80 L. Ed. 2d67 4 (1 98 4)
. A val idcla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l re qu ire s a t wo- pa rt sh owi ng . Firs t, tria l co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce m us t b e d efi ci en t, fa ll in g b el ow an ob jecti ve st an da rdof p ro fes si on al care . Id. at68 8, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 . Seco nd , th atde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce m us t h av e p reju di cedth e o ut co m e o f th e p et it io ne r’s

Supreme Court’s 1995 a

nd 2006 decisions re

jectingthose claims could not be ove rturned unde r AEDPA, we are , in effe ct, standingin the district court’s shoes r eviewingthose Florida Supreme Court decisions under A EDPA. See Hightower v. Schof ield, 365 F.3d 1008, 1014 ( 11 Cir. t h 2001), vac ated a

nd rema nded on other

grounds, 545 U.S. 1124, 125 S. Ct . 2929, 162 L . Ed. 2d 863 (2005). The Six th Amendment provision of the right to counsel has bee n made a pplicable to 1 5 the States under the Due Proc ess Clause of theFour teenth Amendme nt. See Gideon v. Wainwrig ht, 372 U.S. 335, 342–45, 83 S. C t. 792, 795–97, 9 L . Ed. 2d 799 (1963). 16tri al ; b utforth e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, the re m us t b e a p ro babi li ty tha t the pe ti ti on er’s o ut co m e wou ldbe di ffer en t. Id . at 6 95 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 –6 9. Th e pe ti ti on er s eek in g re le as e b ears th e b ur de n o f pr oo f reg ard in g b ot h d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce an d p reju di ce. Ro ge rs v. Zan t, 1 3 F .3d38 4, 3 86 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). The pe rfo rm an ce i nqui ry wil l g en eral ly boi l d own to whet he r tr ia l co un se l’s act io ns (orin act io ns ) were t he res ul t o f de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce o r so un d t ria l st rat eg y . See Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 (“ [T]he d efen da nt
m us t o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n t ha t, und er the cir cum st an ces , th e ch al le ng ed act io n ‘mig htbe co ns id eredso un d t ria l s tra te gy.’ ” (quo ti ng Mi ch ael v. Lo ui si an a, 35 0 U.S. 9 1, 1 01 , 76 S. Ct. 1 58 , 16 4, 1 00 L. Ed. 83 (19 55 ))). To p ro te ctco un se l’s in de pe nd en ce, we s ta rt wi th th e st ro ng pre su m pt io n t ha t tria l co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te . Id. Two p rin ci pl es un de rli e th is pre su m pt io n. Fi rs t, the Supr em e Co urt h as ti m e an d a ga in co un se le d a ga in stjud gi ng tri al co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce wi th th e be ne fitof h in ds ig ht . Id.; see als o Yarbo ro ug h v . Gent ry , 54 0 U.S. 1 , 8, 1 24 S. Ct. 1, 6 , 15 7 L. Ed. 2 d 1 (20 03 ) (p er curia m) (“ The Six thAm en dm en t g ua ran te es reas on ab le co m

pe te nc e, no t p erfe ctadvo cacy j ud ge d wi th th e b en efi t o f hi nd si gh t.”) ; Be ll v. Co ne , 53 5 U.S. 6 85 , 69 8, 1 22 S. Ct. 1 84 3, 1 85 2, 1 52 L. Ed. 2d91 4 (2 00 2) (sa m e). Sec on d, tria l ad vo cacy is n ota sc ie nc e, bu t an art ; the re ar e 17few “ rig ht ” an swe rs in th e p ro pe r way to ha nd le a tr ia l. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 69 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 67 (“ Rep res en ta ti on is anart , andanactor o m is si on th atis
unpr of es si on al in on e cas e m ay

be so un d o r ev enbri ll ia ntinan ot he r.”). Thi s p res um

pt io n i s an ev id en ti ary pr es um pt io n t ha t ca rri es th ro ug h t he tri al . Cha nd le r v. Un it edSta te s, 2 18 F.3d13 05 , 13 14 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (en ba nc ). Thu s, a p et it io ne r m us t n otpre se ntev id en ce m erel y to refu te th e pr es um pt io n. Ra th er, the pe ti ti on er m us t p res en t ev id en ce tha t o ut weig hs th e pr es um edev id en ce o f co m pe te nc e. Kimm el m anv. Mo rri so n, 4 77 U.S. 36 5, 3 84 10 6 S . Ct. 2 57 4, 2 58 8, 9 1 L. Ed. 2 d 3 05 (19 86 ) (“ [T]he d efen da ntm us t re bu t thi s pr es um pt io n b y pro vi ng th athi s at to rn ey ’s rep res en ta ti on was u nr eas on ab le un de r pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s an d t ha t the ch al le ng edact io n was no t s ou nd st rat eg y .”). Ther efo re, “ ‘whe re the reco rdis in co m pl et e o r un cl ear abo ut [co un se l]’ s ac ti on s, we wi ll pre su m e th athe di d wh athe sh ou ldha ve do ne , and th athe ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.’” Cha nd le r, 21 8 F .3dat 1 31 4 n.1 5 (quo ti ng W il li am s v . Head , 18 5 F .3d12 23 , 12 28 (11 thCir . 19 99 )). W e d o n otap pl y

fix edor r ig idrul es when ev al ua ti ng tri al co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 –8 9, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 65 . Rath er, a pe ti ti on er re cei ve s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e whe re the rep res en ta ti on“ [fal ls ] be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss ,” id . at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 , 18reas on ab le ne ss be in g t he “pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s,” Wig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39

U.S. 51 0, 5 21 , 12 3 S . Ct. 2 52 7, 2 53 5, 1 56 L. Ed. 2d47 1 (2 00 3) . To pu t i t an ot he r way , tri al co un se l’s erro r m us t b e so eg reg io us th atno reas on ab ly com pe te nt at to rn ey wou ldha ve act edsi m il arl y . See Woodv. Al le n, 5 42 F.3d12 81 , 13 09 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) , aff’d 1 30 S. Ct. 8 41 (20 10 ) (“ [O]the r at to rn ey s m ig hthave do ne m or e o r le ss . . . orth ey

m ig htha ve m ad e th e st rat eg ic cal ls di ffer en tl y , bu t we can no t s ay

th atno reas on ab le att orne y wou ldha ve do ne as [ he ] di d.” (qu ot in g W il li am s, 1 85 F.3dat 1 24 4) ). III. Harv ey fir stcla im s t ha t h is lawyer, W at so n, was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ine ffec ti ve be cau se he di d n otatt em

ptto di sm is s— ei th er fo r cau se or wi th a pe rem pt ory ch al le ng e—abi as edjuro r. A. Thi s cl ai m

foc us es on Ju ro r Mar le ne Brune tt i. Bru ne tt i was ch os enas t he fir stalt ern at e juro r, bu t l at er re pl aceda juro r ex cu se d fo r il ln es s. Du rin g v oi r di re, Bru ne tt i ex pr es se d a n abi li ty to b e im pa rti al ge ne ral ly, bu t s ta te d t ha t the ne ws m ed iaha d i nf

lu en cedhe r vi ews : The Co urt: . . . . Do y ouha ve an y di ffi cu lt y inbe in g a n a lt ern at e juro r?
19Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes, b ecau se of t he ne ws m ed ia
.

. . . . The Co urt: AndI wil l ex pl ai n t o t he jury al l o f th e la ws wh ic h app ly to th is cas e. Cany oufol lo w all of t he laws th atI’ll ex pl ai n t o t he jury m us t b e fo ll owe d a ndap pl ie d b y th e jury in re ach in g t he ir v erd ic t i f y ouare a ju ro r an d a ss is t i n t he de ci si on of t he cas e? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes. The Co urt: Is t he re an yth in g abo utth e ch arg e th at ’s m ad e h ere wh ere y oum ig htfin d i t t o b e d iff ic ul t t o b e fai r an d i m

pa rti al be cau se of t ha t ch arg e? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: No, n otwith t he ch arg e, no . The Co urt: . . . . Do y ouha ve an y bi as es or p reju di ces foror a ga in st th e st at e o r fo r orag ai ns t d efen da nt s i n g en eral th atm ig htaffe cty ou r ab il it y to be a juro r he re? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Onl y

fro m th e n ews m ed ia
. The Co urt: Do y ouha ve an y bi as es or p reju di ces inge ne ral ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: No.

. . . . The Co urt: If y ouare a ju ro r wil l you b e fai r an d i m pa rti al ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes.

20Out si de th e p res en ce o f th e se at edjuro rs an d p ro sp ect iv e al te rn at es , Brune tt i

ex pl ai ne d h er kno wled ge ab ou t the cri m e an d h er d oubtth atsh e co ul d b e im pa rti al : The Co urt: . . . . Now, do y oukn ow an yth in g abo utth is cas e o th er th anfro m ne ws co ve rag e? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Ju stwhatI readan d wh atI saw on th e TV.

. . . . The Co urt: Wha t d o youreca ll ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: W el l, I re cal l tha t h e co nf es se d t o d oi ng itan d t ha t’s why I feel t ha t I c ou ld n’t b e, y oukn ow, i m pa rti al ab ou t i t. The Co urt: Why do y outh in k t he re was a co nf es si on ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Becaus e I thi nkhe di d i t. I thi nkhe di d i t an d h e co nf es se d t o d oi ng it
. The Co urt: Why do y outh in k t he re was a co nf es si on ? W as th atinth e ne ws co ve rag e? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I th in k I r eadth athe co nf es se d t o i t, o r I s aw iton th e TV. The Co urt: Youkn ow t he re i s m or e th anon e p ers on th atwas ch arg ed ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes, two. The re are two . The Co urt: Wha t was th e n am e o f th e p ers on who co nf es se d; do y ou kn ow t ha t?
21Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Harv ey .

The Co urt: You ’re su re o f th e n am e? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes.

. . . . The Co urt: Wha t el se do y oureca ll ab ou t the cas e? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I jus t re cal l s eei ng itan d re ad in g i t i n t he pape r th at two pe op le were m

ur de red
. The Co urt: Do y oureca ll an y of t he in ci de nt s ab ou t the ev en ts ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Thatitwas arob be ry cas e. They rob be d t he pe op le

. . . . The Co urt: Wha t you re cal l ab ou t the cas e o r th in k youreca ll ab ou t th e cas e, wou ldth ataffe cty ou r ab il it y to be fai r an d i m

pa rti al he re an d c on fin e y ou r de ci si on in th e cas e o nl y to th e ev id en ce an d t he law th atI wil l i ns tru cty ou ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I do n’t thi nkI co ul d b e im pa rti al aft er re ad in g abo utit
.

. . . . Mr. Co lt on : When y oureadinth e p ap er o r sa w on th e n ews th athe

1 6 ha d c on fes se d, d iditsay in wh aty ousaw wh atitwas t ha t i t [s ic ] was in hi s co nf

es si on , or ju stth e fac t tha t h e h adco nf es se d. Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I th in k i t s ai d t ha t h e h adco nf es se d t o k il li ng th em . Mr. Co lt on : Bu t d iditgo in to an y de ta il as t o wh atth e co nf es si on was ? State Attorney

Br uce Colton. 1 6 22Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I can ’t rem em be r. I do n’t thi nkso .

. . . . Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Ju stsai d tha t h e h adsi gn eda co nf es si on . Thathe ha d be enap pr eh en de d. Mr. Co lt on : On e o f th e in st ru ct io ns on th e la w th atth e Ju dg e wil l gi ve y ouis th aty ou ’re to pu t as id e an yth in g t ha t you re ador h eard ab ou t the cas e an d fo rm

y ou r ve rd ic t b as edon th e ev id en ce tha t you he ardin th e co urtro om ; co ul d youdo th at ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I do n’t kno w if I h on es tl y co ul d.

. . . . Mr. Wats on : Whatis y ou r pr es en t p erce pt io n a s t o wh athapp en ed

1 7 ba se d upo n t ho se art ic le s? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: W el l, I thi nkth ey bro ke in , is th e b es t tha t I c an rem em be r, an d the y

rob be d t he m

or s om ethi ng an d t he n t he y were afra idth ey

wou ldbe id en ti fie d a ndth ey ki ll edth em .

. . . . Mr. Wats on : When y ousay tha t you t hi nkhe di d i t, d o youm ean th at y outh in k t ha t h e sh otth e p eo pl e o r whe n yousay y outh in k h e d idit , do y oum ean y outh in k h e co m m it te d acert ai n c rime? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I feel th athe co m m it te d the cri m e th athe was c ha rg ed fo r. Mr. Wats on : Fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r? 1 8
Har vey ’s attorne y , Robert Watson. 1 7 Her e, Watson was repeatingwhat the c ourt informed the venirebefor e the voir dire of 1 8 individual venire pe rsons commenc ed. The court stated: 23Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes.

Mr. Wats on : Bu t the Ju dg e h as n’t g iv eny outh e in st ru ct io ns . Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I kn ow. Mr. Wats on : Bu t fr om

whatall y ousai d up t he re tha t’s wh at , y ou kn ow — y ou ’ve co m e to a co nc lu si on as t o wh atfir st -d eg ree m ur de r is ba se d upo n wh atMr. Co lt on an d I s ai d? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes. Mr. Wats on : Do y outh in k t ha t tha t fa ll s i nt o t hi s ca te go ry ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: Yes. Mr. Wats on : Do y oufeel be cau se Mr. Co lt on an d I m ay no t h av e ex pl ai ne d t o youas we ll as t he Ju dg e wou ldlat er, d o youth in k you co ul d fo ll ow t he Ju dg e’s in stru ct io ns ? Mrs . Bru ne tt i: I can ’t ho ne st ly say th atI co ul d h av e anop enm in d aft er re ad in g i t an d s eei ng iton th e n ews . I hav e to be ho ne st . I wou ldn’t wan t t o g eton th e jury andno t s ay whatI feel
. W at so n a ls o que st io ne d B ru ne tt i ab ou t h er v ie ws o f th e d eat h p en al ty and ps y ch ol og y . On th e d eat h p en al ty, Bru ne tt i s ai d, “ I’m ki ndof c on fu se d o n t he de ath p en al ty after l is te ni ng to all of t he se di ffer en t p eo pl e. I th in k i t’s a d et erre nt

Irea d to you from the indictment in this case. . . [T]he State of Florida charg es . . . two per sons, only one of whom is being trie d at this tim e, . . . that Har old L ee H arve y , J r. . . . did on the 23d day of F ebrua

ry 1985 unlawfully

and from a pr emeditated de sign to e ffe ct the death of W. H. Boyd, . . . did kill and murder him . . . by

shooting him with a rifle . That’s c ount 1, that’s a cha rg e of murder in the f

irst degree .

. . . . Ag ain the sec ond charg e is a c harg e of murde r in the first degree . 24be cau se a pe rs onwou ldno t b e ab le to ge t o utto do th e sa m e th in g a ga in . ButI

do n’t n eces sa ril y

be li ev e th attwo wron gs m ak e a ri gh t.” On p sycho lo gy, Brun et ti st at edth athe r si st er “ wen t t o aps y ch ol og is t fo r two y ears ” an d t ha t “ [h er s is te r] was be ne fit te d” by the ex pe rie nc e. Ju dg e Gei ge r th enask edbo th att orne y s i f ei th er wo ul d c are t o c ha ll en ge Bru ne tt i: The Co urt: Mo ti on s?

. . . . The Co urt: Are th ere a ny pree m pt or ie s [s ic ]?

. . . . The Co urt: Thes e two juro rs wil l b e o uralt ern at e juro rs th en ? Im m ed ia te ly after t hi s d is cu ss io n, J ud ge Geig er ag ai n c al le d t he pa rti es to th e b en ch : The Co urt: Ju stso I un de rs ta nd , th ere [ are] no m ot io ns forcau se th at ha ve be enm ad e atth is ti m e?

. . . . The Co urt: Ther e are no pre em pt or ie s [s ic ] atth is ti m e? W at so n d idno t ch al le ng e Bru ne tt i fo r cau se , no r di d h e u se a pe rem pt ory ch al le ng e to rem ov e h er. Brune tt i was th ensea te d a s an alt ern at e. A juro r fel l i ll
25an d B ru ne tt i b ecame the twel fth juro r fo r Harv ey ’s tri al . She vo te d t o c on vi ctan d

fo r th e d eat h s en te nc e. Harv ey ’s Marc h 1 1, 1 99 3 R ul e 3 .85 0 p os t-c on vi ct io n h eari ng co nc ern ed W at so n’s fa il ur e to st rik e Bru ne tt i. Harv ey ’s po st -co nv ic ti on co un se l ca ll edJames Green , an e xp eri en cedcap it al de fen se att orne y , as awitne ss . Greenwas c rit ic al 1 9 of W at so n’s p erfo rm an ce i n t wo ar eas . Firs t, h e sa idth atW at so n s ho ul d h av e as ke d t he ve ni re, Bru ne tt i i n p art ic ul ar, m or e que st io ns reg ard in g h ow s tro ng ly th ey wou ldweig h aco nf

es si on . This co ns id erat io n was vi ta l b ecau se , by th e ti m e Bru ne tt i was qu es ti on ed , th e co urt h adde ni edW at so n’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s Harv ey ’s con fes si on . Green ’s sec on d c rit ic is m foc us edon W at so n’s s tra te gy. Green st at edth athe co ul d n ot“ en vi si onan y rat io na l tria l s tra te gy . . . to jus ti fy [Watso n’s] . . . fai l[u re] to ch al le ng e Mrs . Bru ne tt i.” W at so n t es ti fie d a s a S ta te ’s witne ss reg ard in g h is ov eral l tria l s tra te gy and hi s s pe ci fic st rat eg y

reg ard in g B ru ne tt i. His ov eral l s tra te gy was driv enby the
co nf es si on ; o nc e ad m is si bl e, W at so n b el ie ve d t ha t co nv ic ti on was c ert ai n a ndth at
Har vey ’s attorne y

also ca lled Gar

y Patrick Mora

n, Ph.D., a psychology

profe ssor, to 1 9 testify reg ardingthe impact a bia sed juror w ould likely have on jur

y deliberations in order to prove Strickland pr ejudice. H oweve r, the c ourt reje cted Mora n’s proff ere d testimony

as irrele vant bec ause Mor an could not explain what ac tually happene d inside the jury room in 1986. The propriety

of this ruling is not bef

ore us he re. Moreove r, bec ause the rea sonablene ss of counsel’ s actions under Strickland is a question of law f or the c ourt to decide , expert testimony reg ardingperf

ormanc e def

iciencie s car

ries little, if any , weight. See Provenzano v. Single tary , 148 F.3d 1327, 1332 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 26“ itwas apu re [p en al ty pha se ] jury.” T o s av e Harv ey ’s li fe, Watso n fe lthe ne ed ed

to pre se rv e cre di bi li ty w it h t he jury, whi ch wou ldde te rm in e n oton ly H arv ey ’s gu il t, b utals o re co m

m en d l ife or d eat h. In hi s o pi ni on as acri m in al de fen se ex pe rt, Wats on st at edth atitis no t a b adst rat eg y to sea t a ju ro r bi as edreg ard in g gu il t i f th e juro r co ul d b e o pe n- m in de d dur in g the pe na lt y ph as e. W at so n c ou ldno t re cal l Brun et ti ’s vo ir d ire , no r co ul d h e rec al l h is reas on s fo r ke ep in g h er o n t he jury. Pres en te d wi th th e rec or d, h e rec og ni zedth athe

“ kn ew th atth ere was no t o nl y gro un ds forcau se , bu t anin vi ta ti on ex te nd edto [Watso n b y

th e co urt] forcau se .” Bu t, Wats on tes ti fie d, “ Obv io us ly I m ad e a de ci si on to ke ep [Brune tt i]. . . . Wha t fa ct or s I was co ns id eri ng an d wh ic h o ne s I weig he d m or e h eav il y

th anot he rs I can ’t tel l you . . . .” The Sta te Att orne y

im pl ie d o ne fact or

—tha t Wats on acce pt edBru ne tt i be cau se sh e was rece pt iv e to ps y ch ol og ic al tes ti m on y . W at so n i nt en de d t o c al l a ps y ch ol og is t dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e. On the st an d, Wats on ne it he r co nf irmed
no r de ni edth e im

pl ic at io n. Ra th er, h e o bs erv edth at“ sh e se em edto be cert ai nl y no t an ta go ni st ic to ps y ch ol og is ts or p sycho lo gy.” The co urt re

jecte d Harve y ’s arg um en t tha t Wats on ’s fai lu re t o c ha ll en ge Bru ne tt i co ns ti tu te d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e, an d d en ie d re li ef. In i ts Marc h 1 7, 2 0
The c ourt’s orde r also denie d relief to Harve y ’s other c laims. 2 0 2719 93 ord er d eny in g re li ef, the co urt d idno t p ro vi de reas on s fo r it s d eci si on , bu t, 2 1 in st ead , att ach eda 20 0 p ag e ap pe nd ix as s up po rt. Th e o nl y po rti on s o f th e ap pe nd ix rel ev an t t o Wats on ’s dec is io n t o k eep Bru ne tt i wer e si x p ag es of Bru ne tt i’s v oi r di re. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er, h ol di ng th atth ere was co m

pe te ntan d s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t o s up po rt the lo wer co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t d efen se co un se l m ad e a rea so nabl e d eci si on no t t o c ha ll en ge Bru ne tt i b as edon hi s s tra te gy of at te m pt in g t o fi nd juro rs li ke ly to re co m

m en d ali fe s en te nc e in st eadof t he de ath pe na lt y . Thu s, Harv ey

ha s fa il edto de m on st rat e th atco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntdurin g t he vo ir d ire
. Harv ey v. Du gg er, 6 56 So . 2d12 53 , 12 56 (Fl a. 19 95 ). B. Harv ey cla im s t ha t Wats on ’s fai lu re t o c ha ll en ge Bru ne tt i ei th er pe rem pt or il y or f orcau se co ns ti tu te d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l. To p rev ai l, Harv ey ha d t o p ro ve (1) de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce an d (2 ) pr ejud ic e. Str ic kl an d v
. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 74 (19 84 ). The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t Wats on ’s dec is io n was so un d t ria l s tra te gy

The orde r re ads: 2 1 Orde red a nd Adjudg ed . . . . Tha

t after an evide ntiary

hearing on Claim I B. [i neff ective a ssistance of c ounsel reg ardingBr unetti] of def

endant’ s motion, the court de termines that def

endant is not entitled to relief , defe ndant havingneither proven se rious err ors that denied him of his right to counsel nor ac tual prejudice that deprive d him of a fa ir trial.” 28an d t hu s d idno t co ns id er St ric kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng . Harve y , 65 6 S o. 2 d a t

12 56 . Havi ng rul edonth e m eri ts of Ha rv ey ’s cla im , th e co urt’s ru li ng rece iv es AEDPA defe ren ce an d c anon ly be d is tu rb edif i t was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). As we s ta te d i n p artII.B, th e b ou nd s o f co ns ti tu ti on al ly effect iv e as si st an ce of co un se l ar e v ery wid e. An at to rn ey ’s act io ns are s ou ndtri al st rat eg y , andth us effe ct iv e, if

a reas on ab le att orne y

co ul d h av e ta ke n t he same acti on s. See , e.g., W il li am s v . Head , 18 5 F .3d12 23 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). W e ev al ua te juro r se le ct io n c la im s as we wou ldan y ot he r Stric kl an d c la im . See, e.g ., Baldwin v. Jo hn so n, 1 52 F.3d13 04 , 13 15 –1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ; Sm it h v . Geari ng er, 8 88 F.2d 13 34 , 13 37 –3 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9)
. 1. Harv ey fir starg ue s t ha t s ou ndtri al st rat eg y canne ve r in cl ud e se at in g a bi as edjuro r wit ho utth e d efen da nt ’s con se nt . The l og ic of h is arg um en t fo ll ows se ve ral st ep s. Fi rs t, a cr im in al de fen da ntha s a S ix th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o atri al by
anim pa rti al jury. Seco nd , li ke a gu il ty ple a, th e d efen da ntm us t p ers on al ly w ai ve th is rig ht . Thir d, co un se l’s tria l s tra te gy is t he refo re s ou ndon ly if th e d efen da nt pe rs on al ly con se nt s t o t he sea ti ng of t he bi as edjuro r. Fou rth , th e rec or d d oe s n ot sh ow t ha t Harve y

co ns en te d. Ci ti ng a Si xt h C irc ui t d eci si on on po in t, Hu gh es v.

29Uni te d S ta te s, 2 58 F.3d45 3, 4 63 (6t h C ir. 2 00 1) , Harv ey cla im s t ha t h is m

ur de r co nv ic ti on s ca nn otst an d. Fro m a fi rs t p rin ci pl e, co nc ed in g g ui ltan d fo cu si ng on th e p en al ty pha se is
a v al idtri al st rat eg y

forStr ic kl an d a na lysis . W ith o ve rwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f gu il t, itis oft entri al co un se l’s o nl y ch an ce t o s pa re the cap it al de fen da nt ’s li fe. See Fl or id a v . Nix on , 54 3 U.S. 1 75 , 19 1, 1 25 S. Ct. 5 51 , 56 2, 1 60 L. Ed. 2d56 5 (2 00 4) (“ [A]voi di ng ex ecu ti on [m ay be ] th e b es t an d o nl y

real is ti c res ul t p os si bl e” be cau se “ [p ]ros ecu to rs are m or e li ke ly to s eekth e d eat h p en al ty . . . whenth e ev id en ce i s o ve rwh el m in g a ndth e cri m e h ei no us .”); Hig ht owe r v. Sc ho fie ld , 36 5 F.3 d 1 00 8, 1 03 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ Co un se l t es ti fie d . . . th atth ei r st rat eg y was t o sa ve Hig ht owe r’s li fe, rat he r th anto see k a n a cqui tt al . This was areas on ab le st rat eg ic ch oi ce, g iv enth atHig ht owe r co nf es se d t o t he m

ur de rs . . . .”), v acat ed
an d re m an de d o n o th er g ro un ds , 54 5 U.S. 1 12 4, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 92 9, 1 62 L. Ed. 2d 86 3 (2 00 5)
. The refo re, tria l co un se l m ay va li dl y sel ectjuro rs he or s he be li ev es are o pe n to li fe i m pr is on m en t o r are rece pt iv e to a pa rti cu la r m it ig at io n d efen se . Howev er, tri al co un se l m

us t co ns ul t wi thth e cap it al de fen da ntab ou t “ qu es ti on s o f
ov erar ch in g d efen se st rat eg y .” Nix on , 54 3 U.S. at18 7, 1 25 S. Ct. at56 0 (“ An at to rn ey un do ub te dl y

ha s a dut y

to co ns ul t wi th th e cl ie ntreg ard in g ‘im po rta nt 30de ci si on s,’ in cl ud in g que st io ns of o ve rarc hi ng de fen se st rat eg y .” (quo ti ng

Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 52 )); see als o Hi gh to wer, 3 65 F.3dat 10 39 (“ Co un se l o nl y

pu rs ue d t hi s s en te nc e-fo cu se d s tra te gy after di sc us si ng it with Hi gh to wer an d g ai ni ng hi s ap pr ov al .”). Harv ey ’s cla im

fai ls at t hi s l as t p ie ce— ev id en ce o f co ns en t. Harv ey arg ue s th at , bec au se th e rec or d s ho ws n o e vi de nc e o f co ns en t, we m us t p res um e th athe
ne ve r co ns en te d. Th is arg um en t turns th e Stric kl an d b ur de n o f pr oo f on it s h ead
. It i s t he pe ti ti on er’s b ur de n t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce p ro vi ng tri al co un se l’s de fic ie nc y . Kim

m el m anv. Mo rri so n, 4 77 U.S. 36 5, 3 84 , 10 6 S . Ct. 2 57 4, 2 58 8, 91 L. Ed. 2d30 5 (1 98 6) ; Ro ge rs v. Zan t, 1 3 F .3d38 4, 3 86 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). The reco rdis si le ntreg ard in g Harve y ’s con se ntor l ackth ereo f. The t ria l
co urt h el d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng on Marc h 1 1, 1 99 3 o n t he cla im th atW at so n’s de ci si on to acce ptBru ne tt i co ns ti tu te d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l. Harv ey 2 2 di d n ottes ti fy

at t he he ari ng . W at so n d id , bu t h e was no t as ke d wh ethe r he ob ta in edHarv ey ’s con se ntto Bru ne tt i’s s el ect io n. Th e rec or d o f th e h eari ng is

The Mar ch 11, 1993 evide ntiary hearing is the only

rele vant moment for pur

poses of 2 2 evaluating Watson’s dec ision to acce pt Brune tti as a juror. Our task on habe as re view is to revie w the F lorida Supreme Court’ s decision in light of the evidenc e bef ore it at the time. The court re jected H arve y ’s B runetti claim in its 1995 decision, Harve y v. Dug g er, 656 So. 2d 1253 (F la. 1995), at which point, it only had the r ecor d of the Mar ch 11, 1993 evide ntiary hearing befor e it. 31acco rd in gl y

si le nton th e que st io n o f whe th er Wats on di sc us se d h is de ci si on to acce ptBru ne tt i wi th Harv ey . 2 3 W it h t he reco rdsi le nt , we can no t as su m e th atW at so n d idno t co ns ul t wi th Harv ey . See Will ia m s, 1 85 F.3dat 1 22 8 (“ [W] he re the reco rdis in co m pl et e o r un cl ear abo ut[tr ia l co un se l’s] acti on s, we wi ll pre su m e th athe di d wh athe sh ou ld ha ve do ne , andth athe ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.”) . In s ho rt, Harv ey ha s n otm ethi s b ur de n h ere. 2. Harv ey ne xtarg ue s tha t, ev enif s ou ndtri al st rat eg y co ul d e nc om

pa ss se at in g abi as edjuro r, W at so n’s t es ti m on y at t he Marc h 1 1, 1 99 3 h eari ng do es no t de m on st rat e an y

st rat eg y . At th e h eari ng , W at so n t es ti fie d, I can no t re m em

be r th is juro r, no r can I te ll y ouwhatfact or s I was co ns id eri ng in m ak in g t he de ci si on to ke ep he r. Obv io us ly I m ad e a de ci si on to ke ep he r. Obv io us ly from th e rec or d I kne w th atth ere was no t o nl y

gro un ds forcau se , bu t an in vi ta ti onex te nd edto m e fo r cau se an d o bv io us ly I m ad e a d eci si on . W ha t fa ct or s I was co ns id eri ng an d wh ic h o ne s I wei gh edm or e h eav il y th anot he rs I can ’t tel l you a t thi s p oi nt . Harv ey arg ue s t ha t thi s s ta te m en t i s m erel y “po st -h oc sp ecu la ti on ,” an d t ha t we sh ou ldfol lo w th e Fi fth Cir cu it ’s rul in g i n Vi rg il v. Dretke , 44 6 F .3d59 8 (5 th
Watson’s testimony

did cover Har vey ’s conse nt reg ardingWatson’s openingstatement 2 3 to the jury , another

issue in this appeal. 32Ci r. 20 06 ). In Vi rg il , tri al co un se l fa il edeit he r to qu es ti onfurth er o r ch al le ng e

two ve ni re p ers on s wh os e v oi r di re s ug ge st edbi as . Id. at60 9– 10 . The Fi fth Ci rcu itreject edtri al co un se l’s “ co nc lu so ry affi davi t” (in tro du cedto supp ort

2 4
co un se l’s d eci si on ) be cau se it“ la ck [ed ] an y su gg es ti onof atri al st rat eg y forno t us in g p erem

pt ory or f or -cau se ch al le ng es on ” th e p ro sp ect iv e juro rs . Id. at61 0. The Sta te ’s exp la na ti on s wer e si m il arl y reject edas “ aft er-t he -fac t ju st ifi cat io ns ”
un supp orte d b y

th e rec or d. Id . at 6 11
. Thi s ar gu m en t fa il s t o c on si de r th is cir cu it ’s evi de nt ia ry pre su m pt io n tha t co un se l ac te d p ro pe rly. T o g iv e tr ia l co un se l p ro pe r de fere nc e, th is cir cu it pr es um es th attri al co un se l p ro vi de d e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e. W il li am s, 1 85 F.3dat 12 27 –2 8. An d i t i s t he pe ti ti on er’s b ur de n t o p ers ua de us ot he rwis e. See St ewart v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 47 6 F .3d11 93 , 12 09 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ Bas edon th is

The re levant portion of the a ffidavit re ad: 2 4 Ispent approximately thirty (30) minutes talkingto and questioningthe jury in this case. I

was a ble to ask all of the que stions that Ithought we re nece ssary to determine if the re w as any prejudiceor bias ag ainst my client. I was also able to que stion the potential jurors reg ardingany issues that Ithought might arise in this ca se. In deter mining the f

inal jurors, I

used all per emptory

strikes that wer e available to me. Ihave r eviewe d the re cord a nd confirme d the number of strikes I used in this case. I

struck all per sons whom I thought ha d some ty

pe of bia s, prejudice or issue base d upon my voir dire. Virg il v. Dretke, 446 F .3d 598, 610 (5th Cir. 2006). 33st ro ng pre su m pt io n o f co m

pe te ntass is ta nc e, th e p et it io ne r’s bu rd enof p ers ua si on is a he av y on e . . . .”). Harv ey ’s arg um en t re qu ire s u s t o “ tu rn[th is ] pr es um pt io n o n i ts he ad .” W il li am s, 1 85 F.3dat 1 23 5. Will ia m s p ro vi de s a u se fu l an al og ue . There , th e pe ti ti on er faul te d t ria l co un se l fo r no t re co gn iz in g re d fl ag s dur in g h is in ve st ig at io n fo r m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Id . at 1 23 4. Atth e p os t-c on vi ct io n he ari ng —t eny ears lat er—tri al co un se l co ul d n otreca ll hi s co nv ers at io ns with t he pe ti ti on er, b utass um edth athe ask edrel ev an t que st io ns . Id. “ Giv enth e la ckof cl ari ty of th e rec or d,” th e co urt p res um edth attri al co un se l m ad e th e ap pr op ria te in qu iri es . Id. at12 35
. Here, Wats on cle arl y

co ul d n otreca ll why he ch os e to acce ptBru ne tt i as a juro r. His lac k o f m em ory is un de rs ta nd ab le ; the ev id en ti ary he ari ng oc cu rred
ne arl y sev eny ears aft er Wats on m ad e h is de ci si on . Like th e p et it io ne r in W il li am s, Harv ey

im pr op erl y see ks to dra w an i nf

eren ce i n h is fav or

fro m W at so n’s p oo r rec ol le ct io n. Rel ia nc e o n Vi rg il is mis pl acedforth e sa m e rea so n. Th e Fi fth Cir cu it fau lt edtri al co un se l’s af

fid av itas “ co nc lu so ry ” an d fo r it s “ fai l[u re] to in di cat e why for-c au se ch al le ng es were n otus ed .” Virg il , 44 6 F .3dat 6 10 . This lan gu ag e su gg es ts th atth e Fi fth Cir cu it ’s juri sp ru de nc e wil l g iv e th e p et it io ne r th e b en efi t o f 34tri al co un se l’s s ho rt m em ory . Bin di ng pre ced en t p rev en ts us fro m de vi at in g to ward s s uc h ast an da rd . See Will ia m s, 1 85 F.3dat 1 22 7– 28 (“ [W] he re the reco rd is in co m pl et e o r un cl ear . . . we wil l p res um e th at[tr ia l co un se l] di d wh athe sh ou ldha ve do ne , andth athe ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.”) ; s ee al so Ch an dl er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 18 F.3d13 05 , 13 14 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (en ba nc ). 3. Fi na ll y , Harv ey

arg ue s t ha t we s ho ul d n otde fer t o Wats on ’s strat eg y reg ard in g B ru ne tt i b ecau se it“ di rect ly und erm in edsev eral pu rp orte d s tra te gi es th atW at so n c la im s h e em pl oyed dur in g tria l.” Br . App el la nt39 , May 5, 2 00 9. Fi rs t, Harv ey

cla im s t ha t Wats on ’s Bru ne tt i s tra te gy—se le ct in g ajuro r li ke ly to v ot e ag ai ns t the de ath p en al ty—co nf li ct edwith Wats on ’s strat eg y of pe rs ua di ng th e jury fin d Harve y gu il ty of th e le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se , sec on dde gr ee m ur de r. Duri ng vo ir d ire , Bru ne tt i s ta te d t ha t s he be li ev edth atHarv ey was gu il ty of fi rs t-d eg ree m

ur de r. W at so n t es ti fie d b rie fly at th e March11 , 19 93 he ari ng ab ou t h is gu il t- 2 5 ph as e strat eg y :
The August 1998 evidentiary hearing is immateria l to the outcome of the B runetti issue. 2 5 See supra note 22. 35It wo ul d b e m y reco ll ect io n t od ay

th atI di sc us se d wi th [Harv ey ] wha t I was go in g t o a rg ue , whethe r I was go in g t o a rg ue no t g ui lty or a le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se . I wou ldbe sh oc ke d t o l earn th atwe ne ve r co m m un ic at edth at . I do ub t I wen t o ve r th e sp eci fic st at em en ts an d th e o pe ni ng st at em en t wi th hi m .

. . . . Inph as e o ne fro m

read in g abi t o f th e o pe ni ng th atI read , itis ob vi ou s t ha t I was arg ui ng forsec on d d eg ree m ur de r rathe r th anfir st de gr ee m ur de r whi chI fel t was th e o nl y po ss ib il it y . Bu t Wats onals o t es ti fie d tha t h e d idno t b el ie ve th athi s s eco nd -d eg ree m ur de r arg um en t wo ul d p ers ua de th e jury. Onc e th e tr ia l co urt ru le d Harve y ’s
co nf es si on adm is si bl e, W at so n b el ie ve d t ha t h e was pi ck in g a“pu re p ha se two jury”—p ha se two be in g t he pe na lt y ph as e. Becaus e Harv ey ’s con fes si on was

“ co m pr eh en si ve ,” W at so n “ di d[ no t] hav e anexpe ct at io n o f a n otgu il ty verd ic t.” As a re su lt , W at so n—who tri edHarv ey ’s cas e wit ho utco co un se l—

be li ev edth athe ne ed edto “ es tabl is h c red ib il it y with t he jury, ” whi ch
wou ldde ci de Harv ey ’s gu il t an d re co m m en d asen te nc e. W it ho utcred ib il it y , W at so n fe aredth atth e jury woul d fi ndhi m “ in si nc ere” an d fu rth er h arm Harv ey ’s ch an ce fo r m ercy. W at so n’s t es ti m on y do es no t s pe ci fic al ly lin k “ cred ib il it y ” wit h hi s s eco nd -d eg ree m

ur de r st rat eg y . Buthi s t es ti m on y im pl ie s t ha t a s eco nd -d eg ree m ur de r strat eg y

was t he on ly pos si bl e g ui ltph as e arg um en t tha t ac kn owl ed ge d t he
va li di ty of Harv ey ’s con fes si on an d c ou ldav oi d acap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on . 36Acco rd in g t o Harve y , sel ect in g B ru ne tt i—who be li ev edHarv ey to be gu il ty of fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r—d ire ct ly und erm in edth is gu il t-p ha se strat eg y of a rg ui ng fo r se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r. Ther efo re, Watso n’s p ur po rte d tria l s tra te gy cou ldno t ha ve be en“ so un d.” Harv ey ’s arg um en t co ns tru es W at so n’s s tra te gy too na rro wly. Acco rd in g t o W at so n, Harve y ’s con fes si on do om edan y ch an ce fo r acqui tt al an d n earl y any ch an ce o f co nv ic ti on foran yth in g o th er tha n fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r. Ther efo re, h is

“ st rat eg y ” was si m

pl y to sav e Harv ey ’s li fe. Inco nt ex t, i t ap pe ars th atco nc ed in g se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r was no t a s tand -al on e st rat eg y , bu t ra th er a way to b ui ld cred ib il it y

with t he jury. Brune tt i’s b el ie f th atHarv ey was g ui lt y

of f irs t-d eg ree m ur de r was th us imm at eri al to W at so n’s o ve ral l s tra te gy to s av e Harv ey ’s li fe. Seco nd , Harv ey

arg ue s t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t W at so n k ep t Brun et ti be cau se sh e wou ldbe rece pt iv e to ps y ch ol og ic al ev id en ce was sp ecu la ti ve an d t he refo re erro ne ou s b ecau se W at so n d idno t h ire a ps y ch ia tri st . This arg um en t i s al so un av ai li ng . Alth ou gh W at so n d idno t ca ll a ps y ch ia tri st , he d idcal l Dr. Fra nkPetril la , a ps y ch ol og is t, t o p ro vi de a ch arac te r pr of il e o f Harv ey . Dr. Petri ll a te st ifi edth at , am on g o th er thi ng s, Harv ey ha d l ow se lf- es te em , was a fo ll owe r, an d h adpo orab st ractth in ki ng sk il ls . Som eo ne rece pt iv e to ps y ch ol og ic al tes ti m on y m ig hthe ar thi s i nf

orm at io n a ndvi ew th e 37de fen da ntas wo rth y of m ercy. W e th us can no t s ay th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt act edun reas on ab ly in re ach in g t he fin di ng of wh ic h Harve y co m pl ai ns . Last ly, Harv ey

arg ue s tha t Brun et ti ’s equ iv oc al st at em en ts reg ard in g the de ath p en al ty w ere i ns uf

fic ie ntto jus ti fy

W at so n’s p ur

po rte d p en al ty-ph as e st rat eg y . As in di cat edab ov e, Bru ne tt i ex pl ai ne d h er v ie w of t he de ath p en al ty as:

“ I’m ki ndof c on fu se d o n t he de ath p en al ty after l is te ni ng to all of t he se di ffer en t pe op le . I th in k i t’s a d et erre ntbe cau se a pe rs on wou ldno t b e ab le to ge t o utto do th e sa m e th in g a ga in . ButI do n’t n eces sa ril y be li ev e th attwo wron gs m ak e a rig ht .” Brune tt i d idno t s ay th atsh e fav or edth e d eat h p en al ty; ne it he r di d s he say th atsh e was ag ai ns t the de ath p en al ty. Whi le he r st at em en ts di d n otst ro ng ly
supp ort Wats on ’s pu rp orte d s tra te gy, the y di d n otwho ll y

co nt rad ic t i t ei th er. Stric kl an d re qu ire s t ha t we d efer to tri al co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce an d e sc he w “ th e di st orti ng effe ct s o f hi nd si gh t.” 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 . W it h t ha t co m m an d i n m in d, we cann otsay tha t a c om pe te ntatt orne y

wou ldha ve in ferr ed fro m Bru ne tt i’s s ta te m en t a wi ll in gn es s t o v ot e fo r th e d eath p en al ty. W e th eref

or e can no t fi ndth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt u nr eas on ab ly ap pl ie d fe de ral law wh enitde te rm in edth atHarv ey fai le d t o s ho w th atW at so n was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ine ffec ti ve foracce pt in g B ru ne tt i. IV. 38Harv ey ne xtarg ue s tha t Wats on was c on st itut io na ll y de fic ie ntforco nc ed in g Harv ey ’s gu il t t o fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r du rin g h is op en in g s ta te m en t t o t he jury. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t hi s cl ai m

be cau se itfou ndth atHarv ey co ul d
no t p ro ve th e p reju di ce p ro ng of S tri ck la ndv. Wash in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 8, 69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 2 06 8, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 74 (19 84 ). Harv ey v. St at e, 94 6 So . 2d93 7, 9 43 –4 4 (F la . 20 06 ). A. On t he fir stda y

of tria l, Wats on ga ve hi s o pe ni ng st at em en t t o t he jury. The re, aft er i nd ic at in g wh atth e St at e’s ev id en ce wo ul d s ho w, he s ta te d t ha t s uc h
ev id en ce wo ul d e st ab li sh th atHarv ey was g ui lt y

of s eco nd -d eg ree m

ur de r. The rel ev an t p orti on of Wats on ’s op en in g s ta te m en t re ad s:

Haro ldLee Harv ey

is gu il ty of m

ur de r. If an yth in g i s es tabl is he d o ve r th e n ex t wee k, i t wi ll be th atHaro ldLee Harv ey is gu il ty of m

ur de r. I ha ve be endo in g d efen se workforso m e ti m e. I’ve n ev er s ai d th atin a co urt o f la w, th atm y cli en t i s g ui lt y

of m ur de r. Bu t h e is
. Tha t d oe sn ’t by an y

m ean s en d your co ns id erat io n o f hi s ca se . The ph y si cal actth athe co m

m it te d was th athe pu ll edth e tr ig ge r on what was anau to m at ic m il it ary weap on fir in g i t i nt o aroo m , di sc ha rg in g pr ojec ti le s tha t h ithu m anbe in gs an d k il le d t he m . Now, wh atev en ts lea d up t o tha t? Wha t ev en ts pl ace t hi s y ou ng m anin th atch ai r in th is roo m be fo re the se 14 pe op le to de te rm in e n otwhet he r orno t h e’s a m ur de rer b utm erel y

whattype o f m ur de rer h e is ?

. . . .
39Bu t the ev id en ce wi ll sh ow t ha t thi s ca se is th e st ory of a ro bb ery, a ro bb ery th atwentve ry ba dl y . I bel ie ve th e ev id en ce wi ll sh ow t ha t af

te r th atrob be ry

was c on cl ud eda m

ur de r di d t ak e p la ce. A m ur de r to okpl ace t ha t was th e res ul t o f pa ni c, of fear , of de pr es si on , of l ackof p la nn in g, o f a d ep rav edm in d. Thi s i s t he st ory

of h ow Har ol d Lee Harv ey , Jr. k il le d M r. an d Mrs . Boyd.

. . . . Andth enithapp en edjus t ab ou t the way th atMr. Mo rg an sai d 2 6 itdi d. Whenth ey

go t the re Mr s. Bo y d s ur

pr is edth em . She was ou ts id e th e h ou se . She was o n h er way ou t t o g etth e g arb ag e, th ey di dn ’t hav e ti m e to pu t the ir m as ks on . Mrs . Boyd cam e up t o the m , it was , I be li ev e, sh ortl y

be fo re n ig ht fal l, an d a sk edth em at t he fro nt do or , “ Wha t ar e y oudo in g o uthe re? ” AndSti te le r lo ok edat [Harv ey ] an d [Ha rv ey ] lo ok edat S ti te le r an d the y kn ew th atth in gs were s ta rti ng to go wron g. An d t he y ha d M rs . Boyd wal k b ackin to th e h ou se an d M r. Bo y d was inth e h ou se an d t he y to ldth em , “ W e wan t yourm on ey .” AndSti te le r ran aro un d t he ho us e, al l thr ou ghth e ho us e lo ok in g fo r th is cach e o f m on ey , whi le [Harv ey ] wen t i nt o the be dr oo m with M r. an d M rs . Boyd. Mr. an d M rs . Boyd th enga ve Lee wha t l it tl e b itth ey

ha d, wh ic h was ab ou t $ 30 or $ 40 at the ti m e. They di dn ’t hav e an y

st as h o f m on ey

th ere. An d S ti te le r ne ve r di d fi ndth e st as h o f m on ey

an d t he y cam e d own an d t he y

co m pl et edth e ro bb ery. Andli tt le fact s co m e o utincas es th atare al way s s om et im es m or e in di cat iv e o f wha t’s re al ly goi ng on an d i s m or e in di cat iv e ab ou t the hu m anbe in gs in vo lv edth anwhatth e rea l p la n was th anot he r th in gs . Andth e li tt le factinth is cas e is Mr. Bo y d a sk edfor m on ey for ch ur ch , itwas Sa tu rd ay . Andhe sai d, “ I ha ve to go to ch ur ch to m orro w, y ou ’re tak in g a ll m y m on ey .” Afte r al l, h e’s th in ki ng th is is th e n ei gh bo r ki d. I kno w th is ki d, h e li ve s o ve r th ere. What ’s th is craz y ki d d oi ng ? AndLee g av e h im ba ckm on ey

forch ur ch , bec au se he di dn ’t pl anto ki ll hi m . Bu t the n t he y

wentou ts id e. Andat t ha t t im e St it el er h adth e im po si ng weap on an d Lee ha d t he ha nd gu n. An d a t tha t p oi ntth ey be ga n t hi s fr en zi edco nv ers at io n. Th ey were jus t o ut si de th e h om e
Assistant St ate Attorne y David Morg an. 2 6 40an d t he do or was h al f op en . They as ke d M r. an d M rs . Boyd to si t do wn ata cardtab le in th e ro om , andy ou ’ll s ee p ic tures of the roo m . Andth ey ha d t hi s co nv ers at io n andwitho utqu es ti on whatwas di sc us se d dur in g t hi s co nv ers at io n was whet he r orno t t o k il l the se two pe op le . This is a craz y co nv ers at io n fo r th es e two y ou ng m ento be ha vi ng bu t tha t’s wh atitha d g ot te n t o. Init s M arch 17 , 19 93 ord er, the tri al co urt d en ie d, wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Harv ey ’s cla im

th atW at so n re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y co nc ed in g th atHarv ey

was g ui lty

of s eco nd -d eg ree m

ur de r. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t anev id en ti ary he ari ng was n eces sa ry , ho wev er, an d re m an de d t he cl ai m forth atpu rp os e. Harv ey v. Du gg er, 6 56 So . 2d12 53 , 12 56 (Fl a. 19 95 ). The ev id en ti ary he ari ng to okpl ace i n Au gu st19 98 . There , W at so n t es ti fie d th athi s s tra te gy focu se d o n p res erv in g c red ib il it y with t he jury. Cred ib il it y requi reda co ns is te ntde fen se be twee n t he gu il t p ha se an d— be cau se Harv ey ’s
co nf es si on m ad e acqui tt al un li ke ly—th e p en al ty pha se . Con ced in g s eco nd -d eg ree m ur de r ach ie ve d t hi s g oa l. He al so tes ti fie d t ha t h e to ldHarv ey ab ou t thi s st rat eg y . Harve y

to okth e st an d a ndde ni edth atW at so n c on su lt edhi m ab ou t the
co nc es si on st rat eg y . Stev e Sam il ow, a m em be r of th e te am of l awy ers who ha d rep res en te d Harve y

at t he Marc h 1 1, 1 99 3 h eari ng , tes ti fie d t ha t h e fo un d n ot hi ng in W at so n’s fi le s i nd ic at in g Harve y ’s con se ntto th e st rat eg y . Andrea Lyon, an
ex pe rt i n d efen di ng de fen da nt s ch arg edwith c ap it al m ur de r, sa idth atm erel y
41in fo rm in g t he de fen da ntof aco nc es si on st rat eg y was i ns uf

fic ie nt ; an att orne y wou ldbe un reas on ab le to in fer c on se ntfro m th e d efen da nt ’s si le nc e. The tri al co urt ag ai n d en ie d Harve y ’s cla im , init s o rd er o f Ja nu ary 15 , 19 99
. It fo un d t ha t Wats on di sc us se d t he st rat eg y with Harve y , th atth e st rat eg y 2 7
en ta il edadm it ti ng “ so m e d eg ree o f m ur de r if [Harv ey ’s] co nf

es si on was ru le d adm is si bl e,” tha t Harve y

un de rs to odth e st rat eg y , andth athe th eref or e co ns en te d to it
. As i nd ic at edin pa rt I , on ap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re nd eredtwo de ci si on s re gard in g t hi s cl ai m . In 2 00 3, the co urt re ve rs edth e tr ia l co urt an d
va cat edHarv ey ’s con vi ct io ns an d d eat h s en te nc es . Harve y v. St at e, No. SC 95 07 5, 20 03 Fla . LEXIS 11 40 , at * 16 (Fl a. Ju ly 3, 20 03 ). The co urt fo un d t ha t Wats on ’s op en in g s ta te m en t ad m it te d t ha t Harve y an d S ti te le r di sc us se d wh ethe r to ki ll th e Bo y ds , th us co nc ed in g p rem ed it at edfir st -d eg ree m ur de r. Id. at*1 1. With ou t Harv ey ’s con se nt , th es e st at em en ts were the fun ct io na l equi va le ntof agu il ty ple a. Id . As su ch , W at so n’s o pe ni ng st at em en t p erfo rm an ce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fic ie nt . The co urt the n p res um edpre jud ic e u nd er Un it edSta te s v . Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. 64 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 03 9, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 57 (19 84 ), be cau se W at so n’s

J udg e Ge ige r issued an a mended or der on January 26, 1999. 2 7 42“pe rfo rm an ce fa il edto subjec t the pro se cu ti on ’s cas e to m ean in gf ul adve rs ari al te st in g.” Id. (c it in g At wate r v. St at e, 78 8 S o. 2 d 2 23 , 23 1 (F la . 20 01 )). In20 06 , ho wev er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt wi th dr ew th e Ju ly 3, 20 03 de ci si on an d a cco m

pa nyin g o pi ni on inli gh t o f Fl or id a v . Nix on , 54 3 U.S. 1 75 , 12 5 S . Ct. 5 51 , 16 0 L. Ed. 2 d 5 65 (20 04 ). Harv ey v. St at e, 94 6 S o. 2 d 9 37 , 94 0 (Fl a. 20 06 ). Acco rd in g t o t he co urt, Ni xo n p recl ud edCro ni c’s pr es um edpre jud ic e in cas es in vo lv in g “ co un se l’s co nc es si onof g ui ltto th e cri m e ch arg ed , eve n witho utth e d efen da nt ’s con se nt .” Id . at 9 42 . Rath er, the pe ti ti on er h adto pro ve pr ejud ic e u nd er St ric kl an d’s s eco ndpro ng . Id. App lying th e Stric kl an d s ta nd ard , th e co urt fo un d t ha t Harve y fai le d t o sh ow p reju di ce. Id . at 9 43 –4 4. Acco rd in g t o t he co urt, Wats on ’s gu il t-p ha se de fen se was b as edaro un d Harve y ’s con fes si on , whi ch he kn ew wou ldbe adm it te d attri al . Id. at94 4. Harv ey co nf es se d t o t he m

ur de rs ingre atde ta il , in cl ud in g t he
co nv ers at io n abo utki ll in g t he Bo y ds . Id. Bec au se th e jury woul d h av e h eardth is in fo rm at io n a nyway , th ere was no reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforW at so n’s st at em en ts , th e jury woul d h av e fo un d d iff eren tl y . Id. Inde nyin g Harve y ’s cla im , ho wev er, the co urt h el d t ha t Wats on di d i n fa ct co nc ed e fi rs t-d eg ree m

ur de r. Id. at94 3. Itag ai n p oi nt edto W at so n’s re fere nc e to th e co nv ers at io n b etweenHarv ey an d S ti te le r ab ou t wh ethe r to ki ll th e Bo y ds . Id. 43Tha t l an gu ag e, acc or di ng to th e co urt, was su ffi ci en t t o s ho w pre m ed it at io n, an d

th us fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r. Id. Th is co nc es si on was o f no m om en t, h owe ve r, be cau se th e co urt fo un d n o p reju di ce. Id
. B. Harv ey ch al le ng es th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g o f no pre jud ic e an d, th us , it s d en ia l o f hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m ba se d o n Wats on ’s firs t-d eg ree m ur de r co nc es si on . Harve y be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t Wats on ’s con ces si on was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le an d t ha t b utforth e co nc es si on , a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

ex is ts th atth e o ut co m e o f hi s t ria l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. See Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 87 –8 8, 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 , 20 68 . W e can no t ov erturn t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on reject in g t he cla im un le ss we fin d th atitwas “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y es tabl is he d F ed eral law,” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ), or“ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th at was 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 ,” id . § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). Harv ey fir starg ue s t ha t, b ecau se he ne ve r co ns en te d t o Wats on ’s firs tde gr ee m ur de r co nc es si on , we sh ou ldpre su m e p reju di ce u nd er Cr on ic be cau se W at so n, i n c on ced in g t ha t Harve y was g ui lt y

of f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r, “ fai l[e d] to
subjec t the pro se cu ti on ’s cas e to m ean in gf ul adve rs ari al tes ti ng .” See C ro ni c, 46 6 U.S. at 6 59 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 47 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad op te d thi s ar gu m en t 44in it s 2 00 3 d eci si on , Harv ey , 20 03 Fla . LEXIS 11 40 , at * 16 , bu t re ve rs editin

20 06 in li gh t o f Nix on , Harv ey v. St at e, 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 43 –4 4. Harv ey cla im s t ha t Nix on ’s ho ld in g i s n arro wer an d o nl y ap pl ie s wh ere t ria l co un se l d is cu ss es hi s st rat eg y with h is cli en t; witho utco ns en t o r di sc us si on , we sh ou ldpre su m e pr ejud ic e. To ev al ua te Harv ey ’s cla im , we m us t fi rs t turn t o Ni xo n. InNix on , th e d efen da nt , Nix on , was o n t ria l fo r cap it al m ur de r. 54 3 U.S. at 18 0, 1 25 S. Ct. at55 6. Gi ve n Ni xo n’s co nf es si on an d “ ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e” of hi s g ui lt , id ., Nix on ’s att orne y de te rm in edth atth e o nl y way to av oi d ade ath
se nt en ce was to co nc ed e g ui ltan d fo cu s o n t he pe na lt y ph as e, id . at 1 81 , 12 5 S . Ct. at55 7. Tri al co un se l at te m pt edto ex pl ai n t hi s s tra te gy to Ni xo n andga in hi s co ns en t, b utNix on was u nc oo pe rat iv e an d was ev en tu al ly rem ov edfro m th e co urtro om . Id. at18 1– 82 , 12 5 S . Ct. at55 7. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt v acat ed Nix on ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e aft er fi nd in g t ria l co un se l i ne ffec ti ve for
co nc ed in g g ui ltwitho utth e d efen da nt ’s exp res s co ns en t. Id . at 1 86 –8 7, 1 25 S. Ct. at55 9– 60 . The co urt p res um edpre jud ic e u nd er Cr on ic be cau se itfou ndth atth e co nc es si on “ al lo wedth e p ro se cu ti on ’s gu il t-p ha se cas e to pro ceedess en ti al ly witho utop po si ti on ” an d l eftth e p ro se cu ti on ’s cas e u ne xp os edto “ m ean in gf ul adve rs ari al tes ti ng .” Id . at 1 85 , 12 5 S . Ct. at55 9.

45The Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d is ag reed . Alth ou gh th e Co urt

ackno wled ge d t ha t cr im in al de fen da nt s m us t co ns en t t o g ui lt y

pl eas , id . at 1 87 , 12 5 S . Ct. at56 0, i t d idno t fi ndth e m ur de r co nc es si on to be th e fu nc ti on al equi va le ntof agu il ty ple a, id . at 1 88 , 12 5 S . Ct. at56 1. “Nix on ret ai ne d the rig ht s acco rd eda de fen da ntin a cri m in al tri al
. . . . The St at e was ob li ge d t o p res en t du rin g t he gu il t p ha se co m pe te nt , adm is si bl e ev id en ce . . . .” Id. Tria l co un se l d id
no t ce de th e cas e; he cro ss -ex am in edwitne ss es an d a tt em pt edto ex cl ud e pr ejud ic ia l ev id en ce. Id . There fo re, Nix on ’s exp li ci t co ns en t t o c ou ns el ’s
co nc es si on st rat eg y

was n otrequi red . Id. at18 9, 1 25 S. Ct. at56 1. Fu rth erm or e, th e Co urt h el d t ha t co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was no t s o in effe ct iv e as to pre su m e p reju di ce u nd er Cr on ic . Id. Itex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [t]he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s erro ne ou s equa ti on of [ th e] con ces si on strat eg y to a gu il ty ple a le d i t t o app ly the wron g s tand ardinde te rm in in g wh ethe r co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce ra nk edas i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e.” Id . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d id
no t re qu ire Nix on to pro ve pre jud ic e u nd er St ric kl an d, b utrathe r pr es um ed pr ejud ic e u nd er Cr on ic . Id. The Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d, h owe ve r, th at Cro ni c’s pr es um

pt io n was a “ na rro w exc ep ti on ” to Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce requi rem en t wh ere “ co un se l h as en ti rel y fai le d t o fu nc ti on as t he cli en t’s advo cat e.” Id . at 1 89 –9 0, 1 25 S. Ct. at56 1– 62 . The co nc es si on st rat eg y inNix on 46di d n otfal l i nt o tha t ca te go ry , as t ria l co un se l v ie wedco nc es si on to be th e o nl y

way to sav e Nix on ’s li fe i n t he face of t he pro se cu ti on ’s ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e. Id . at 1 91 –9 2, 1 25 S. Ct. at56 3. Harv ey arg ue s, tho ug h, tha t Ni xo n’s h ol di ng do es no t ap pl y be cau se W at so n ne ve r co ns ul te d wi th hi m reg ard in g afir st -d eg ree m ur de r co nc es si on . He po in ts to la ng ua ge in Nix onim

pl y in g t ha t co ns ul ta ti on is requi redto sh iftfro m Cro ni c’s pr es um edpre

jud ic e to Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce s ho win g. Th e rel ev an t l an gu ag e in Nix onread s: “ Bu t wh ena de fen da nt , in fo rm edby cou ns el , nei th er co ns en ts no r ob jects to th e co ur se co un se l d es cri be s . . . cou ns el is no t au to m at ic al ly barre d fro m pu rs ui ng th atco ur se .” Id . at 1 78 , 12 5 S . Ct. at55 5. Acco rd in g t o Harve y , Nix onis a na rro w ho ld in g t ha t, wh ere t ria l co un se l co nc ed es th e ch arg e in an op en in g s ta te m en t, co urts m us t p res um e p reju di ce u nd er Cr on ic un le ss “ (1 ) th e at to rn ey ful fil ls th e o bl ig at io n o f co ns ul ti ng with t he cli en t ab ou t the st rat eg y an d
as ki ng forco ns en t an d (2 ) th e cl ie ntdo es no t ap pr ov e o r rejectth e st rat eg y be cau se th e cl ie ntis si le ntor u nc oo pe rat iv e.” Br. Ap pe ll an t 5 0. The fai li ng of Harv ey ’s arg um en t l ie s n otwith i ts lo gi c, bu t wi th th e de fere nc e we m

us t af fo rdth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt und er AEDPA. Und er AEDPA, we can g ran t Harve y ’s reque ston ly if th atco urt’s h ol di ng was

“un reas on ab le .” See 2 8 U.S.C. 2 25 4( d) (1 ) (“ A . . . writof h ab eas co rp us . . . sh al l 47no t b e g ran te d . . . . un le ss th e ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m

res ul te d i n ade ci si on th at . . . inv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f[] clea rly est ab li sh edFed eral law

. . . . ”). Nix on canbe readin two equa ll y co m pe ll in g ways. On o ne ha nd , Harv ey ’s qu ot edtex t d oe s s ug ge stth atco ns ul ta ti on co ul d b e th e k ey factth atrequi res Stric kl an d p reju di ce t o b e p res um edun de r Cro ni c. On the ot he r ha nd , th e Co urt em ph as iz edth e d is ti nc ti on be twee n agu il ty ple a an d aco nc es si on st rat eg y : “ The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s erro ne ou s equa ti on of [ th e] con ces si on strat eg y to a gu il ty ple a le d i t t o app ly the wron g s tand ardinde te rm in in g wh ethe r co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce ra nk edas i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e.” Nix on , 54 3 U.S. at18 9, 1 25 S. Ct. at56 1. Th is qu ot edlan gu ag e su gg es ts th atco ns en t i s i rrel ev an t fo r de te rm in in g whe th er the pre

jud ic e co m

po ne ntof a n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m is go ve rn edby Cro ni c’s orStr ic kl an d’s s tand ard
. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt em pl oyed the lat te r st an da rd . W it h t wo equa ll y co m pe ll in g re ad in gs av ai labl e, we can no t co nc lu de th atth e co urt was un reas on ab le forch oo si ng on e rea di ng ov er the ot he r. Fu rth erm or e, Cro ni c’s pr es um edpre jud ic e st an da rdis on ly avai labl e in
ex tre m e ci rcu m st an ces wher e “ co un se l en ti rel y fai ls to subjec t the pro se cu ti on ’s
cas e to m ean in gf

ul adve rs ari al tes ti ng .” Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. at65 9, 1 04 S. Ct. at

4820 47 . The “ fai lu re m us t b e co m

pl et e. . . . [C] ou ns el [m

us t] fail [] to o pp os e th e pr os ecu ti on th ro ug ho utth e . . . pro ceed in g a s a wh ol e,” rat he r th anm erel y “ at sp eci fic po in ts ” in th e p ro ceed in g. Be ll v. Co ne , 53 5 U.S. 6 85 , 69 7, 1 22 S. Ct. 18 43 , 18 51 , 15 2 L. Ed. 2 d 9 14 (20 02 ). Cro ni c it se lf d idno t fi ndde fen se co un se l
co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t ev enth ou gh co un se l was a real est at e atto rn ey ap po in te d to de fen d aco m

pl ex m ai l fr au d c as e wit h o nl y twen ty-fiv e d ay s t o p rep are a de fen se . 46 6 U.S. at66 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 49 ; s ee al so Nix on , 54 3 U.S. at19 0, 1 25 S. Ct . at 5 62 (de sc rib in g t he co un se l i n C ro ni c as “ anin ex pe rie nc ed , un de rp rep aredatt orne y

in a co m pl ex m ai l fr au d tria l” ). Rat he r, th e Cro ni c Co urt p oi nt edto Po well v. Al ab am a, 28 7 U.S. 4 5, 5 3 S
. Ct . 55 , 77 L. Ed. 15 8 (1 93 2) , as aus efu l ca se inpo in t. 4 66 U.S. at 6 60 –6 1, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 04 7– 48 . In Po well , an o ut -o f-s ta te lawyer was ap po in te d o n t he same day
as th e d efen da nt s’ rap e tr ia l ev enaft er the lawyer in fo rm edth e co urt tha t h e was ne it he r aware of t he fact s n orfam il ia r wit h l oc al pro cedur e. 28 7 U.S. at55 , 53 S. Ct . at 5 9. Po well thus pre se nt edanex am pl e whe re “ th e li ke li ho odth atan y la wy er, ev ena fu ll y

co m pe te nton e, co ul d p ro vi de effe ct iv e as si st an ce i s s o s m al l th ata pr es um

pt io n o f pr ejud ic e is ap pr op ria te witho utin qu iry int o t he actua l

49co nduc t o f th e tr ia l.” Cr on ic , 46 6 U.S. at55 9– 60 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 47 . W at so n’s

pe rfo rm an ce cl earl y

m etth atlo w bar
. 2 8 Insu m , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re fu sa l t o d et erm in e Stric kl an d pr ejud ic e u nd er Cr on ic ’s pre su m edpre jud ic e st an da rddi d n otco ns ti tu te a de ci si on th atwas “ co ntrary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y es tabl is he d F ed eral law.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). Thu s, b ecau se he can no t re ly on C ro ni c’s pr es um edpre jud ic e, Harv ey

m us t sh ow t ha t, b utforW at so n’s fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r co nc es si on , th ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th atth e o ut co m e o f hi s t ria l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. Stric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at69 5, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 –6 9. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t W at so n’s o pe ni ng st at em en t m erel y res ta te d fa ct s tha t the jury wou ldso on he ar whe n the Sta te in tro du cedHarv ey ’s con fes si on in to ev id en ce. Harv ey , 94 6 S o. 2 d at94 3– 44 . There fo re, acc or di ng to th e co urt, ev enwitho utW at so n’s o pe ni ng st at em en t, i nc lu di ng th e m ur de r co nc es si on , th e jury sti ll wou ldha ve he ardth at Harv ey an d S ti te le r co nf

erre d abo utwhethe r to ki ll th e Bo y ds , aft er wh ic h Harve y sh otan d k il le d t he m . Id.

Putti ngaside his openingstatement to the jury , Watson’s perfor mancethroughout trial 2 8 was not such that he eff

ectively cea sed to repr esent Ha

rvey . Watson contested the admission of Har vey ’s conf

ession, cross-e x amined witnesses, a nd objected to pr ejudicial evide nce he thought was inadmissible. Consideringthe re cord a s a whole, w e ca nnot say that Watson “entirely failed” to contest the prose cution’s ca se ag ainst Harve y . 50W e can no t s ay th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s St ric kl an d fi nd in g o f no pr ejud ic e co ns ti tu te d “ anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). The St at e’s ev id en ce ag ai ns t Harve y was o ve rwh el m in g and in cl ud edhi s o wn co nf

es si on . Und er s uc h c irc um st an ces , itwou ldbe ve ry di ffi cu lt to see ho w th e o ut co m e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t h adW at so n n ot co nc ed edHarv ey ’s gu il t, as ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. See Nix on , 54 3 U.S. at 19 2, 1 25 S. Ct. at56 3 (“ [C]ou ns el can no t b e d eem edin effe ct iv e fo r at te m pt in g t o im pr es s t he jury with h is can do r an d h is un wil li ng ne ss to en ga ge in‘ a u se le ss ch arad e’ [by

fai li ng to co nc ed e o ve rwh el m in g g ui lt ]. ” (quo ti ng Cro ni c, 46 6 U.S. at 65 6 n .19 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 46 n.1 9) ). Harv ey att em pt s t o p oi ntus away

fro m th is co nc lu si on . His f

irs t ar gu m en t fo r actua l p reju di ce re st at es hi s ar gu m en t tha t Cr on ic ’s pre su m edpre jud ic e sh ou ld ap pl y . As we ex pl ai ne d, Cr on ic ’s pre su m edpre jud ic e o nl y

ap pl ie s wh ere t ria l
co un se l en ti rel y

fai le d t o c ha ll en ge th e p ro se cu ti on ’s cas e; W at so n’s p erfo rm an ce do es no t fa ll withi n t ha t ca te go ry . Seco nd , Harv ey

arg ue s t ha t Wats on ’s clo si ng st at em en t dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e co nc ed edth e ag gr av at in g fa ct or s atis su e. Thi s ar gu m en t h as two fat al fla ws. Fo r on e, Harv ey

di d n otm en ti on th is cla im inhi s m ot io n fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ty. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt’s ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y di d n otau th or iz e 51Harv ey

to ap pe al th e cl ai m . The o th er fl aw is th atth is pre jud ic e arg um en t d oe s no t ad dr es s t he pre

jud ic e su ffer edbe cau se of Wats on ’s con ces si on of g ui lt
. Rat he r, itpo in ts ou t a c om pl et el y sep arat e p erfo rm an ce erro r—a dm it ti ng ag gr av at in g fa ct or s— an d a tt rib ut es th e p os si bl e p reju di ce fr om th aterro r to W at so n’s g ui ltco nc es si on . This is no t p ro pe r Stric kl an d a na lysis . Harve y m us t sh ow p reju di ce fl owi ng fro m W at so n’s co nc es si on of g ui lt , whi chhe ha s n otdo ne . Thi rd , Harv ey

att em pt s t o s ho w pre

jud ic e b y po in ti ng to hi s at to rn ey ’s

“ en do rs em en t” of l eg al co nc lu si on s— “ ‘gui lt y ,’ ‘ m ur de r,’ ‘prem ed it at io n,’ ‘rob be ry ,’ ‘ bu rg la ry ,’ an d ‘ki dn ap in g.’” But, Harv ey do es no t ex pl ai n h ow t he se co nc es si on s caus edactua l p reju di ce. He ci te s Fr an ces v. Sp rag gi ns , 72 0 F .2d 11 90 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ), fo r th e p ro po si ti onth atde fen se co un se l’s p ers on al be li ef ab ou t g ui ltis ne ces sa ril y

pre jud ic ia l. Sp rag gi ns , ho wev er, co nc ern eda ve ry di ffer en t ci rcu m st an ce. The re, the cap it al de fen da ntde ni edhi s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he cri m e an d t oo k t he st an d, t es ti fy in g t o tha t en d. Sp rag gi ns , 72 0 F .2dat 1 19 4. Hi s at to rn ey , ho wev er, u nd erm in edhi s t es ti m on y by say in g tha t h e b el ie ve d the de fen da ntto be gu il ty. Id. No th in g o f th e so rt h ap pe ne d h ere. Harv ey co nf es se d to th e fac ts W at so n l ai d o utin hi s o pe ni ng st at em en t; res ta ti ng th es e fac ts co ul d
no t h av e u nd erm in edHarv ey ’s no n- ex is te nttri al tes ti m on y .

52W it hi n t hi s ar gu m en t, Harv ey cit es W at so n’s re fere nc es to hi s “ ev il ” act io ns , referrin g t o the m ur de r as “ rep ul si ve ” an d “ th e p ro du ctof ade pr av ed
m in d.” Thi s ar gu m en t fa il s fo r th e sa m e rea so n a s h is sec on d p reju di ce arg um en t— itrefe rs to a se pa rat e p erfo rm an ce d efi ci en cy . The d efi ci en cy at i ss ue is W at so n’s co nc es si onof g ui lt . Thes e fai lures —“ ev il ,” “ de pr av ed ,” an d

“ rep ul si ve ”—a re n otpo or co ns eque nc es th atflo wedfro m W at so n’s co nc es si on . The y all eg e se parat e ep is od es of a ll eg ed ly ine ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. Fu rth erm or e, Harv ey

tak es W at so n’s wo rd s o utof c on te xt . In the ir p ro pe r co nt ex t, ea chwordform s p artof aco he ren t s tra te gy. “ Evi l” refe ren cedwhatwas se t i n m ot io n b y

Harv ey an d S ti te le r’s bo tc he d ro bb ery—cle arl y anatt em ptto fo res ha do w th atev en ts were g oi ng to sp ira l b ey on d Harve y ’s con tro l.

“ Rep ul si ve ” ref

erre d t o m

ur de r, ge ne ral ly, fo ll owe d b y a pl ea t o t he jury no t t o “ le t th atrep ul si on carry

in to th ei r de li be rat io ns an d a ffec t the ir d eci si on -m ak in g pr oc es s as to whattype o f m ur de r th is was.” “ Dep rav ed ” ref erre d t o t he m en s re a fo r se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r. Fi na ll y , Harv ey

arg ue s t ha t h e was pre

jud ic edby W at so n’s at te m ptto

“ di st an ce” h im se lf f

ro m hi s cl ie nt . This arg um en t ag ai n m ix es an al yti cal st ep s; th is is no t p reju di ce fl owi ng fro m W at so n’s co nc es si on of g ui lt
.

53Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we re ject Harve y ’s cla im

th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s n o p reju di ce fi nd in g was ba se d o n a n “ un reas on ab le ” fac tu al de te rm in at io n “ in li gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d” at Harve y ’s tri al . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). 2 9 V. W e tu rnno w to Harv ey ’s fin al two cla im s: W at so n was de fic ie ntforfai li ng pr op erl y to in ve st ig at e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e reg ard in g b ot h h is cli en t’s p ers on al hi st ory an d m en ta l h eal th . Like all cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, Harv ey m us t p ro ve de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce an d re su lt in g p reju di ce. Stric kl an d v
. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 74 (19 84 ). Harv ey co nt en ds th at , with re sp ectto bo th ki nd s o f m it ig at io n e vi de nc e, W at so n’s pr etria l i nv es ti ga ti on was m ark ed ly defi ci en t. Inhi s v ie w, an ad equa te pre tri al in ve st ig at io n wo ul d h av e le d t o adi ffer en t m it ig at io n s tra te gy for the pe na lt y ph as e o f th e tr ia l, o ne th atwou ldha ve pro du ceda di ffer en t o ut co m e—ali fe
se nt en ce ra th er tha n t he de ath p en al ty. W e fi rs t co ns id er, i n s ub pa rt A, Wats on ’s per fo rm an ce re la ti ng to Harv ey ’s pe rs on al hi st ory , th en , insubp artB, Harv ey ’s m en ta l h eal th . In the en d, we re ject The no pre

judice findingis a findingof ultimate fac t—an infer red f act. In concluding 2 9 that the findingwas not unre asonable , and ther efor e entitled to AEDPA de fer ence , we a lso conclude that the subsidiary fac t findings, those which yielded the ultimate fa ct, wer e similarly not unrea sonable. 54Harv ey ’s arg um en t tha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt unr eas on ab ly fou ndth at

W at so n’s i nv es ti ga ti on in to th es e are as of m it ig at io n was ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e un de r Stric kl an d’s p erfo rm an ce s ta nd ard . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ), (2 ). A. 1. W at so n’s p en al ty pha se st rat eg y was t o p ortray

Harv ey as ago odpe rs on worth y of s av in g a ndto co nv in ce the jury th atth e m ur de rs were an ab erra ti on fro m hi s o th erwi se am iabl e n atur e. To tha t en d, h e cal le d s ix te enwitne ss es . His
m ot he r, fathe r, two si st ers , bro th er, u nc le , as wel l as sev eral fri en ds , sev eral fam il y fri en ds , hi s wo rksupe rv is or , a co -wo rk er an d t wo t each ers tes ti fie d. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, i n Harve y v. St at e, cap su li zedW at so n’s s tra te gy by ad op ti ng th e tri al co urt’s d es cri pt io n o f wha t Wats on pre se nt ed : Evi de nc e was als o p res en te d t ha t h e was hard -wo rk in g, fr om a go od , de cen t fa m il y

who wou ldbe ne ga ti ve ly effect ed[si c] if he wou ldbe ex ecu te d, tha t h e h adbe ena lo vi ng bro th er t o h is di sabl edsi st er, tha t th e cri m e was ou t o f ch arac te r, an d t ha t h e was pre ss ur edby his wife to pro vi de th in gs he co ul d n otfin an ci al ly do. Ev id en ce s ho wedth at he was i nv ol ve d i n the fat al acci de ntat a ge 16 an d wo ul d b e ab le to ad ap t t o ali fe s en te nc e in pri so n. 94 6 S o. 2 d 9 37 , 94 7– 48 (Fl a. 20 06 ). In a dd it io n t o t hi s, the co urt n ot edth at“ [t]he jury viewe d s ev eral ch il dh oo d p ho to gr ap hs of Harv ey with h is si bl in gs , as wel l as ho m e m ov ie s o f va rio us fam il y ou ti ng s.” Id . at 9 48
. 55Inhi s Au gu st27 , 19 90 m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, Harv ey cla im ed th atW at so n’s i nv es ti ga ti on in to hi s p ers on al hi st ory , andth eref or e Watso n’s pe na lty ph as e st rat eg y , was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ins uf fic ie nt . The tria l co urt d en ie d t he cl ai m witho utanev id en ti ary he ari ng . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt v acat edth e ru li ng an d re m an de d t he cla im foranev id en ti ary he ari ng . Harve y v. Du gg er, 6 56 So . 2d12 53 , 12 57 (Fl a. 19 95 ). As i nd ic at edin pa rt I , th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng was h el d i n Au gu st19 98
. Harv ey ’s att orne y s ca ll edsev eral witne ss es . Som e rec ou nt edHarv ey ’s per so na l hi st ory . Oth ers tes ti fie d t ha t, b utforW at so n’s d efi ci en t i nv es ti ga ti on , an a ccu rat e pe rs on al hi st ory

wou ldha ve be enrev eal edan d p res en te d t o t he jury du rin g t he pe na lty ph as e o f th e tr ia l. Harv ey ’s fam il y

m em be rs , m an y

of wh om als o t es ti fie d a t Harve y ’s tri al , sa idth atth e que st io ns W at so n a sk edth em pe rta in edon ly to the po si ti ve asp ect s o f Harv ey ’s li fe an d fa m il y

si tu at io n. Harv ey ’s fathe r sa idth atW at so n g av e h im th e qu es ti on s Wats onwou ldaskan d t he an swe rs he sh ou ldgi ve . Oth er fa m il y m em be rs sai d t he y

wou ldha ve to ldW at so n t he gri tt ie r as pe ctof Ha rv ey ’s li fe h ad W at so n a sk ed . One s is te r sa idth atW at so n d ire ct edhe r te st im on y —o nl y to say

“ y es , si r” an d “ no , si r.” The ot he r si st er ex pl ai ne d tha t s he was n oteag er t o t el l W at so n abo uthe r fam il y ’s “ di rty lau nd ry .” 56The pe rs on al hi st ory th e fam il y

witne ss es ga ve po rtr ay edanen ti rel y di ffer en t p ic ture o f Harv ey ’s li fe than t he on e Watso n p res en te d t o the jury. Harv ey ’s par en ts an d s ib li ng s t es ti fie d tha t the fam il y gre w up inpo ve rty; th e ch il dr enan d t he ir m ot he r pi ck edfru iton th e week en ds to su rv iv e; th ere was no t en ou ghto eatgro win g up; th e ch il dr enrare ly hadm ed ic al care ; Harve y ’s fathe r was analc oh ol ic who wou ldhi t Harve y with ast ic k wh enhe wou lddri nk ; Harve y on ce p hysic al ly sep arat edhi s p aren ts when Harv ey ’s fathe r was be at in g Harve y ’s
m ot he r; andth atth e fam il y ne ve r ex pr es se d l ov e o r affe ct io n fo r eac h o th er. Two fam il y m em be rs , ho wev er, d idst at e th atHarv ey ’s par en ts lo ve d h im
. Harv ey was i nv ol ve d i n afat al au to m ob il e acc id en t atag e si xt een . Fam il y m em be rs em ph as iz edth e im

pa ctth e acc id en t h adon Harv ey ’s subs eque nt be ha vi or . One s is te r te st ifi edto th e g ru es om en es s o f th e acc id en t an d d es cri be d Harv ey ’s ho sp it al -b edap pe aran ce i n d et ai l. Fo ll owi ng th e acc id en t, Harv ey ha d ni gh tm ares , exh ib it edno ti ceab le pe rs on al it y ch an ge s, s eem edto ha ve “ hi s m in d
so m ewh ere e ls e” atti m es , andex hi bi te d wi ldm oo d s win gs an d re ck le ss be ha vi or . Fam il y m em be rs rel at edth ree i nc id en ts of v io le ntbe ha vi orth ey att rib ut ed to th e acc id en t. The fir stin vo lv edHarv ey dri vi ng a truc k, wi th hi s s is te r in th e pa ss en ge r se at , in to on -co m in g t raff ic , vee rin g ju stinti m e to av oi d acras h. Th e se co ndin ci de ntco ns is te d o f Harv ey ch ok in g t he same sis te r du rin g s om ethi ng 57ak in to a bl ack -o ut . The thi rdin ci de ntin vo lv edHarv ey sh oo ti ng ou t a s tre etli gh t with aweap on . Mem be rs of t he fam il y

als o d es cri be d Harve y ’s chr on ic ab us e o f drug s an d al co ho l. Harv ey

us edalc oh ol at a n e arl y

ag e; on e m em

be r sa idth atHarv ey ’s st ep gr an df athe r ga ve hi m

alc oh ol du rin g h is pre -te eny ears . Jo se phKrum ey , Jr., Wats on ’s firs t p riv at e in ve st ig at or , tes ti fie d t ha t Wats on hi redhi m in May 198 5 t o fi ndev id en ce o f “ red eem in g s oc ia l qua li ti es .” Acco rd in g t o t he tes ti m on y , Krum ey di d n otpe rfo rm

th e in ve st ig at io n h im se lf; in st ead , he h ire d aform er FB I ag en t t o c on du ctth e in ve st ig at io n. Kru m ey was n ot cert ai n wh ethe r itwas h e o r th e fo rm er ag en t wh o m etwith Wats on du rin g t he fiv e m on th s t he in ve st ig at io n p ro ceed ed . W at so n fi redKrum ey inOcto be r 19 85 aft er pe rfo rm in g ro ug hl y

twen ty hou rs of wo rk
. 3 0 And rea Lyon, a c li ni cal pro fes so r of law, t es ti fie d a s an expe rt o n h ow t o in ve st ig at e a capi ta l ca se . She sai d t ha t d efen se co un se l s ho ul d i nt erv ie w th e po te nt ia l wi tn es se s i n p ers on be cau se th e b es t m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—f orex am pl e, pa ren ta l ab us e o f th e d efen da ntas ach il d— is us ua ll y em ba rras si ng . It fre qu en tl y ta ke s b etweenth ree a ndsi x i nt erv ie ws o f fam il y m em be rs be fo re the y

rev eal th e

Krumey testified that he c harg ed $35/hour a nd was pa id $750 for his work. 3 0 58tru th ab ou t the de fen da nt ’s up br in gi ng . Unt il th ey are wi ll in g t o o pe n up, the fam il y is li ke ly to p ro vi de on ly pos it iv e in fo rm at io n. W at so n app eare d a t the he ari ng as awitne ss forth e St at e, an d c ov ered
se ve ral po in ts . Alth ou ghhe was u ns ur e o f th e d at e, he sai d t ha t h e in it ia ll y ga ve Kru m ey in st ru ct io ns to lo okforwitne ss es who co ul d t es ti fy reg ard in g Harve y ’s

“ red eem in g s oc ia l qua li ti es .” W at so n a dd edth athe was d is pl eas edwith 3 1 Kru m ey ’s work , so , inOcto be r 19 85 , he f ire d h im an d h ire d asec on d i nv es ti ga to r. W at so n fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t h e m etwith m em be rs of Ha rv ey ’s fam il y

on se ve ral oc cas io ns , andackno wled ge d t ha t, as ittu rn edou t, h is pe na lt y ph as e st rat eg y co in ci de d wi th th e im ag e h e fo rm edof t he fam il y aft er m eet in g t he m

ov er di nn er. He reject edHarv ey ’s att orne y s’ ass ert io n tha t h e fo rm edhi s s tra te gy pr em atur el y , bef

or e Harv ey ’s bac kg ro un d i nv es ti ga ti on was fi ni sh ed . Whe n as ke d wh ethe r he ha d re cei ve d i nf orm at io n t o t he effe ctth atHarv ey was adru g us er o r ha d b een subjec te d t o d om es ti c ab us e as a ch il d, Wats on an swe redinth e Although Watson could not re call whe n he hire d Krumey , the re cord, inc luding 3 1 Krumey ’s testimony , indicates that he hired Kr umey shortly afte r he w as appointed to represe nt Har vey , and that Kr

umey and the f ormer F BI

ag ent Krume y

assigned to the ca se worke d for Watson for five to six months, unti l October 1985. Duringthat time, if the $750 ($35 per hour) Krumey billed Watson i s an ac curate indication of the a mount of investigative work he and the former ag ent per formed, one would have to c onclude that they did acc omplish very

littl e—which was why Watson, with the cour

t’s permission, employed the se cond investig ator at the State’s expense. Steve Samilow, an ea

rly member of

Har vey ’s post-conviction team of lawyers, testified that his ex amination of Watson’s files indicated no “ extensive evidenceof mitigation investigation.” 59ne ga ti ve . He sai d t ha t i f he ha d h e b een gi ve n s uc h i nf orm at io n, h e wou ldno t 3 2 ha ve pre se nt editto th e jury—ev id en ce o f drug us e o r ch il d abu se wou ldha ve un de rm in edhi s s tra te gy, requ iri ng th e d ev el op m en t o f a co m pl et el y di ffer en t th em e th anth e “ ab erra ti on ” th em e h e ch os e. Afte r rec ei vi ng th e p art ie s’ evi de nt ia ry subm is si on s, the tri al co urt re jecte d th e cl ai m th atW at so n’s i nv es ti ga ti on in to Harv ey ’s per so na l h is to ry was ob jecti ve ly defi ci en t, tha t a r eas on ab ly com pe te ntatt orne y

wou ldha ve un co ve red th e in fo rm at io n Harve y ’s fam il y m em be rs di sc lo se d a t the he ari ng an d wo ul d h av e pr es en te d i t t o the jury. The co urt n ot edth atW at so n’s m it ig at io n s tra te gy em ph as iz edHarv ey ’s po si ti ve att rib ut es , andth atth e n ew ev id en ce Harv ey ’s at to rn ey s p res en te d wo ul d h av e u nd erm in edth e “ go odpe rs on ” d efen se W at so n was po rtr ay in g. In th e co urt’s v ie w, cou ns el were as ki ng th e co urt t o s pe cu la te as to whet he r th ei r pr of

fere d s tra te gy mig htha ve be enm or e eff ect iv e th anW at so n’s. The th ree i nc id en ts of v io le ntbe ha vi or —p la y in g c hi ck en , cho ki ng , andsh oo ti ng th e st reetli gh t— co un se l co ns id eredto be a m it ig at in g fa ct orm ig ht , inth e co urt’s vi ew, ha rm

Harv ey ’s cas e aft er b ei ng subjec t t o t he Sta te ’s cro ss -ex am in at io n.

Neither Har vey nor the State c alled Watson’s second inve stigator as a w itness. In 3 2 saying that he re ceive d no information re g ardingdruguse or domestic a buse, the infe renc e is that neither the family

members with whom Watson had conve rsations nor the se cond investig ator said any thing that would lea d Watson to believe that Har vey had a history

of druguse or ha d been the victim of domestic abuse. 60The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s re

jecti on of Ha rv ey ’s cl ai m th atW at so n’s p ers on al hi st ory in ve st ig at io n fe ll be lo w Stri ck la nd ’s
reas on ab ly-com

pe te nt -at to rn ey

st an da rd . It fo un d t ha t “ [t]he reco rdcle arl y de m on st rat e[d ] th atco un se l co nduc te d a n a de qu at e in ve st ig at io n i nt o Harve y ’s ba ck gr ou nd
. . . .” Harv ey , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 48
. 2. Harv ey di sa gr ees with t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g. He ar gu es th at W at so n’s i nv es ti ga ti on of p ot en ti al m it ig at in g e vi de nc e was co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fic ie ntan d t ha t a p ro pe r in ve st ig at io n— on e p erfo rm edby a reas on ab ly
co m pe te ntatt orne y

—wo ul d h av e u nc ov eredev id en ce p ai nt in g ava st ly diff eren t,
an d s tro ng er, m it ig at io n p ic tu re. Stric kl an d g ov ern s tria l co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti on of m it ig at in g e vi de nc e: [S]trat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er tho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti onof l aw an d fa ct s rel ev an t t o p laus ib le op ti on s ar e v irtua ll y un ch al le ng eab le ; an d st rat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er l es s t ha n c om pl et e in ve st ig at io n a re reas on ab le pre ci se ly to the ex te ntth atreas on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en ts supp ort the li m it at io ns on in ve st ig at io n. Inot he r wor ds , co un se l h as a du ty to m ak e rea so nabl e in ve st ig at io ns or t o m ak e a reas on ab le de ci si onth atm ak es pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io ns un ne ces sa ry . Inan y in effe ct iv en es s ca se , a pa rti cu lar de ci si on no t t o i nv es ti ga te m us t b e d ire ct ly ass es se d fo r reas on ab le ne ss inall th e ci rcu m st an ces , ap pl y in g ahe av y

m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to co un se l’s jud gm en ts .

6146 6 U.S. at69 0– 91 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 . There fo re, Harv ey be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t Wats on un reas on ab ly lim it edhi s i nv es ti ga ti on . The fac t tha t Wats on was un aware of p art ic ul ar fa ct s i s i m m at eri al if h e co nduc te d areas on ab le in ve st ig at io n. Harv ey m us t al so ov erco m e th e d efer en ce we af fo rdth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Harv ey

can no t o bt ai n h ab eas rel ie f un le ss th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on was “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y es tabl is he d F ed eral law,” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ), or“ was ba se d o n a n 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,” id
. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). The co re o f Harv ey ’s arg um en t i s tha t Wats on ap pr oa ch edhi s cl ie nt ’s pe na lty ph as e d efen se with apre co nc ei ve d s tra te gy—th e “ go odpe rs on ” st rat eg y —an d o nl y

so ug htev id en ce t o s up po rt t ha t s tra te gy. Afte r rev ie win g t he Aug us t 1 99 8 e vi de nt ia ry

he ari ng be fo re the tri al co urt, we ca nn otco nc lu de th at th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on th atW at so n c on du ct edanad equa te in ve st ig at io n was ba se d o n a n unr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e u lt im at e fac t. Thre e se ts of wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o Wats on ’s in ve st ig at io n: Krum ey , th e in ve st ig at or ; Harve y ’s fam il y m em be rs ; an d Wats on . Krum ey ’s tes ti m on y sh edno li gh t o n t he in ve st ig at io n t ha t ac tu al ly occu rred . Krum ey adm it s t ha t h e d idno t 62actua ll y

pe rfo rm th e in ve st ig at io n; he pa ss edoff th attas k t o aform er FB I ag en t. Fu rth erm or e, W at so n c le arl y di d n otap pr ov e o f th e work Kru m ey ha d d on e; W at so n fi redhi m

inOcto be r 19 85 . Wha t Wats on ’s sec on d i nv es ti ga to r fo un d i s un kn own—b ecau se he was n otcal le d t o t es ti fy at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Also
un kn own is whatth atsec on d i nv es ti ga to r m ay ha ve to ldW at so n—

be cau se ne it he r si de ask edW at so n wh athe sai d. Harv ey ’s fam il y

m em be rs li ke ly hadqu es ti on ab le cred ib il it y with t he fin de r of fact—the tri al co urt. Ma ny of th e sa m e wit ne ss es tes ti fie d t o c om pl et el y di ffer en t s et s o f fac ts du rin g Harve y ’s 19 86 tri al . It wo ul d b e en ti rel y reas on ab le to di sc ou ntth ei r cre di bi li ty bas edon th ei r in co ns is te nttes ti m on y an d c urren t
m ot iv e to li e to sav e Harv ey ’s li fe. W at so n t es ti fie d t ha t h e h ire d t wo p riv at e in ve st ig at or s an d a ls o s po ke with th e fam il y

pe rs on al ly. He cla im s t ha t the “ go odpe rs on ” d efen se was n otcu t fr om who le clo th , bu t ra th er re su lt edfro m hi s i nv es ti ga ti on . Thathe di d n otlearnab ou t Harv ey ’s ph y si cal ab us e o r subs ta nc e ab us e say s n ot hi ng ab ou t the qu al it y of t ha t in ve st ig at io n. The se pi eces to ge th er d o n otsat is fy Harv ey ’s bu rd enof p ro vi ng th at W at so n’s i nv es ti ga ti on was d efi ci en t. No r do th ey all ow u s t o c on cl ud e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt was un reas on ab le inde nyin g Harve y ’s cla im
. 63Aga in stth is co nc lu si on , Harv ey pre se nt s s ev eral arg um en ts . Harve y fir st cl ai m s t ha t Wats on di d n otfol lo w th e g ui de li ne s o f th e 2 00 3 Am eri can Bar Ass oc ia ti on Sta nd ard s fo r Cri m in al Ju st ic e—t ha t h e sh ou ldha ve in te rv ie wed

“ vi rtu al ly everyon e el se who kn ew [Harv ey ] an d h is fam il y .” Br. App el lant58 (quo ti ng ABA Gui de li ne s fo r th e App oi nt m en t an d P erfo rm an ce o f Defen se Co un se l i n Dea th Pen al ty Cases § 1 0.7 , Comm en ta ry (rev . ed. 2 00 3) , rep rin te d i n 31 Hofs traL. Rev. 9 13 , 10 24 (20 03 )). Thi s s ta nd ardis anin ap pr op ria te m etric for jud gi ng W at so n’s p erfo rm an ce. Alt ho ug h t he ABA st an da rd s p ro vi de us efu l gu id ep os ts , see Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 , th ey are o nl y rel ev an t “ to th e ex te ntth ey de sc rib e th e p ro fes si on al no rm s p rev ai li ng when th e rep res en ta ti on to okpl ace.” Bob by v. Van Ho ok , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 3, 1 6, 1 75 L. Ed. 2d 25 5 (2 00 9) (pe r cu ria m). Norm s fr om 20 03 are i rrel ev an t wh enjud gi ng a rep res en ta ti on fro m

19 85 –1 98 6. In st ead , th e rel ev an t ABA s ta nd ard s ar e m or e g en eral . The 1 98 2 S tand ard s fo r Cri m in al Ju st ic e is su e a b ro ad“ du ty to i nv es ti ga te ,” th e rel ev an t p orti on of whi chsays: “ It i s t he du ty of th e la wy er t o c on du cta pr om ptin ve st ig at io n o f th e ci rcu m st an ces of the cas e an d t o e xp lo re al l av enue s l ead in g t o fa ct s re le vantto th e m eri ts of t he cas e an d t he pe na lt y inth e ev en t o f co nv ic ti on .” 1 ABA

64St an da rd s fo r Cri m in al Ju st ic e 4 -4 .1 (2 d e d. 1 98 2) . Harve y ha s n otpro ve n t ha t W at so n’s i nv es ti ga ti on fel l s ho rt o f th is st an dard
. Thi s i s n ota cas e whe re tria l co un se l i gn or edob vi ou s re d fl ag s o r ov erl oo ke d d oc um en ts he ha d adu ty to co ns ul t. Harv ey arg ue s t ha t h is cas e is
an al og ou s t o s ev eral Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s, Ro m pi ll a v . Beard , 54 5 U.S. 3 74 , 12 5 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 1 62 L. Ed. 2d36 0 (2 00 5) ; Wig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 1 23 S. Ct . 25 27 , 15 6 L. Ed. 2 d 4 71 (20 03 ); Wil li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 12 0 S
. Ct . 14 95 , 14 6 L. Ed. 2 d 3 89 (20 00 ); a ndon e fro m th is cir cu it , W il li am s v . All en , 54 2 F .3d13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). As we ex pl ai n, h owe ve r, no ne of t he se cas es ap pl y . InRo m pi ll a, th e Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ria l co un se l i ne ffec ti ve be cau se he di d n otin ve st ig at e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e av ai labl e in a co urt fi le fro m on e o f th e habe as pe ti ti on er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s. 5 45 U.S. at 3 83 , 12 5 S . Ct. at24 64 . The fi le
wou ldha ve rai se d re d fl ag s l ead in g t o e vi de nc e o f dr in ki ng , alc oh ol ic pa ren ts , and ch il dh oo d b eat in gs . Id. at39 1– 92 , 12 5 S . Ct. at24 68 . Alth ou gh supe rfi ci al ly si m il ar t o Harve y ’s cla im , Rom pi ll a’s ho ld in g i s n arro w andin ap pl ic ab le . There , tri al co un se l was requi redto readth e co urt fi le on ly becau se he kn ew th atth e pr os ecu ti on wou ldin tro du ce the pe ti ti on er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s; th eref or e, he

65sh ou ldha ve readth e fi le to an ti ci pa te th e St at e’s arg um en t. Id . at 3 83 –8 4, 1 25 S.

Ct . at 2 46 4. No th in g s im il ar o ccu rredinHarv ey ’s cas e. Tria l co un se l i n Wig gi ns li ke wis e ig no reda read il y av ai labl e d oc um en t tha t no te d t he pe ti ti on er’s “ m is ery as a y ou th ” an d wo ul d h av e le d t o e xt en si ve m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. 53 9 U.S. at52 3– 25 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 36 –3 7. Th is fai lu re co in ci de d wi th co un se l’s g en eral fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te or p rep are aso ci al hi st ory rep ort, the st an da rdpra ct ic e atth e ti m e. Id . W ig gi ns co nt ras ts with Harve y ’s cas e be cau se co un se l i n Wig gi ns bo th fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te an d h adke y lea ds in do cu m en ts be fo re h im . W at so n fa cedno th in g a s g la rin g i n re ad il y -av ai labl e fi le s. Tay lo r al so pre se nt eda cas e whe re tria l co un se l fa il edto fin d a va il ab le fil es sh owi ng a “ ni gh tm ari shch il dh oo d,” im pr is on edpa ren ts , andfreque ntbe at in gs . 52 9 U.S. at39 5, 1 20 S. Ct. at15 14 . Cou ns el ’s in su ffi ci en t i nv es ti ga ti on—b eg un on ly one week

be fo re the tri al —fa il edto un co ve r th es e redfla gs . Id. Ag ai n, Harv ey ’s cas e p res en ts ne it he r a fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te no r rea di ly-ava il ab le do cu m en ts th atwou ldne ces saril y ha ve ledto th e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e Harv ey pr es en te d a t the Aug us t 1 99 8 e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . Fi na ll y , tri al co un se l i n Al le n o ve rlo ok edev id en ce i n a n a va il ab le rep ort o f a lo w IQ, per so na li ty dis or de r, an d e vi de nc e o f ch il dh oo d abu se . 54 2 F .3dat 13 39 . The ev id en ce co nt ras te d wi th th e p en al ty pha se tes ti m on y , du rin g wh ic h t he 66pe ti ti on er’s m ot he r—t he on ly w it ne ss tri al co un se l i nt erv ie weddurin g h is

in ve st ig at io n—

pr ov id edm il d t es ti m on y

reg ard in g b eat in gs adm in is te redby the pe ti ti on er’s fat he r. Id. at13 29 , 13 39 . This li m it edin te rv ie w fel l s ho rt o f pr of es si on al st an da rd s i nc lu di ng th e n eedto ve rif y in fo rm at io n, i d. at13 39 (ci ti ng ABA Gui de li ne s fo r th e App oi nt m en t an d P erfo rm an ce o f Co un se l i n Dea th Pen al ty Cases 11 .41 (D) (1 98 9) ), whi ch pa rti cu la rly hu rt t he pe ti ti on er b ecau se it tu rn edou t tha t h is m ot he r al so ab us edhi m , id . at 1 33 2. Wats on , inco ntras t, d id
no t l im ithi s s ou rces —h e cal le d s ix te enpe rs on al -h is to ry m it ig at io n wi tn es se s. Fu rth erm or e, Harv ey

ha s n otpre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o g iv e anid ea o f wha t in ve st ig at io n a ctua ll y

to okpl ace. An d, wh atev id en ce h e d idpre se nt , th e tr ia l jud ge was n otrequi redto fin d c red ib le
. W e th eref

or e can no t co nc lu de th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t W at so n c on du ct edanob

jecti ve ly reaso nabl e in ve st ig at io n i nt o Harve y ’s per so na l hi st ory co ns ti tu te d an u nr eas on ab le fin di ng of f act , a fin di ng no t en ti tl edto AEDPA defe ren ce. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(2 ). B. Harv ey ’s las t cl ai m

arg ue s t ha t Wats on di d n otco nduc t aneffe ct iv e m en ta l he al th in ve st ig at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, he po in ts to W at so n’s fa il ur e to hi re a ps y ch ia tri st—as op po se d t o aps y ch ol og is t—to in te rv ie w Harv ey an d t es ti fy

at 67tri al . Agai n, Harve y be ars th e b ur de n o f pr oo f. He m us t s ho w th atW at so n’s de ci si on no t t o h ire a ps y ch ia tri stwas d efi ci en t, fa ll in g b el ow p ro fes si on al no rm s, an d t ha t Wats on ’s fai lu re p reju di cedHarv ey ’s def en se ag ai ns t the de ath p en al ty. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65
. 1. Afte r th e tr ia l co urt ap po in te d Wats on to de fen d Harve y , W at so n m ov edth e co urt fo r fu nd s t o h ire bo th a ps y ch ia tri stan d p sycho lo gi st . The co urt g ran te d W at so n’s m ot io n andsubs eque ntm ot io ns forfun ds
. W it h t ho se fun ds , W at so n h ire d Dr. Fr edPetril la , a ps y ch ol og is t wi th a Mas te rs inco un se li ng ps y ch ol og y fro m W es t Vi rg in iaUni ve rs it y an d aPh .D in ps y ch ol og y

fro m th e Uni ve rs it y

of Ke ntuc ky. At the ti m e o f tr ia l, Dr. Petril laha d
se enpa ti en ts foreig hty ears . He pri m ari ly w orke d a s a s ch oo l p sycho lo gi st ; the
m ajor it y of h is pra ct ic e co nc ern edad ol es cen ts an d o ld er ad ol es cen ts . He had
se rv edas a n e xp ertwitne ss in civ il an d c riminal cas es , th ou gh ne ve r on be ha lf o f a de fen da ntin a m

ur de r tr ia l.

68Dr. Petril lain te rv ie wedHarv ey inth e Oke ech ob ee Co un ty j ai l i n J un e 1 98 5. The re, h e ad m in is te reda ba tt ery of pe rs on al it y

tes ts . He als o c on du ct eda

3 3 ba ck gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n a ndsp ok e wit h Harve y ’s tea ch ers an d fa m il y . W at so n c al le d Dr. Pe tri ll a in Harv ey ’s pen al ty pha se de fen se . He tes ti fie d reg ard in g t he va rio us tes ts he pe rfo rm ed . From th es e te st s, Dr. Pet ril laco nc lu de d th atHarv ey

was “ ve ry

de pe nd en t an d d ep res se d,” “ imm atur e,” an d h adch ro ni c de pr es si on . Harve y , acco rd in g t o Dr. Pe tri ll a, al so ha d p oo r co nc ret e rea so ni ng , whi chm ean t tha t h e was un ab le to pl aneffe ct iv el y hi s ac ti on s an d wh enpl aced
un de r stres s, wo ul d b e anev enm or e ras h t hi nk er. Fu rth erm or e, Dr. Petril la di ag no se d Harve y

with “ dysth m ic di so rd er, ch ro ni c d ep res si ve reac ti on an d de pe nd en t p ers on al it y

di so rd er.” He fo cu se d o n t he se “ em ot io na l d is or de rs ” be cau se th e te st s d idno t i nd ic at e b rai n d am ag e—t ha t i s, d am ag e to th e fro nt al lo be s. Dr. Pet ril ladi d n otatt em ptto us e th es e d ia gn os es to ex pl ai n Harve y ’s be ha vi oror t hi nk in g a t the ti m e o f th e m ur de r. Whe n a sk ed , he s ai d, “ no , I’ m jus t he re t o e xp la in th e te stres ul ts .” Bas edon th is tes ti m on y , th e tr ia l co urt, i n s en te nc in g Harve y , fou ndno nst atut ory m it ig at in g fa ct or s re ga rd in g Harve y ’s lo w IQ, lo w sel f-es te em , po or
Dr. Petrilla stated that he per formed the followingtests on Harve y : Be nder V isual- 3 3 Motor Gestalt test, Dra

w-A- Family , Dra

w-A- Person, Funda

mental Interpe rsonal Relations test, House-T ree test, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Persona lity Inventory . 69educ at io n, p oo r so ci al sk il ls , andin ab il it y to reas onab st ract ly. Howev er, the se m it ig at in g fa ct or s d idno t o ut weig h t he ag gr av at in g fa ct or s, an d Harve y was se nt en cedto de ath. Harv ey ’s Aug us t 2 7, 1 99 0 m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in cl ud edth e cu rren t cl ai m

th atW at so n’s m en ta l h eal th in ve st ig at io n was co ns ti tu ti on al ly in effe ct iv e. The t ria l co urt re jecte d t he cla im

on Marc h 1 7, 1 99 3 wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . In 1 99 5, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt v acat edth e d eci si on an d
rem an de d t he cla im

to th e tr ia l co urt fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng . Harve y , 65 6 S o. 2dat 1 25 7. Th e tr ia l co urt h el d t ha t h eari ng inAug us t 1 99 8. At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , sev eral witne ss es tes ti fie d re ga rd in g Wats on ’s
m en ta l h eal th in ve st ig at io n. Wats on tes ti fie d t ha t h e so ug htco urt fu nd s fo r bo th a ps y ch ol og is t an d aps y ch ia tri stbe cau se itwas “ ne ces sa ry to ha ve bo th [ex am s] to ge t a t ot al pi ctur e.” Reg ard in g h is pre pa rat io n o f Dr. Petril la , he i ns tru ct edDr. Petril lano t t o s pe akwith Harve y ab ou t the cir cu m st an ces of the cri m e b ecau se he
was afra idof t he Sta te us in g t hi s i nf orm at io n a ga in stth e d efen se on cro ss ex am in at io n. W at so n c on ced edth atDr. Petr il lasu gg es te d t ha t h e h ire a ps y ch ia tri stto co nf irm hi s fi nd in gs an d t ha t h e wro te hi m se lf ano te to cal l a p sychi atris t. W at so n d idno t co nt acta ps y ch ia tri st , ho wev er, b ecau se he fear edhe wou ldlo se 70th e jury by

cal li ng two m en ta l-h eal th ex pe rts du rin g t he pe na lt y ph as e. W at so n be li ev edth atjuri es are p re-d is po se d t o d is be li ev e p sycho lo gi cal tes ti m on y in cri m in al cas es ; ca ll in g m

ul ti pl e ex pe rts mig htsee m a “ th in ex cu se ” b ecau se Harv ey di d n otha ve a do cum en te d h is to ry of m en ta l i ll ne ss . Dr. Mi ch ael Nork o, a p sychi atris t, t es ti fie d fo r Harv ey . Dr. Nork o ex am in edHarv ey

in co nn ect io n wi th th e p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ces s— on ce i n Ap ril 19 90 an d o nc e in Apri l 1 99 6. Un li ke Dr. Petr il la , who di d n otex am in e th e fac ts of th e cri m e an d Harve y ’s bac kg ro un d b efo re i nt erv ie win g Harve y , Dr. Nork o, be fo re h e ex am in edHarv ey , readth ro ug h t he po st -co nv ic ti on affi davi ts an d
va rio us reco rd s t o l earn ab ou t Harve y ’s li fe an d h is cas e. Bas edon whatth os e m at eri al s d is cl os edan d h is ex am in at io n o f Harv ey , Dr. Norko m ad e se ve ral di ag no se s t ha t o ve rlapp edDr. Petr il la ’s pen al ty pha se te st im on y —i nc lu di ng de pr es si on , lo w IQ, po orab st ractth in ki ng , dep en de nt pe rs on al it y

di so rd er, an d p os t trau m at ic st res s d is or de r. Dr. Nork o d is ag reedwith Dr. Petril lareg ard in g t he ex is te nc e o f br ai n d am ag e—Dr . Nork o fo un d e vi de nc e of org an ic bra indi so rd er. He g le an edth is fro m a m ix tu re o f te stres ul ts an d
ev id en ce o f he adtraum a fro m Harv ey ’s car ac ci de ntan d s ub se qu en t h eadin juri es . Dr. Nork o d idno t s ub

ject Harve y

to a CAT, MRI, o r EEG scan be cau se th es e te st s do no t al way s p erce iv e o rg an ic bra in dysfu nc ti on . Fin al ly, Dr. Nork o t es ti fie d t ha t 71Harv ey ’s con di ti on sat is fie d t hr ee s ta tu to ry m it ig at io n fa ct or s: (1) lac k o f cap aci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al ity of h is co nduc t; (2) dures s o r subs ta nt ia l d om in at io n by bo thHarv ey ’s wife andacco m pl ic e St it el er; an d (3 ) ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce. And rea Lyon, Harv ey ’s cri m in al de fen se ex pe rt, t es ti fie d t ha t Wats on sh ou ldha ve ha d aps y ch ia tri stex am in e Harv ey . Dr. Petri ll a was a cl in ic al ps y ch ol og is t, b utha d n o fo ren si c ex pe rti se . She als o c ou ldno t u nd ers ta ndwhy W at so n d idno t al lo w Harv ey to sp eakab ou t the cri m e with am en ta l h eal th ex pe rt. Bas edon Harv ey ’s m ed ic al rep orts —p art ic ul arl y fol lo win g Harve y ’s car acci de nt—Ly on cla im edth atW at so n s ho ul d h av e n ot edredfla gs reg ard in g po ss ib le bra in da m ag e. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, h owe ve r, th e St at e p oi nt edou t tha t th e m ed ic al reco rd s al so in di cat edth at , fol lo win g h is car ac ci de nt , Harv ey was res po ns iv e, ne ed edon ly fou r st it ch es , andrece iv edno sp eci al tre atm en t re gard in g hi s l os s o f co ns ci ou sn es s. Harv ey cal le d asec on d p sychi atris t, Dr. Bra d F is ch er. Dr. Fis ch er ex am in edHarv ey

in Apri l 1 99 0 a ndpe rfo rm eda ba tt ery of ps y ch ol og ic al tes ts si m il ar t o t ho se Dr. Petr il laha d p erfo rm edpri orto Harv ey ’s tri al . He cam e to th e sa m e co nc lu si on s as Dr. Nork o. Dr. Fi sc he r al so fau lt edDr. Petr il la ’s in ve st ig at io n a ndrep ort. He d idso pri m ari ly becau se Dr. Petr il la ’s pro fes si on al 72ex pe rie nc e fo cu se d o n c ou ns el in g; he lac ke d e xp eri en ce as a fo ren si c ex am in er.

Inhi s o pi ni on , Dr. Petr il la ’s lac k o f ex pe rie nc e was ex acerba te d b y W at so n’s fai lu re t o p ro vi de Dr. Petr il lawith a ll of Ha rv ey ’s bac kg ro un d m at eri al s. Fu rth erm or e, Dr. Petril lawas n otpro pe rly alert edto th e p os si bi li ty of br ai n da m ag e b ecau se th e ba ck gr ou ndm at eri al s h e h adat h an d d idno t m en ti on Harv ey ’s car ac ci de ntor o th er h eadtraum as . Dr. Fis ch er al so no te d “ sc or in g erro rs ” in Dr. Petr il la ’s eva lu at io n t ha t u nd erm in edDr. Petr il la ’s abi li ty to s po t Harv ey ’s bra in da m ag e. Dr. Petril laals o t es ti fie d abo uthi s i ni ti al ev al ua ti on an d Wats on ’s pe rfo rm an ce. Reg ard in g Wats on ’s in ve st ig at io n, Dr. Pe tri ll a te st ifi edth atW at so n as ke d h im

on ly to ad m in is te r a p ers on al it y ev al ua ti on , di st in ctfro m a fo ren si c ev al ua ti on , whi ch he st at edtes te d d iff eren t ar eas of t he bra in . In h is est im at io n, h e co ul d n otha ve pe rfo rm eda fo ren si c ev al ua ti on in19 85 be cau se he was in co m pe te ntto do so th en . Dr. Petri ll a co m pl ai ne d t ha t Wats on fai le d t o p ro vi de hi m with Harve y ’s bac kg ro un d i nf orm at io n. Al th ou gh he di d n otwantth es e fac ts be fo re s eei ng Harv ey , he f el t the y wou ldha ve be enus efu l wh enin te rp ret in g t he
res ul ts . Reg ard in g o rg an ic bra inda m ag e, Dr. Petril lates ti fie d t ha t h e to ldW at so n th athe di d n otth in k Harve y ha d b rai n d am ag e. Inretro sp ect , ho wev er, h e d idso

73on ly becau se he di d n othave su ffi ci en t ex pe rie nc e to li nkHarv ey ’s tes t re su lt s

with s ig ns of o rg an ic bra in da m ag e. It was th is lac k o f co m pe te nc e th atledhi m

to su gg es t tha t Harve y

see a ps y ch ia tri st , who no t o nl y co ul d p ro vi de a se co nd op in io n, b utals o wo ul d b e m or e th or ou gh reg ard in g l ik el ih oo d o f or gani c b rai n da m ag e. Howev er, Dr. Pet ril ladi d n ottel l Wats on th athe was i nc om pe te ntto ren de r anop in io n abo utth e p os si bi li ty of br ai n d am ag e. Afte r he ari ng Harv ey ’s evi de nc e, th e tr ia l co urt d en ie d Harve y ’s cla im . The
co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Dr. Pet ril ladi d t es t fo r or gani c b rai n d am ag e an d fo un d n on e, bu t tha t h e d idreco m

m en d t ha t Harve y

see a ps y ch ia tri stto ve rif y hi s o pi ni on an d di ag no se s. Wats on ch os e n otto co ns ul t a s eco ndex pe rt b ecau se he fear edth at co nf li ct s b etweentwo ex pe rts m ig htcau se th e jury to d is reg ardall m en ta l h eal th
ev id en ce an d t ha t ca ll in g two m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts wou ldan ge r th e jury as a “ba d
ex cu se for

ba d b eh av io r.” The co urt n ot edth atDr. Petr il lato ldW at so n tha t Harve y di d n otha ve bra in da m ag e b utsu ffer edfro m a pe rs on al it y

di so rd er. The co urt d is co un te d t he
un co ve redev id en ce o f br ai n d am ag e b ecau se th e p os t-c on vi ct io n e xp ert s “ co nc ed e th atth ere i s n o e xp ertpro of of a ny part ic ul ar caus e o f br ai n d am ag e.” The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Harve y

ha d n otsh own th atW at so n “ fai l[e d] to en su re a co m pe te nt
m en ta l h eal th ex am in at io n.” 74The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ag reed . Harve y , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 45 –4 7. It s 2 00 6

op in io n fo un d t ha t Wats on ’s per fo rm an ce s at is fie d S tri ck la nd ’s per fo rm an ce st an da rd , con tra st in g Wats on ’s in ve st ig at io n wi th th os e inwhi ch tri al co un se l

“ ne ve r at te m

pt edto m ean in gf

ul ly inv es ti ga te mit ig at io n.” Id. at94 6 (quo ti ng Ro se v. St at e, 67 5 S o. 2 d 5 67 , 57 2 (F la . 19 96 )). The co urt fo un d t ha t Wats on

“ co nduc te d areas on ab le in ve st ig at io n i nt o Harve y ’s m en ta l h eal th ba ck gr ou nd
an d i nc or po rat edhi s fi nd in gs in to a pe na lt y ph as e st rat eg y .” Id . at 9 47
. 2. Harv ey arg ue s t ha t the po st -co nv ic ti onev id en ce h e p res en te d p ro ve d t ha t W at so n was de fic ie ntin fai li ng to co nt acta ps y ch ia tri st , andth atW at so n’s fa il ur e to pre se ntsu ch ev id en ce t o the jury pr ejud ic edHarv ey ’s def en se . Fram edun de r Stric kl an d, Harve y ’s arg um en t i s t ha t Wats on ’s in ve st ig at io n fe ll be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rdof p ro fes si on al co nduc t. See Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 90 –9 1, 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 . Mor eo ve r, be cau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo un d Wats on ’s in ve st ig at io n o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e, Harv ey m us t d em on st rat e th atth e co urt’s fin di ng co ns ti tu te d a n “ un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f” fa ct . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). A th or ou gh po st -co nv ic ti on m en ta l h eal th in ve st ig at io n d oe s n otren de r tr ia l
co un se l’s l es s t ho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on in effe ct iv e. Jo hn so n v . Upt on , 61 5 F .3d 7513 18 , 13 37 n.1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . The k ey fact oris whet he r th e “ kn own ev id en ce wou ldlea d areas on ab le att orne y to in ve st ig at e fu rth er.” Po well v. Al le n, 6 02 F.3 d 1 26 3, 1 27 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot in g Wig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 7, 1 23 S. Ct. at 25 38 ). “ [T]he m ere f

act[th at ] a d efen da ntcanfin d, years a fte r th e fac t, a m en ta l he al th ex pe rt wh o wi ll tes ti fy fav or ab ly for h im

do es no t d em on strat e th attri al
co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro du ce tha t ex pe rt a t tria l.” Re edv. Se c’y , Fl a. Dep ’t of Co rr., 59 3 F .3d12 17 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Davi s v . Si ng le ta ry , 11 9 F .3d14 71 , 14 75 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). Harv ey pre ss es two m ai n a rg um en ts ag ai ns t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s fin di ng th atW at so n’s m en ta l h eal th in ve st ig at io n was ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e. Fi rs t, h e arg ue s t ha t Wats onwas d efi ci en t fo r fai li ng to fol lo w Dr. Petr il la ’s adv ic e to fol lo w-up wi th a ps y ch ia tri st . W e can no t ac cep t thi s ar gu m en t b ecau se of t he de fere nc e we m

us t s ho w no t o nl y

to W at so n’s p ro fes si on al jud gm en t, b utals o t o th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g o f reas on ab le ne ss un de r AEDPA. Stric kl an d a ll ows att orne y s t o l im itin ve st ig at io ns if i t wo ul d b e rea so nabl e to do so . 46 6 U.S. at69 0– 91 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 . W at so n was to ldby his ex pe rt, Dr. Petril la , th atHarv ey

di d n otha ve bra inda m ag e. Altho ug h Dr. Pe tri ll a 3 4
Har vey ’s brief

to this court sugg ests that, in 1985, Dr. Petrilla noted test re sults 3 4 indicative of br ain damag e and sug g ested that Ha rvey see a psychiatrist bec ause of

his inexperience in neuropsychology . Br . Appellant 5. Dr . Petrilla’s testimony does not paint nea

rly as explicit a picture as doe s Harve y ’s brief . Dr. Petrilla neve r expressed his compe tency 76cl ai m edin co m pe te nc e in hi s p os t-c on vi ct io n t es ti m on y , he d idno t ex pr es s tha t vi ew to W at so n i n 1 98 5, p rio r to Harv ey ’s tri al . Rath er tha n o bt ai n asec on d op in io n, Wats onch os e to rel y on hi s ex pe rt, wh o g av e h im no reas onto do ub t tha t he was c om

pe te nt . W e can no t s ay

th atW at so n’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . And we cert ai nl y

can no t s ay

th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g c on st itut edan un reas on ab le ass es sm en t o f th e ev id en ce b eari ng on W at so n’s p erfo rm an ce. Harv ey ’s sec on d a rg um en t i s t ha t Wats on ’s ownfam il ia rity with t he cas e sh ou ldha ve rai se d re d fl ag s s uf fic ie ntto jus ti fy

a m or e th or ou gh m en ta l h eal th
ev al ua ti on . Spe ci fic al ly, Harv ey po in ts to W at so n’s o bs erv at io ns th at“ Harv ey was a ‘bor de rli ne op erat or ,’ su ic id al , sl ow t o u nd ers ta ndan d t earf ul .” Thi s arg um en t, h owe ve r, is jus t an ot he r way of a rg ui ng Harv ey ’s firs t p oi nt . W at so n m us t h av e b een co nc ern edforHarv ey ’s m en ta l h eal th—h e h ire d Dr. Pe tri ll a. Harv ey ’s arg um en t wo ul d re qu ire W at so n t o g iv e g reat er wei gh t t o h is own “ red fla gs ” th anto hi s o wn ex pe rt’s p ro fes si on al op in io n t ha t Harve y di d n otha ve or ga ni c b rai n d am ag e. Agai n, we ca nn otco nc lu de th atW at so n was de fic ie ntfor tru st in g h is own ex pe rt. Harv ey ’s fin al arg um en t i s t ha t the cas e, he re, i s “ hi gh ly anal og ou s” to Ro m pi ll a v . Beard , 54 5 U.S. 3 74 , 12 5 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 1 62 L. Ed. 2d36 0 (2 00 5) ;

conce rns to Watson and told W atson that he did not think Harve y had bra in damag e. 77W ig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 1 23 S. Ct. 2 52 7, 1 56 L. Ed. 2d47 1 (2 00 3) ;

W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 46 L. Ed. 2d38 9 (2 00 0) ; an d W il li am s v . All en , 54 2 F .3d13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); the refo re, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Wats on ’s in ve st ig at io n was ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e co ns ti tu te d
anun reas on ab le factua l d et erm in at io n u nd er AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). As with Harve y ’s per so na l h is to ry arg um en t, h is m en ta l i nv es ti ga ti on arg um en t i s no th in g l ik e th e arg um en ts adva nc edinth es e cas es . As la idou t ab ov e, eac h c as e in vo lv edanatt orne y

who ov erl oo ke d aread il y av ai labl e d oc um en t tha t wo ul d ha ve op en eddo or s t o u nd is co ve redm it ig at io n e vi de nc e. See R om pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at38 3– 84 , 12 5 S . Ct. at24 64 ; Wig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 3– 25 , 12 3 S . Ct. at 25 36 –3 7; Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. at39 5, 1 20 S. Ct. at15 14 ; Al le n, 5 42 F. 3dat 1 33 9. No s uc h d oc um en t ex is te d fo r Harv ey . W it ho uta si m il ar s m ok in g g un , we can no t di sa gr ee wi th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Wats onact edreas on ab ly in tru st in g h is ex pe rt’s o pi ni on th atHarv ey di d n otha ve bra in da m ag e. VI. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng an al y se s, the di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f Harv ey ’s pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us is AFFIR MED.

78