Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70045
CHA RL ES R AYC RA W F OR D P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. CHR I S T OP HER B E P P S , C OMM I S S I ONE R, MI S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M ENT O F CO RR EC TI O N S R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

U SD C N o. 3: 04- C V

- 59
B e fo r e W IE N E R , S T E W A R T , a n d C L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * I n 1994, C harl es R ay “ C huck” C r aw f or d w as sent enc ed t o de at h f orc api t al
m u r d e r . C r a w fo r d ’ s co n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e w e r e a ffir m e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l; h is
s t at e a ppl i c at i o n f

o rpo s t
- c o nvi c t i o n r e l i e f w as den i ed byt he M i s s i s s i ppi Su pre m e Court ; hi s fed era l§ 2254 habe as pet i t i on w as deni ed byt he f ede r al di st ri ctcourt ; an d h i s r equ est f or a cert i f

i cat e of app eal abil i t y ( C O A) w as den i ed b y th e d i stri ct cou rt. H e no w m ov es th i s cou rt f or a C O Aon eigh teen sep a ra te United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70045

2 c l ai m s . W e g r a n t h i m a COA o n o n e o f t h o s e c l a i m s , d e n y r e l i e f o n t he
rem ai n der, an d rem an d f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS O n t he eve ni ng of January 29, 1993, t w ent y- year - ol d K r i st y R a y w as abd u ct ed f

rom her pa rents’h om e i n C h al ybea t e, M i ssi ssi pp i
. A tt h at t i m e, C h arl es R ay C raw f

ord w as aw ai t i n g a F ebru ary 2 t ri alon u n rel ated charges of aggr avat ed as sa ul tand r ape. Earl i eron Ja nu a ry 29, C r aw f or d’ s fam i l y had di sc ove r ed a r anso m not e i n t he at t i c of t he house w her e C r aw ford w a s l ivi ng. C on cerned that C raw f ord w as pl an n i n g a kidna p p in g, t h e fam i l y m em bers
c o ns ul t e d t he l awye rr e pr e s e nt i ng Cra w f o r d on t he a gg r av at e d a s s aul ta nd r ap e c har ges, W i l l i am Fo r t i e r . Fo r t i e rt he n c o nt ac t e d t he po l i c e t o r e po r tt he pos sibi l i t y t hata c r i m e w as bei ng c om m i t t ed. Th e f ol l ow i ng day, For t i er ’ s l aw c le r k tu r n e d o v e rC r a w fo r d ’ s m e n ta l h e a lth re c o r d s , w h ic h w e r e in h is p o s s e s s io n , to th e F B I. W i t h i n h ou rs of

R ay’ s di sapp earan ce, l ocal , st ate, an d federalau t h ori t i es h a d b e g u n a n in v e s tig a tio n . O n th e e v e n in go f J a n u a r y3 0 , a p p r o x im a te ly t w en t y- f

ou r hou rs af

t er R ay’ s di sapp earan ce w as f ir s tr e po r t e d, o f

f i cers observed C r a wfo r d a p p r o a c h a r e s i d e nc e whe r e t he y wer e s t a t i o ne d
. Cr a wfo r d w as ar r e s t e d; he ha d as ho t gun a nd s w i t c hbl ad e kni fe i n h i s po s s e s s i o n. S u bsequ en t l y, M i ssi ssi pp ist ate pol i ce of f i cers an d F B I agen ts a dm i n i st ered Mi r andawa r n i n g s a n d t h e F BI a g e n t s c o n d u c t e d t h e i rf i r s to f t h r e e i n t e r v i e ws w i t h Cra w f

o r d. D ur i ng t he f

i r s t i nt e r vi e w , t he FB I ag e nt s l e ar ne d f rom C raw f ord t h at R ay w as n o longer a l ive. H e then a greed t o l ead t h e au t h ori t i es t o R ay’ s bod y. A f

t er ap proxi m atel y on e hou r of w al king throug h t h e w oods, t h ey f o und Ray’ s b o dy
. She had s uf fe r e d a s t ab w o und t o t he he ar t and l e f tl unga nd
s ho w e d s i gns o f

a nalpe ne t r at i o n. On F e b r u a r y1 , Cr a wf o r d wa s i n t e r v i e we d f o ra s e c o n d t i m e b yt h e F BI
an d s t ate h i gh w ay patr olof f i cers . H e w as read h i s Mi r andari gh t s and executedN o. 08- 70045

3 a w ri t t en w ai ver of

t h ose r i gh t s. D u ri n g t h i s i n t ervi ew , C raw f ord described ad di t i o nale ve nt s l e ad i ng up t o Ray’ s m ur de r . H e r e c o unt e d as t o r y i n whi c h he suff ered t w o bl ackou t s, one i m m edi atel y pri or t o R ay’ s abdu ct i on an d on e pri or to h er d ea th
. A ccord i n g to C ra w ford , w h en h e aw ok e from the seco n d black ou t, he kne w i m m e di at e l y t hatRay w as dea d. H e st at e d t hathe t he n hi d herb o dy
a n d b e g a n to m a k e h is w a yo u t o f th e w o o d s . Ath ir d in te r v ie w w a s co n d u c te d o n F e b r u a r y2 , in o r d e rto h e lp aut ho r i t i e s l o c at e a r e vo l ve ra nd k ni fe t hatCr awfo r d ha d l o s t . Cr awfo r d t o l d t he i n t ervi ew ers w h ere he ha d l ostt h e i t em s, w h i ch w ere f ou n d toget h er. C raw f ord w as u l t i m atel y cha rged i n a four- coun ti n di ct m en tf or burgl ary o f a n in h a b ite d d w e llin g , ra p e , se x u a l b a tt e r y , a n d c a p ita l m u r d e r . A t h is tr ia l,
w h i ch b egan i n A pri l199 4, he p resented an i n san i t y defense, w h i ch i n cl u ded expe r tt es t i m ony t hathe s uf fer ed f r om ps yc hogeni c am nes i a and bi pol ar d is o r d e r . T h e ju r yfo u n d C r a w fo r d g u iltyo n a ll fo u rco u n ts . F ol l ow i n g t h e presentati on of evi den ce att h e sentenci n g ph ase, t h e j u ry r e tu r n e d a s e n te n c e o f d e a th o n th e ca p it a lm u r d e rco n v ic tio n . Its p e c ific a lly f ou n d three a ggrav ati n g fact ors: ( 1) t h at C raw f ord w as previ ou sl y convic t ed of a f el ony i nvolvi ng t he use o r th r eatof vi ol enc e; ( 2) t hatt he o f fens e w as c om m i t t ed dur i ng t he c r i m e o f ki dnappi ng; and ( 3) t hatt he o f fens e w as e s p e c ia llyh e in o u s , a tr o c io u s , o rcr u e l. The c o nvi c t i o n a nd d e at h s e nt e nc e w e r e af f i r m e d o n di r e c t ap pe al byt he M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t o n M a r c h 1 2 , 1 9 9 8
. C ra w for dv. S ta te , 7 1 6 S o. 2d 102 8 (M i ss. 199 8) [h erei n af t er Cr a wf

o r d I ] . T h a tc o u r td e n ie d C r a w fo r d ’s p e tit io n fo rp o s t-c o n v ic tio n r e lie f o n D e c e m b e r4 , 2 0 0 3
. C ra w for dv. S ta te , 867 S o. 2d 19 6 (M i ss. 200 3) [h erei n af t er C ra w fordII

]
. H e fi l ed an app l i cat i on f or a w ri tof ha beas corpu s un der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2254 i n the N ort h ern D i st ri ctof M i ssi ssi pp ion S eptem ber 27, 200 4. Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed that app l i cat i on o n S e p te m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , Cra w f o r d v
. Epps , 20 0 8 W L 44 1 9 3 4 7 ( N
. D
. M i ss. S ep t.N o. 08- 70045

4 2 5 , 2 008 ) [h erei n af

t er C ra w fordIII

] , a nd a CO A was d e ni e d o n N o v e m b er25, 2 0 0 8
. C r a w fo r d m o v e s th is co u r t fo raC O Ao f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is
w r i ta ppl i c at i o n. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW B e fo r e a p p e a lin g a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h a b e a s re lie f u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 , a p e tit io n e rm u s t o b ta in a C O A
. S ee28 U
. S
. C
. § 225 3( c)
. Th i s c ou rtm ay i ssue a C O Aon ly if th e p e tition e r “ h a s m a d e a su b sta n tia l sh o w in gof th e d e n ia l of a
con sti tu ti on a lri gh t. ” I d. § 2 2 5 3 (c ) ( 2)
. “Apet i t i oners at i sf i es t hi s st andard b y d e m o n s t r a t in gth a tju r is t s o f r e a s o n c o u ld d is a g r e e w it h th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
re s o l ut i o n o f hi s c o ns t i t ut i o nal c l ai m s o r t hat j ur i s t s c o ul d c o nc l ude t he i ssues p rese n ted are ad eq u a te to de serv e en cou ra ge m en t t o p roce ed f u rth er.” Mi l le r - El
v . Co ck re ll , 537 U
. S. 322, 327 ( 2003)
. “ [A ] c l ai m c an be debat abl e e ven t hough every j u ri st of reason m i gh t agree, af t er t h e C O Aha s been gran t ed an d the case h a s rece iv e d f

u l lcon sider a ti on , tha t pe ti ti on er w i l ln ot p rev a i l
. ” I d. at338. Fur t he r , i n a d e a t h p e na l t y c a s e , d o ub t s whe t he r a CO A s ho ul d i s s ue m ustbe
r e s o lv e d in p e tit io n e r ’ s fa v o r . Se eAvi la v . Q uar t e r m an , 5 6 0 F
. 3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON I n hi s m o t i o n, Cr awfo r d s e e ks a CO A on e i ght e e n s e pa r at e cl ai m s . The
c o ur tc o ns i de r s e ac h i n t ur n. A. W he t he r Cr aw f or d’ s s t at e m e nt s w e r e obt ai ne d i n vi ol at i on o f t he F if th , S ix th , a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts C ra w fordass erts th a t he w a s de n i ed h i s S i xth A m en d m en t ri gh t t o c o u n s e l d u r i n gt h e in te r v ie w s co n d u c te d b yth e F B I. H e a ls o a s s e r ts th a t h is Si xt h A m endm entr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed by t he st at e’ s del ay i n pro vi di ng hi m an in itia l a p p e a r a n c e . In the distri ct cou rt, C ra w fordarg u ed tha t his S i xth A m en d m en t ri gh t t o have c ounse lpr es entduri ng t he Februar y 1 and F ebr uary 2 i nt er r ogat i ons w asN o. 08- 70045

Crawford also argued that his FifthAmendment right to havecounselpre sent during 1 the January 30 interrogatio n was viol ated. The district court hel d th at this clai m was b arre d because of an independe nt and adequate state procedural rule and, alternatively , held thatth e cl aimf ailedo nit s merits . See Cra wf ord III , 20 08 WL 441 934 7, at *1 2. Inhis b rief on appeal, Crawf or dof f er snoargu ment challe nging th e di strict court's pri maryor alternative re solution s of th e cl aiman d theref

ore show s no entitl em ent toaC OA o nth e Fif

thAme n dm ent cl aim
. The state’ s respon se to Crawford in the district court seems to equate the federal right 2 to coun sel under the Sixth Amen dment with the right to coun sel und er the Mississippi Con stitution
. However , Mississippi law is equivocal on wheth er this proposit io n i scorrect. Com pa re Johnson v. State , 63 1 S o. 2 d 18 5, 1 87-8 8 (M is s. 19 94) (“Underth e Mi ssissippi Con stitution , the right to coun sel attaches onceth e procee dings reach the accu satorystage, whichi s e arlier inth e dayth an do es the fe deral ri ght. ” (qu ot ation s o mitt ed)) , wi th McGilberry v. State , 74 1 S o. 2 d 894 , 904 (Miss. 199 9) (“The right to coun sel, at both the federal and state level , att achesat the point intim e wh en the initial app earance . . . ou ght to h ave b ee nh el d. ”)
. 5 vi ol ated. H e contended t h at hi s r i gh tt o coun selatt ach ed on F ebru ary 1, w h en

1
an a rres tw arran t , sup ported by a gen eralaf f i da vi t , i ssued f

or c ap i t alm u rder. H e asser t ed that he w as t h ereaf t er den ied hi s r i gh tt o coun selw h en i nt e r r o ga t i o ns c o nt i nue d wi t ho ut a l awye rpr e s e nt . H e f ur t he ra s s e r t e d t hathe
w as den i ed a p rom pt i n i t i alapp earan ce because h e w as not brough tbef ore a m a gistrate u n ti lF eb ru a ry3, th e d a y a ft er h e ga ve h i s l a st statem en t. T h e sta te argu ed i n t h e d istr i ctcourtt h at C raw f ord’ s Si xth A m en dm en tri gh tatt ach ed
w h en hi s i n i t i alapp e a ra n ce occ u rred oroug h tt o ha ve occurred. I tf u rt h er 2
a r g u e d th a t t h e d e la y in p r o v id in g a n in itia l a p p e a r a n c e w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b le
u n der t h e ci rcum st an ces. T he di st r i c tc our tr ej ec t ed Craw f or d’ s c ont ent i on t hathi s Sixth Am e ndm e ntr i ghta t t ac hed upo n i s s uanc e o f t he a r r e s tw ar r ant , b utm ad e no f i n di n g of

w h en t h e ri gh tdi d i n factatt ach
. I n st ead , t h e courtrul ed that even i f Cr awfo r d’ s r i ghtt o c o uns e lha d a t t ac he d b y t he t i m e o f t he Fe br u ar y 1 and Februar y 2 i nt er vi ew s, he had noti nvoked t hatr i ghtbut , t o t he c ont r ar y, had
m ad e a kn ow i n g an d vol u n t ary w ai ver of i taf t er bei n g ad vi sed of

hi s Mi r anda
r ig h ts .N o. 08- 70045

The district court made no finding wheth er the Feb ruary 3 hearingwas sufficie ntly 3 prom ptun der fe deral law. 6 I ti s “beyo nd doubtt hatt he Si xt h A m en d m entr i ghtt o c ounse lm ay be
w aived by a def

enda n t , s o l ong as r el i nqui shm entof t he r i ghti s vol untar y, k n ow i n g, an d i n tel l i ge n t. ” Mo nt e j o v . Lo ui s i ana , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 2 0 7 9 , 2 0 8 5 (20 0 9 ). W h en , as h ere, a defend an t“ i s r ead hi s Mi r andari ght s ( w hi c h i nc l ude t he r i ght to h a v e co u n s e l p r e s e n t d u r in gin te r r o g a tio n ) a n d a g r e e s to w a iv e th o s e rig h ts ,”
s u c h a w a iv e rs u ffic e s to w a iv e th e S i x th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t t o co u n s e l. Id ; see als o Pa tters o n v. Illi n o is , 4 8 7 U
. S
. 285 , 296 ( 198 8) (h ol di n g t h at an accused ad vi sed of

hi s Mi r andarig h ts “h a s b e e n s u ffic ie n tlya p p r is e d o f th e n a tu r e o f h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts ”). T h e di st ri ctcourtfoun d C raw f ord t o h ave w ai ved hi s r i gh tt o coun selon b o t h F e b r u a r y 1 a n d F e b r u a r y2
. C ra w fordIII, 2008 W L 4419347, at*1 3. C raw f ord does not at t ack the dis t ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on s th a t h e nev er i n vo k ed h i s ri gh t t o cou n sel an d tha t he ex ecu ted w ri tten w a ive rs of t h a t ri gh t. Cra w f o r d ha s no tm ad e a sub s t ant i alsho w i ng t hathi s Si xt h A m e ndm e ntr i ght t o c o uns e lw as de ni e d. C r aw f or d al so c ont ends t hatt he s t at e’ s del ay i n pro vi di ng hi m an i ni t i al
a p p e a r a n c e le d to a d e p r iv a tio n o f h is S i x t h A m e n d m e n t r ig h t t o co u n s e l. C r a w fo r d ’ s cla im la c k s m e r it. A s m e n tio n e d , th e la w e n fo r c e m e n t of fic ia ls fu lly i nf or m ed Craw f

or d of hi s r i ghtt o c ounse lby givi ng Mi r andaw a rn i n gs pr i or to e a c h in te r v ie w . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t s u c h w a r n in g s “s u ffic ie n tly
a p p ri se[] ” a d efen d a n t “ of t h e con seq u e n c es o f a b a n d on i n g [h i s S i xth A m e ndm e nt ] r i ght s , s o t hathi s w aive ro n t hi s b as i s w i l lb e c o ns i de r e d a k n ow i n g a n d i n tel l i ge n t on e.” Patt ers on , 487 U
. S
. at 296
. M oreover, t h e di st ri ct c o u r t fo u n d th a t C r a w fo r d c o n fe s s e d h is in v o lv e m e n t w ith in a n h o u ro f h is
ar r es t . I t f

ound “ no evi denc e of a c ausal c onnec t i on bet w ee n t he as se r t ed de l ay a n d P eti ti on er’ s con fessi on . ” C ra w fordIII, 2 008 W L 441 934 7, at *13. “W h ere 3N o. 08- 70045

7 t h ere i s no evi den ce t o sup port a f i n di n g t h at t h e del ay w as for th e pu rpose of obtai n i n g a confes si on , t h ere i s n o ev i den ce that the del ay h ad a coer cive ef fect o n t he c o nfe s s i o n, t he r e i s no c aus alc o nne c t i o n b e t w e e n t he de l aya nd t he
c o nfe s s i o n, a nd t he c o nfe s s i o n was o t he r w i s e v o l unt ar i l y give n . . . t he de fe nda nt h a s n ot sh ow n pr ejud i ce b y th e d elay
. ” Un itedS ta tes v. Mu lli n , 1 7 8 F. 3 d 334, 3 4 2 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) (q u o ta tio n a n d a lte r a tio n o m itt e d) (o m is s io n in o r ig in a l). T h e re q u e s t fo rC O Ao n th is cla im is d e n ie d
. B. W he t h e r Cr a wf o r d ’ s s t a t e m e n t s we r e i n a d m i s s i b l e “ f r u i to f t he poi s onous t r ee”bec ause hi s ar r es tf or R ay’ s m urd er w as not su p p o rted b y p ro b a b l e ca u se C ra w fordcon ten d s th a tthe statem en ts h e g a ve du ri n g h i s i n terv i ew s w i th t h e F B I, as w el las du ri n g h i s psychi atr i c eval u ati on , shou l d n otha ve been
a d mi t t e d a tt r i a lb e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o rh i s i n i t i a la r r e s t . H e d id n o t p r e s e n t t h is cla im to th e s ta te co u r ts e ith e ro n d ir e c t a p p e a l o rin h is st at e po st
- c onvi c t i on appl i c at i on. H i s fai l ure to exhaustavai l abl e r em edi es at th e sta te l ev el pre cl u d es re l i ef on this cl a i m at th e fed era ll ev el, ab s e n t a s h o w in go f c a u s e fo r th e d e fa u lt a n d a c tu a l p r eju d ic e . S ee Mart i n ez v. Joh n son , 25 5 F. 3d2 29 , 2 38

- 39 ( 5t h Ci r . 200 1)
. Bec aus e Cr awfo r d o f fe r s no a r gum e nt d em on stratingcau se a n d pr ejud i ce for h i s fai l u re ra i se th e cl a i m in s tate co u rt, a CO A i s de ni e d. C . W h e th e rC r a w fo r d w a s su b je c t e d t o a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a lu a t i o n o f h is c o m p e te n c y to st a n d tr ia l w i t h o u t th e b e n e fit o f c o u n s e l in vi ol at i on o f

t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nt Pu r s ua ntt o a s t a t e c o ur to r d e rd a t e d Fe b r ua r y1 , 1 9 9 3 , Cr a wfo r d was ev a l u a ted byps yc h i a tri c p erso n n el at t h e M i ssissi p p iS tate H osp i tal t o de t e r m i ne w he t he rhe w as “ c o m pe t e nta nd s ane ” to pr o c e e d t o t r i alo n t he
unr e l at e d a s s aul ta nd r ap e c har ge s , w hi c h was s c he dul e d f o rF e br uar y 2. The order, w h i ch w as m ad e part of t h e assaultan d rap e case’ s docket, w as app rovedN o. 08- 70045

C rawford does no tc hallen geth e di strict court’s determin atio n that h e was notified 4 of his r ight sunder the Fifth Amen dment byth e exa miningpsychi atri st, Dr. W. Cri ss Lott. See Crawford III

, 20 08 WL 441 934 7, at *1 3. 8 an d si gn ed by W i l l i am F ort i er, C raw f ord’ s c ou n seli n t h at c ase, as “A t t orney for D efen da n t . ” A l t h ou gh the exact ti m e is n otcl ear fr om the record, t h e eval u ati on o c c u r r e d n o la te rth a n F e b r u a r y2 , 1 9 9 3
. D u r in gC r a w fo r d ’ s m u r d e rtr ia l, in fo r m a tio n co n ta in e d in th e p s y c h ia tr ic evaluati o n w a s a p p a re n tlyu se d to d iscr e d it h is in sa n ityd e fen se . T h e ev a l u ati on s t at e d, und e ra s e c t i o n he ad e d “ K no w l e dg e o f t he C ou rt ” : “ [ Cra w f o r d] unde rst an ds t hathe m ayb e i ndi c t e d f o rc ap i t alm ur de ri n t he m o s tr e c e nt a lle g e d o ffe n s e s a n d u n d e r s ta n d s h o w a ca p ita l a n d n o n -c a p ita l tr ia l w o u ld d iffe r .” In th e “K n o w le d g e o f th e A lle g e d O ffe n s e s ” s e c tio n , th e re p o r t d e t a ils Cra w f o r d’ s r e po r t e d s t at e o f m i nd p r i o rt o a nd d ur i ng Ray’ s m ur de r . And i n t he

“ F orensi c O pi n i on s” se ctio n , t h e eval u ati on st ates t h at C raw f ord w as not suff eri n g f rom a m en t aldi sorder w h i ch preven t ed h i m fr om k n ow i n g ri gh tf rom w rong “atthe t i m e of the a l l eged off en ses, ” al t h ou gh i ti s not cl ear w h et h er t h ese

“ of fen ses” i n cl u de R ay’ s m u rder. Cra w f o r d a r gue s t hathe w as s ubj e c t e d t o a ps yc hi at r i c e va l uat i o n wi t ho ut t he b e ne f

i to f c o uns e l , i n v i o l at i o n o f t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nt . To t he e xt e nt 4 Cra wf o r d a r g u e s t h a t h e wa s e n t i t l e d t o h a v e a n a t t o r n e y p r e s e n t d u r i n gt he
exam i n ati on , hi s c l ai m l acks m eri t . H e ci t es no au t h ori t y f or su ch a prop osi t i on an d, m oreover, t h e Su prem e C ou rtha s decl i n ed to recogni ze such a ri gh tun der th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. S ee Est el le v. S m ith , 451 U
. S. 454, 470 n. 14 ( 1981) [h erei n af

t er S m ith ]; Uni t e d St at e s v . Byers , 7 4 0 F
. 2 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 1 9 & n
. 1 6 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 98 4) ( no t i ng t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s di s av o w alo f a ny Si xt h Am e ndm e ntr i ght to h a v e co u n s e l p r e s e n t d u r in ga p s y c h ia tr ic e x a m in a tio n ). T o t h e ext en tC raw f ord argu es t h at he shou l d h ave h ad t h e ben ef i tof
c o u n s e l in d e c id in gw h e th e rto u n d e r g o a p s y c h i a t r ic e v a lu a tio n , h o w e v e r , h isN o. 08- 70045

Buchanan v. Ken tucky , 4 8 3U .S
. 4 0 2( 1 9 8 7). 5 9 c la im is co lo r a b le . F o r tie r , C r a w fo r d ’ s co u n s e l o n th e u n r e la te d ra p e a n d a s s a u lt
c har ge s , a ppr o ve d t he e xa m i nat i o n. I n l i ghtof t he fac tt hatCr awfo r d’ s r ap e a nd
a s s a u lt c o u n s e la p p r o v e d th e e x a m in a tio n , th a t C r a w fo r d w a s a d v is e d o f h is Mi r andari gh ts bythe ex a m i n i n g ph ys i ci a n s, a n d tha t he pr ese n ted an i n sa n i ty def ens e i n t he r ape and as sa ul t t r i al , t he use of t he eval uat i on duri ng t hatt r i al
w ou l d n otha ve offen d e d C raw f ord’ s Fif

t h or S i xth A m en dm en tri gh t s. C r a w fo r d ’ s co n te n tio n , h o w e v e r , is t h a t t h e p s y c h ia tr ic e v a lu a tio n , o s te n s ib ly per f or m ed f ort he p u r pos e o f

det er m i ni ng c om pet enc y i n t he r ape t r i al , w as im p r o p e r lyu s e d a g a in s t h im in th e m u r d e rtr ia l. As e r i e s o f

S u p r e me C o u r td e c i s i o n s , d a t i n gf r o m S m ith t o Penryv. Joh n son , 5 3 2 U. S
. 7 8 2 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , p r o v i d e s g u i d a n c e i n t h i s a r e a . As a s t a r t i ng po i nt , i n S m ith , t he Cour t he l d t hat a de fe nda ntha s a Si xt h Am e ndm e ntr i ght to co u n s e l’ s a s s is ta n c e “in m a k in gth e s ig n ific a n t d e c is io n o f w h e th e rto s u b m it to th e [p s y c h ia t r i c ] e x a m i n a t i o n a n d t o w h a te n d t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t ’s f i n d i n g s co u ld b e e m p lo y e d .” 4 5 1 U .S . a t 4 7 0 -7 1 ; i d. at 471 ( “ [A ] defenda n t shou l d not be f orced t o r e s o lv e s u c h a n i m p o r t a n tis s u e w it h o u t‘th e g u id in gh a n d o f c o u n s e l.’” ( quot i ng Po w e l lv . A la b a ma , 2 8 7 U .S
. 4 5 , 6 9 (1 9 3 2 ))). In 2 0 0 4 , th e T h ir d C ir c u it p r o v i d e d t h i s c o n c i s e s u mm a r yo f t h e l a w: A c o m pe l l e d ps yc hi at r i c i nt e r vi e w i m pl i c at e s F i f t h a nd S ixt h A m e n d m e n t rig h ts ( S m ith )
. Bef o r e s ubm i t t i ng t o t hat exam i nat i on, t he def endant m u st r ec eive M i r and a w ar ni ngs a nd (o nc e t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nt att ach es) coun selm u stbe noti f i ed ( S m ith )
. The w ar ni ngs m us t a dv i s e t he d e fe n d a n t o f t he
“ c o ns e que nc e s o f

f o r e go i ng” hi s r i ghtto r e m ai n s i l e nt ( S m ith )
. Th e F i f

t h an d S i xth A m en dm en t s do not ne c e s s ar i l y at t ach, ho w e ve r , w he n t he de fe nda nt h i m sel f i n i tia te s th e psychiat ri c exam i n ati on ( Bucha nan , Penry )
. Si m i l arl y, th e F i f t h — bu tnot 5 Si xt h — Am e ndm e ntr i ghtc an be w ai ved w he n t heN o. 08- 70045

Powell v. Texas , 4 9 2U .S
. 6 8 0( 1 9 8 9). 6 10 d efen d a n t i n i ti a tes a tri a lde fen se o f m en tal i n ca p a ci ty or di st u rban ce, even t h ou gh t h e d efen da n th ad not been g ive n M ira n d a w a rn in g s ( Bucha nan , Po w ell )
. But 6 t hatw aiveri s no tl i m i t l e s s ; i to nl y al l o w s t he p rose cu ti on to u se th e in terv i ew to pro vid e reb u ttalto th e p sy ch ia tric d e fen se ( Bucha nan , Po w ell)
. Fi nal l y, t h e stat e ha s no obl i gati on t o w arn abou tpossibl e uses of t h e i n t ervi ew t h at c an n otbe f oreseen becau se of fu tu re ev e n ts, su ch a s u n co m m itted cr im e s ( Penry ). G i bb s v . Fr ank , 3 8 7 F .3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I n Penry v. Joh n son , th e d e fe n d a n t P e n r yco m m itt e d a ca p ita l cr im e in 197 9. P revi ou sl y, i n 197 7, a psych i atr i c evaluati on of P en ry ha d been prepa red for an u n related ca se. 5 3 2 U
. S
. a t 7 8 6 , 7 9 3
. T h a t 19 7 7 rep ort w a s ad m i tted in to ev i d en ce i n t he c api t al t r i al
. Penry ar gued t hat i t s use i nf r i nged hi s F i ft h A m e n d m e n t r ig h t a g a in s t s e lf-in c r im in a tio n . I d. a t7 93
. Al t ho ugh i tde c i de d t he que s t i o n a ga i ns tPe nr y o nAEDPA s t a n d a r d

- o f

- r e vi e w g r o unds w i t ho utr e ac hi ng th e m e r its o f h is F ifth A m e n d m e n t c la im , th e C o u r t n o te d , in tera lia , t hatt he def endanthad af

f i r m at ivel y puthi s m en tals t at e a ti ss ue and t hatt he 1979
c r im e h a d n o t b e e n co m m itt e d w h e n th e 1 9 7 7 e x a m in a tio n to o k p la c e . I d. at 79 4. The Cour to bs e r ve d t hat“ [ t ] he di f fe r e nc e s be t w e e n t hi s c as e a nd [ S m ith ]
a re su b stan ti a l
. ” I

d. a t 7 9 5
. A l t h ou gh t h e Penry Cour tv i e w e d t he i s s ue t hr o ugh a Fi f t h A m e ndm e nt rat h er t h an Sixt h A m en dm en tl en s, i t s r easo n in gi s i n st ructive i n t h i s c ase. H er e, C r aw f

or d w as w i t houta l aw yeri n t he m urde rc as e a nd t hus h ad n o l egal
c o u n s e l to a d v is e h im a b o u t w h e th e rto s u b m it t o th e e x a m in a tio n , w h ic h co u ld have pr ej udi c ed ( and al l ege dl y di d prej udi c e) hi s m urde r def ens e. U nl i ke Penry , C r aw f or d h a d a l r eady c om m i t t ed t he R ay m urde rand i nt ended t o pr es entan in s a n ityd e fe n s e in th e a s s a u lt t r ia l. Itw a s th e r e fo r e fo r e s e e a b le th a t h isN o. 08- 70045

11 m e n ta l s ta te co u ld b e p la c e d a t is s u e d u r in ga n ye n s u in gca p ita l m u r d e rtr ia l. U n derS m ith , Cr awfo r d m ayha ve ha d ar i gh t to a l awye r ’ s a dv i c e “ i n m ak i ng t he s i gni f

i c antde c i s i o n o f

w he t he rt o s ubm i tt o t he e xa m i nat i o n and t o w hate nd t h e p sychi atr i st ’

s f i n d i ngs coul dbe e mploye d
. ” S m ith , 4 5 1 U .S . a t 4 7 1 (e m p h a s is
a d d e d ). T h e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t, o n c o lla te r a l r e v ie w , c o n c lu d e d th a t “ it is ap pa r e ntt hat[ F ort i er ] , a tt he v e r y l e as t , ha d no t i c e o f t he fac tt hatt he
exam i nat i on w oul d t ake pl ac e a s he s i gned of f on t he exam i nat i on o r der
. ” 867 S o. 2d at 205
. T h e di st ri ct court si m i l arl y concl u ded t h at “ t h e court’ s o rd er n oti fi ed M r. F ortier of th e p u rp ose an d scop e of the ex a m i n a ti on su ff i ci en t t o sa t i sf y t he Si xt h A m endm ent . ” 200 8 W L 4 4 1 9 3 4 7 , a t*1 3. For t i er ’ s appro val l i ke l y s at i s f

i e d anySi xt h Am e ndm e ntc o nc e r ns i n t he r ap e a nd a s s aul tc as e , b ut
w h et h er i taf

f orded C raw f

ord ad equ ate prot ect i on i n th e m u rder c ase i s a di st i ncti nqui r y t hats h ou l d b e t r eat ed s epar at el y. Thi s c our tc onc l udes t hat

“j u ri st s of

reason coul d d i sagree w i t h the d i st ri ctcourt ’ s r esol u t i on of [t h i s]
c o n s tit u tio n a l cla im []” a n d g r a n ts a C O A
. Mi l le r - El , 537 U
. S. at327. Al t ho ugh t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o uc he d up o n t he m e r i t s o f t hi s c l ai m , t he present st ate of

t h e rec ord coun sel s i n favor of rem an di n g t o th a t c o u rt f or fu r t h e rc o n s id e r a t io n a ft e r a d d it io n a l b r ie fi n g . T h e r e le v a n c e o f F o r t ie r ’s pa r t i c i pa t i o n t o Cr awfo r d’ s Si xt h Am e ndm e nt c l ai m w as no ta de qua t e l y br i e fe d. F u rth er, th e effec t of C ra w ford ’ s w a ive r of his S i xth A m en d m en t ri gh t t o c o uns e l , di s c us s e d sup ra , an d w h et h er t h at w ai ver w ou l d ext en d t o an y deci si on t o s ubm i tt o a ps yc hi at r i c ev al uat i o n w e r e i s s ue s notade qua t e l y e xp l o r e d b y t he br i e fs . Sho ul d t he di s t r i c tc o ur tb e s o i nc l i ne d, i t m ay de ve l o p t he r e c o r d o n t he t i m i n g of

C raw f ord’ s representati on i n t h e t w o cr i m i n alproceedi n gs; i tm ay als o c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia r y h e a r in gto a s s is t it s re s o lu tio n o f th is cla im
. See , e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Herr era , 4 1 2 F .3d 5 7 7 , 5 8 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ).N o. 08- 70045

The Mississippi rul es h ave since bee n amen ded toexempt o nlythose di s c lo sures 7 believed necessary to prevent “rea sonablyc er t ai n deathor substantial b odily har m.” M I SS . RULES O F PR OF ’ L C O ND UCT 1 .6 (b)( 1 ) (2 0 0 9). 12 D . W het her C r aw f or d' s st at em ent s w er e obt ai ned t hrough t he use of c o n fi d e n tial m e d ica l re c o rd s th a t w e re p ro c u re d w ith o u t a
w ar r antorc ons e nt T h e d a yp r io rto C r a w fo r d ’ s a r r e s t, F B I A g e n t N e w s o m S u m m e r lin
o bt ai ne d hi s m e nt alhe al t h r e c o r ds f r o m W i l l i am Fo r t i e r ’ s l aw c l e r k, w i t ho ut C raw f ord’ s consen t . T h ese docum en t s, w h i ch w ere not m ad e part of t h e rec ord i n t h e st ate c ou rt or t h e di st ri ct court, ap pea r t o h ave been eva l u ati on s prepared i n ant i c i pat i on o f

C r aw f or d’ s r ape t r i al
. Craw f or d c ont en d s t hatl aw en f orcem en tof

f i ci al s un l aw f

u l ly obta in e d th e se re co rd s a n d u se d th e in form ati on t hey co nt ai ned to ext r ac ta c onfes si on. H e arg ues thatthe c onfes si on, w hi c h w as a d m i tted at tri a l , w a s i n a d m i ssible “f ru i t of th e poison ou s tree.” S ee W o ng Sun
v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 7 1 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 7 -8 8 (1 9 6 3 ). C ra w fordi s u n a b l e to sh ow an y il l eg a l i ty i n the releas e of the reco rd s to t he FBI
. H e as s e r t s t hatt he i rdi s c l o s ur e w as a v i o l at i o n o f t he a t t o r ne y- c l i e nt pr ivi l e ge. H ow e ve r , b o t h t he s t at e c o ur ta nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatt he
recor ds w ere di scl osed i n an att em pt t o preven tt h e com m i ssi on of a cr i m e, w h i ch, i n 199 3, w as an excepti on t o t h e att orney-c l i en tpr ivi l ege. S eeM IS S . 7 R ULES OF P ROF’ L C OND UCT 1. 6(b) ( 1) ( 19 93 )
. M o r e o ve r , ne i t he rc o ur tha d t he
m e nt alhe al t h r e c o r ds b e f o r e i tt o m ak e t he de t e r m i nat i o n whet he rt he r e c o r ds
w ere privi l eged i n t h e f i rst i n st an ce. T h u s, n ei t h er c ou rtf ou n d that a vi ol ati on o f th e M is s is s ip p i e v id e n c e ru le s h a d o c c u r r e d
. F u rt h er, even i f

t h ey w e re il l egally obtai n ed, t h e causal conn ect i on bet w ee n t he r ec or ds and t he c onfes si on i s w eak. T he c onfes si on m ustbe excl u ded on l y i f, “ gran t i n g est abli shm en tof t h e pri m ary i l l egali t y, t h e evi den ce t o w hi c h i nst antobj ec t i on i s m ade has be en c om e a t b y ex p l oi t at i on o f t hatN o. 08- 70045

Duringtri al, Pannell was assiste d byDavid B ell
. 8 13 i l l e ga l i t y o ri ns t e adb y m e ans s uf f i c i e nt l y di s t i ngu i s hab l e t o b e p u rg e d o f t he p ri m a rytaint. ” W

o ng Sun , 371 U
. S
. at 488 ( qu ot ati on om i t t e d )
. C raw f ord
m e r e l y al l e ge s t hathi s i nt e r l o c ut or, F BI Age ntJ o e J ac ks o n, ha d r e adt he
r e c o r d s a n d co n s u lte d w ith a b e h a v io r a l s c ie n c e e x p e r t p r io rt o th e a r r e s t. T h is is a n in s u ffic ie n t ca u s a l c o n n e c tio n to ju s tify th e e x c lu s io n u r g e d
. AC O Ao n th is
c l ai m i s de ni e d. E. W he t he r t h e t r i alc our tde ni e d Cr aw f or d hi s Si xt h Am e ndm e nt r i ghtt o an i m par t i alj ur y b y s us t ai ni ng o bj e c t i ons t o q ue s t i oni ng du ri n g vo i r di re D ur i ng vo i rdi r e a tCr awfo r d’ s m ur de rt r i al , t he t r i alj udg e sus t ai ne d t he
s ta te ’ s o b je c tio n s to ce r ta in q u e s tio n s b yJ a m e s P a n n e ll, C r a w fo r d ’s co u n s e l, 8
w h i ch so u gh tt o el i ci tprospect ive j u rors ’vi ew s on t h e death p en al t y u n der p a r t i c u l a rc i r c u ms t a n c e s . P a n n e l lwa s p r e v e n t e d f r o m o b t a i n i n gj u r o r s ’v i e ws on w h et h er t h e dea th p e n a ltyoug h tt o be au t om ati c i f a cr i m e w as com m i t t ed du ri n g a kidna pp i n g or a sexu al assau l t an d w h et h er t h ey w ou ld consi der speci f i c m i t i gati n g fact ors. Pa n n el lw as, h o w e ver, perm i t t ed to ask, “ Is t h ere an y on e here t h at bel i eves tha tthe dea t h p en al t y ou gh tto b e a u t om ati c of [ si c]
s o m e o ne i s f

o und gui l t y o f

c ap i t alm ur de r . ” Cr awfo r d a r gue s t hathi s due process ri gh t s w ere vi ol ated un der Mo rg a n v. Illi n o is , 5 04 U
. S
. 7 19 (1992), w h i ch h e l d t h a t a c a p i t a l d e fe n d a n t “ m u s t b e p e r m i t t e d o n v o ir d i reto a s c e r ta in
w he t he rhi s pr o s pe c t ive j ur o r s ” w o ul d “ i m po s e dea t h re ga r dl e s s o f t he fac t s a nd ci rcu m stan ces o f con victi on . ” I d. a t 7 3 5 -3 6
. “T h i s ci rcu i t ha s p rev i ou sly stated tha t Mo rga n onl y i n vol ves t h e na rrow q u e s tio n o f w h e th e r , in a c a p ita l c a s e , ju r o r s m u s t b e a s k e d w h e th e rth e yw o u ld
a u to m a tic a llyim p o s e th e d e a th p e n a ltyu p o n co n v ic tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t.” Trevi n o v. Joh n son , 1 6 8 F .3d 1 7 3 , 1 8 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o ta tion om itted ).N o. 08- 70045

14 C raw f ord concedes t h at t h i s questi on ( au t om ati c dea t h ) w as posed t o t h e ven i re by h i s c ou n sel
. M oreover, t h e t ri alj u dg e al so posed t h i s questi on t o t h e ven i re an d tw o j u rors w ere r em oved f or c au se based on t h ei r af f i rm ative responses. Fur t he r , t he t r i alj udg e a s ke d t he v e ni r e w he t he rt he y w o ul d c o ns i de ra ny m i t i gat i ng evi denc e ag a i n st i m pos i t i on o f t he dea t h penal t y. The t r i alj udge
su sta i n ed the st ate’ s obj ect i on t o P an n el l ’ s at t em pt t o el i ci tj u rors ’vi ew s on speci f i c m i t i gati n g fact ors. Th e Tr e v i no co u r t c o n s id e r e d a s im ila rcla im reg a rd i n g q u estion i n g o n a sp ecif i c m i ti ga ti n g factoran d ru l ed tha t Mo rga n in
n o w a yre q u ir e s th e tr ia l co u r t t o p e r m it s u c h q u e s tio n in g . 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 3
. O n di r ec tappeal , t he M i ss i ss i ppiS u p r em e Courtr ul ed t hat“ t he t r i al j udge c onduct ed s uf f i c i en t q u es t i oni ng, and c om bi ned w i t h t he i ndi vi dual
e xa m i nat i o n o f

j ur o r s , v o i rdi r e o f

t he v e ni r e w as s uf

f i c i e ntas t o w he t he ra nyo ne w ou l d a u tom a ti ca l l y vote to i m p ose de a th
. ” Cra w f o r d I, 716 So. 2d at1043. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta gr e e d a nd d e ni e d r e l i e f o n t hi s cl ai m . C r awfo r d ha s no tm ad e t he
r e q u i s i t e s h o wi n go f

a d e n i a lo f

a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t , a n d h i s r e q u e s t f o ra C OA
o n t hi s c l ai m i s de ni e d. F . W h et h er t h e “es pe ci al l y h ei n ou s,at ro c io u s or cruel ” j u ry i ns t r uc t i on was unc ons t i t ut i ona l l y v ag ue F oll ow i n g th e g u i l ty v erd i ct, the tri a len tered the sen ten ci n g p h a se . In deci di n g w h et h er t o i m pose t h e death p en al t y, C raw f ord’ s j u ry w as in str u cted t o consi der t h e potenti alexi st en ce of t h ree aggrava t i n g fact ors. T h e t h i rd of th e s e w a s th a t “ [t] h e c a p ita l o ffe n s e w a s e s p e c ia llyh e in o u s , a tr o c io u s o rcr u e l.” T h i s fact or w as f

u rt h er def

i n ed as f

ol l ow s: The c o ur ti ns t r uc t s t he j ur y t hati n c o ns i de ri ng w h et h er t h e capi t alof fen se w as es peci al l y h ei n ou s, atr oci ou s orcr u el ; h ei n ou s m ean s extr em el y w i cked or shock i n g l y evi l ; atr oci ou s m ean s outr ageou sl y w i cked and vi l e; and c r uelm eans des i gned t o i nf l i c ta hi gh deg ree of

pain w i t h i n di f

ference t o or even enj oym en tof t h e suf feri n g of

ot h ers.N o. 08- 70045

15 A n es pec i al l y h ei nous, at r oc i ous orc r uelc api t al offen se is on e accom p a n i ed b y su ch ad d i ti on a lacts a s to sett h e cr i m e apa rt f

rom t h e norm of

capi t alm u rders — th e co n s c ie n c e le s s o rp itile s s cr im e w h ic h is u n n e c e s s a r i l yt o r t u r o u s t o t h e v i c t i m. If y o u fin d fr o m th e e v id e n c e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le do u b tt h a tt h e d e fe n d a n tu t i l i z e d a me t h o d o f k i l l i ng w hi c h ca use d s er i ous m ut i l at i on, t hatt her e w as di s m e m ber m en t o f

t he b o dypr i o rt o de at h, t hatt he defenda n ti n f

l i ct ed p h ysi calor m en t a l p ai n bef ore dea t h , t h at t h ere w as m en t alt ort u re and agg ra vati on bef or e de at h, ort hata l i nger i ng ort or t uro us de at h w as s u ffe r e d b yth e v ic tim , t h e n y o u m a yfin d th is agg ravati n g ci rcum st an ce. C raw f ord argu es t h at t h i s i n st ructi on fai l ed to ad equ atel y n arrow t h e ki n ds of ki l l i ngs w hi c h m ay w ar r antt he dea t h penal ty. H e con ten d s th a t Maynard v
. Car t w r ight , 48 6 U
. S. 35 6 ( 19 88 ) , a nd She l lv . Mi s s i s s i ppi , 4 98 U
. S
. 1 ( 199 0) (per curi am ) , i n vali da t ed s i m il ari ns t r uc t i o ns a nd thata c c o r di ngly hi s death sentence
s ho ul d b e r e ve r s e d. Th e di st r i c tc our tnot ed t hatm ul t i pl e Supre m e Courtdec i si ons had ap pr o ve d l ang uag e s i m i l ar t o t hat e m pl o ye d i n t he i ns t r uc t i o n give n. I n Profitt
v . Fl o r i da , f

o ri ns t anc e , t he Cour tc o ns i de r e d ana r r o w i ng c o ns t r uc t i o n o f t he
sam e aggrav ati n g fact or, w h i ch l i m i t ed i t s app l i cat i on to “t h e consci en cel ess or pi t i l es s c r i m e w hi c h i s unn ec es sa r i l y t or t uro us t o t he vi c t i m . ” 428 U
. S. 242, 255 ( 197 6) ( qu ot ati on om i t t ed). Th e C ou rtconcl u ded t h at t h e const ructi on di d n ot

“ pr o vi de [] i nad e qua t e gui da nc e t o t ho s e cha r ge d w i t h t he dut y o f r e c o m m e ndi ng or i m p osin g sen ten ces i n ca p i tal ca ses . ” I d. a t 2 5 6 ; seealso Bel lv . Cone , 5 43 U
. S. 4 4 7 , 4 5 7 -5 8 (2 0 0 5 ) ( r eje c t in ga v a g u e n e s s c h a ll e n g e to th e s t a t e c o u r t ’s
n a r r o w in gco n s tr u c tio n o f th e s a m e a g g r a v a tin gfa c to r). Cra w f o r d c i t e s J us t i c e M ar s hal l ’ s c o nc ur r i ng o pi ni o n i n Sh e l lv. Mi s s i s s i ppi , w hi c h s t at e d t hata n a t t e m p tt o d e f i n e “ e s p e c i al l y he i no us , a t r o c i o usN o. 08- 70045

The instructionin Sh el ls t at ed: “[T]heword heinou s mean s extremely wicked or 9 shockin gly evil; atrociou s mean s outrageou sly wicked and vile; and cruel me ans designed to inflict a high degree of pain with indifference to, o re ve n enjoyment of[,] the sufferin g of oth er s.” 4 9 8U .S
. at 2 (M ars h all , J ., c oncurrin g) (alter ation s inori gin al)(qu ot ationo mitt ed). C rawford’s brief asserts inpassingth at the deathin this ca se di d not me et the trial 10 court’s definition of “especi ally heinou s, atrociou s or cruel.” To the exte nt this contention is premised on an alleged lack of evi denceto support the jury’ s fin ding of this aggravating

factor, the argum ent isnot devel ope d in Crawfor d’sbrief and, co nsi dering the natur e of thekilling, does not merit a C OA in anyevent. 16 or c ruel” usi n g so m e of t h e l an gu age em pl oyed by the t ri alcourti n t h i s c ase w o u l d n o t p a s s co n s tit u tio n a l m u s te r . 4 9 8 U .S . a t 2 -3 (M a r s h a ll, J ., concu rri n g)
. H ow ever, C raw f ord i gn ores t h e t ri alcourt ’ s f u rt h er narrow i n g of 9 th e a g g r a v a tin gfa c to rto “t h e co n s c i e n c e le s s o rp itile s s cr im e w h ic h is
unn ec es sa r i l y t or t uro us t o t he vi c t i m , ” as m ent i on ed above. Thi s addi t i onal l i m i t i n g constr u ct i on of the agg ravati n g fact or cured a n y al l eged vagu en ess or o v e r b r e a d th , a n d C r a w fo r d cit e s n o a u th o r ityto th e co n tr a r y . N o C O As h a ll i s s u e o n t h i s c l a i m. 10 G . W h e th e r th e j u ry in str u c tion s f a il e d to m a k e cle a r th a t u n a n im ity
w as notr equi r ed i n orderf or i ndi vi dual j uror s t o c onsi der
m i t i gati n g eviden ce Cra w f o r d c o nt e nds t hatb as e d o n t he phr as i ng o f t he s e nt e nc i ng i n st ructi on s, t h ere w as a sub st an t i alprobab i l i t y t h at i n di vi du alj u rors bel i eved t hey c oul d not c ons i der m i t i gat i ng evi denc e unl es s al l t w elve j uro r s agr ee d t hat
a pa r t i c ul arm i t i ga t i ng fac t o r ap pl i e d. I n Mi l ls v . Mar y land , t h e Su prem e C ou rt h el d t h at “t h e sen t en cer m u stb e perm i t t ed to consi der al lm i t i gati n g evi den ce. The po s s ibi l i t y t hata si n gl e j ur o rc o ul d b l o c k s uc h c o ns i de r at i o n, a nd consequent l y r e qui r e t he j ur y t o i m po s e t he de at h pe nal t y, i s o ne w e da r e not
r is k .” 4 8 6 U .S . 3 6 7 , 3 8 4 (1 9 8 8 ). T h e i n st ructi on s now h ere s t ated t h atuna ni m it y w as r e quir e d wi t h r espect to th e j ury’ s c ons i der at i on o f m i t i gat i ng fac t or s. They r ef er r ed t o aunani m i tyN o. 08- 70045

17 re q u ire m e n t on ly w ith re sp e ct to aggrava t i n g f act ors. C ra w for d d o e s n o t id e n tify
a n y sp ecif

i c i n stru cti on w h i ch ev en rea son a b ly s u gg ests a u n a n i m i ty
r equi r em entf

orm i t i gat i ng c i r c um st ance s. I nst ead, he ar gues t hatt he j ury w as n ever i n st ructed t h at un an i m i t y w as n otr e qui r e d f o ra ny pa r t i c ul arm i t i ga t i ng fa c to rb e fo r e it c o u ld co n s id e rs u c h e v id e n c e . I n S t ri nger v. Ja ckson , this cou rtrej ect ed a si m i l ar argu m en teven w h en t he i ns t ruc t i o ns di d, a s a n “ o ve r s i ght , ” r e qui r e una ni m i t y f o rm i t i ga t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s . 8 6 2 F .2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 2 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), m o dif i e d o n o t he rg r o unds by S t ri nger v. B lack , 9 79 F. 2d3 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2)
. The c o ur thel d t hat“ a r e ad i ng of t h e enti re cha rge w ou l d n oth ave l ed the j u rors t o t h i n k they w ere c om pel l ed t o i gno r e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t anc e s (unl e s s f o und unan i m o us l y) i n de t e r m i ni ng a n ap p rop ri a te sen ten ce.” I d. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n t hi s c as e, as t he di st r i c tc our tc onc l uded, t he j ury i nst r uct i ons , r ead a s a w h ol e, do n otrequi re j u ror u n an i m i t y t o consi der m i t i gati n g ci rcum st an ces. C o n s e q u e n t l y , a C O Ai s d e n i e d o n t h i s c l a i m. H . W het her a j ury i nst r u cti o n i m per m i s s i bl y s hi f t ed t he burden of proof t o C r aw f

or d by f

ai l i ng t o r eq u i re th e j ury t o f i nd t hat a g g ra v a ti n gcircu m stan ce s ou tw eigh ed m i ti g a t i ng ci r cum s t ances be yo nd a r e as ona bl e do ubt Cra w f o r d ne xtc hal l e nge s t he f o l l o w i ng j ur y i ns t r uc t i o n: I n t he e ve ntt haty o u f i nd t hatt he m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t anc e( s ) do no to ut w e i gh o ro ve r c o m e t he a gg ra va ti n g circu m stance ( s) , yo u m a y im p ose the de a th s e nt e nc e . Sho ul d y o u f i nd t h at t he m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t anc e ( s ) o ut w e i gh o ro ve r c o m e t he a gg r av at i ng ci rcu m stan c e (s ), yo u sh a l ln ot i m p ose the de a th sentence.N o. 08- 70045

A criminal defendant is “indisputab lyentitl e[d] .
. . to ‘a jury determinationth at [he] 11 is guilty of every ele ment of the crime with whichh e i s ch arged, b eyond a reason able doubt .’” Apprend i , 530 U. S. at 477 ( qu o t ing Un ited Statesv . Gau d in , 515 U. S. 506, 510 (199 5)) . In Ring, the Suprem e C ourtoverruledt h at portionof Walton v. Arizona , 4 9 7U .S
. 6 3 9( 1 9 9 0), that “allow[ed] a sente ncing ju dge , sittin g without a j ury , to find an aggravating circumstance nece ssaryfor imposition of the de athpen alty .” 536 U.S. at 609
. In stead, the Court co ncluded, the SixthAme n dm ent right t o trial b yj uryapp liedto “th e factfin din gnec es saryto put [a defen dant] to death .” Id
. 18 C raw f ord argu es t h at un der A pp rend i v. New Jersey , 5 30 U
. S. 4 66 ( 20 00 ) , a nd R i ng v . Ar iz o na , 53 6 U
. S. 58 4 ( 20 02 ) , t hi s i ns t r uc t i o n was e r r o ne o us . Fi r s t , he 11 contend s t h at t h e j u ry w as not i n st ructed t o f i n d that aggrava t i n g ci rcum st an ces o ut w e i ghed m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t anc e s . La t e ri n hi s b r i e f, he a r gue s t hatt he i n st ructi on om i t t ed a reason able d ou bt r equ i rem en tf rom an y potenti alj u ry f i ndi ng t hat m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t anc e s di d no t o ut w e i gh aggr av at i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H is a r g u m e n ts o n b o th fr o n ts a r e fo r e c lo s e d
. C r aw f or d poi nt s t o no aut hor i t y w hi c h m anda t es t hata j ury m ake an af f i rm ative f

i n di n g t h at agg ravati n g fact ors out w e igh m i t i ga t i ng fac t o r s b e yo nd
a r e as o nab l e do ubt
. I ns t e ad , t he c as e s he c i t e s ho l d t hat“ t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nt
r e qui r e s t hat [ ag gr av at i ng fact ors] be f o undbya jury
. ” R i ng , 536 U
. S. at609 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). M o r e o v e r , a s t h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t n o te d , K an sas v. Marsh
c o nf i rm e d “ t hata s t at e de at h pe nal t y s t at ut e m aypl ac e t he b ur de n o n t he d efe n d a n t t o pr o ve t hatm i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t anc e s o ut w e i gh a gg r av at i ng circ u m sta n ce s.” 54 8 U .S
. 1 6 3 , 1 7 3 (20 0 6 ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). It fol l ow s th a t a s t ate co ur t ’ s fai l ur e t o i ns t r uc tt he j ur y t hati tm us tf i nd t hata gg r av at i ng c i r c um st ance s out w ei gh m i t i gat i ng c i r c um st ance s beyond a r eas onabl e do ubt do e s no tr un a f

o ulo f t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nt . A CO A on t hi s c l ai m i s de ni e d. I . W het her t he use of ki dnap pi ng as bot h a n el em entof ca pi t al
m u r d e r a n d a n a g g r a v a t i n gc i r c u m s t a n c e v i o la t e d C r a w f o r d ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h tsN o. 08- 70045

C raw f or d ’ s att empt todistinguishth e Loui sian a statutory framework from the 12 Mississippi framework i s un availing . He contends that, unlike Loui sian a, Mi ssissippi does not narrow the cl ass of death -eli gibledefe ndants at t hegui ltp hase . This contention is contradict ed by M I SS . C O D E ANN . § 9 7-3-1 9 (1 992), w hich distin guishe s capitalmurder fro m noncapital murder. Section s 97-3-19 (2)(a)-(g) set forththe specific circu mstance s in which a defe n dant mayb e co nvicte d of c apital murder . Crawford further co nten ds that all defen dant s charged with felony murderare eligible forthe death penalty in Mis sis sip pi. Thisconte ntio n is flatly contradict ed by M I SS . C O D E ANN . § 9 7-3-1 9(1)(c), which designates as murder (as opposed to capital murder) any homicide “by anyp er so ne n ga gedinth e co mmi ssionof anyf elonyotherth an” cert aine nu merate d felonie s. 19 As apr e r e qui s i t e t o Cr awfo r d’ s c ap i t alm ur de rc o nvi c t i o n, t he j ur y f o und d u rin gits g u il t d e lib e ra tion s th a t R a y ’ s m u rd e r oc cu rr e d d u rin g th e co u rs e of a k id n a p p in g . S eeM IS S . C ODE A NN . § 97- 3- 19 ( 2) ( e ) ( 19 92 )
. D ur i ng t he s e nt e nc i ng del iber a ti on s, the j ury al so f ound, as an aggr avat i ng c i r c um st ance , t hat t he kil l i ng w as c o m m i t t e d d ur i ng t he c o ur s e o f a ki dna ppi ng. Cr awf o r d c o nt e nds t h at dup l i cat i n g an el em en tof th e o ffen se as an ag grava t i n g ci rcum st an ce v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. I n Lowe nf

i e l d v
. Phe l

ps , t he Su p rem e C our thel d t hata s t at e c api t al
s e n te n c in gs c h e m e m a yn a r r o w t h e c a t e g o r yo f d e a th -e lig ib le d e fe n d a n ts in ei t h er of

t w o w ays. 484 U
. S
. 231 , 246 ( 198 8)
. “ T h e l egi sl ature m ay i t sel f na rrow th e d efi n i ti on of ca p i tal of fen ses . . . so th a t t h e j u ryf i n d i n g o f gu i l t re sp on d s to t hi s c o nc e r n, o rt he l e gi s l at ur e m aym o r e b r o ad l y de f i ne c ap i t alo f

fen s e s a nd pr o vi de f

o rna r r o w i ng byj u ry fi ndi ngs o f a gg r av at i ng c i r c um s t anc e s a tt he p en a l ty p h a se.” I

d. E l ab o r at i ng o n L o w enfieldi n Tu ila ep av. Ca lif o rn ia , t he 12 Cour ts t at e d: “ To r e nde ra def e nda ntel i gibl e fo rt he de at h pe nal t y i n a ho m i c i de case, w e ha ve i n di cat ed that t h e t ri er of factm u stco n vi ctt h e defen da n tof
m ur de ra nd f

i nd o ne ‘ ag gr av at i ng c i r c um s t anc e ’ ( o r i t s e quiva l e nt) a te i t he rt he gui l to rpe n al t y ph as e . ” 5 12 U
. S. 9 67 , 9 71

- 72 ( 19 94 )
. “ The ag gr av at i ng ci rcu m stan ce m a y b e con tain ed i n the de fin i ti on of th e crim e or in a se p a ra te sen ten ci n g factor( or in b oth ). ” I d. a t 9 7 2
.N o. 08- 70045

Un der Brad

y , “the suppressionbyth e prosecutionof evidence favorab le to an accu sed 13 uponrequest violates du e process wh ere the evidence i s materia l ei the r toguilt orto punishment, irrespectiveof thegood faithor bad faith of the prosecution .” 373U.S. at 87. The Brad yruleexte n dsto im pe ach me nt evidence , ina ddition to exculp atoryevidence . United States v. Bagley , 4 7 3U .S
. 6 6 7 , 6 7 6( 1 9 8 5).
20 H ere, t h e ki dn ap pi n g el em en t , a s a requ i si t e el em en tof a capi t alm u rder
c o n v ic tio n , w a s u s e d t o r e n d e rC r a w fo r d e lig ib le fo ra d e a th s e n te n c e in th e g u ilt ph ase. Itw as then foun d as a n a ggrav ati n g fact or duri n g t h e sentenci n g ph ase t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ’ s a c t u a l i mp o s i t i o n o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . T h i s k i n d o f s c h e me w as ap proved by the Tui lae pa Co u r ta n d i s n o tc o n s t i t u t i o n a l l yi n v a l i d
. AC OA
s h a l ln o ti s s u e o n t h i s c l a i m. J. W het her t he s t at e’ s fail ure t o di s cl os e an FB I r epor tunti laf t er C r aw f or d’ s t r i alam oun t ed t o a B rad y vi ol at i on A f t erhi s m urde rtr i al , C r aw f or d’ s c ounse lobt ai ned an FB I r epo r tt hro ugh
a F r e e d o m o f I n fo r m a t io n A c tr e q u e s t . C r a w fo r d c o n t e n d s th a tth e s t a t e ’s fai l ur e t o pr o duc e t hi s r e po r t , w hi c h was c r e at e d i n Fe br uar y 19 93 , pr i o rt o t he tria l, w a s a v iola tion of Bra dy v . Mar y land , 3 7 3 U
. S
. 8 3 (19 6 3 ). A ccord i n g to 13 C r a w fo r d , th e re p o r t h a d im p e a c h m e n t v a lu e a n d w o u ld h a v e s u p p o r te d h is t heor y t hathe di d notl ead t he s ea rch to t he bo dy. H ad t h e reportbeen pr o duc e d, he a r gue s , t he j ur y w o ul d ha ve b e l i eved h i s c l ai m t hathe ha d no
m e m o r yo f th e m u r d e ra n d im p o s e d a life s e n te n c e ra th e rth a n d e a th
. At t r i al , t he def

e ns e ’ s t he o r y w as t hatt he FBI a ge nt s l e d Cr awfo r d t o t he bod y, w i t h t h e assi st an ce of a speci al i zed search ai rcr af t . T h e st ate, m ean w h i l e, p r e s e n te d te s tim o n yth a t C r a w fo r d ledthe sea rch effo r t, w ith th e a ir c r a ft m e r e ly
as s i s t i ng t he s e ar c he r s t o po s i t i o n t he m s e lve s r e l at ive t o a ne arbyl and m ar k. FB I Age ntJ ac ks o n t e s t i f i e d att r i al : “ W e co ul d no tha ve f o und [ Ray’ s b o dy] i n m y opi ni on e ven w i t h t he t ec hni c alex per t i se thatw e had t her e w i t h t he ver y s pec i al
e q u i p me n tt h a tc a me f r o m Wa s h i n g t o n . We c o u l d n o th a v e f o u n d h e ri n t h e t i meN o. 08- 70045

C ert ain portio ns of

the FBI rep ortwer e app arently red act ed purs uant to5 U.S. C. 14 § 5 5 2 (b) ( 7) ( E) , which exe m p t s r e c o r d s o r inf o r m atio n who s e r el e a s e to th e p ub lic “would disclo se techniqu es and procedures for l aw enforceme nt investigatio ns or pro secutions, or would disclo se guideline s for law enforcement investigatio ns or prosecution s if such disclo sure couldrea so n ab lyb e expe ct edto ri sk circu mventionof the law.” No partydis pute s th at thes e redacted portion s refer toth e specializ ed search aircraft. 21 t h at w as don e w i t h ou t [ C raw f ord’ s] assi st an ce. ” M ean w h i l e, t h e F B I re p ort s t at e d: “ [ RE D AC TE D ] w as ut i l i z e d a nd w as ex t r e m e l y be ne f i c i ali n g ui di ng t he search t eam t o t h e vi ct i m ’ s bod y. In fact , i t w as qu i t e possibl e vi ct i m m i gh tnot h a v e b e e n lo c a te d th a t e v e n in gw ith o u t t h e u s e o f [R E D A C T E D ].” 14 The s t at e c o ur tc o nc l ude d t hatthe FB I r e po r tha d “l i t t l e i m pe ac hm e nt
v a lu e , m u c h le s s th e m a te r ia l v a lu e re q u ir e d fo rth e g r a n t o f a n e w tr ia l.” C ra w for dII, 867 So. 2d at204. Si m i l ar l y, t he di st r i c tc our tf ound t hat

“Jack son’ s t ri alt est i m on y i s n ot i n confl i ct w i t h t h e F
. B
. I. report , an d the report
c o n ta i n s n o ex cu l p a toryor i m p ea ch m en t evide n ce.” C ra w fordIII, 2 0 0 8 WL 44 19 34 7 at* 32
. The s t at e de fe nds t hi s r ul i ng, a r gui ng t hatt he r e i s no c o n tr a d ic tio n b e tw e e n th e s ta te m e n t in th e re p o r t a n d J a c k s o n ’ s te s tim o n y . T h e rep ort an d testi m on y do n ot con trad i ct on e an oth er. M ost i m p orta n t, t h e reportst ates t h at “i tw as qu i t e possibl e” t h at R ay’ s bod y w ou l d n otha ve been fou n d “t h a t eve n i n g” w i th ou t th e he l p of th e a i rcra ft
. T h i s statem en t am ou n ts t o a possibi l i t y t h at t h e bodycou ld ha ve gon e un l ocat ed that evening, rat h er t han a c at e go r i c ala s s e r t i o n. M e anwhi l e , J ac ks o n’ s t e s t i m o ny ac kno w l e dg e d t he

“ ai r c r af tas si st ance ” and “ t he t ec hni c alex per t i se . . . w i t h t he ve r y s pec i al equ i pm en t . ” D efen se c ou n seldi d n otprobe th e n a tu re of t h i s assi st an ce on c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n . M o r e o ve r , Cra w f

o r d m ak e s an unc o nvi nc i ng ar gum e nt w i t h r e s pe c tt o t he
m a te r ia lityre q u ir e m e n t, i
. e. , thatthe r es ul tof the se nt enc i ng phase w oul d have b e e n d iffe r e n t h a d th e F B I r e p o r t b e e n d is c lo s e d to th e d e fe n s e . S ee B ag ley , 473 U
. S. at682. Cons i de r i ng t he l ac k of co nt r ad i c t i o n be t w e e n hi s t e s t i m o ny andt heN o. 08- 70045

22 r epo r t , C r aw f

or d has nots how n a r eas onabl e po s s ib il it y t hatt he j ury w oul d have been persua ded t h at he coul d n otrec al lt h e m u rder i f t h e re p o rt had been di s c l o s e d. A CO A on t hi s c l ai m i s de ni e d. K . I nef

f ec t i ve as s i s t ance o f t r i alco un s el C r aw f or d m akes ei ght i nef fec t ive as si st ance c l ai m s agai nst h i s tri al
c o u n s e l. T h e s e c la im s a r e a ll g o v e r n e d b y th e fr a m e w o r k e s t a b l i s h e d in S t ri ck la n dv. W

ash i ngt on , 466 U
. S
. 668 ( 198 4)
. To p revai l , C raw f ord m u st est abli sh : ( 1) “ t h at c ou n sel ’ s r epresentati on fel lbel ow an obj ect ive st an da rd of
reasona bl en ess” ; an d ( 2) “ t h at t h ere i s a r eason able proba bi l i t y t h a t, bu tf or coun sel ’ s un professi on alerr ors, t h e res u l tof t h e proceedi n g w ou l d h ave been d i ff ere n t. ” I

d. a t6 88 , 694
. “A r e as o nab l e pr o ba bi l i t y i s a pr o ba bi l i t y s uf f i c i e nt to u n d erm i n e con fi d en ce in th e ou tcom e.” I d. a t 6 9 4
. (1) W het h er t ri alc o uns e lw as i nef f e c t i v ef o rf ai l i ng t o de v e lo

p am e ani ngf

ul
a ttor n ey / clien t rela tion sh ip Cra w f o r d c l ai m s t hathi s t r i alc o uns e l , Panne l l , w as i ne f fe c t ive b e c aus e he di d no te s t ab l i s h a “ r e l at i o ns hi p o f t r us t” w i t h h i s cl i ent . Cr awfo r d c i t e s no au t h ori t y f

or t h e proposi t i on t h at a c ri m i n aldefen da n ti s enti t l ed to a “m e a n in g fu l” r e la tio n s h ip w ith co u n s e l o rth a t t h e d e n ia l o f s u c h a re la tio n s h ip
am o unt s t o i ne f

fe c t ive a s s i s t anc e o f

c o uns e l
. Fur t he r , i n Mo r r i s v . Slappy , t he Supr e m e Cour te xp l i c i t l y “ r ej e c t [ e d] t he cl ai m t hatt he Si xt h Am e ndm e nt g u a r a n te e s a ‘ m e a n in g fu l re la t i o n s h ip ’b e tw e e n a n a c c u s e d a n d h is co u n s e l.” 4 6 1 U
. S
. 1 , 1 4 ( 1 9 8 3 )
. N o C O As h a l li s s u e o n t h i s c l a i m. ( 2) W he t he rt r i alc o uns e lw as i nef f e c t i v ef o rf ai l i ng t o i nv e s t iga t ec r i t i c al aspect s of

C raw f ord’ s i n san i ty def

ense C raw f ord m ak es s ev e ralal l egati on s abou tt h e def i ci en ci es of

hi s expert
w i t ne s s e s , a r gui ng t hathi s co uns e lfai l e d t o pr e pa r e t he m fo rt r i al
. H e c o nt e nds t h at hi s expert s’di agn oses w ere c on f l i ct i n g an d f

u rt h er c on te n d s t h at t h ose ex p erts w ere u n fa m ilia r w ith the cas e a s a re su l t of h i s cou n sel’ s fa i l u re toN o. 08- 70045

23 p rep a re th em . O th er th a n a co n cl u s o r y a s s ertion , h ow ev er, C ra w fordfa i l s to sh ow h ow h i s cou n sel i s resp on sibl e for the all eg ed i n a d eq u a ci es o f a n d con fl i cts in h is e x p e r ts ’te s tim o n y . In a n ye v e n t, th e e x p e r ts ’te s tim o n yw a s n o t d e fic ie n t. D u r in gth e g u ilt ph ase an d the sentenci n g ph ase, D r. Stan l ey R u ssel lt est i f i ed that C raw f

ord
s u ffe r e d fr o m p s y c h o g e n ic a m n e s ia
. D u r in gth e s e n te n c in gp h a s e , D r . M a r tin W ebb t es t i f

i ed t hatC r aw f

or d s uf fer ed f r om m ani c depr es sive i l l nes s. W ebb ad m i t t ed that hi s di agn osi s di f fered f rom R u ssel l ’ s, bu tdi d n otcharacter i ze R u s s e ll’ s d ia g n o s is a s in c o r r e c t. R u s s e ll, m e a n w h ile , a c k n o w le d g e d h is di sagreem en tw i t h W ebb’ s di agn osi s but noted th at i t“ i s not u n u sua lf or psy c hi at r i st [ s] to di sa gr ee . ” A s t he di st r i c tcour tn ot ed, t he def ens e’ s purpos e a t th e se n ten ci n g p h a se w a s to pr ese n t m i ti ga ti n g e vid en ce, ra th er th a n to es t ab l i s h a n i ns a ni t yd e fe ns e . Pr e s e nt i nge v i d e nc e o f t wo a l l e g e d m e nt al illn e s s e s a fflic tin gC r a w fo r d d id n o t p r eju d ic e th e ca s e fo rm itig a tio n . C ra w for d fu rth e r a rg u e s th a t co u n se l’ s fa il u re to p re p a re th e ex p e rts left t h em un fam i l i ar w i t h t h e fact s of t h e case an d consti t u t ed i n ef fect ive assi st an ce o f c o uns e l
. H e po i nt s t o Rus s e l l ’ s i nab i l i t y t o r e c al ls pe c i f i c fac t s s ur r o undi ng t he kil l i n g as sup port. H ow ever, R u ssel lst ated tha ta n y i n f orm ati on tha th e h ad not consi dered w as i rrel evan tto h i s p sychogen i c am n esi a di agn osi s. C raw f ord al so argu es t h at W ebb h ad not r ead t h e F B I report s, bu tfai l s t o expl ai n how t h i s fact p r eju d ic e d h is m itig a tio n ca s e s u c h th a t t h e re s u lt w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe r e n t if W e b b h a d re a d th o s e re p o r ts . Fi nal l y, C r aw f

or d m akes no pe r suas ive ar gum entc onc er ni ng St r i c kland ’s p r ej u d i c e p r o n g . AC O Ai s d e n i e d o n t h i s c l a i m.N o. 08- 70045

C r aw f or d’s b rief also alleges th at “counselwas ineffective for failingto liti gate the 15 issues surroundin g Petitio ner’ s competencyto stand trial.” Crawford’s brief is unclear about wh at“iss ues ,”otherthan whe therto reque sta hearing, w erehandledineff ectively. 24 ( 3) W h et h er t ri al coun selw as i n ef f ect i ve f or f ail i ng t o se ek a compet en cy e v al uat i o n pr i o rt o t r i al C ra w fordall eg e s th a t his cou n sel w a s i n effective for fa i l i n g to re q u est a c o m pe t e nc y he ar i ng pr i o rt o t r i al
. The b as i s f o rCr awfo r d’ s c l ai m i s t he 15 af f i davi tof

D r . Lem l y H ut t , dat ed M ay 17, 1993, w hi c h opi n es th a t he w as p r o b a b lyin c o m p e te n t t o s ta n d tr ia l. I n t he unre l at ed r ape a nd ass aul tc as e, H u t tex am i ned C r aw f or d on an
on goi n g basi s pri or t o F ebru ary 199 3 f or h i s com petency t o st an d tr i alon those
c harge s. D uri ng t hatti m e, H ut tf ound C r aw f

or d c om pet ent . O n M ay 2, 1993, C r aw f or d s uf fer ed a se i zur e w hi l e i n ca rcera te d. As a r es ul t , C r aw f or d w as p rescr ibed and bega n t aki ng D i l ant i n, an ant i epi l ept i c / ant i se i zur e drug. In H u tt’ s opi n i on , excess D i l an t i n caused groggi n ess an d i n coheren ce, w h i ch
co u n selha d observed i n C raw f ord. R edu ci n g t h e D i l an t i n dose, m ean w h i l e, p o s e d th e ris k o f fu tu r e s e iz u r e s . H u t tdi d n ot h ave the opp ort u n i t y t o reexam i n e or observe C raw f ord f ol l ow i ng t he s ei zur e. H ut tn eve r t hel es s opi ned t hat“ t her e i s a pr obabi l i t y t hat h e is cu rren tl y in com p eten t t o sta n d t r ia l
. ” H e n oted tha t he w a s “u n a b l e to as se ss [ C ra w fo r d’ s] c om pet enc y t o s t and t r i alw i t h ce r t ai nt y” w i t houtan opp ort u n i t y t o reexam i n e C raw f ord an d revi ew t estres u l t s. T h e di st ri ctcourtagreed w i t h t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s det erm i n ati on t h at defen se coun selw as d ef

i ci en tforfai l i n g t o seek a com petency determ i n ati on . H ow ever, t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t u p h e l d t h e s t a t e c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g t h a t Cr a wf o r d s u f fe r e d no prej u di ce as a resul tan d that, theref ore, there w as n o i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of
c o uns e l
. Al t ho ugh c o uns e lm ay ha ve b e e n de f i c i e nti n fai l i ng t o s e e k a
c om pet enc y de t er m i nat i on , there i s no e vi denc e o f r es ul t i ng St r i c klandN o. 08- 70045

25 p r eju d ic e . C r i t i c a lly , C r a w fo r d m u s te r s n o e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s a c tu a lly i n com petent t o st an d tr i aldu e t o t h e ef fectof hi s D i l an t i n m edi cat i on . Fu rt h er, Russ e l l , t he de fe ns e ’ s e xp e r t , e xp r e s s l y t e s t i f i e d t hatCr awfo r d was c o m pe t e nt to stan d tri a l
. C ra w ford offers n oth i n g t o d i stu rb the distri ct cou rt’ s an d state court’ s vi ew of

t h e evi den ce t h at he w as com petent to st an d t ri al
. Absen tsuch
a sh ow i n g, C ra w fordi s u n a b l e to m ee t St r i c kland ’ s p r eju d ic e p r o n g . AC O Ais d e n i e d o n t h i s c l a i m. ( 4) W he t he rt r i alc o uns e lw as i nef f e c t i v ef o rc o nc e di ng Cra w f

o r d’ s g ui l tdur i ng hi s o pe ni ng s t at e m e nt D ur i ng hi s o pe ni ng s t at e m e nt , Panne l lt o l d t he j ur y ab o utt he “ e s c al at i ng n a tu r e o f [C r a w fo r d ’ s ] p r o b le m s ” a n d “h is le v e l o f v io le n c e d ir e c te d a t w o m e n .” C r a w fo r d co n te n d s th a t t h e s e s ta te m e n ts a m o u n te d to a co n c e s s io n o f g u ilt
w i t ho uthi s a ppr o va l , w hi c h c o ns t i t ut e s i ne f fe c t ive as s i s t anc e of

co uns e l
. As t he di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed, how ever, coun selm ay h ave con ceded tha tC raw f ord
c om m i t t ed c er t ai n ac t s and had ce r t ai n t endenc i es , butper si st ed i n ar gui ng t hat h e w a s n o t g u iltyb yre a s o n o f in s a n ity
. C r a w fo r d p r o v id e s n o a u th o r ityfo rh is posi t i on t h at m en t i on i n g a cl i en t ’ s m en t al st ate or adm i t t i n g t h at he com m i t t ed
c er t ai n ac t s am ount s t o ac onc es si on o f gui l t w h en coun se li s pre se nt i ng an i n s a n i t yd e fe n s e . AC O Ai s d e n i e d o n t h i s c l a i m. ( 5) W h et h er t ri al coun selw as i n ef f ect i ve f or i n t rodu ci ng prej u d i ci al evi d ence of a ran som notedu ri ng prese n t ati on of C raw f ord’ s c ase D u r in gC r a w fo r d ’ s ca s e -in -c h ie f, P a n n e l lc a l l e d C r a w f o r d ’s f o r m e rc o u n s e l, W i l l i am Fo r t i e r , t o e xp l ai n w hy he ha d t ur ne d o ve rCr awfo r d’ s m e di c alr e c o r ds t o t h e F B I. P a n n el lw as att em pti n g t o show t h at t h ose m edi calrec ords w ere o bt ai ne d un de rfal s e pr e t e ns e s . On c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n, Fo r t i e rdi s c us s e d a
r ans o m no t e f

o u n d i n t he a t t i c o f

Cr awfo r d’ s fam i l y ho m e . Cr awfo r d c o nt e nds th a t byi n trod u ci n g th i s l i n e of qu estion i n g, P a n n ellsa b o ta ge d h i s i n sa n i ty de fe ns e b y o pe ni ng t he do o rt o e vi de nc e o f pr e m e di t at i o n i n t he f o r m o f t heN o. 08- 70045

26 ran som note. H e f

u rt h er argues t h at t h e d i scl osure of the ran som n ot e neg ated D r . R u s s e ll’ s te s tim o n yre g a r d in gC r a w fo r d ’ s p s y c h o g e n ic a m n e s ia
. T h e ransom note evi den ce w as m ad e ad m i ssibl e u n der st ate l aw becau se C r a w fo r d m o u n te d a n in s a n ityd e fe n s e . S ee McL eo dv. S ta te , 317 So. 2d 389 , 391 (M i ss. 1 975 ) (“W h en the defense i s i n san i t y, ei t h er generalor pa rt i al , t h e door is th r o w n w id e o p e n fo r t h e a d m is s io n o f e v id e n c e o f e v e r y a c t in th e a c c u s e d ’s l i fe r el ev a n t t o t he i ss ue o f i nsani t y and i s adm i ss ibl e i n evi denc e. The t r i al court i s t o be l iberal i n al l ow i n g t h e i n t rodu ct i on of evi den ce orexam i n ati on of
w i t n esses w h i ch t en ds t o show t h e i n san i t y or san i t y of t h e accused. ” )
. C raw f ord d o e s n o t m a k e a cr e d ib le a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e ra n s o m n o te w a s in tr o d u c e d s o le ly be c aus e Panne l lt hr e w o pe n t he do o rby qu es t i o ni ng For t i e ra bo utdi s c l o s i ng Cra w f o r d’ s m e di c alr e c o r ds
. The no t e , a s pr e m e di t at i o n e vi de nc e , w as a l r e ad y ad m i ssibl e on the basi s of C raw f ord’ s aff i rm ative defense. AC O Ai s den i ed on t h i s c l a i m. (6) W he t he rt r i alco uns e lw as i nef f e c t i v ef o rpr e s e nt i ng an i nade qua t ec lo s i ng argu m ent f

ol low i ng t h e guil tph ase D u r in gh is c lo s in ga r g u m e n t, P a n n e ll to ld th e ju r y , in tera lia , t h at “t h ere i s no w o m an t hati s s af e be c aus e t hat ’ s w he r e [ Cra w f o r d’ s ] r ag e i s di r e c t e d” a nd t h at “ everybod y i s i n dan ger. ” A s w i t h coun sel ’ s open i n g st atem en t , C raw f ord
c o n te n d s th a t t h is a m o u n te d to a n a d m is s io n o f g u i l t w ith o u t h is a p p r o v a l,
w hi c h co nst i t ut es i nef fec t ive as si st ance of c ounse l
. A l t hough co unselm ay have ad m i t t ed the com m i ssi on of cert ai n act s and even conceded t h at C raw f ord posed cert ai n dan gers, t h ese argum en t s w ere i n t en ded t o sup port t he i n san i t y defense. N o C O As h a l li s s u e o n t h i s c l a i m. ( 7) W he t he rt r i alc o uns e lw as i nef f e c t i v ef o rf ai l i ng t o i nv e s t iga t eandpr e s e nt sign if i can tm i t iga t i ng evi d ence C r a w fo r d a s s e r ts th a t c o u n s e l fa ile d to in v e s ti g a t e a n d p r e s e n t c e r ta in
m i t i gat i ng evi denc e dur i ng t he s ent enc i ng phase of t he t r i al
. H e c l ai m s t hatN o. 08- 70045

27 c ounse lfai l ed t o i nves t i gat e and pre se ntev i denc e o f hi s “ em ot i onaland m ent al di st u rban ces, ph ysi calan d m en t alabu se, ada ptati on t o pri so n condit i on s, r e m o r s e , a nd s ubs t anc e a bus e , ” a nd t hatt he s e o m i s s i o ns m ay hav e a f fe c t e d t he j u ry’ s deci si on t o i m pose a dea t h sen t en ce. H e p oi n t s t o pret ri alcor respond en ce from D eirdre E n ri gh t, an attorn eyat th e C a p i tal D e fe n se R eso u rce C en ter, to P a n n e ll, W e b b , a n d E n r ig h t’s co lle a g u e J im C r a ig
. E n r ig h t a p p a r e n tly
c on duc t e d i nt e r vi e w s w i t h fam i l y m e m be r s a nd a s s o c i at e s o f Cr awfo r d a nd
c ons t r uct ed a w r i t t en nar r at ive c ent er ed upon hi s em ot i onaland m ent al di st u rban ces. I n Wiggins v. S m ith , t h e Su prem e C ou rtsetf ort h t h e st an da rd f or e va l uat i ng a t r i ala t t orney’ s i nve s t i ga t i o n i nt o m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . 5 39 U
. S. 510 , 5 22

- 23 ( 20 03 )
. “ [W ] e f o c us o n whet he rt he i nve s t i ga t i o n s upp o r t i ng co u n sel ’ s deci si on not t o i n t rodu ce m i t i gati n g evi den ce of [t h e defen da n t ’ s] back groun d w as i t sel f reasonab l e. I n assess i n g coun sel ’ s i n vest i gati on , w e m u st cond u ctan obj ect ive revi ew of t h ei r perf orm an ce, m easu red f or ‘ reasona bl en ess unde rpr e va i l i ng pr o fe s s i o nalno r m s , ’w hi c h i nc l ude s a c o nt e xt
- de pe nde nt c o ns i derati on of

t h e chal l en ged condu ctas seen ‘ f rom coun sel ’ s perspect ive att he ti m e.’” I d. at 523 ( c i t at i ons om i t t ed) ( quot i ng St r i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S
. a t 6 8 8 , 6 8 9 ). O n col l ater alrevi ew , t h e M i ssi ssi pp iSu prem e C ou rt f ou n d that C raw f

ord d id n o ta ll e g e th e e x is t e n c e o f a n ye v id e n c e th a tw a s o u t s id e o f c o u n s e l’s know l edge
. I n ot herw or ds, C r aw f or d pr es ent ed not hi ng w hi c h w oul d i m pugn t h e suf f i ci en cy of

P an n el l ’ s i n vest i gati on . Th e st ate c ou rtt h eref ore c on cl u ded t hatt her e w as no ba si s t o e ven anal yze w h eth erc ounse lhad c onduct ed an
a d e q u a te in v e s tig a tio n . C ra w fordII, 8 6 7 S o. 2 d at 21 8
. In h i s br i ef t o th i s cou rt, C ra w fordcon ced es th a t t h e res u l ts of E n ri gh t’ s i n terv i ew s w ere pr ov i d ed toN o. 08- 70045

C rawford cites the affidavit of Marion Ray Crawford, Charles Crawford’s father , who 16 st ate d th at defe n secoun sel “ di d notinterview memb er s of th e fa milyuntil th e mornin gof
. . . tri al. ” Crawf

ord , how ever, citesno authority for the pr opo sition thatPannell need ed tohave conducted in-per s oninterviews, ratherth an relyonth e reports of E nri ght. Assuming arguendoth at Pannell’s sole cont act with familymembers was o n the morningof trial, it doe s notnec es sarilyf

ollow th at h e failedto di sc overmiti gatin gevidencef ro m th em . 28 P a n n ellan d do es n ot oth erw i se h i g h lig h t a n y e vid en ce th a t P a n n ellfa i l ed to d i scov er. H e h a s n ot sh ow n tha t P a n n ell ’ s i n ve sti ga ti on w a s d efi ci en t.

16 Cra w f o r d a l s o c l ai m s t hatPanne l lfai l ed t o pr e s e ntc e r t ai n m i t i ga t i ng evi denc e. As di sc uss ed, t he s tate cou r t , l ac ki ng evi denc e t o t he c ont r ar y, p r e s u m e d th a t P a n n e ll’ s in v e s tig a tio n w a s a co m p le te o n e . Ita c c o r d in g ly t r eat ed hi s dec i si ons abo utw hi c h evi denc e t o pre se nt as w i t hi n t he am bi tof t r i al strate gy a n d th ere fore en ti tl ed to “g rea t de feren ce.” C ra w fordII, 867 So. 2d at 218
. M ean w h i l e, th e d i st ri ctcourtf ou n d that t h e j u ry ha d the ben ef i tof t est i m on y concerni n g C raw f ord’ s eval u ati on s atvari ou s m en t alhea l t h faci l it i e s, u n st able u pb ri n gi n g, ni gh tt error s, m em ory l ap ses, m ood sw i n gs, hea da ches, fe aro f t he da r k, a nd u nus ualb e hav i o rc o l o r i ng pho t o s o f w o m e n’ s fac e s . The d is tr ic t c o u r t t h e n d e te r m i n e d th a t C r a w fo r d h a d n o t s u b s ta n tia te d h is
r em ai ni ng al l egat i ons of adapt at i on t o pr i so n co n d i t i ons , r em or se , physi c al
a b u s e , o ro r g a n ic b r a in d a m a g e . C ra w fordIII, 2 0 0 8 W L 4 4 1 9 3 4 7 , a t * 5 0
. I n St r i c kland , t h e Su prem e C ou rthel d that “ st rat egi c c h oi ces m ad e af t er th oro u gh i n ve sti ga ti o n o f la w a n d fa c ts re le v a n t t o p la u s ib le o p tio n s a r e v ir tu a lly
u n ch a lle n ge a b l e; a n d strateg i c ch oices m a d e a ft er less th a n com p l ete i nves t i gat i on ar e r eas onabl e pre c i se l y t o t he e xt entt hatr eas onabl e pr of es si onal ju d g m e n ts s u p p o r t t h e lim ita tio n s o n in v e s tig a tio n .” 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 -9 1 ; seealso T ay lorv. Mag

g io , 7 27 F. 2d 34 1, 34 7- 48 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 4) ( “ [ T] he fai l ur e t o pr e s e nt a pa rt i cul ar l i n e of

argu m en tor evi den ce i s presum ed t o h ave been t h e res u l tof st r at egi c c hoi c e. ” )
. The s t at e co urtdet er m i ned t hatc ounse l ’ s i nves t i gat i on w as a thoroug h one, an d C raw f ord of fers l i t t l e t o overcom e t h e St r i c klandN o. 08- 70045

29 presum pti on th a t P a n n el l ’ s deci si on s w ere “ st rat egi c c h oi ces. ” E ven w h en coun sel “ m i gh t h ave don e m ore t o h i gh l i gh t pa rt i cul ar port i on s of [ a defend an t ’ s]
so c i alhi st or y i n an ef f or t t o el i c i t m or e sy m pat hy f r om t he j ury, ” t hi s c our thas f ound suc h a per f

or m ance “ w i t hi n t he w i de r ange of r eas on a b l e p r of es si onal
a ssistan ce.” R i e s v . Q uar t e r m an , 522 F
. 3d 517 , 529 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. C ra w f ord h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t t r i a l co u n s e l w a s d e fic ie n t in fa ilin gto p r e s e n t c e r ta in mi t i g a t i n ge v i d e n c e . AC O Ai s d e n i e d o n t h i s c l a i m. ( 8) W h et h er t ri al coun selw as i n ef f e c t i v e f or f ail i ng t o se ek a conti n u an ce bef ore t h e s ente n ci ng ph ase F i n al l y, C raw f

ord argu es t h at coun sel w as i n ef fect ive i n fai l i n g t o sec u re a lim ite d c o n tin u a n c e p r io r to th e s e n te n c in gp h a s e . H e cla im s th a t c o u n s e l o n ly h a d t e n mi n u t e s t o p r e p a r e f o rt h e s e n t e n c i n gp h a s e an d w a s , b yh i s o wn adm i ss i on, “ exhaust ed. ” Craw f or d c ont ends t hata c ont i nuan c e w oul d have
en abled coun selt o prepa re m ore ef fect ivel y f

or t h e sentenci n g ph ase. A r e vi e w o f

t h e re c o r d s ho w s t hatCr awfo r d c o nf l at e s t w o di f

fe r e nt
m om en t s f

rom t h e t ri al
. Foll ow i n g t h e ret u rn of the gu i l t y verdi ct , coun self or t he s t at e i ndi c at ed t h at h e ne e de d t e n m i nut e s t o pr e pa r e f o rt he s e nt e nc i ng ph ase. C raw f

ord’ s c ou n selv oi ced n o ob j ect i on to p roceed to the sentenci n g ph ase w i t hi n t hatt i m e f

r am e. The r ec or d s how s t hatc ounsels tat ed he w as “ex h a u sted ” f

ol low i ng t he s e nt e nc i ng pha s e t e s t i m o ny, no tb e f o r e i tb e ga n. The exh au st i on com m en t w as pa rt of an argu m en tt o conti n u e f u rt h er proc eedi n gs, i nc l u di n g a j ur y c har ge c o nfe r e nc e a nd c l o s i ng ar gum e nt s , unt i lt he f o l l o w i ng m o r ni ng. The t r i alj udg e a c c e pt e d t hi s ar gum e ntand, o ve rt he s t at e ’ s o bj e c t i o n, a djo u r n e d u n til t h e fo llo w in gm o r n in g . T h e rec ord show s no reason f or coun selto h ave soug h ta con t i n u an ce pri or t o t he s ent enc i ng phase
. To t he e xt entC r aw f or d c l ai m s c ounse ls houl d have d o n e s o d u e to e x h a u s tio n , h e h a s m is r e a d th e r e c o r d . AC O Ais d e n ie d o n th is
c l a i m.N o. 08- 70045

30 CO NC L US I ON For t he for ego i ng r eas ons , w e G R A N T C r aw f or d a CO Aon hi s c l ai m t hat he w as s ubj ect ed t o a ps yc hi at r i c e va l uat i o n o f hi s c o m pe t e nc y w i t ho utt he ben ef i tof co u n seli n vi ol ati on of t h e Sixt h A m en dm en t . To p erm i tt h e di st ri ct c o ur ta n o ppo r t uni t y t o de ve l o p t he r e c o r d, i f necessary , a nd r e c o ns i de rt he
m eri t s of C raw f

ord’ s cl ai m , w e VA C A T E t h at port i on of i t s or der den yi n g rel i ef
on t h i s basi s and R E M A N D f or f u rt h er proc eedin gs. C raw f ord’ s m ot i on f

or a C O Ai s D E N IE D i n al lot h er r espect s.