FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T Marc h 30 , 201 2 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 17 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo.: 3: 09 -cv -0 11 45 -HLA-MCR JOHN LOVEMAN REESE, Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 30 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, PRYOR, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Jo hn Lov em anRees e, a Fl or id a p ris on er s en te nc edto de ath fo r th e m ur de r an d s ex ua l b at te ry

of C ha rle ne Aus ti n, ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is pe ti ti on fora writ of habe as co rp us . Rees e co nt en ds th at , du rin g t he sen te nc in g p ha se of h is tri al , th e le adpro se cu to r m ad e se ve ral im pr op er arg um en ts th atpe rs ua de d t he jury to reco m m en d ade ath s en te nc e, in vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o due pro ces s, an d t ha t the de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a to de ny him rel ie f was co nt rary to o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law o r 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) . The p ro se cu to r arg ue d t ha t Ree se ’s cri m e in vo lv ed“ ev ery wom an ’s wors [t] ni gh tm are,” ex pl ai ne d t ha t the re were n o m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc es forbu rg la ry

an d rape an d t he m in im

um se nt en ce fo r fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r was li fe i m

pr is on m en t wi thno pa ro le for 25 y ears , com

pa redRees e wit h a“ cu te li tt le pupp y ” who gre w up to be co m e a

“ vi ci ou s d og ,” an d u rg edth e jury to s ho w Rees e th e “ sa m e m ercy” he h adsh own Aus ti n. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co nc lu de d t ha t n on e o f th e p ro se cu to r’s arg um en ts ros e to th e le ve l o f m is co nduc t tha t wo ul d v io la te Rees e’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto du e p ro ces s. Be cau se no de ci si on of t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt cl earl y

est ab li sh es ot he rwis e, we can no t s ay th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edfed eral law. Mo reo ve r, ev enun de r a d e no vo rev ie w, no ne of t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts were i m

pr op er. W e aff

irm. 2I. BACK GROUND

Twent y -fi ve y ear o ldCh arl en e Aus ti n h ada lo t t o l iv e fo r. She was a n at tra ct iv e an d a th le ti c y ou ng wom anwho en joy eda ri ch so ci al li fe fi ll edwith fam il y an d fr ie nd s. Au st in saw h er b es t fr ie nd , Jac ki e Gri er, al m os t ev ery day an d en joy edsp en di ng ti m e wit h h er b oyfrien d, Ni ckOls on , a so ld ie r st at io ne d a t Fo rt St ewart , Geor gi a. Grie r ha d re cen tl y en de d arel at io ns hi p wi thanab us iv e bo y fri en d, J oh n Lo ve m anRees e, an d Gri er t oo was d at in g aso ld ie r st at io ne d a t Fo rt S te wart . On week en ds , Aus ti n trav el edfro m he r ho m e in Jac ks on vi ll e, Fl or id a, to Fo rt S te wart , to vi si t Ol so n a ndoft enst op pe d e n ro ut e to vi si t h er pa ren ts an d c ou si ns . Grier a ndAus ti n o fte n t rav el edto ge th er t o v is itth ei r bo y fri en ds . On Tu es da y , Jan ua ry

28 , 19 92 , Aus ti n wen t t o wo rkaft er h av in g re tu rn ed fro m a tr ip to Fo rt S te wart . As a s in gl e wom anli vi ng alo ne , Aus ti n was co ns ci ou s of he r se cu rit y

an d h adbu rg la r ba rs on he r win do ws. Bu t h er h om e wou ldno t b e a sa fe p la ce wh ensh e returne d. Unb ekno wns t t o Au st in , Jac ki e Gri er’s fo rm er b oyfrien d, Re es e, br ok e in to Aus ti n’s h om e, whi le sh e was at wo rk . Rees e en te redAus ti n’s h om e aro un d n oo n by usi ng a po ck etkn ife to op enth e b ackdo or . Rees e th enhi d i n aclo se t an d wait edforAus ti n t o re tu rnfro m workforth e ev en in g.

3Afte r Aus ti n a rri ve d h om e aro un d fo uro’clo ckinth e aft ern oo n, Re es e fo r

ho ur s re m ai ne d h id de n, wh ere h e th ou gh t ab ou t the reas on s Gri er h aden de d t he ir rel at io ns hi p. Whil e Ree se wait ed , Aus ti n u se d the ba th ro om , to okoff he r work cl ot he s, ch atte d o n t he ph on e wit h Gri er, t oo k anap, an d wat ch edtel ev is io n. Mea nwh il e, co nv in cedth atAus ti n h adso m ethi ng to do with t he bre ak -up o f hi s rel at io ns hi p wi th Grie r, Rees e st eel edhi m se lf t o a tt ackan d m ur de r Aus ti n. Aro un d t enin th e ev en in g, Re es e fel t co nf id en t tha t Au st in ha d fa ll enasl eep on he r so fa s o h e em erg edfro m th e cl os et . Rees e at ta ck edth e d efen se le ss Aus ti n an d c ho ke d h er, an d s he awok e. Aus ti n s tru gg le d a ga in stRees e whi le he be atan d dr ag ge d h er t o t he be dr oo m . Rees e th rew Au st in on to he r be d a ndco nt in ue d t o ch ok e h er u nt il sh e subm it te d t o h is sex ua l as saul t. Aft er Re es e rap edAus ti n, h e st ran gl edhe r un ti l s he was u nc on sc io us . Rees e th enpl acedAus ti n, fa ce d own , on th e fl oo r. Spyin g a n e le ctric al co rdne ar the foo t o f th e b ed , Rees e g rab be d i t an d wrap pe d the co rdaro un d Au st in ’s nec k. Re es e p ul le d the en ds of t he ele ctric al co rdforth ree t o fi ve m inut es to sl owl y ch ok e th e li fe o utof Au st in . After R ees e was sure tha t Au st in was d ead , he l efthe r na ke d b od y on th e fl oo r an d wen t t o a ne arb y W in n- Dix ie to bu y

gro ceri es . The ne xtda y , Grierco ul d n otreac h Au st in , andsh e b eg anto worry . Grier cal le d h er n ei gh bo r, Ste ve W at so n, wh o a gr eedto acco m pa ny her t o Au st in ’s 4ho us e. Grie r an d Wats on fou ndth e b ackdo orof Au st in ’s ho us e u nl oc ke d and

en te redth e h om e. Grie r imm ed ia te ly not ic edth atAus ti n’s l iv in g ro om was i n ast at e o f di sa rray: br ok enpi eces of kni ckkn ack s l it te redth e fl oo r, co uc h p il lo ws were ru ffl edan d app eare d o utof p la ce, an d t he li vi ng roo m tab le ha d b een care le ss ly pu sh edasi de . W it h wh atm us t h av e b een a de ep sen se of d read , Grierm ov ed to wardAus ti n’s b edro om . Wha t Gri er fo un d c on firm edhe r wor stfear s. Au st inlai d d eadonth e fl oo r, co ve redwith abl an ke t. Gri er ca ll edth e p ol ic e, who lat er d et erm in edth atAus ti n ha d b een st ran gl edwith a n e le ctric al ex te ns io n c or d t ha t was do ub le d a ndwrap pe d aro un d h er n ecktwi ce wi th th e en ds pu ll edth ro ug h t he lo op . Whe n Gri er re tu rn edto he r ho m e d is traug htto m eetwith Au st in ’s par en ts , sh e was su rp ris edto fin d R ees e wai ti ng forhe r. Ree se pro fes se d h is lo ve forGrie r an d a sk edhe r to st ic k b y

hi m be cau se so m ethi ng ha d h ap pe ne d, b utGrie r was to o rat tl edfro m

see in g Au st in ’s dea d b od y to askhi m

whathe m ean t. Grie r to ldRees e th atAus ti n h adbe enm ur de redan d i nv it edhi m

to go ou ts id e wit h h er t o c on so le Aus ti n’s p aren ts . Ree se refu se d. Gri er n ot ic edth at Ree se ha d fr es h s crat ch es onhi s n eck , for earm , andba ck .

5Afte r th e p ol ic e fo un d R ees e’s pa lm pri nton Aus ti n’s b ed , th e p ol ic e qu es ti on edRees e, an d h e co nf es se d t o t he bu rg la ry , rap e, an d m ur de r. Rees e st at edin it ia ll y

th athe ha d b ro ke n i nt o Au st in ’s ho m e to tal k wi th he r ab ou t Gri er, bu t Re es e ad m it te d l at er tha t, b efo re Au st inha d re tu rn edho m e, he ha d p la nn edto hu rt h er. Ree se co nf

es se d t ha t h e h adhi dd enbe fo re Au st in returne d h om e. Rees e al so co nf es se d t ha t h e em erg edfro m hi di ng aft er Au st in fel l as le ep onth e so fa, gr ab be d h er ar ou ndth e n eck , dra gg edhe r in to th e b edro om , rap edhe r, an d the n st ran gl edhe r to de ath wi th anele ctric al co rd . The po li ce arres te d R ees e, an d wh il e awai ti ng tri al , Rees e co nf es se d t o Grie r th athe ha d rape d a ndki ll edAus ti n. A g ran d jury ch arg edRees e with fi rs t de gr ee m ur de r, se xu al ba tt ery with g reatfor ce, an d b ur gl ary with a ss au lt . Mu lt ip le pa rti es tes ti fie d a t Re es e’s tr ia l, i nc lu di ng Grie r, a m ed ic al ex am in er, a fo ren si c ex pe rt, a ndtwo de te ct iv es who st at edth at , when th ey ha d as ke d R ees e if

he ha d d eci de d t o h urt Au st inwhi le wait in g fo r he r to co m e h om e, Ree se ha d re pl ie d “ y es .” Rees e al so tes ti fie d a ndco nf es se d t o t he cri m es . The jury fou ndRees e g ui lt y

of a ll th ree c rimes, an d t he tri al co urt the n c on du ct eda se pa rat e se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g b efo re the jury. Inhi s cl os in g a rg um en t tha t the m ur de r was “ es pe ci al ly hei no us , atr oc io us , orcru el ,” th e p ro se cu to r st at ed , “ I wou ldsubm itto y outh atth e way th atth at 6de fen da ntch os e to ki ll Ch arl en e Aus ti n, wh athe for cedCh arl en e Aus ti n t o

ex pe rie nc e is ev ery wom an ’s wors [t] ni gh tm are.” The d efen se co un se l o bjec te d on th e g ro un d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s arg um en t v io la te d t he “ go ld enrul e,” wh ic h fo rb id s co un se l fr om

ask in g t he jury to pl ace i ts el f in th e v ic ti m ’s sh oe s. Alt ho ug h th e d efen se arg ue d t ha t the co m m en t was im

pr op er b ecau se ov er h al f of th e m em be rs of t he jury were wo m en , th e co urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on be cau se th e pr os ecu to r di d n otli te ral ly askth e juro rs to pl ace t he m se lv es inth e v ic ti m ’s sh oe s. The pro se cu to r co nt inue d t o d es cri be ho w Rees e’s cri m e was esp eci al ly hei no us , atro ci ou s, o r cru el :

Ch arl en e Aus ti n was awak en [ed ] fro m th atde ep sl eep th atth e de fen da ntha d wai te d fo r he r to fal l i nt o wh enhe grabb edhe r fro m be hi nd , sh e d id n’t kno w who was g rab bi ng he r. Here was a st ran ge r in he r da rkho us e g rab bi ng he r. It was to o da rkfor he r to see , to be be at en , to be rap ed , andth ento be sl owl y st ran gl ed . Thatwas h er wo rs [t] ni gh tm are c om e true . AndI as k youto lo okba ck [] and. . . refl ect. . . on th e ev id en ce

. . . . W as th atesp eci al ly hei no us , was tha t es pe ci al ly atro ci ou s an d cru el ?

. . . . I wou ldsubm itto y outh aty oum us t d et erm in e fro m

th e ev id en ce wh atwas g oi ng on inCh arl en e Aus ti n’s m in d wh enth e de fen da ntwas fo rci ng he r to en du re tha t n ig ht m are. As k yours el f fro m th e ev id en ce wh atsh e was ex pe rie nc in g, wh atwas g oi ng th ro ug h h er m in d. . . .

. . . . 7[Ree se ] wan ts y outo for gi ve whatwas g oi ng th ro ug h C ha rle ne

Aus ti n’s m in d wh ensh e was bru ta ll y awak en edby tha t d efen dant whe n h e g rab be d h er ar ou ndth e n eck . He want s you t o fo rg etth e ho rro r, th e h orro r th atm

us t h av e b een go in g t hr ou gh he r m in d a s s he fo ug htfor

he r li fe . . . . . . . [H] e wan ts y outo for ge t the qu es ti on s t ha t m ay have be en go in g t hr ou gh he r m in d: Who is th is ? Wha t i s h e d oi ng to m e? Wha t’s g oi ng on ? Why is h e p ul li ng m e to m y be dr oo m ? He wan ts y outo for ge t tho se qu es ti on s t ha t you kno w m us t ha ve be engo in g t hr ou gh y ou r m in d . . . .

. . . .

. . . . Thatst ru gg le with t ha t d efen da ntlas te d, I wo ul d s ub m it to y ou , forlo ng er tha n 3 0 t o 6 0 s eco nd s. . . . [Thatti m e whe re] Ch arl en e Aus ti n . . . was fi gh ti ng forhe r li fe wo ul d h av e se em edli ke ho ur s . . . .

. . . . Now atso m e p oi ntin ti m e, atso m e p oi ntinti m e aft er s he ha d be enbe at en , aft er s he ha d b eenrap ed , sh e h adho pe d tha t s he was go in g t o l iv e th ro ug h t hi s. Th athe wou ldlethe r li ve . Thathe was go in g t o s ho w m ercy onhe r . . . .

. . . . His tre atm en t o f Ch arl en e Aus ti n i n h is vi ol en ce . . . fro m th e fac ts of t hi s m

ur de r, an d t ha t’s wh atI as k youto lo okat, t he fact s go in g o n i n C ha rle ne Aus ti n’s m in d. The pro se cu to r expl ai ne d t o t he jury th atth ere wer e n o m in im um sen te nc es fo r rap e an d b ur gl ary, an d t ha t the m in im um sen te nc e fo r m

ur de r was li fe im pr is on m en t wi th th e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le in25 y ears :

8[Y]ou’re g oi ng to be to ldth aton fir stde gr ee m ur de r, th e de fen da ntcange t . . . if the re i s a r eco m m en da ti on of l ife . . . no ch an ce o f pa ro le for25 y ears . The jud ge is go in g t o t el l you t hi s, tha t o n t he sex ua l b atte ry an d b ur gl ary, th atth e d efen da ntcanface up to li ve [si c] in p ris on on th os e two off

en se s. Bu t you n eedto kn ow t hi s, the re’s n o m an da to ry m in im um onth es e li ve s [s ic ]. No m in im um m an da to ry

on th e m ur de r, th ere i s a m in im

um m an da to ry

of 2 5 years, o n t he se ot he r li fes [si c], the re’s n o m in im um m an da to ry , andno on e rea ll y kn ows wha t tha t m ean s. The de fen se ob

jecte d o n t he gro un ds th atth e co m m en ts were m is le ad in g, b utth e pr os ecu to r co nt in ue d t o d is cu ss th e la ckof m an da to ry m in im um s af te r th e co urt ov erru le d t he ob

jecti on : The re ar e n o m in im

um m an da to ry

sen te nc es th atap pl y

to se xu al ba tt ery an d b ur gl ary. The m ax im um sen te nc e . . . oneit he r on e of th es e is a li fe s en te nc e. Thatis , th e jud ge cango fro m on e d ay in jail up to a li fe s en te nc e o n e ach of t he se two off en se s wi th no m in im um m an da to ry . Now, I ex pe ctth atth e d efen se is go in g t o a rg ue to y ou. . . th at th e jud ge cangi ve th e d efen da nt s t hr ee l ife sen te nc es . Andth at ’s a po ss ib il it y . . . . Buton ly tha t ju dg e can m ak e th atde ci si on , andth at ’s th e jud ge ’s dec is io n i f a rec omm en da ti on of l ife is gi ve n. Aga in , I m en ti on to y ou , th ere’s n o m in im um m an da to ry . I wou ldsubm itto y outh atth e fac ts rel at in g t o apo ss ib le pri so n se nt en ce o n t he se two off en se s—th e se xu al ba tt ery an d b ur gl ary—is no t . . . a m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce.

9The n t he pro se cu to r atte m pt edto di sc red itth e d efen se ’s m it ig at io n ev id en ce, es pe ci al ly the tes ti m on ie s o f two tea ch ers th atRees e h adbe ena ni ce, res pe ct fu l s tu de nt . The p ro se cu to r to lda st ory ab ou t a c ut e li tt le pupp y

who gre w in to a vi ci ou s d og . The p ro se cu to r be ga n t o c om pa re Re es e to th e d og , andth e de fen se co un se l o bjec te d o n t he gro un d t ha t fu rth er co m m en ts of t hi s n atur e wou ld de ni gr at e Ree se . The jud ge ov erru le d t he ob jecti on , andth e p ro se cu to r co nt in ue d to co m pa re Re es e to th e d og inth e st ory : “ The pe rs on th atth os e p eo pl e kne w y ears ag o n o l on ge r ex is ts . . . . Like th atcu te li tt le pupp y , th is de fen da nt , li ke th e cu te li tt le pupp y

th at[be ]cam e a rab iddo g, i t b ecame a vi ci ou s d og , th is de fen da nt , by hi s ac ti on s wi th Ch arl en e Aus ti n, s ho w hi m to be a vi ci ou s p ers on .” At the en d o f hi s cl os in g s ta te m en t, the pro se cu to r as ke d t he jury to co ns id er th e ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces an d s ta te d t ha t, i f th e jury app li ed th e la w, itwou ld“ cl earl y see th atth e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ou twei gh th e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , andde ath [i s] th e p ro pe r rec omm en da ti on .” The pr os ecu to r th enst at ed , “ I as k youno t t o b e swa y edby pit y or s ym pa th y forth e de fen da nt . Wha t p it y

or s ym pa th y di d h e sh ow t o C ha rle ne Aus ti n? ” The pr os ecu to r co nt in ue d, “ [I]f y ouare t o . . . sh ow p it y or m ercy or s ym

pa th y to th is de fen da nt , I asky outo do th is : I a sky outo sh ow t ha t d efen dantth e sa m e

10sym

pa th y , th e sa m e m ercy, the same pit y th athe sh owe d t o C ha rle ne Aus ti n, an d th atwas n on e.” The de fen se di d n otob ject. The tri al co urt en te reda se nt en ce o f de ath, b as edon th e rec omm en da ti on of th e jury, for the co nv ic ti on of f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r; aco ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e o f 22 y ears of i m

pr is on m en t fo r th e co nv ic ti on of s ex ua l b atte ry with g reatfor ce; an d a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e o f 22 y ears im pr is on m en t fo r th e co nv ic ti on of b ur gl ary with as saul t. The tri al co urt fo un d, as anag gr av at edcir cum st an ce, tha t Re es e h ad co m m it te d t he m

ur de r whi le en ga ge d i n t he co m m is si on of t he cri m es of s ex ua l ba tt ery an d b ur gl ary. The tria l co urt al so fou ndth atth e m ur de r in vo lv edtwo m or e st atut ory ag gr av at in g fa ct or s: Rees e h adco m m it te d the m

ur de r in a co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edm an ne r, an d t he m ur de r was esp eci al ly hei no us , atro ci ou s, an d c ru el . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a affi rm edRees e’s co nv ic ti on . Rees e v . Sta te , 69 4 S o. 2 d 6 78 (Fl a. 19 97 ) (Re es e I). The co urt ru le d t ha t Re es e’s arg um en t tha t th e p ro se cu to r ha d i m

pr op erl y pe rs ua de d t he jury to reco m m en d asen te nc e o f de ath i n v io la ti on of h is rig htto du e p ro ces s was “ witho utm eri t” be cau se no ne of th e p ro se cu to r’s co m

m en ts were i m

pr op er: W e h av e rev ie wedth e cl os in g arg um en t, an d fi ndth atth e p ro se cu to r ne it he r im

pl or edth e jury to p la ce the m se lv es inth e v ic ti m ’s sh oe s n or im pe rm is si bl y

in flu en cedth e jury by

su gg es ti ng Rees e co ul d b e 11pa ro le d i f th e jury reco m m en de d l ife . Rees e arg ue s t ha t the pr os ecu to r’s us e o f a s to ry ab ou t a “ cu te li tt le pupp y ” who “ gr ew in to a v ic io us do g” was p reju di ci al . Howev er, ev id en ce o f Ree se ’s pas t ch arac te r was pre se nt edto th e jury, so i t was no t i napp ro pr ia te forth e pr os ecu to r to arg ue th atpa stch arac te r was no t a d et erm in an t o f pr es en t ch arac te r. The s to ry di d n otco ns ti tu te na m e cal li ng , andwas no t p reju di ci al . The cl os in g a rg um en t d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f m is co nduc t. The re was no erro r. Ree se I, 69 4 S o. 2 d a t 6 85 . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a affi rm edth e co nv ic ti on , bu t re m an de d t o t he tri al co urt t o re co ns id er i ts sen te nc e o f de ath b ecau se it s ex pl an at io n i n s up po rt o f th atsen te nc e was de fic ie nt . Id. Onrem an d, the tri al co urt re vi se d i ts sen te nc in g or de r to ex pl ai n i ts reas on s i n s up po rt o f it s d eci si on to sen te nc e Ree se to de ath. Ree se ap pe al ed , andth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a o rd eredth e tr ia l co urt t o h ol d a he ari ng wher e co un se l fr om bo th si de s co ul d p res en t wri tt enan d o ral arg um en ts . Ree se v. St at e, 72 8 S o. 2 d 7 27 (Fl a. 19 99 ) (Re es e II). Th e tr ia l co urt h el d a he ari ng to co ns id er the writ te n a ndora l ar gu m en ts of c ou ns el , con si de redth e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, an d fo un d t he same thr ee s ta tu to ry ag gr av at in g fa ct or s t ha t i t ha d fo un d b efo re, n o s ta tu to ry mit ig at in g fa ct or s, an d s ev enno ns ta tu to ry m it ig at or s: (1) go odjail reco rd ; (2 ) po si ti ve ch arac te r tr ai ts ; (3 ) supp ort o f Ja ck ie Grie r an d h er ch il dr en ; (4 ) po ss es si ve rel at io ns hi p wi th Jac ki e Gri er; (5) em ot io na l imm atur it y ; (6 ) po ss ib le us e o f drug s an d a lc oh ol aro un d t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r;

12an d (7 ) la ckof asi gn ifi can t cr im in al reco rd . The tria l co urt i m po se d asen te nc e o f de ath a fte r itde te rm in edth at“ th e wei gh t o f th e th ree s ta tu to ry ag gr av at in g fa ct or s is gre at er than t he co m

bi ne d wei gh t o f al l the m it ig at in g fa ct or s. . . . [an d] th e weig htof e ach of t he in di vi du al st atut ory ag gr av at in g fa ct or s wo ul d i nd ep en de nt ly ou twei ghth e co m

bi ne d wei gh t o f al l o f th e m it ig at in g fa ct or s.” The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a affi rm edRees e’s se nt en ce o n Au gu st17 , 20 00 . Rees e v . Sta te , 76 8 S o. 2 d 1 05 7 (F la . 20 00 ) (Re es e III) . On Ja nu ary 8, 20 01 , Rees e p et it io ne d fo r a wri t o f cert io rari fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, b utth e Co urt d en ie d t ha t p et it io n. Re es e v . Flo rid a, 53 2 U.S. 9 10 , 12 1 S . Ct . 12 39 (20 01 ) (Re es e IV). Ree se fil edin Flo rid a co urt a m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f an d t wice am en de d t he m ot io n. Th e tr ia l co urt d en ie d re li ef. Ree se ap pe al ed , andth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a aff irmed th e d eci si onof t he tri al co urt t o d en y rel ie f. Ree se v. St at e, 14 So . 3d91 3 (F la . 20 09 ) (Re es e V). Ree se th enfil edin th e d is tri ctco urt a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Re es e ag ai n a ll eg edth at , du rin g t he sen te nc in g s ta ge of h is tri al , th e p ro se cu to r ha d i m pr op erl y ap pe al edto th e jury to re co m m en d ade ath se nt en ce, an d h adde ni edhi m du e p ro ces s o f law as e st ab li sh edinGreer v . Mil le r, 48 3 U.S. 7 56 , 10 7 S . Ct. 3 10 2 (1 98 7) , andDard env. Wain wrig ht , 47 7 U.S. 1 68 , 1310 6 S . Ct. 2 46 4 (1 98 6) . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d R ees e’s pe ti ti on , bu t g ran te d

Ree se a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y with re sp ectto th atcla im . The d is tri ctco urt de ni edRees e’s m ot io n t o e xp an d t he cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . II . STANDARD OF REVIEW The Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 g ov ern s R ees e’s pe ti ti on an d l im it s o urrev ie w of t he de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Und er s ect io n 2 25 4( d) , we m ay no t g ran t h ab eas co rp us rel ie f with re sp ectto an y

cla im th atha s b een ad

jud ic at edon th e m eri ts inst at e co urt pr oc eed in gs un le ss th e d eci si on of t he st at e co urt t o d en y rel ie f “ was co nt rary to fed eral law the n c le arl y

est ab li sh edinth e h ol di ng s o f [the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt]; o r . . . inv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f su ch law; or . . . was b as ed on anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e rec or d b efo re the st at e co urt.” Harrin gt on v. Ri ch te r, __U.S. __ , 13 1 S . Ct. 7 70 , 78 5 (2 01 1) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The p hr as e “ cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral la w” in sec ti on 22 54 (d ) “ refe rs to th e h ol di ng s, as op po se d t o t he di ct a, of [th e de ci si on s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt] as o f th e ti m e o f th e rel ev an t s ta te co urt d eci si on .” W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 2, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 49 5, 1 52 3 (2 00 0) . “ A st at e co urt ac ts co nt rary to cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law i f it co nf ro nt s a s etof f

act s t ha t ar e m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m a de ci si on of t he 14Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s an d n ev erthe le ss arri ve s ata res ul t d iff eren t fro m it s p rece de nt .” Green e v . Upt on , 64 4 F .3d11 45 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (in te rn al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . “ The de ci si on of ast at e co urt in vo lv es anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law i f th e st at e co urt i de nt ifi es th e co rrec t g ov ern in g l eg al rul e b utun reas on ab ly app li es itto th e fact s o f th e p art ic ul ar s ta te pri so ne r’s cas e, orwhen itun reas on ab ly ext en ds , or un reas on ab ly decl in es to ex te nd , a leg al pri nc ip le fro m Supr em e Co urt ca se law t o a n ew co nt ex t.” Id . (in te rn al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) .

“ [A] feder al habe as co urt m ay no t i ss ue th e wri t s im

pl y be cau se th atco urt co nc lu de s i n i ts in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t tha t the rel ev an t s ta te -co urt d eci si on ap pl ie d c le arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law erro ne ou sl y or i nc orrect ly. Rathe r, th at ap pl ic at io n m

us t al so be un reas on ab le .” W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 11 , 12 0 S . Ct. at 15 22 . The “pi vo ta l que st io n” in a fed eral habe as pro ceed in g i s “ whe th er the st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f [cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law] was u nr eas on ab le .” Harri ng to n, _

_ U.S. at__ , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 5. Th is in qu iry is d iff eren t fr om de te rm in in g wh ethe r we wou ldde ci de de no vo th atth e p et it io ne r’s cl ai m ha d m eri t. Id . To ob ta in habe as rel ie f “ a st at e p ris on er m us t s ho w th atth e st at e co urt’s ru li ng on th e cl ai m be in g p res en te d i n fe de ral co urt was so lac ki ng in

15jus ti fic at io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l und ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g la w beyon d any po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Id . at 7 86 –8 7. The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t “ a h ab eas co urt m us t d et erm in e wha t ar gu m en ts or t he or ie s s up po rte d o r, [if no ne were s ta te d], cou ldha ve supp orte d[ ] th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on ; an d t he n i t m us t as k wh ethe r itis po ss ib le fai rm in de d ju ris ts co ul d d is ag ree t ha t tho se arg um en ts or t he or ie s ar e in co ns is te nt with t he ho ld in g i n apri orde ci si on of [ th e Supr em e Co urt].” Harri ng to n, _ _ U.S. at__ , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6; see als o J oh ns on v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 3 F .3d90 7, 91 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 1) . “ [E]val ua ti ng whet he r a ru le ap pl ic at io n was un reas on ab le requi res co ns id eri ng th e ru le ’s sp eci fic it y . The m or e g en eral th e ru le , th e m or e le eway co urts ha ve in reac hi ng ou tc om es incas e-b y -cas e d et erm in at io ns .” Yarb or ou gh v. Al va rad o, 5 41 U.S. 65 2, 6 64 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 14 0, 2 14 9 (2 00 4) . “ [I]t is no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law fo r a s ta te co urt to de cl in e to ap pl y

a sp eci fic leg al rul e th atha s n otbe ensqua rel y est ab li sh edby [th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt].” Kno wles v. Mi rzayance , 55 6 U.S. 1 11 , 12 2, 12 9 S . Ct. 1 41 1, 1 41 9 (2 00 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The s ta nd ard es tabl is he d i n s ect io n 2 25 4( d) is “ di ffi cu ltto m eetbe cau se th e p ur po se of AEDPA is to en su re tha t fe de ral habe as rel ie f fu nc ti on s as a gu ardag ai ns t ex tre m e m al fu nc ti on s i n t he st at e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em s, an d n otas am ean s o f erro r 16co rrec ti on .” Green e v . Fis he r, __U.S. __ , 13 2 S . Ct. 3 8, 4 3 (2 01 1) (ci ta ti on s an d

in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .

“ The qu es ti on whet he r a s ta te co urt errs inde te rm in in g the fact s i s a di ffer en t que st io n fr om

whet he r iterrs inap pl y in g t he law.” R ic e v . Col li ns , 54 6 U.S. 33 3, 3 42 , 12 6 S . Ct. 9 69 , 97 6 (2 00 6) . Butou r st an da rdof r ev ie w is ag ai n de fere nt ia l. Ina habe as pro ceed in g, “ [o ]ur rev ie w of fi nd in gs of f actby the st at e co urt i s ev enm or e d efer en ti al th anun de r a cl earl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ardof r ev ie w.” St ep he ns v. Hal l, 4 07 F.3d11 95 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON Ree se co nt en ds th atth e p ro se cu to r en ga ge d i n m is co nduc t wh enhe to ldth e jury thatAus ti n’s ex pe rie nc e was “ ev ery wom an ’s wors [t] ni gh tm are,” su gg es te d th atRees e wou ldbe rel eas edon pa ro le ab se nta se nt en ce o f de ath, co m pa red Ree se with a“ cu te li tt le pupp y ” who gre w up to be co m e a “ vi ci ou s d og ,” an d ur ge d t he jury to sh ow Re es e “ th e sa m e sym pa th y , th e sa m e p it y

th athe sh owe d t o Ch arl en e Aus ti n, an d t ha t was no ne .” Rees e arg ue s t ha t, wh enm eas ur edag ai ns t th e d eci si on s o f th e Supr em e Co urt i n Do nn el ly v. DeCh ris to fo ro , 41 6 U.S. 6 37 , 94 S. Ct. 1 86 8 (1 97 4) , Uni te d S ta te s v . You ng , 47 0 U.S. 1 , 10 5 S . Ct. 1 03 8 (1 98 5) , Dard env. Wainwrig ht , 47 7 U.S. 1 68 , 10 6 S . Ct. 2 46 4 (1 98 6) , andGreer v . Mil le r, 48 3 U.S. 7 56 , 10 7 S . Ct. 3 10 2 (1 98 7) , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly 17co nc lu de d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts di d n ot“ so in fect [] the tri al with un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a de ni al of due pro ces s,” Da rd en , 47 7 U.S. at18 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at24 71 (qu ot in g Do nn el ly, 41 6 U.S. at64 3, 9 4 S . Ct. at18 71 ). W e d is ag ree. Ree se ’s arg um en t fa il s fo r two sep arat e rea so ns . Firs t, the Supr em e Co urt of Flo rid a d idno t u nr eas on ab ly app ly any cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral rul e whe n i t reject edRees e’s cl ai m

of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t. Sec on d, ev enun de r de no vo rev ie w, Rees e’s cl ai m

fai ls be cau se no m is co nduc t o ccurredas am at te r of fed eral la w. A. The S up re me Co ur t o

f Flor id a Di d N ot Unr ea so na bl

y App lyFede ra l La w. Our i nqui ry

is li m it edto whet he r th e st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li eda ho ld in g o f th e Supr em e Co urt, Will ia m s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 12 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 23 , and th e Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r he ldth ata pr os ecu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en ts were s o un fai r as to vi ol at e th e ri gh t o f a d efen dantto du e p ro ces s. Re es e is no t en ti tl edto habe as rel ie f be cau se “ itis no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh ed Fed eral law fo r a s ta te co urt t o d ecl in e to ap pl y a sp eci fic leg al rul e th atha s n ot be ensqua rel y

est ab li sh edby [the Supr em e Co urt].” Kno wles , 55 6 U.S. at12 2, 12 9 S . Ct. at14 19 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt h as rei te rat ed , ti m e an d a ga in , th at , inth e ab se nc e o f a cl ear a ns wer—th atis , a ho ld in g 18by the Supr em e Co urt— ab ou t an is su e o f fed eral law, we ca nn otsay tha t a

de ci si on of ast at e co urt ab ou t tha t u ns et tl edis su e was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Wrig htv. Van Pat te n, 5 52 U.S. 12 0, 1 26 , 12 8 S. Ct . 74 3, 7 47 (20 08 ) (“ Bec au se ou r cas es gi ve no cle ar an swe r to th e que st io n pr es en te d, l etalo ne on e inVan P at te n’s fa vo r, itcan no t b e sa idth atth e st at e co urt un reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; Sc hr iro v. Lan dr ig an , 55 0 U.S. 4 65 , 47 8, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 93 3, 1 94 2 (2 00 7) (The Ariz on a Supr em e Co urt d idno t u nr eas on ab ly app ly feder al law b ecau se “ we ha ve ne ve r ad dr es se d asi tu at io n l ik e th is .”); Care y v. Mu sl ad in , 54 9 U.S. 7 0, 7 7, 12 7 S . Ct. 6 49 , 65 4 (2 00 6) (“ Giv enth e la ckof h ol di ng s fr om th is Co urt re ga rd in g th e p ot en ti al ly prejud ic ia l ef fectof s pe ct at or s’ cou rtr oo m co nduc t o f th e k in d in vo lv edhe re,” the de ni al of r el ie f by the Cal ifo rn iaCo urt o f App eal “ was no t co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law.”) . Non e o f th e d eci si on s o f th e Supr em e Co urt ci te d b y Rees e su gg es t tha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edfed eral law. Infact , inev ery de ci si on , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts ha d n otvi ol at ed th e d efen da nt ’s fed eral rig ht s. Re es e h as no t es tabl is he d “ th atth e st at e co urt’s ru li ng on [hi s due pro ces s] cla im . . . was so lac ki ng injus ti fic at io n tha t the re was

19anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d co m pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il it y

forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . InDard en , eve ry

co urt tha t re vi ewedth e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t— in cl ud in g t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a, th is Co urt, an d t he Supr em e Co urt— co nd em

ne d i t, b ut“ no co urt . . . hel d t ha t the arg um en t re nd eredth e tr ia l un fai r.” 4 77 U.S. at 1 79 , 10 6 S . Ct. at24 71 . The p ro se cu to r’s arg um en t i nc lu de d anin vi ta ti on to bl am e st at e p ris on off ic ia ls forth e d efen dant ’s cap it al m ur de r be cau se he “ was on a week en d fu rlo ug h fr om a pr is on sen te nc e whe n t he cri m e oc cu rred ,” st at em en ts th at“ im pl ie d t ha t the de ath p en al ty w ou ldbe th e o nl y gu aran te e ag ai ns t a f

utur e si m il ar ac t,” r efer en ces to th e d efen da ntas a n “ an im al ” who sh ou ldbe on th e en d o f “ a le as h,” an d s ta te m en ts th atth e p ro se cu to r wis he d so m eo ne ha d “ bl own away ” th e d efen da ntwith ash ot gu n. Id . at 1 80 –8 1 & nn . 9, 10 , 11 , & 12 , 10 6 S . Ct. at24 71 & n n. 9 , 10 , 11 , & 12 . The Supr em e Co urt ne ve rth el es s h el d t ha t the arg um en t “ di d n otde pr iv e th e p et it io ne r of a fai r tr ia l.” Id . at 1 81 , 10 6 S . Ct. at24 71 . The Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t, wh enth e p ro se cu to r’s im pr op er cl os in g a rg um en t was co ns id eredinth e co nt ex t o f th e who le tri al , th e pe ti ti on er’s tria l was fai r: The pro se cu to rs ’ arg um en t d idno t m an ip ul at e o r m is st at e th e ev id en ce, n ordi d i t i m

pl ic at e o th er s pe ci fic rig ht s o f th e acc us edsu ch as th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el or t he rig htto rem ai n s il en t. Mu ch of the 20ob

jecti on ab le co nt en t was in vi te d b y or wa s re sp on si ve to th e o pe ni ng su m m at io n o f th e d efen se . . . . The tria l co urt i ns tru ct edth e juro rs se ve ral ti m es th atth ei r de ci si on was t o b e m ad e o n t he ba si s o f th e ev id en ce al on e, an d t ha t the arg um en ts of c ou ns el were n otev id en ce. The weig htof t he ev id en ce ag ai ns t p et it io ne r was he av y ; the “ ov erwh el m in g e y ewitne ss an d c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce t o s up po rt a fin di ng of g ui lton all ch arg es ,” reduc edth e li ke li ho odth atth e jury’ s de ci si on was i nf

lu en cedby argu m en t. . . . Defens e co un se l wer e ab le to us e th e o pp ortu ni ty for reb ut ta l v ery effe ct iv el y , tu rn in g m uc h o f th e p ro se cu to rs ’ cl os in g arg um en t ag ai ns t the m by pla ci ng m an y

of th e p ro se cu to rs ’ co m

m en ts an d a ct io ns ina li gh t tha t was m or e li ke ly to en ge nd er s tro ng di sapp ro va l tha n re su ltinin fla m edpa ss io ns ag ai ns t p et it io ne r. Forth es e rea so ns , we agr ee wi thth e Dis tri ctCo urt be lo w th at“ Dard en ’s tri al was n otpe rfec t— few are —b utne ithe r was itfun da m en ta ll y

un fai r.” Id . at 1 81 –8 3, 1 06 S. Ct. 2 47 1– 72 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Dard enoff

ers Rees e n o a ss is ta nc e in est ab li sh in g t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law wh enithe ldth atth e pr os ecu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t, wh ic h n o c ou rt h as co nd em ne d, d idno t v io la te Ree se ’s rig htto du e p ro ces s. On ly a ho ld in g o f th e Supr em e Co urt ca n c le arl y es tabl is h fe de ral law, an d t he Dard enCo urt h el d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s arg um en t di d n otde pr iv e th e p et it io ne r of a fai r tr ia l. Un de r Dard en , Rees e h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t the rul in g o f th e st at e co urt o n h is du e p ro ces s cl ai m “was so la ck in g i n ju st ifi cat io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d in ex is ti ng law b ey on d a ny po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . 21You ng in vo lv ed“ advo cacy . . . [th at ] ha s n o p la ce i n t he adm in is tra ti on of

jus ti ce an d s ho ul d n ei th er b e p erm it te d n orreward ed ,” 47 0 U.S. at9, 1 05 S. Ct. at 10 43 , bu t the Supr em e Co urt h el d, o n d ire ctap pe al , th atth e p ro se cu to r’s im pr op er cl os in g a rg um en ts di d n otris e “ to th e le ve l o f ‘pla in erro r’ whenhe res po nd edto de fen se co un se l,” i d. at14 , 10 5 S . Ct. at10 46 . In re bu tt al , th e p ro se cu to r

“ res po nd edto de fen se co un se l’s cl ai m th atth e Gov ern m en t d idno t b el ie ve init s own cas e,” b y

off eri ng pe rs on al ex pr es si on s o f be li ef i n t he de fen da nt ’s gu il t. Id . at5, 1 05 S. Ct. at10 41 . “ Viewe d i n c on te xt , th e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en ts , alt ho ug h in ap pr op ria te an d a m ou nt in g t o e rro r, were n otsu ch as t o u nd erm in e th e fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s o f th e tr ia l an d c on tri bu te to a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Id . at 16 , 10 5 S . Ct. at10 47 . You ng est ab li sh edno rul e o f fed eral law t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a un reas on ab ly app li ed . Onl y a ho ld in g o f th e Supr em e Co urt ca n c le arl y est ab li sh fed eral law, an d t he You ng Co urt h el d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s st at em en ts di d n ot un de rm in e th e fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s o f th e tr ia l o r co nt rib ut e to a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Und er Yo un g, Re es e h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t the rul in g o f th e st at e co urt on hi s due pro ces s cl ai m

“ was so lac ki ng injus ti fic at io n tha t the re was anerro r well un de rs to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il ity for fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . 22Don ne ll y in vo lv eda pr os ecu to r’s cl os in g arg um en t tha t the Supr em e Ju di ci al Co urt o f Mas sa ch us et ts de te rm in edwas i m pr op er, b utth atth e Uni te d St at es Supr em e Co urt n ev erthe le ss he lddi d n otde pr iv e th e p et it io ne r of a fai r tri al . In re sp on se to de fen se co un se l’s ex pr es si on of h op e th atth e jury woul d fi nd th e d efen da ntno t g ui lt y , th e p ro se cu to r arg ue d t ha t h e th ou gh t the de fen se

“ fran kl y . . . ho pe [d ] th at[th e jury woul d] fin d [t he de fen da nt ] gu il ty of so m ethi ng a li tt le les s t ha n fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r.” Don ne ll y , 41 6 U.S. at64 0, 9 4 S . Ct. at 18 70 . The tria l co urt s us ta in edanob jecti onto th e arg um en t, an d t he Supr em e Co urt d es cri be d t he arg um en t as “bu t o ne m om en t i n a n e xt en de d t ria l [t ha t] was fo ll owe d b y

sp eci fic di sapp ro vi ng in st ru ct io ns .” Id . at 6 45 , 94 S. Ct. at18 72 . Don ne ll y off ers Rees e n o h el p i n e st ab li sh in g t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. On ly a ho ld in g o f th e Supr em e Co urt ca n c le arl y est ab li sh fed eral law, an d t he Don ne ll y Co urt h el d th atth e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g arg um en t d idno t d ep riv e th e p et it io ne r of a fai r tr ia l. Und er Do nn el ly, Ree se ha s n otest ab li sh edth atth e ru li ng of the st at e co urt o n h is du e p ro ces s cl ai m

“was so lac ki ng injus ti fic at io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l un de rs to odan d co m

pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il it y for fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 .

23Greerin vo lv edanim pr op er, b utun an swe red , qu es ti on ab ou t the de fen da nt ’s po st arre stsi le nc e, no t an im pr op er cl os in g a rg um en t, an d t he Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t “ [t]he seque nc e o f ev en ts inth is cas e—asi ng le qu es ti on , an imm ed ia te ob

jecti on , andtwo cu rat iv e in st ru ct io ns —cl earl y in di cat es th atth e pr os ecu to r’s im

pr op er que st io n d idno t v io la te [th e d efen da nt ’s] du e p ro ces s rig ht s.” 4 83 U.S. at 7 66 , 10 7 S . Ct. at31 09 . The Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t, al th ou gh th e p ro se cu to r at te m

pt edto vi ol at e th e d efen da nt ’s rig htag ai ns t s el f-i nc rimnati on , un de r th e Fi fth an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts , as i nt erp ret edinDoyle v. Oh io , 42 6 U.S. 61 0, 9 6 S . Ct. 2 24 0 (1 97 6) , th e p ro se cu to r fai le d, an d “ no Doyle vi ol at io n oc cu rred .” Greer, 4 83 U.S. at 7 65 , 10 7 S . Ct. at31 08 . “ The factof [ th e de fen da nt ’s] po st arre stsi le nc e was no t s ub m it te d t o t he jury as ev id en ce fr om whi chitwas a ll owe d t o d raw an y pe rm is si bl e in fere nc e.” Id . at 7 64 –6 5, 1 07 S. Ct . at 3 10 8. Greerest ab li sh edno rul e th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly ap pl ie d i n R ees e’s ap pe al . Onl y a ho ld in g o f th e Supr em e Co urt ca n c le arl y es tabl is h fe de ral law, an d t he Greer C ou rt h el d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s qu es ti on di d no t v io la te th e d efen dant ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts . Und er Gree r, Rees e h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t the rul in g o f th e st at e co urt o n h is du e p ro ces s cl ai m “was so la ck in g i n ju st ifi cat io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d 24in ex is ti ng law b ey on d a ny po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . Ree se als o a rg ue s t ha t s ev eral de ci si on s o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a, in ot he r cri m in al ap pe al s, es tabl is h t ha t the pro se cu to r’s arg um en ts inRees e’s tr ia l were i m pr op er u nd er Fl or id a la w, bu t tho se de ci si on s ar e irrel ev an t t o o uran al y si s.

“Neces sa ry

to [Ree se ’s] su cces s . . . is th e p ro po si ti on th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt erredin co ns tru in g t he laws of F lo rid a. Infact , [Rees e’s] clai m in vo lv es a pu re que st io n o f st at e la w. Ques ti on s o f pu re s ta te law d o n otrai se is su es of co ns ti tu ti on al di m en si on forfed eral habe as co rp us pu rp os es .” Carr iz al es v. W ai nwr ig ht , 69 9 F .2d10 53 , 10 54 –5 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) . A pre ced en t o f a s ta te co urt ab ou t an is su e o f st at e la w canne ve r es tabl is h a n e nt it le m en t t o afed eral writof h ab eas co rp us . Mor eo ve r, ev enif ade ci si on of ast at e co urt i nt erp ret s fed eral law, Re es e can no t re ly on t ha t d eci si on be cau se “un de r AEDPA, ou r 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, as setforth by the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt.” Sh ere v . Sec’y , Fl a. Dep ’t of Co rr., 53 7 F .3d13 04 , 13 10 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ree se als o a rg ue s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly de te rm in edth e fac ts in th e li gh t o f th e ev id en ce b efo re i t, b utth is arg um en t fa il s 25to o. Re es e n ev er i de nt ifi es whatfact s t he st at e co urt i nc orrect ly con st ru edor

ov erl oo ke d. B. Unde r De Nov o Revi ew, Rees e’s Cla im o f Pr os ecu to ri al

Mis co nduc t Fa il

s.

“ Eve n i f [Re es e’s cl ai m ] were el ig ib le forde no vo rev ie w, itwou ldst il l fai l.” Kn owl es , 55 6 U.S. at12 3, 1 29 S. Ct. at14 20 . The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t we ar e en ti tl edto affi rm th e d en ia l o f habe as rel ie f in th is m an ne r: “ a habe as pe ti ti on er wi ll no t b e en ti tl edto a writof h ab eas co rp us if h is or h er cl ai m is reject edon de no vo rev ie w.” Berg hu is v. Th om pk in s, _

__U.S. __

_, _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct . 22 50 , 22 65 (20 10 ); s ee, e.g ., Kno wles , 56 6 U.S. at11 4, 1 29 S. Ct. at14 15 (h ol di ng th atpe ti ti on er fa il edto est ab li sh th athi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was in effe ct iv e u nd er b ot h s ect io n 2 25 4( d) an d d e n ov o re vi ew). Lik e th e Supr em e Co urt i n Kn owl es , we hav e em pl oyed thi s ap pr oa ch ev enwhen itwas c le ar tha t th e d efer en ce af

fo rd edby sect io n 2 25 4( d) ap pl ie d. Se e, e.g ., Alle n v . Sec’y , Fla . Dep ’t of Co rr., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 7 53 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ Alt ern at iv el y , eve n i f no de fere nc e were due th e st at e co ll at eral tri al co urt’s d eci si on on th e p erfo rm an ce el em en t, we wo ul d c on cl ud e o n d e n ov o re vi ew th at[pe ti ti on er] hadfai le d t o es tabl is h i t.”) .

26Dard enex pl ai ns th ata de fen da ntm us t es tabl is h t ha t the “pr os ecu to rs ’ co m m en ts so in fect edth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s.” 4 77 U.S. at 1 81 , 10 6 S . Ct. at24 71 (ci ta ti on s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . To de te rm in e whe th er a p ro se cu to r’s st at em en ts du rin g t he sen te nc in g p ha se are “ su ffi ci en tl y eg reg io us to res ul t i n t he de ni al of due pro ces s,” we co ns id er the co m m en ts inth e co nt ex t o f th e en ti re tria l an d e xam in e “ (1 ) whe th er the rem ark s wer e is ol at ed , am bi gu ou s, o r un in te nt io na l; (2 ) whe th er the re was a co nt em po ran eo us ob

jecti on by defen se co un se l; (3) th e tri al co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns ; an d (4 ) th e wei gh t o f ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g fa ct or s.” Lan d v . All en , 57 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 19 –2 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (rel y in g o n R om in e v . Head , 25 3 F .3d13 49 , 13 69 –7 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) ). Rees e can no t s at is fy th at st an da rd . The fun da m en ta l p ro bl em with R ees e’s cl ai m

of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t i s th atno ne of t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts inclo si ng arg um en t wer e im pr op er. “ A pe rm is si bl e arg um en t, n o m at te r ho w ‘ pr ejud ic ia l’ or ‘per su as iv e,’ can n ev er b e un co ns ti tu ti on al .” Bro ok s v . Kem p, 7 62 F.2d13 83 , 14 03 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (en ba nc ), va cat edonot he r gr ou nd s b y 47 8 U.S. 1 01 6, 1 06 S. Ct. 3 32 5 (1 98 6) , rei ns ta te d b y

80 9 F .2d70 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) (enba nc ); R om in e, 25 3 F .3dat 1 36 6 (“ [N]o m at te r ho w ou tc om e-d et erm in at iv e itis a pr op er ar gu m en t ca nn otren de r 27th e p ro ceed in gs fun da m en ta ll y un fai r an d t he refo re ca nn otbe th e b as is for a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” ); S pi ve y v. Head , 20 7 F .3d12 63 , 12 76 (11 thCir . 20 00 ) (“ Pro pe r arg um en ts , reg ard le ss of t he ir i m pa cton th e o ut co m e o f th e cas e, do no t ren de r a tria l u nf

ai r.”). “ [P]ros ecu to ria l ar gu m en ts wil l n otwarran t h ab eas co rp us rel ie f un le ss th ey

. . . ha ve en co ur ag edth e jury to t ak e in to acco un t m at te rs th atare no t l eg it im at e se nt en ci ng co ns id erat io ns .” Jo hn so n v . W ai nwr ig ht , 77 8 F .2d62 3, 63 0 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 5) . Whe n we c on si de r whe th er the pro se cu to r ur ge d t he jury to ev al ua te le gi ti m at e co ns id erat io ns , we m us t re cal l tha t capi ta l s en te nc in g i s i ne vi tabl y an em ot io na l ex erci se th atde m an ds th e co ns id erat io n o f m or al it y . Cap it al sen te nc in g is no t a d et ach edan d c li ni cal ex erci se inpu re re as on : [C]api ta l s en te nc in g i s s ti ll anem ot io na l i ss ue . Neces sa ril y itwil l al way s b e so . “ Rea so n” alo ne can no t ad equa te ly exp la in a jury’ s de ci si on to grantm ercy to ape rs onco nv ic te d o f a s eri ou s m ur de r be cau se of t ha t p ers on ’s y ou th or t ro ub li ng pe rs on al pro bl em s. No r can reas on alo ne ful ly exp la in th e rea ct io n o f a juro r up on he ari ng th e fact s o f a p art ic ul ar cr im e d es cri be d i n t he ir s pe ci fic al ly trag ic de ta il . Em pa th y fora de fen dant ’s in di vi du al cir cum st an ce o r rev ul si on at t he m or al affro ntof h is cri m e, reac ti on s ac cep te d a s b as es forcap it al se nt en ci ng de ci si on s, ar e n otsu sc ep ti bl e to ful l ex pl an at io n wi th ou t reco ur se to hu m anem ot io n. Th us , th e fac t tha t anarg um en t b y a de fen se co un se l o r pr os ecu to r ha s emoti on al ov ert on es do es no t in de pe nd en tl y

in di ctitas i m

pr op er. The pro pr ie ty of arg um en t re st s pr im ari ly in the rel at io n o f it s co nt en t t o i ss ue s re le va ntto th e se nt en ci ng jury’ s co nc ern . 28Bro ok s, 7 62 F.2dat 1 40 4– 05 (ci ta ti on om it te d) .

Ree se arg ue s t ha t the pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts ab ou t Au st inex pe rie nc in g

“ ev ery wom an ’s wors [t] ni gh tm are” were i m pr op er “ go ld enrul e” ar gu m en ts . Ree se arg ue s t ha t the pro se cu to r in vi te d t he juro rs to pl ace t he m se lv es inth e po si ti onof Au st in be cau se th e p ro se cu to r to ldth e juro rs th atwhat“ Ree se for ced Ch arl en e Aus ti n t o e xp eri en ce i s ev ery wom an ’s ni gh tm are” ; as ke d the juro rs to

“ de te rm in e fro m

th e ev id en ce wh atwas g oi ng on inCh arl en e Aus ti n’s m in d” ; su gg es te d t ha t a s eri es of que st io ns race d t hr ou gh Aus ti n’s m in d, s uc h a s “ Who is th is ? Wha t i s h e d oi ng to m e? Wha t’s g oi ng on ? Why is h e p ul li ng m e to m y be dr oo m ? ”; st at edth atRees e “ wan ts y outo for ge t tho se qu es ti on s t ha t you kno w m us t h av e b een go in g t hr ou gh y ou r m in d” ; an d a sk edth e jury to a skth em se lv es

“ wha t d idCh arl en e Aus ti n fe el aft er— feel aft er tha t rape ? ” Ree se ’s con te nt io n fai ls . W e ag ree wi th th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a th atth e p ro se cu to r di d n ot im pe rm is si bl y

in vi te “ th e jury to p la ce the m se lv es inth e v ic ti m ’s sh oe s.” R ees e I, 69 4 S o. 2 d a t 6 85 . The p ro se cu to r in st eadleg it im at el y urg edth e jury to c on si de r th e v ic ti m ’s exp eri en ce t o d et erm in e whe th er the off en se was “ es pe ci al ly hei no us , atro ci ou s, o r cru el ” u nd er Fl or id a la w. To pr ov e th atst atut ory ag gr av at in g fa ct or , th e St at e h adto pro ve , beyon d areas on ab le do ub t, tha t Re es e’s m ur de r of Aus ti n 29was “ ex tre m el y wick edor s ho ck in gl y

ev il ”; “ ou tra ge ou sl y

wick edan d v il e”; or effe ct edby m ean s “ de si gn edto in fli cta hi gh de gr ee o f pa in with u tt er i nd iff eren ce to , or e ve n e njo ym en t o f, th e su ffer in g o f othe rs .” Sta te v. Di xo n, 2 83 So . 2d1, 9 (Fl a. 19 73 ). The v ic ti m ’s fear, p ai n, an d e m ot io na l s tra in be fo re h er d eath a re al l rel ev an t t o t he he in ou s n atur e o f a m ur de r. “ The Sta te ha s a l eg it im at e in te res t i n co un te ract in g t he mit ig at in g e vi de nc e whi ch th e d efen dantis en ti tl edto pu t i n, b y rem in di ng th e se nt en cer t ha t ju stas t he m ur de rer s ho ul d b e co ns id eredas a n in di vi du al , so to o t he vi ct im is anin di vi du al who se de ath re pr es en ts a un ique lo ss to so ci ety an d i n p art ic ul ar t o h is fam il y .” Payne v. Ten ne ss ee, 5 01 U.S. 80 8, 8 25 , 11 1 S . Ct. 2 59 7, 2 60 8 (1 99 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e h av e ru le d t ha t s im il ar co m m en ts are p erm is si bl e. InKenn edy v. Dug ge r, 93 3 F .2d90 5, 9 13 , 91 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) , forex am pl e, we de ni edhabe as rel ie f on de no vo rev ie w wher e th e p ro se cu to r st at ed , “ Can y ouim ag in e, in y ou r own li vi ng roo m

no t b ot he rin g aso ul on a Satur day aft ern oo n? [The de fen da nt ] st op pe d up a t h is rel at iv e’s ho us e an d h ada be er an d h e wal ke d b ackdo wn t o your ho us e, an d ato ta l s tra ng er, b ecau se y ougo t i n h is way , des tro y s you.” In Dav is v. Kem p, 8 29 F.2d15 22 , 15 28 –2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) , we up he ldth e fo ll owi ng co m m en t as a pe rm is si bl e arg um en t ab ou t fu tu re d an ge ro us ne ss :

30The de ath p en al ty is ca ll edfor . Asky ou rs el ve s t hi s que st io n, h ow

wou ldy oufeel li vi ng in th is co m m un it y if you l oo ke d o utof you r win do w on e n ig htan d s aw [the de fen da nt ] walk in g d own th e st reet co m in g up t owa rdy ou r ho us e. If th atwou ld n’t p uta feel in g o f co ld te rro r in y ou r he art , whatwou ld ? InCarg il l v . Turp in , 12 0 F .3d13 66 , 13 81 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ), we ru le d t ha t a pr os ecu to r’s arg um en t atsen te nc in g abo ut“ a b un chof l it tl e b oys” atCh ris tm as th in ki ng ab ou t the ir d eadpa ren ts was p erm is si bl e b ecau se “ th e p ro se cu to r was at te m pt in g t o c on ve y

th e g rav it y

of t he cri m e an d i ts co ns eque nc es —the m ur de r of th e [b oys’ paren ts ] le ft f

ou r y ou ng bo y s wi th ou t p aren ts —t o c on vi nc e th e jury tha t li fe i m pr is on m en t, i .e., all owi ng [th e d efen da nt ] to co nt inue to li ve , wou ldbe to o le ni en t a s en te nc e.” AndinBro ok s, 7 62 F.2dat 1 39 6, 1 41 6, we d en ie d h ab eas rel ie f whe re the pro se cu to r as ke d t he juro rs , “ Who se daug ht er wi ll itbe ne xt ti m e? ” Ree se als o a rg ue s t ha t the pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts ab ou t s en te nc in g l aw were i m pr op er, b utwe di sa gr ee. The pro se cu to r acc ur at el y st at edth at , un de r Fl or id a la w, Rees e wou ldha ve be eneli gi bl e fo r pa ro le , if the jury ha d reco m m en de d ali fe s en te nc e, be cau se cap it al de fen da nt s t he n fa ceda m in im um se nt en ce o f twe nt y -fi ve y ears . See St at e v . Cob an , 52 0 S o. 2 d 4 0, 4 1( Fl a. 19 88 ). A correctst at em en t o f th e law is a pe rm is si bl e arg um en t. Cf. Sp iv ey , 20 7 F .3dat 12 77 . 31Ree se co nt en ds th atth e p ro se cu to r im pe rm is si bl y

de ni gr at edRees e b y co m pa rin g h im

with a“ vi ci ou s d og ” an d re ferr in g t o h im as “ vi ol en t,” “pi ti le ss ,” an d “ co ns ci en cel es s.” Th e co nc urren ce ag rees th atth e p ro se cu to r’s us e o f th e wor d “ an im al ” was im

pr op er as a m at te r of

fed eral law. Bu t the pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts were p erm is si bl e b ecau se , un li ke th e p ro se cu to r in Dard en , th e pr os ecu to r atRees e’s tr ia l d idno t ca ll Rees e a “ vi ci ou s an im al .” In st ead , th e pr os ecu to r co m

pa redRees e to a “ cu te li tt le pupp y ” who “ gr ew in to a vi ci ou s d og ” to arg ue th atpa stch arac te r was no t a d et erm in an t o f pr es en t ch arac te r. Becaus e

“ ev id en ce o f Ree se ’s pas t ch arac te r was pre se nt edto th e jury,” Rees e I, 6 94 So . 2d at68 5, the pro se cu to r was en ti tl edto rem in d t he jury th atth e d efen se witne ss es who tes ti fie d t ha t Re es e h adbe ena well -b eh av edch il d d idno t kno w Rees e as an adul t, an d t he pro se cu to r was en ti tl edto urg e th e jury to c on si de r Ree se ’s hei no us of fen se . Ree se arg ue s t ha t the pro se cu to r’s “ sa m e m ercy” arg um en t was im pr op er, bu t the pro se cu to r di d n otsu gg es t tha t m ercy was anin ap pr op ria te fact or to co ns id er. Cf. Wils onv. Kem p, 7 77 F.2d62 1, 6 26 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). The pr os ecu to r’s co m

m en t p res up po se d t ha t the jury wou ldco ns id er s ho win g R ees e m ercy, butth e p ro se cu to r le gi ti m at el y arg ue d t ha t Re es e d idno t d es erv e m ercy. Ree se ’s cou ns el als o fa il edto ob ject t o the “ sa m e m ercy” comm en t. 32IV. CONCLUSI ON

The de ni al of R ees e’s pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us is AFFIRMED .

33MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g i n t he res ul t o nl y :

Whi le I ag ree wi th th e m ajor it y th atth is is no t a c as e fo r habe as rel ie f, I do no t ag ree wi th all of the reas on s g iv enby the m ajor it y to affi rm th e Dis tri ct Co urt’s d en ia l o f Mr. Re es e’s habe as pe ti ti on . To b eg in , aft er co nc lu di ng th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on was no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), I th in k itun ne ces sa ry

to als o c on du cta de no vo rev ie w of t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts in th is cas e. Thi s i s n ota cas e whe re i t i s “ un cl ear wh ethe r AEDPA def eren ce ap pl ie s.” S ee Be rg hu is v. Th om pk in s, _

__U.S. __

_, _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 25 0, 2 26 5 (2 01 0) (st at in g c ou rts m ay “ de ny writs of h ab eas co rp us un de r § 2 25 4 b y en ga gi ng in de no vo rev ie w when itis un cl ear wh ethe r AEDPA def eren ce ap pl ie s” ). Thu s, a d e n ov o re vi ew is no t ca ll edforby A EDPA, anditis no t n eces sa ry forus to affi rm th e d en ia l o f Mr. Re es e’s habe as pe ti ti on . Ind eed , th e Supr em e Co urt h as rep ud ia te d t he no ti on th atAEDPA’ s “ un reas on ab le ne ss qu es ti on ” is th e sa m e as anap pe ll at e co urt’s “ co nf id en ce i n t he res ul t i t wo ul d re ach un de r de no vo rev ie w.” Harri ng to n v . Ric ht er, 5 62 U.S. __ _, _

__ , 13 1 S . Ct. 7 70 , 78 6 (2 01 1) ; cf . Bro ok s v . Kem

p , 76 2 F .2d13 83 , 14 03 n.3 1 (1 1th C ir.1 98 5) (enba nc ) (“ A cou rt ne edno t d et erm in e whe th er s pe ci fic [pr os ecu to ria l] arg um en ts are p ro pe r or im pr op er i f, ta ke n a s a wh ol e, th ey wou ldno t re qu ire rel ie f.”) (c it at io n o m it te d) , 34va cat edon ot he r gr ou nd s , 47 8 U.S. 1 01 6, 1 06 S. Ct. 3 32 5 (1 98 6) , rei ns ta te d o n

rem an d , 80 9 F .2d70 0 (1 98 7) (enba nc ). Als o, wh il e I ag ree t ha t the st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n c an no t b e v ie wedas

“ ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le ,” Ren ic o v . Lett , 55 9 U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 85 5, 18 62 (20 10 ) (quo ti ng W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 40 9, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 49 5, 15 21 (20 00 )), I as su m e th atth e m ajor it y ’s op in io n d oe s n otqu es ti on th e p rem is e th atth e Supr em e Co urt h as cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law wi th res pe ctto habe as cl ai m s as se rti ng th ata pr os ecu to r’s co m m en ts du rin g p en al ty pha se clo si ng arg um en ts de ni edth e p et it io ne r du e p ro ces s. Where a st at e co urt h as ad jud ic at ed su ch a cl ai m

on th e m eri ts , hab eas pe ti ti on ers m us t d em on st rat e th atth e st at e co urt’s d eci si on is co nt rary to, o r in vo lv es anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, th e Supr em e Co urt’s cl earl y

est ab li sh edst an da rd— tha t “ th e p ro se cu to rs ’ co m m en ts ‘so i nf ect edth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a de ni al of du e p ro ces s.’” Dard env. Wain wrig ht , 47 7 U.S. 1 68 , 18 1, 1 06 S. Ct. 2 46 4, 2 47 1 (1 98 6) (qu ot in g Do nn el ly v.DeCh ris to fo ro , 41 6 U.S. 6 37 , 64 3, 9 4 S . Ct. 1 86 8, 18 71 (19 74 )). The re ca n b e li tt le do ub t tha t a h ol di ng of t he Supr em e Co urt squa rel y est ab li sh edth is sp eci fic du e p ro ces s s ta nd ardwithi n t he m ean in g o f AEDPA. See ge ne ral ly K no wles v. Mi rzayance , 55 6 U.S. 1 11 , 12 2, 1 29 S. Ct. 14 11 ,14 19 (20 09 ). 35It i s t ru e th atth e Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r gr an te d h ab eas rel ie f ba se d upo n

a p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t. Bu t tha t fa ctalo ne do es no t m ean th e Supr em e Co urt h as no t cl earl y

est ab li sh eda st an da rdby whi ch su ch cla im s s ho ul d b e ev al ua te d. Sa idan ot he r way , th e Supr em e Co urt ca n c le arl y est ab li sh fed eral law su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt r el ie f un de r AEDPA by est ab li sh in g s tand ard s ev enincas es whe re the habe as pe ti ti on is de ni edun de r th atst an da rd . Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) , is a go od ex am pl e. Str ic kl an d e st ab li sh edth e n ow o fte n c it edst an da rdforev al ua ti ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s —de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce an d p reju di ce. Id . at 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . Yet, inStr ic kl an d, the Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e de ni al of h ab eas rel ie f to th e p et it io ne r, Dav idW as hi ng to n, b ecau se he fai le d t o m ak e th e requi redsh owi ng of e it he r de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce o r su ffi ci en t p reju di ce to pro ve hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m . Id. at70 0– 01 , 10 4 S . Ct. at 20 71 . W e kno w th atth e Supr em e Co urt h as gra nt edhabe as rel ie f un de r AEDPA an d b as edup on Str ic kl an d’s s ta nd ard . 1 See, e.g ., L afle r v. Cooper, ___ U.S. ___, ___, No. 10–209, 2012 WL 932019, at *11–12 1 (Mar . 21, 2012); Porter v. McCollum, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 447, 455–56 (2009) (granting habea s relief under AEDPA base d on Strickland); Rompill a v. B ear d, 545 U.S. 374, 380–81, 393, 125 S. Ct . 2456, 2462, 2469 (2005) (same) ; Wi g g ins v. Sm ith, 539 U.S. 510, 520, 534–38, 123 S . Ct. 2527, 2534, 2542–44 (2003) (same) ; Wil liams, 529 U.S. at 367, 120 S. Ct. at 1499 (same) . We have followed the Supreme Court’s lead. See Cooper v. Sec’y , Dep’ t of Corr., 646 F.3d 1328, 1356 (1 1 th Cir. 2011); J ohnson v. Sec’y , DOC, 643 F.3d 907, 910–11 (11th Cir. 2011); Fe rre ll v. Hall, 640 F.3d 1199, 1203 ( 11th Cir. 2011). 36It s eem s equa ll y tru e th atth e Supr em e Co urt h as cle arl y an no un ceda co ns ti tu ti on al st an da rdby whi cha pr os ecu to r’s arg um en ts m us t b e m eas ur ed . It be ars em ph as is , th e cl earl y

est ab li sh edst an da rdis “ whe th er the pro se cu to rs ’ co m m en ts ‘ so in fect edth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s.’” Dard en , 47 7 U.S. at18 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at24 71 (qu ot in g Don ne ll y , 41 6 U.S. at64 3, 9 4 S . Ct. at18 71 )); see als o Gre en e v . Upt on , 64 4 F .3d 11 45 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ap pl y in g t he Dard enst an da rd ). I th eref or e un de rs ta ndth e m ajor ity ’s op in io n t o c on cl ud e th atMr. Ree se ha s fa il edto sat is fy th is rig or ou s s ta nd ard , no t tha t Do nn el ly andDard encanne ve r pr ov id e th e b as is fo r habe as rel ie f m erel y

be cau se th e d efen da nt s i n tho se cas es go t n o h ab eas rel ie f. See a ls o Hamm on d v . Hall , 58 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 22 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (Ca rn es , J.) (“ The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth ata de ath s en te nc e can be ren de red un co ns ti tu ti on al if t he pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts ‘ so in fect edth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a de ni al of due pro ces s.’” (quo ti ng Dard en , 47 7 U.S. at18 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at24 71 , andcit in g P ayne v. Ten ne ss ee, 5 01 U.S. 80 8, 82 5, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 60 8 (1 99 1) , forth e p ro po si ti onth at“ th e sa m e due pro ces s st an da rdof f

un da m en ta l fa irn es s ex is ts at t he sen te nc in g p ha se of acap it al tri al ”). OurCir cu itpre ced en t re co gn iz es th atth e Supr em e Co urt m ay est ab li sh co ns ti tu ti on al du e p ro ces s s ta nd ard s ev enincas es wher e th e Co urt fi nd s n o 37co ns ti tu ti on al erro r. Forex am pl e, in Uni te d S ta te s v . Bis se ll , 86 6 F .2d13 43 (11 th Ci r. 19 89 ), th is Co urt ap pl ie d t he Supr em e Co urt’s an al yti cal fram ewo rkfro m Bark er v . W in go , 40 7 U.S. 5 14 , 53 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 2 18 2, 2 19 2 (1 97 2) (id en ti fy in g fo ur fact or s t o c on si de r fo r Si xt h Am en dm en t s pe edy tri al cla im ), to de te rm in e whe n a de fen da ntis en ti tl edto a po st -in di ctm en t, p retria l fo rfei tu re h eari ng as am at te r of Fi fth Am en dm en t due pro ces s. Bi ss el l, 8 66 F.2dat 1 35 2– 53 . In d oi ng so , th is Co urt re li edup on th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Eig ht Tho us an d Ei gh t Hund redan d F ift y Dol la rs ($8 ,85 0) inUni te d S ta te s C urren cy , 46 1 U.S. 5 55 , 10 3 S . Ct. 2 00 5 (1 98 3) , whi ch ap pl ie d B ark er’s fo urfact or s t o re ject th e arg um en t tha t an eig ht een m on th de la y be twee n s ei zure o f as se ts an d aciv il fo rfei tu re h eari ng vi ol at edFif th Am en dm en t Du e Pro ces s, i d. at57 4, 1 03 S. Ct. at 20 12 . See Bi ss el l, 8 66 F.2dat 1 35 2– 53 . Bis se ll , li ke $8 ,85 0, u lt im at el y reject ed th e due pro ces s cl ai m

aft er ap pl y in g B ark er’s t es t. Id . at 1 35 4. Aft er Bi ss el l, we m ad e cl ear i n Un it edSta te s v . Kaley, 579 F.3d12 46 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), th atth e Bark er t es t was pa rt o f th e h ol di ng of B is se ll : Bi ss el l’s de te rm in at io n th at th e Bark er fact or s sh ou ld be us ed to ev al ua te whe n a de fen dant is en ti tl ed to a po st -in d i c tm en t, pr etria l h e a r i n g un de r du e pr oc es s of la w is ho ld in g, no t di ct a. As ou r cas es freque nt ly ha ve ob se rv ed , di ct a is d e f i n e d as th os e po rti on s of an op in io n th at are “ no t ne ces sa ry to de ci di ng th e cas e th en be fo re us .” Co nv er s e l y, t he ho ld in g of a cas e is , as th e Supr em e Co urt ob se rv ed , co m pr is ed bo th of t h e res ul t of th e cas e an d “ th os e po rti on s of th e 38op i n i o n ne ces sa ry to th at res ul t by whi ch we are bo un d.” Bi ss el l’s

co nc lu si on th at th ere was no vi ol at io n of th e d e f e n d a nt s’ Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s rig ht s was ne ces sary to it s u l t im at e de ci si on . In fact , Bi ss el l’s ad op ti on an d us e of th e Bark er te st fo rm s a cri ti cal pa rt of th e cas e’s ho ld in g. Our co nc lu si on th at th e de fen da nt s’ du e pr oc es s rig ht s were no t vi ol at ed was dr iv en by, an d can no t be un de rs to od ap art fro m ou r ap pl ic at io n of th e Bark er te st to th e fact s of th e cas e. Whi le it is tru e th at th e co urt co ul d ha ve de ci de d th e cas e on othe r gr ou nd s, su ch as pl ai n erro r, th e pa ne l res ol ve d th e de fen da nt [s ’] du e pr oc es s cl ai m by ex pl ic at in g andap pl y in g t he Bark er v . W in go an al y si s. Kale y , 57 9 F .3dat 1 25 3 n .10 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Sim il arl y , whi le Dard en co nc lu de d t ha t the pe ti ti on er’s due pro ces s ri gh ts were n otvi ol at edby the pr os ecu to r’s co m

m en ts , th e res ul t i n Dar de n e xp res sl y rel ie d upo n t he Supr em e Co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f Don ne ll y ’s du e p ro ces s t es t t o t he fact s i n Dar de n. Ag ai n, th atis , “ whe th er the pro se cu to rs ’ co m m en ts ‘ so in fect edth e tr ia l wi thun fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a de ni al of due pro ces s.’” Dard en , 47 7 U.S. at 18 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at24 71 (qu ot in g Do nn el ly, 41 6 U.S. at64 3, 9 4 S . Ct. at18 71 )). Thu s, the Don ne ll y

an d Dar de n t es t i s p artof t he ho ld in g i n t ho se cas es be cau se it was “ne ces sa ry

to [th e Co urt’s] ul ti m at e d eci si on ,” fo rm ed“ a cri ti cal pa rt o f th e cas e[’s] ho ld in g,” an d “ can no t b e u nd ers to odap art ” fro m th e Co urt’s u lt im at e res ol ut io n o f th os e cas es . Kaley, 579 F.3dat 1 25 3 n .10 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . W e m us t the refo re re co gn iz e itas c le arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law.

39It i s al so wort h n ot in g t ha t t o t he ex te ntDard enan d Do nn el ly establ is h o nl y

a g en eral st an da rddo es no t i m m un iz e a s ta te co urt’s d eci si on fro m scrut in y un de r AEDPA. Of cou rs e, th e “ m or e g en eral th e ru le , th e m or e le eway co urts ha ve in reac hi ng ou tc om es in cas e-b y -cas e d et erm in at io ns .” Majo rit y Op. at17 (qu ot in g Yarb or ou gh v. Al va rad o, 5 41 U.S. 65 2, 6 64 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 14 0, 2 14 9 (2 00 4) ). For ex am pl e, Stric kl an d i s a g en eral st an da rd . Prem o v . Mo or e, __ _U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 31 S. Ct . 73 3, 7 40 (20 11 ) (“ The Str ic kl an d st an da rdis a ge ne ral on e, so th e ran ge of reas on ab le ap pl ic at io ns is subs ta nt ia l.”) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; ac co rd Kno wles , 55 6 U.S. at12 3, 1 29 S. Ct. at14 20 (20 09 ). Yet, as far as I am aware, th e fi rs t t im e th e Supr em e Co urt fo un d avi ol at io n o f Stric kl an d’s g en eral st an da rd oc cu rri ng at acap it al pe na lty ph as e was un de r AEDPA. See W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 39 6– 97 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 14 –1 5 (c on cl ud in g s ta te co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d to pe ti ti on er’s p en al ty pha se cla im was b ot h c on tra ry

to an d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law) . Sin ce Will ia m s, the Supr em e Co urt ha s re pe at ed ly foundst at e co urt d eci si on s ap pl y in g S tri ck la nd ’s gen eral st an da rd un reas on ab le un de r AEDPA. See Lafl er, 2 01 2 WL 93 20 19 , at * 11 –1 2; Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 5– 56 ; Ro m pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at38 0– 81 , 39 3, 1 25 S. Ct. at24 62 , 24 69 ; W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 0, 5 37 –3 8, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 34 , 25 42 –4 4. An d t he Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y

rev ers eda Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt o pi ni on on di rectrev ie w for 40fai li ng to pro pe rly app ly Stri ck la nd ’s pre jud ic e an al y si s. See Sears v. Up to n, _

__ U.S. __ _, _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 3 25 9, 3 26 1 (2 01 0) . Thes e cas es sh ow t ha t a s ta te co urt’s d eci si on canbe co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f ev ena ge ne ral co ns ti tu ti on al st an da rd , su ch as t ha t s ta te d i n Dar de n, i n a n app ro pr ia te cas e. I ag ree t ha t M r. Rees e’s cas e is no t s uc h acas e, bu t my co nc lu si on is ba se d up on th e to ta li ty of th e rec or d a ndlo ok in g t o Do nn el ly andDard enas h av in g cl earl y est ab li sh edth e rel ev an t s ta nd ard . Fi na ll y , I di sa gr ee wi th th e m ajor it y ’s ho ld in g t ha t n on e o f th e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en ts in th is cas e were i m pr op er. As an ex am

pl e, in Dard enit se lf, t he Supr em e Co urt re co gn iz edth atth e p ro se cu to r’s us e o f th e wor d “ an im al ” to de sc rib e th e d efen da nt“un do ub te dl y were i m pr op er,” ev enth ou gh th e pr os ecu to r’s co m

m en ts were i nc or

po rat in g t he de fen se ’s us e o f th e wor d “ an im al .” 47 7 U.S. at18 0, 1 06 S. Ct. at24 71 . The p ro se cu to r he re re ferr edto Mr. Ree se as a “ vi ci ou s d og ” an d a“ rab iddo g.” Thu s, wh il e I ag ree wi th th e m ajor ity ’s ul ti m at e co nc lu si on th atitwas n otob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le forth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o c on cl ud e th e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en ts di d n ot“ so in fect [] the tri al with u nf ai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng [de ath s en te nc e] a den ia l o f du e p ro ces s,”

41id . at 1 81 , 10 6 S . Ct. at24 71 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , I can no t ag ree t ha t n on e

of th e p ro se cu to r’s co m

m en ts he re were im

pr op er as a m at te r of

fed eral law.

42