I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - DR- 0 0 1 6 7 - S CT M AR L ON L ATODD HOWEL L a / k / a M AR L ON C OX
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 30/ 2001 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H C OL E M AN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: UNI ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : W I L L I AM O. RI CH AR DS ON J I M W AI DE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : JA S O N L . D A V IS M ARVI N L. W HI TE , J R. DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: JA M E S M . H O O D , III CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON DI S P OS I T I ON: AP P L I CA T I ON F OR P OS T
- CO NVI CT I ON RE L I E F I S DE NI E D I N P AR T AND G R A N T E D I N PA R T - 08/ 28/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . M a rlo n L a to d d H o w e ll w a s c o n v icte d b y a U n io n C o u n ty ju ry o f k ill in g H u g h D a v id Pernel l dur i ng an att empt ed r obbery. T he j ury f ound H ow el l gui l ty of

capi t al m ur derand th e n f o u n d th a th e s h o u l d b e s e n t e n c e d t o d e a th
. On Ho we l l ’ s d i r e c ta p p e a l t o th i s Co u r t , we a f f ir m e d h is c a p ita l m u rd e r c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o f d e a th
. Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 8 60 So. 2d 704 ( M i s s . 2003)
. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti ni t i al l y gr ant ed ce rt i orar i and then

### 2

d is m is s e d H o w e ll’ s p e titio n a s im p ro v id e n tly g ra n te d
. How el l v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 543 U . S. 440, 1 2 5 S . C t. 8 5 6 , 1 6 0 L . E d
. 2 d 8 7 3 (20 0 5 ). ¶2 . H ow el l now see ks post - convi ct i on re l i ef (PC R ) pur s ua ntt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i ons 99- 39- 1 - 99- 39- 29 ( R ev. 2007) r ai s i ng num er ous i s s ues . U pon a r evi ew o f th e c laim s ra ise d in th e p e tit io n , w e fin d th a t H o w e ll h a s e sta b lish e d th a t h e is e n tit led to an evi dent i ary hear i ng on cert ai n gr ounds ; ther ef or e, hi s PC R pe t i t i on i s gr ant ed i n par tand d e n ied in p a rt.

RE L E VA NT F AC T S AN D T RI AL CO UR T P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 3 . T h e fa c ts o f th is c a s e a re fu lly s e t o u t in o u r d e c is io n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at712- 15. W e thus s etoutonl y thos e f act s nece s s ary f

ort oday’ s di s cus s i on. ¶4 . In th e e arly m o rnin g h o u rs of M ay 15 , 20 0 0 , H u g h D av id P ern ell , a n ew sp ap er ca rri er,
w as s hotand ki l l ed i n hi s caron B r oad St re eti n N ew A l bany w hi l e runni ng hi s new s paper
r out e. T he s ho ot i ng oc c urr e d i n f r on tof Char l e s Ri c e ’ s ho us e . Ri c e w ou l d l a t e rt e l l l aw enf or cementthathe had he ar d tw o car s on the s tr eeti n f r ontof his h ou s e atar ound f i ve o’ cl ock i n the m orni ng . H e l ooked outhi s w i ndow and s aw tw o vehi cl es , one behi nd the ot her , st opped i n the s tr e e t . A man e xi t e d the r e a rc a ra nd a pp r oa c he d the dr i ve r ’ s s i de
w i ndo w of

the f r on tve hi c l e . A f

t e rs ome c omm ot i on , the man p ul l e d a pi s t ol a nd s ho tt he d riv e r o f th e fr o n t v e h icle . T h e sh o o ter th e n g o t b a c k in th e p a ss e n g e r se a t o f th e re a r v e h icle and l ef tthe s cene . Pernel l s uf

f er ed a s i ngl e guns hotw ound t o the che s tand di ed atthe s cene . R i ce i m m edi at el y cal l ed 911 and r eport ed the s hoot i ng and lat ert ol d l aw enf or cement

### 3

of f i cer s thatt he s hoot erw as a young bl ack m al e w ho had f l ed the s cene i n a l at e model , darkcol or ed O l ds m obi l e. ¶5. L aw enf

or cementof

f i cer s r ece i ved an a nonym ous t i p t hatC ur t i s L i ps ey w as i nvol ved i n the murde r . T he i nves t i gat i on re veal ed thatL i ps ey, A dam R ay, and M ar l on H ow el l had been r i di ng ar ound t ogethert hr oughoutthe pr evi ous ni ghtand the ea r l y m orni ng hour s of t he day of the s hoot i ng. R ay’ s gr andmot herow ned a dark O l ds m obi l e C ut l as s . U pon ques t i oni ng, R ay and Li ps ey i m pl i cat ed H ow el l
. H ow el l w as a rr es t ed and cl ai m ed thathe had no i nvol vementi n the murde r . H ow el l t ol d of f i cer s thathe had be en i n Cori nth w i th a
w om an at the ti m e o f the k i l l i ng ; ho w ever, he w as unab l e t o p rovi de a n am e or an ad dress fo r t h is w o m a n . A ft e r H o w e ll’ s a rr e s t, R ic e id e n tif ie d H o w e ll in a p o lic e lin e -u p . ¶6. A L or ci n . 380 cal i ber pi s t ol w as f ound i n the bus hes behi nd B r andon Shaw ’ s hous e. F o re n sic tes tin g in d ica ted th a t th e b u llet th a t k ill e d P e rn e ll w a s fire d b y th is L o rc in p isto l. A s he l l c a s i ng f

ou nd n e a rthe wi nd s hi e l d of Pe rne l l ’ s c a rwas c on s i s t e ntwi th tha tw eapon butcoul d notbe pos i t i vel y m at ched. ¶7 . S h aw tes tified th a t H o w e ll, R a y , a n d L ipse y h ad co m e to h is ho u se in the d ark O l ds m obi l e C ut l as s i n the ea r l y m orni ng hour s af t ert he shoot i ng. S haw and Li ps ey t es t i f i ed thatt hey had se en H ow el l w i th an obj ectw r apped i n a shi r tunderhi s ar m . Shaw and Li ps ey t es t i f i ed thatthey had s een H ow el l w al ki ng outf r om behi nd the hous e w her e the pi s t ol w as l at erf ound. Shaw t ol d the pol i ce c hi ef t hathe had se en H ow el l go behi nd the hous e ca r r yi ng s om ethi ng. W hi l e atShaw ’ s hous e, A dam R ay t ol d Shaw a nd other s that“ M ar l on had s hot
s om ebody. ” The t r i al courtfound thatt he st at ementby R ay i n H ow el l ’ s pr es ence amount ed

### 4

t o an adopt i ve admi s s i on w hen H ow el l di d notr enounce the s t at ement . A f t erthe s hoot i ng, H ow el l gota r i de t o Bl ue M ount ai n w i th Shaw , a nd dur i ng the dr i ve, H ow el l t ol d Shaw not t o t el l anyone w hathad happe ned. ¶ 8 . T h e S tate a lleg e d th a t H o w e ll h a d k ill e d P e rn e ll i n a ro b b e ry a ttem p t. M a rc u s P o w e ll tes tified th a t H o w e ll h a d told h im o n th e n ig h t o f th e k ill in g th a t h e n e e d e d m o n e y to p a y h is pr obat i on of

f i cera nd thathe w as goi ng t o ha ve t o “ m ake a s t i ng” i n or dert o getthe money. Shaw al s o t es t i f

i ed t hatH ow el l had com m ent ed on robbi ng a m an ata gas s t at i on ear l i ert hat
n ig h t. ¶9. R ay and L i ps ey pl eade d gui l ty t o m ans l aught er and arm ed r ob bery i n the ki l l i ng of Pernel l
. A s partof

hi s pl ea a gr eement , L i ps ey w as t o of f ertruthf ul t es t i m ony atany su b se q u e n t trial re late d to P e rn e ll’s k ill in g . A t H o w e ll’s trial, L ip se y tes tified th a t H o w e ll had s hotPernel l , and Li ps ey al s o corr obor at ed Pow el l ’ s t es t i m ony thatH ow el l had s ai d t hat he nee ded money i n or dert o pa y hi s pr obat i on of f i certhe nextda y ore l s e they w oul d nots ee h im a ro u n d a n y m o re . L ip se y a lso tes tified th a t H o w e ll h a d flas h e d th e c a r’s lig h ts a t P e rn e ll to g et P ern ell to p u ll o v er. ¶10. A t hi s tr i al , H ow el l pr es ent ed an al i bi def ens e by of

f er i ng as w i tnes s es hi s f

atherand
s i s t er , w ho t es t i f

i ed thatH ow el l ha d be en athome i n the ear l y morni ng hours of M ay 1 5, 2 0 0 0 . H o w ell p rese n ted n o ev iden ce that d u ri n g the re leva n t t im e su rrou n d ing P ern ell ’s ki l l i ng, he had be en w i th a w om an i n C or i nth.

### 5 DI S CU S S I ON ¶11 . In his P C R peti t i on , H ow el l rai ses nu m erous i ssues, and thu s ou r dis cussi on of these i ssues f oll ow s. I . W H ET H ER TH E ST A T E F A I L E D T O D I SC L O SE E X C U L P A T O R Y I N F O R M A T I O N A B O U T C H A R L E S R I C E . ¶12. U nques t i onabl y, the St at e’ s cr i t i cal w i tnes s at tr i al w as C har l es R i ce, w ho t es t i f i ed th a t h e sa w H o w e ll s h o o t P e rn e ll o n B ro a d S tre e t. H o w e ll cla im s th a t th e S tate w ith h e ld
re lev a n t in fo rm a tio n a b o u t R ice w h ich w o u ld h a v e d isc re d ited h is te stim o n y a g a in st H o w e ll
a t trial. In h is p e tit io n , H o w e ll as se rts th a t R ice h a d b e e n inc a rc e ra ted in Illin o is in th e e a rly 1 9 8 0 s; th a t h e h a d b e e n a ffiliate d w ith g a n g s w h ile in p riso n ; th a t h e h a d p e rju re d h im se lf abouthi s w or k hi s t ory; t hathe w as a drug us eratthe t i m e of the ki l l i ng; and thathe knew H ow el l f r om pr evi ous encount er s . Pr i ort o tr i al , H ow el l ’ s att orneys f i l ed a mot i on ent i t l ed “R ul e 9. 04 M ot i on” i n w hi ch the def ens e soughtgener al di s covery m at er i al f r om the St at e. See U ni f or m R ul e of

Ci r cui ta nd Count y CourtPr act i ce 9. 04. N ot abl y, the def ens e r eques t ed i nf or m at i on conce r ni ng the cr i m i nal hi s t ory of H ow el l and hi s co- def

endant s . T her e w as no s peci f i c r eques tf

ori nf or m at i on aboutany otherw i tnes s ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory. ¶13. I t i s w el l e s t abl i s hed thatthe St at e had the duty t o turn over al l excul pat ory m at er i al
r el evantt o H ow el l ’ s cas e. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas s t at ed that"the s uppr es s i on by the p rosecut i on of evi den ce favorabl e t o an accused u p o n req u estviol at es due p rocess
w h e re th e e v id e n c e is m a ter ial e ith e r to g u ilto r to p u n ish m e n t, i rre sp e c tiv e o f th e g o o d fa ith or bad fai th o f the p rosecut i on . " Bra dy v. Mar y land , 373 U . S. 83, 87, 83 S. C t . 1194, 1196-

### 6

9 7 , 1 0 L . E d
. 2 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 (19 6 3 ). See a l so Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 94 5 S o. 2d 32 6, 33 7 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ); S im o n v. S ta te , 8 5 7 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 6 9 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). ¶14. I n or derto est abli sh a B r ady v io latio n , th e d e fe n d a n t m u st sh o w : (1 ) th a t th e S tate pos s es s ed evi dence f

avor abl e t o t he def

endant ; ( 2) thatthe def endantdi d notpos s es s t he evi dence and coul d no thave obt ai ned i thi m s el f w i th r eas onabl e di l i gence ; ( 3) thatt he pr os ecut i on s uppr es s ed the f avor abl e evi dence ; and ( 4) thathad the evi dence been di s cl os ed to th e d e fe n se , a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty e x ists th a t th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

fe re n t. How ard , 9 4 5 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 7 ; K in gv. S ta te , 65 6 S o. 2d 11 68 , 11 74 (M i ss. 1 9 9 5 ). ¶15. H ow el l all eges thatthe St at e f ai l ed t o di s cl os e thatR i ce ha d been a rr es t ed s ever al tim e s; th a t he h a d b e e n co n v icte d o f b u rg lar y ; an d th a t h e h a d b e e n in c a rc e ra ted in Illino is i n the 1980s , dur i ng w hi ch t i m e he w as a mem berof a pr i s on gang. T he St at e pr es ent s t he
a ffid a v ito f K elly L u th e r, th e a ss ista n t d istric t atto rn e y w h o p re p a re d th e c a se a g a in st H o w e ll. L uthersays that he nev er s ou gh ta cri m i nal backg round check forR i ce an d that the d efense
neveras ked f

ora cr i m i nal ba ckgr ound chec k on R i ce pr i ort o tr i al ; how ever , L uthers t at es the St at e turned overal l di s cover abl e evi dence , excul pat ory ornot , t o t he def ens e. B ot h t he tr i al cou rtrecor d and the pos t - convi ct i on- pr ocee di ngs r ecor d ar e devoi d of any evi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthe St at e w i thhel d i nf or m at i on thatw oul d have be en aboutR i ce’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory. A s t o H ow el l ’ s cl ai m thatthe St at e f ai l ed t o di s cl os e i nform at i on hel pf ul t o the def ens e aboutR i ce’ s c r i m i nal ba ckgr ound, w e f i nd thatH ow el l has f

ai l ed t o s how thatt he St at e pos s es s ed the i nf

or m at i on orthatthe St at e s uppr es s ed thati nf or m at i on. A l t ernat i vel y,

### 7

H o w ell arg u es th at the S tat e sh o u ld h av e run a c ri m inal b ac k g rou n d c h ec k o n R ice; ho w ev er, H o w ell cit es n o au tho ri ty w h ich w o u ld req u ir e the S tat e to ru n crim inal ch ec k s o n ev ery p ro s e c u tio n w itn e s s . T h e re fo re , w e a re u n d e r n o o b li g a ti o n to re v ie w th is is s u e . D am pier v. S ta te , 973 So. 2d 221, 228- 29 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng G la sp e r v . S ta te , 914 So. 2d 708, 726 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). ¶1 6 . W e also n o te that R ice’s felon y co n v ict ion o cc u rred in 1 9 8 3 , alm o st sev en teen y ea rs b efo re P ern ell w as m u rde red
. W h ethe r i m p ea ch m en t of R ice c o n ce rnin g h is sev en teen -ye aro ld c o n v ic tio n fo r b u rg la ry w o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m is s ib le is d o u b tf u l. See M i s s . R ul e of

E vi d. 609 ( "Evi dence of

a convi ct i on underthi s rul e i s notadm i s s i bl e i f a per i od of

m or e than t en year s has el aps ed s i nce the dat e of the convi ct i on orof

the r el eas e of

the w i tnes s f

r om t he conf i nement. . . . ”)
. T her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e “thatthe pr obat i ve val ue of the convi ct i on s uppor t ed by the s peci f i c f act s and ci r cumst ance s s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei gh[ ed] it s p re ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t.” M is s . R . E v id . 6 0 9 (b ). See T a te v . S ta te , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 4 n . 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); J

o n e s v . S ta te , 7 7 6 S o . 2 d 6 4 3 , 6 5 1 -5 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). W e f in d th a t th e S tate
w as notr equi r ed t o obt ai n the cr i m i nal hi s t ory on al l i t s w i tnes s es , es peci al l y w hen ther e w as no s uch r eques tby the def ens e f orthi s i nf

or m at i on. II. W H E T H E R T H E S T A T E F A IL E D T O D ISC L O S E IN D IS C O V E R Y I N F O R M A T IO N C O N C E R N IN G R IC E ’S T E S T I M ON Y T HA T HE DI D N OT KN OW HOW E L L P RI OR T O T H E S H O O T I N G . ¶17. H ow el l m ai nt ai ns that R i ce kn ew H ow el l pr i or t o the ki l l i ng and that hi s t es t i m ony t o t he co ntr a r y a ttr i a l w a s f a l s e . I nt e r e s t i ng l y, H owel l ’ s a r gu menta tthe po s t - c on vi ct i on

### 8

sta g e – th a t R ice ’s id e n tifica tio n o f H o w e ll w a s u n tru stw o rth y b e c a u se h e h a d se e n h im bef or e – i s t ot al l y atodds w i th hi s a r gum enton thi s i s s ue attr i al
. I n hi s cl os i ng ar gum entat trial, H o w e ll’s a tto rn e y a rg u e d th a t R ice d id n o t k n o w H o w e ll “fr o m A d a m ” a n d th a t h is unf ami l i ar i ty w i th H ow el l r ender ed the i dent i f i cat i on l es s bel i evabl e. ¶1 8 . In su p p o rt o f thes e a lleg a tio n s, H o w ell su b m it s sev era l affidav it s an d o n e u n sw o rn
w ri tte n s ta te m e n t. W e g iv e th e u n s w o rn s ta te m e n t l ittle w e ig h t. See P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 879 So. 2d 920, 940 ( M i s s . 2004)
. H ow el l do es pr es ents ubs t ant i al l y i dent i cal af f i davi t s f r om M a ry S im m o n s a n d T u lan e S im m o n s w h o c laim th a t th e y liv e n e a r R ice a n d th a t “th e re is
n o w a y ” th a t R ice h a d n o t se e n a n d “ k n o w n o f” H o w e ll p rio r to the sh o o tin g . B o th a ffia n ts change d the w or di ng of thei rs t at ement s f

r om al l egi ng thatR i ce kne w H ow el l t o al l egat i ons that R ice “ k n ew o f” H o w ell
. T h e S tat e a rgu es th at th e a ffi d av its d o n o t su p p o rtH o w ell ’s cl ai m thatR i ce kne w H ow el l pr i ort o the s hoot i ng. ¶19. H ow el l m akes s ever al cl ai m s her e w hi ch ar e compl et el y uns ubs t ant i at ed. T her e i s no ev iden ce that the S tat e h ad a n y k n o w ledg e that R ice m igh t ha v e “k n o w n o f” H o w ell
. T h ere i s no i ndi cat i on thatthe St at e f ai l ed t o di s cl os e any e xcul pat ory i nf or m at i on. O therthan the
so m ew h at va g u e c lai m s tha t R ice “ k n ew o f” H o w ell , the re is n o su b stan ti al ev iden ce b efo re
u s th a t R ice tes tified u n tru th fu lly in h is id e n tifica tio n o f H o w e ll. ¶20. H ow el l f

ur ther ar gues that w hether R i ce had seen H ow el l on pr i or occa s i ons r ai s es
r eas onabl e doubtaboutR i ce’ s eyew i tnes s i dent i f i cat i on of H ow el l ; how ever , w e ar e mi ndf ul thatt oday’ s cas e i s a post - convi ct i on proc eedi ng. R i ce’ s cr edi bi l i ty has been w ei ghed by the j u ry a n d th e j u r y ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f g u i l th a s b e e n a f

f i r me d o n d i r e c ta p p e a l ; th e r e f o r e , we

### 9

w i l l notcons i derthi s i s s ue f ur theri n t hes e post - convi ct i on proc eedi ngs . M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 39- 21 pr ovi des thati s s ues ei therr ai s ed atthe tr i al phas e orcapa bl e of bei ng r ai s ed i n thos e pr ocee di ngs ar e notpr operl y re vi ew ed i n the pos t - convi ct i on s t age. T h is s tatu te s tate s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 1) Fai l ur e by a pr i s onert o r ai s e obj ect i ons , de f ens es , c l ai m s , que s t i ons , i s s ues orerr or s ei theri n f

actorl aw w hi ch w er e capabl e of det erm i nat i on attr i al and/ oron di r ectappea l , r egar dl es s of w hethers uch ar e bas ed on the l aw s and th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i o r o f th e U n ited S tate s, sh a ll cons t i tut e a w ai vert her eof and shal l be proc edur al l y bar r ed, butt he courtm ay u p o n a sh o w ing o f ca u se a n d ac tual p rejud ice g ran t r eli ef from the w aive r.

. . . (3 ) T h e d o c trin e o f re s ju d ica ta s h a ll ap p ly to a ll i ss u e s, b o th fa c tu a l an d leg a l, d e c id e d a t trial a n d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. See al s o L y n c h v. S ta te , 9 5 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ); W iley v. Sta te , 750 So. 2d 1193, 1 1 9 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); Fo ste r v . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1129 ( M i s s . 1996). W e thus f i nd t hat i s s ues r el at ed t o R i ce’ s r el i abi l i ty as a w i tnes s ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed. I I I . W HE T HE R RI CE ’ S I DE NT I F I CA T I ON OF HO W E L L W AS RELI ABLE. ¶21. H ow el l al l eges thatR i ce’ s i dent i f i cat i on of hi m w as f

l aw ed bec aus e the l i ght i ng at the
s c e n e wa s p o o r . Ho we l l a l s o c l a i ms th a tth e S t a t e “ mi s r e p r e s e n t e d th e c o n d i t i o n s a tth e t i me of the s hoot i ng” as t o the di s t ance f r om R i ce’ s w i ndow t o Pernel l ’ s car . H ow el l f ur ther al l eges that“Pet i t i onerhas now di s cover ed evi dence thatthe St at e’ s s t arw i tnes s w ho s t at ed in h is tria l tes tim o n y th a t h e w a s in th e p ro c e ss o f sm o k in g a c ig a re tte w h e n h e su p p o se d ly
w itn esse d the sh o o ti n g w as sm o k ing m arij u an a an d m ay h av e b ee n u n d er the infl u en ce o f a
c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e a t th e tim e h e o b s e rv e d th e s h o o tin g o f M r. P e rn e ll.”

### 10

¶2 2. A s di s cus s ed su pra , i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o Ri c e ’ s i de nt i f i c a t i on of

t he s hoot erar e r es ju d ica ta a n d a re p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). V isib ili ty i s s ues and R i ce’ s oppor tuni ty t o vi ew the s hoot i ng w er e expl or ed atl ength attr i al
. E vi dence
w as pr es ent ed thatthe s hoot i ng t ook pl ace appr oxi m at el y s eve nty- on e f e e tf r om R i ce a nd that R i ce’ s vi ew of

the cr i m e w as unobs truct ed. T he St at e s how ed that , al though atthe t i m e of the shoo t i ng , cond i t i on s w ere “predaw n, ” t here w as consi derabl e l i gh tfr om several sources, i ncl udi ng st ree t l i ght s , por ch l i ght s , and perhaps m os ti m por t ant l y, the hea dl i ght s of t he vehi cl e dr i ven by H ow el l ’ s cohort . In H ow el l ’ s di r ectappeal , t hi s C our tfound that“[ u] nder the t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s , ther e i s no l i kel i hood w hat s oeverthatR i ce’ s i dent i f i cat i on
w as notr el i abl e. ” Ho w ell, 8 60 S o. 2 d at731. A s t o the as s ert i on of H ow el l ’ s couns el t hat R i ce w as s m oki ng m ar i

j uana on the m orni ng of the s hoot i ng, the onl y s t at ements uppor t i ng th a t cla im is th e u n sw o rn , h a n d w ritten s tate m e n t o f a N e w A lb a n y re sid e n t w h o c laim s to k n o w R ice , an d w e g iv e th a t cla im v ia a n u n sw o rn sta tem e n t li ttl e w e ig h t. ¶2 3. H ow el l pr es ent s an af f i davi tf r om a pr of

e s s oro f p s yc ho l ogy w ho opi nes t hat condi t i ons f

ora pos i t i ve i dent i f

i cat i on of the s hoot erw er e “hi ghl y unf avor abl e” ba s ed on the l i ght i ng, the di s t ance t o the shoot i ng, and t he f actthatR i ce i s w hi t e and H ow el l i s A f r i canA m er i can. W e not e s ever al f l aw s i n the pr of

es s or ’ s anal ys i s . Fi r s t , the pr of es s orcl ai m s t hat the s hoot i ng happene d f or ty- f i ve mi nut es bef

or e d aw n. A ctual l y, the s hoot i ng happene d appr oxi m at el y f

or ty- tw o m i nut es be f

or e actual s unr i s e butas w as di s cus s ed attr i al , tw i l i ght begi ns much ea r l i er . T he pr of es s orc l ai m s thatthe s hoot er“ m os t l y ha d hi s ba ck t o M r . R i ce a s h e w a s w a lk in g fr o m th is c a r to w h e re th e s h o o tin g to o k p lac e .” E v e n if th is s tate m e n t is

### 11

true, the pr of

es s ori gnor es the f

actthatthe s hoot erw as f aci ng R i ce a tthe t i m e of the ac tual
s hoot i ng. ¶24. T he pr of

es s oral s o cl ai m s t hatt he l i neup w as bi as ed. T he pr of es s ori ncorr ect l y s t at es thatthe l i neup w as a f

i ve- per s on l i neup, w her eas the r ecor d revea l s thatther e w er e i n f act six su b jec ts in th e lin e u p . T h is iss u e w a s a d d re ss e d a t trial a n d o n d ire c t ap p e a l an d is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). In th e d ire c t ap p e a l, th is C our tr evi ew ed the f

i ve f act or s fordet erm i ni ng w hethera l i neup i s i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve as s etouti n N

eil v. B i gg ers , 409 U . S. 188, 93 S. C t . 375, 34 L . E d. 2d 401 ( 1972)
. W e f ound th a t th e lin e -u p w a s n o t u n d u ly su g g e s tiv e a n d th a t ev id e n c e fro m th e lin e u p w a s p ro p e rly
a d m itte d
. Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at730- 31. T her ef or e, w e dec l i ne t o agai n cons i derthi s i s s ue via these po st -convict i on rel i ef pr oceed i ng s. I V. W HET HER HOW EL L’ S AT TORN EY S W ER E I NE F F EC TI VE CO NCERN I NG RI CE’ S I DENTI FI CATI ON OF HO W ELL. ¶2 5. H ow el l a s s e r t s tha t hi s tr i a l a t t orne ys di d no t e f f e c t i ve l y r e pr e s e nt hi m conce r ni ng R i ce’ s i dent i f

i cat i on and t es t i m ony. H ow el l w as r epr es ent ed attr i al by D uncan Lot tand J ak Sm i th. L ot t , w ho w as H ow el l ’ s pr i m ary at t orney, s et s outthathe has been pr act i ci ng cr i m i nal l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi s i nce 1977 a nd that he ha d r epr es ent ed thr ee c api t al
- m ur der d e fe n d a n ts b e fo re H o w e ll.

### The r ec ord i s s il ent as to rea l e vide nceconc er ning Ri ce ’s al le ged dr

ug use. Howel l’ s 1 

### only s ubmi ss ion on thi s is sueis theunsworn st at em ent of Timothy Gill iam and thehears ay st at em ent s of

othe rs through an inves ti gat or. 12 ¶26. L ot t s ubm i t t ed an af f i davi t i n w hich he cl ai m s that the St at e s houl d have di s cl os ed i nf or m at i on aboutR i ce’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d, i ncar cer at i on r ecor d, and evi dence of drug us e. 1 A s not ed supra , t he r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tthe St a t e ha d a ny kn owl e dg e of Ri c e ’ s c r i mi na l
r ecor d and t hen s uppr es s ed thati nf or m at i on. T he as s i s t antdi s tr i ctatt orney has s w orn that
n o c ri m inal b ac k g rou n d ch ec k o f R ice w as p erfo rm ed
. L o ttalso stat es th at “e x cu lpato ry evi dence conce r ni ng M r . R i ce’ s cr i m i nal backgr ound w oul d have a l l ow ed me t o i m peac h t he
o n ly e y e w itn e ss to th is c rim e .” H o w e v e r, co n tra ry to L o tt’s sta tem e n t th a t R ice w a s th e o n ly eyew i tnes s t o thi s cr i m e, the r ecor d r evea l s thatC ur t i s L i ps ey al s o w as an eye w i tnes s t o t he sh o o ti n g , an d L ipse y li k ew ise i d en ti fi ed H o w ell as th e k il ler. ¶ 2 7 . T h e sta n d a rd fo r d e ter m in in g if a c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n t r e c e iv e d c o n s titu tio n a lly ef f ect i ve couns el i s w el l
- es t abl i s hed. "The benc hm ark f or j ud ging any c l ai m of i nef f ect i venes s [ of

couns el ] m us tb e w hethe rcouns el ' s conducts o underm i ned the pr oper f unct i oni ng of

the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr oduced a j ustres ult
. " Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U . S. 668, 686, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L. E d. 2d 674 (1 9 8 4 ). A d e fe n d a n t m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is a tto rn e y ' s a c tio n s w e re d e fic ien t and thatt he d e fi c ie n c y p re

ju d ic e d th e d e fe n s e o f t h e c a s e . Str i c kl and , 46 6 U . S . at68 7. "U nles s a def endantm akes both s how i ngs , i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe convi ct i on or de ath s ent ence re s u lte d f

r o m a b re a k d o w n in th e a d v e rs a ry p ro c e s s th a t r e n d e rs th e re s u lt u n re lia b le ."

### 13

S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984) , ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687. T he f ocus of the i nqui r y mustbe w hetherc ouns el ' s as s i s t ance w as r eas onabl e cons i der i ng al l t he
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I

d. Ju d icia l sc ru tin y o f co u n se l' s p e rfo rm a n c e m u st b e h ig h ly d e fe re n tial. ( C i t at i on om i t t ed)
. . . . A f ai ra s s es s m entof

att orney per f

or m ance r equi r es that e v e ry e ffo rt b e m a d e to e lim in a te th e d isto rtin g e ffe c ts o f h in d sig h t, t o re c o n stru c t th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f c o u n se l' s c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, an d to e v a lu a te the conduc tf

r om couns el ' s per s pect i ve atthe t i m e. Becaus e of the di f f i cul t i es i nher enti n m aki ng the eva l uat i on, a courtm us ti ndul ge a s tr ong pr es um pt i on thatc ouns el ' s c onductf al l s w i thi n the w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance ; thati s , the def endantmustove r come the pr es um pt i on that , under the ci r cum s t ance s , t he cha l l enged a ct i on “mi ghtbe cons i der ed s ound tr i al s tr a te g y .” Str inger at477; ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 68 9 . D e fe n se c o u n se l is p re su m e d c o m p e ten t. W a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 620 So. 2d 966 ( M i s s . 1993)
. T hi s C our thas l i kew i s e s t at ed: T h en , to d eterm ine th e sec o n d p ron g o f pre jud ice to the d efe n se, th e stan d ard i s "a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcouns el ' s un profe s s i onal err or s , the res ultof the p roceeding w ou l d h ave b een d i ff erent . " Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991)
. T hi s means a " pr obabi l i ty s uf f i ci entt o underm i ne th e c o n fi d e n c e in th e o u tc o m e ." I d.

. . . T h e re is n o c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t th e n to e rr o rl e s s c o u n s e l. Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 524 S o . 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); Mo h r v . S ta te , 58 4 S o. 2d 42 6, 43 0 (M i ss. 1991) ( r i ghtt o ef

f ect i ve couns el does notent i t l e def endantt o have a n att orney w ho m akes no m i s t akes att r i al ; defe ndantj us thas r i ghtt o have c om pet ent couns el )
. I f

the pos t - convi ct i on appl i cat i on f ai l s on ei therof

the Str i c kl

and p ro n g s , th e p ro c e e d in g s e n d
. N eal v. State, 52 5 S o. 2d 12 79 , 12 81 (M i ss. 1 9 8 7 ); Mo h r v . S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). D a v is v . S ta te , 743 So. 2d 32 6, 334 ( M i s s . 1999) , ci t i ng Fo ste r v . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1 1 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ).

### 14

¶28. H ow el l ’ s a t t orneys di d nots peci f i cal l y r eques ti nf

or m at i on abou tR i ce’s cri m i nal h isto ry . T h e atto rn e y s d id req u e st g e n e ra l dis c o v e ry an d a ll B r ady excul pat ory i nf or m at i on. B r ady , 373 U . S. at87. T he St at e’ s att orney mai nt ai ns thatal l di s cover abl e i nf or m at i on w as
r el eas ed t o the def

ens e and thatthe St at e had no duty t o run a bac kgr ound chec k on R i ce a nd then t o turn overi nf

or m at i on noteven r eques t ed by the def ens e. ¶29. A s w e h ave no t ed, R i ce pl eade d gui l ty t o bur gl ary i n 1983. Pernel l ’ s m ur der and R i ce’ s t es t i m ony agai ns tH ow el l occurr ed nea r l y s event een years l at er . T he i m peac hm ent
v a lu e o f R ic e ’s 1 9 8 3 c o n v ic tio n , e v e n if a d m is s ib le , w o u ld h a v e b e e n m in o r. Jones , 776 So. 2d at651- 52. ¶30. H ow el l al s o as s ert s that hi s att orneys w er e i nef f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o di s cover thatR i ce knew hi m pr i ort o the s ho ot i ng . A s a l r e a dy no t e d, H owel l pr e s e nt s s omewhats us pe ct af f i davi t s thatR i ce musthave “know n of” H ow el l
. D ef ens e couns el ar gued dur i ng cl os i ng th a t R ic e ’s id e n ti f

ic a ti o n w a s n o t r e lia b le b e c a u s e h e h a d n e v e r b e fo re s e e n H o w e ll. W e c e rta in ly c a n n o t fin d th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l’s a rg u m e n t w a s illo g ica l in a sm u c h a s th is arg u m en t cou ld h av e b ee n b ase d u p o n a tri al-strateg y d ec isi o n to arg u e to th e jury that R ice’s id e n tifica tio n tes tim o n y w a s h ig h ly su sp e c t b e c a u se R ice d id n o t k n o w H o w e ll. S tra teg ic d e c is io n s o f tr ia l c o u n s e l a re p re s u m e d to b e r e a s o n a b le
. Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 524 So. 2d 313, 319 ( M i s s . 1988) ¶31. A f

t er a f ul l r evi ew of the tr i al
- court r ecor d, w e ar e unabl e t o f i nd that H ow el l di d not
r ece i ve ef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c ouns el on thes e i s s ues . Ri ce w as exami ned thor oughl y and ext ens i vel y abouthi s i dent i f i cat i on of H ow el l
. C ouns el forH ow el l cr os s - exami ned R i ce a t

### 15

l ength aboutthe l i ght i ng and othervi s i bi l i ty f act or s . W e thus f

i nd thatthe ac t i ons of H ow el l ’ s tr i al couns el w er e notdef i ci entpur s uantt o Str i c kl and . V. W HET HER R I CE HAS RE CANT ED HI S TE S TI M ONY. ¶32. I n J une of 2005, t he i nv est i gat or f or H ow el l ’ s pos t - convi ct i on couns el pr ocur ed an affidav itfrom R ice in w h ich R ice rec an ted h is tri al t esti m o n y an d stat ed that “I h av e a v ery
r eal and subs t ant i al r eas onabl e doubtas t o w hetherornotM ar l on H ow el l i s the man I s aw th a t m o rn in g . . . .” T h e re a fte r, R ice re a ffirm e d h is tria l tes tim o n y b y a n e w a ffid a v it
e x e c u ted in O c to b e r o f 2 0 0 7 . R ice ’s 2 0 0 7 a ffid a v it state s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A t[ M ar l on H ow el l ’ s ] tr i al I pos i t i vel y i dent i f i ed M ar l on H ow el l a s the per s on w ho s hotand ki l l ed M r . D avi d Pernel l
. I her eby r eaf f i r m thatt es t i m ony and decl ar e itto be t rue. I have pr evi ous l y gi ven a s t at ementt o an i nves t i gat or act i ng on the beha l f

of M ar l on H ow el l w her ei n I cal l ed i nt o ques t i on the a c c u ra c y o f m y id e n tifica tio n o f M a rlo n H o w e ll as th e p e rso n w h o sh o t D a v id Pernel l
. I w as bei ng m arr i ed i n the w eek thatI si gned thats t at ementand I s i g n e d th e s t a t e me n ta s a r e s u l to f c o n t i n u o u s p r e s s u r e t h a twa s a p p l i e d t o me b y th e in v e s tig a to r a n d o th e r p e rs o n s a c tin g o n b e h a lf o f M a r lo n H o w e ll. I w as notaw ar e of

the l egal s i gni f

i cance o f the s t at ementthatI gave them w her ei n I cal l ed i nt o ques t i on the ac cur acy of m y i dent i f

i cat i on of

M ar l on H ow el l , and thi s s t at ementw as gi ven i n an at t empt t o m ake the per s ons act i ng o n th e b e h a l f

o f M a r l o n Howe l l t o l e a v e me a n d my wi f e a l o n e d u r i n g th e t i me of ourm arr i age. A f

t ers i gni ng the above ment i oned s t at ementI m etw i th the a tto rn e y fo r M a rlo n H o w e ll, a n in v e stig a to r fo r M a rlo n H o w e ll, T im K e n t, w ho w as form er l y a N ew A l bany pol i ce of f i cerand B en C r eekmor e w ho i s the D i s tr i ctA t t orney f

orU ni on C ounty, att he N ew A l bany C i ty H al l and s t at ed t o both [ s i c] of

them t hatm y i dent i f

i cat i on of

M ar l on H ow el l atthe tr i al w as corr ectand thatI w as s t andi ng by thatt es t i m ony, and thatI had gi ven that

### 16

s t at ementi n an att em ptt o m ake the per s ons act i ng on the beha l f of M ar l on H ow el l l eave m e al one. I am t oday r eaf f i r m i ng m y ide nt i f

i cat i on of

M ar l on H o w e ll as th e sh o o ter o f D a v id P e rn e ll. T he St at e al s o i ncl udes an af f i davi tf r om B en C r eekmor e, the pr es entdi s tr i ctatt orney, w ho sta tes th a t h e a tten d e d a m e e tin g w ith R ice a n d d e fe n se c o u n se l in w h ich R ice re a ffirm e d h is tr i al t es t i m ony. O n the otherhand, H ow el l m ai nt ai ns thatR i ce’ s r eca nt ed t es t i m ony ent i t l es h im to p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f a n d a n e w tr ia l. ¶ 3 3 . A s a g e n e ra l ru le, re c a n ted tes tim o n y is “ e x c e e d in g ly u n re liab le, a n d is r e g a rd e d w ith
s us pi ci on; and i ti s the r i ghtand dut y of the cour tt o deny a new t r i al w her e i ti s nots at i s f i ed that s uch t est i m on y is true. " B ra dley v. S ta te , 2 1 4 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 6 8 ). F u rth er,

" [e ]x p e rie n c e tea c h e s a ll c o u rts a h e a lth y sk e p ticism tow a rd rec a n ted tes tim o n y . . . ." Y a rb o ro u g h v S ta te , 514 S o. 2d 1215, 1220 ( M i s s . 1987). T he f actthata w i tnes s change s h is te s tim o n y a ft e r t h e tr ia l d o e s n o t n e c e s s a ri ly e n title th e p e titio n e r t o a n e w tr ia l. R u ss e ll
v. S ta te , 849 So. 2d 95, 107 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng P e e p les v. S ta te , 21 8 S o. 2d 43 6, 43 8 (M i ss. 1 9 6 9 ); W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 6 6 9 S o . 2 d 4 4 , 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). ¶ 3 4 . In th e d ire c t ap p e al of H o w ell ’s ca p it al-m u rde r co n v ict ion an d d e a th se n ten c e , w e h e ld thatR i ce’ s i dent i f

i cat i on of

H ow el l w as r el i abl e and thatthe j ury w as ent i t l ed t o w ei gh t he
c re d ib ility o f t h e e v id e n c e . Ho w e ll , 8 60 S o. 2d at731. U nques t i onabl y, R i ce’ s t es t i m ony
w as cruci al t o the St at e’ s cas e. T he St at e admi t t ed as m uch i n cl os i ng ar gum entw hen the p rose cu tor stat ed that the S tat e c o u ld h av e re sted after R ice testi fi ed
. A ft er rev iew ing R ice’s trial te stim o n y , the 2 0 0 5 a ffid a v it i n w h ich h e p a rtially re c a n ted h is id e n tifica tio n o f H o w e ll, and the 2007 af

f i davi ti n w hi ch he r eaf

f i r m ed hi s tr i al t es t i m ony, w e fi nd thatH ow el l has

### 17

s how n thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a pos t - convi ct i on hear i ng o n t his is s ue. T hi s i s s ue ca n be
r es ol ved by the tr i al j udge, w ho w i l l have a n oppor tuni ty notonl y t o hearR i ce’ s t es t i m ony, butal s o t o obs erve R i ce’ s demeanoras R i ce is subj ect ed t o both di r ectexami nat i on and
c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . T h is a lso is c e rta in ly tru e o f o th e r w itn e s s e s w h o m ig h t tes tify o n th is i s s ue. V I. W H E T H E R T H E S T A T E C O E R C E D A D A M R A Y A N D C U R T IS

LI P S EY I NT O P ROVI DI NG FAL S E S TA TE M EN TS AND I LLEGALL Y S UP P RE S S ED LI P S EY ’ S I NI TI AL S TATEM ENT. ¶ 3 5 . U n d e r th e se th re e iss u e s, H o w e ll alle g e s th a t th e S tate im p ro p e rly c o e rc e d sta tem e n ts fro m H o w ell ’s co -de fen d an ts. H o w ell claim s tha t l aw en forc em en t offi cials i m p rop e rly th re a ten e d R a y a n d L ip se y an d tha t bo th R a y a n d L ip se y w e re in to x ica ted a t th e tim e th e ir
s t at ement s w er e t aken. I s s ues r el at ed t o the pr opr i ety of the i nt err ogati on s or the admi s s i bi l i ty of

any s t at ement s pr ovi ded by R ay and Li ps ey ei therw er e l i t i gat ed attr i al and
o n ap p ea l or w ere ca p ab le of b eing raised in p rev iou s p roc ee d ing s. T h o se c lai m s the refo re ar e barr ed her e. M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 39- 21 ( R ev. 2007)
. H ow el l pr es ent s a f f i davi t s f r om R ay and Li ps ey i n w hi ch both cl ai m thatthei rs t at ement s w er e not f r eel y gi ven. T he stat em en ts R ay an d L ipse y p rov ided to law en forc em en t offi ce rs, w h ich th ey claim w ere c oe r c e d, w e r e ne ve re nt e r e d i nt o e vi de nc e a ttr i a l
. Eve n a s s um i ng arguendo thatl aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s coer ced unus ed s t at ement s f r om R ay and Li ps ey, w e f i nd no pr ej udi ce to H o w e ll. ¶36. A ddi t i onal l y, R ay di d noteven t es t i f y attr i al
. T he onl y st at ementat tr i but ed t o R ay attr i al w as dur i ng B r andon Shaw ’ s t es t i m ony t hatw hen R ay, L i ps ey, and H ow el l came back

### 18

t o S haw ’ s ho us e a f

t e rthe s ho ot i ng , Ray h a d s a i d tha tH owel l ha d s ho ts omeo ne . That
s t at ement , m ade i n H ow el l ’ s pre s ence and notdeni ed ordi s count ed by H ow el l , w as admi t t ed in to e v id e n c e a s a n a d o p tiv e a d m iss io n . T h is C o u rt fo u n d th a t R a y ’s s tate m e n t w a s p ro p e rly
a d m itte d p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( B ). Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 860 So. 2d at736. R ay’ s st at ementhas be en f ul l y r evi ew ed and a dj udi cat ed by thi s C our t . Fur ther revi ew i s prohi bit ed in post -convict i on proceed i ng s. ¶37. I n hi s pos t - convi ct i on af f i davi t , R ay cl ai m s thathe w as t oo i nt oxi cat ed on the ni ght in q u e stio n to k n o w w h o sh o t P e rn e ll an d th a t th e p o lice trick e d h im in to im p lica tin g H o w e ll. R ay neve rcl ai m s i n hi s af f i davi tt hatH ow el l di d notshoott he vi ct i m . T he onl y i ndi cat i on of any coe r ci on i n R ay’ s af f i davi ti s hi s s t at ementthathe w oul d nothave t ol d the pol i ce anythi ng i f

the pol i ce ha d nott ol d hi m thatH ow el l w as i m pl i cat i ng hi m i n the s hoot i ng. E ven i f the pol i ce di d a t t empt t o tr i ck R ay by cl ai m i ng thatH ow el l w as cooper at i ng w i t h l aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s , thi s f

actal one w oul d notent i t l e H ow el l t o any r el i ef
. T her e i s no re q u ire m e n t th a t law en forc em en t offi cials be ab so lutely h o n est w h e n in ter ro g a tin g a su sp e c t. “Pl oys t o m i s l ead a s us pectorl ul l hi m i nt o a f al s e s ens e of

s ecur i ty” ar e perm i s s i bl e dur i ng p o lic e q u e s tio n in g , a s lo n g a s th e y d o n o t " ri s e to th e le v e l o f c o m p u ls io n o r c o e rc io n ." I l linoi s v. Perkins , 496 U . S. 292, 297, 110 L . E d. 2d 243, 110 S. C t . 2394 ( 1990)
. T he
s t at ementR ay gave t o l aw enf or cementoff

i ci al s w as noteven intr oduced i nt o evi dence at tr i al
. W e f

i nd no evi dence of

any r el evantcompul s i on orcoer ci on, es peci al l y i n l i ghtof t he f actthatR ay did nott es t i f y attr i al
. H ow el l al s o s om ew hatdi s i ngenuous l y cl ai m s thatt he St at e t ook ef

f or t s t o keep R ay f

r om t es t i f

yi ng and bei ng s ubj ectt o cr os s - exami nat i on. R ay

### 19

w as avai l able t o b oth side s. H ow el l and his at t orneys co uld have cal l ed R ay h ad they so chos en. ¶38. H ow el l al s o now cl ai m s thatC ur t i s L i ps ey w as coer ced i nt o i m pl i cat i ng hi m . A gai n, the onl y evi dence of

f er ed of any coe r ci on i s thatl aw e nf or cementof

f i ci al s t ol d L i ps ey that H ow el l had gi ven a st at ementt hatL i ps ey w as the s hoot er . A s di s cus s ed supra , s uch ac t i on on the partof

l aw enf or cementw as noti m perm i s s i bl e. A tthe t i m e of the s t at ement , L i ps ey s ig n e d a w a iv e r o f r ig h ts in w h ic h h e c la im e d th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n th re a te n e d o r c o e rc e d
. ¶ 3 9 . H o w e ll also c laim s th a t th e S tate im p ro p e rly d e stro y e d L ip se y ’s in iti a l sta tem e n t in
w h ich h e h a d d isc laim e d an y res p o n sib ili ty fo r th e k ill in g . A t tria l, L ip se y ad m itt e d tha t h is f i r s ts t at ementhad bee n untruthf ul
. H e t es t i f

i ed t hathe had deni ed i nvol vementi n an att empt t o “ge tou tof

i t . ” Thi s mat t e rw a s di s c us s e d f ul l y a ttr i a l a nd i s no w pr oc e du r a l l y b a r r ed. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21 ( R ev. 2007)
. E ven i f i tw er e notbarr ed, w e f i nd thatno r el i ef i s w arr ant ed. Li ps ey t es t i f i ed thate ven i n hi s i ni t i al s t at ement , he ha d s ai d thatH ow el l w as the s hoot er . T he onl y change betw een the f i r s ts t at ementand the s econd s t at ementi s r el at ed t o L i ps ey’ s ow n cul pabi l i ty as oppos ed t o H ow el l ’ s cul pabi l i ty. VI I . W HET HER C OUNS EL W ER E I NE F F EC TI VE CONCE RNI NG ISS U E V I. ¶40. W e have f

ound I s s ue V I t o be w i thout m er i t . W e al s o f i nd that H ow el l has m ade no
s how i ng of

i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el as t o i s s ues r el at ed t o the s t at ement s of R ay and L ip s e y . T h is is s u e is th u s w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 20

V III . W H E T H E R T H E P U R P O R T E D R E C A N T A T IO N S O F C U R T IS LI P S EY AND AD AM RAY M ER I T A N E VI DE NT I ARY H E A R I N G . ¶41. H ow el l al l eges that hi s tw o co- def endant s have change d thei r s t or i es and now s w ear thatthey do notknow w ho ki l l ed Pernel l
. W e ar e aga i n r emi nded that r ecante d t es t i m ony is in h e re n tly u n re lia b le
. B r adley , 2 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 1 7 ; Y arbor ough , 514 So. 2d at1220. ¶ 4 2 . W e n o te th a t b o th L ip se y a n d R a y a re p re se n tly in c a rc e ra ted a fte r p lea d in g g u ilty to
m ans l aught eri n the ki l l i ng of Pernel l
. T hei rpre s entcl ai m s thatthey do notknow w ho ki l l ed Pernel l ar e contr adi ct ed notonl y by thei ri ni t i al s t at ement s t o pol i ce a nd, i n L i ps ey’ s cas e, by tr i al t es t i m ony, butal s o by thei rgui l ty pl eas . L i ps ey s t at ed underoath dur i ng hi s gui l typl ea he ar i ng thatM ar l on “pul l ed outa gun and s hot ” Pernel l and thatH ow el l ’ s i nt ent i on at t he t i m e was t o r ob the man . Li ps e y a l s o t e s t i f i e d un de ro a th a tHow e l l ’ s tr i a l tha th e s aw H ow el l s hootPernel l a nd thatthe m ot i ve w as r obbery. D ur i ng hi s gui l ty- pl ea c ol l oquy, R ay c laim e d th a t th e y w e re lo o k in g fo r so m e o n e to ro b ; th a t H o w e ll h a d flas h e d the c a r’s lig h ts to g e t P e rn e ll t o sto p ; an d th a t alth o u g h h e d id n o t se e th e a c tu a l sh o o tin g , h e d id se e H o w e ll t al ki ng t o Per nel l
. R ay then hea r d a guns hotand H ow el l i m m edi at el y j um ped back i n t he
ca r. ¶43. I n hi s af

f i davi t , L i psey adm i t s t hat he, R ay, and H ow el l w er e t ogether on the ni ght P e rn e ll w a s k ill e d . L ip se y n o w c laim s th a t h e d o e s n o t k n o w w h o k ill e d P e rn e ll sin c e h e d id nots ee the w eapon orthe s hoot i ng. H e cl ai m s thathe t ol d l aw enf or cementthatH ow el l w as the s hoot eronl y beca us e he w as conf us ed due t o i nt oxi cat i on and bec aus e l aw enf or cement
o ffic ials th re a ten e d h im . In th e w a iv e rs o f rig h ts s ig n e d w h e n th e y w e re q u e stio n e d , b o th

### 21

R ay and Li ps ey s t at ed thatno thr eat s had bee n m ade a nd no pr es s ur e orcoer ci on of any ki nd had bee n us ed aga i ns tthem. N o s peci f i c thr eati s m ent i oned i n L i ps ey’ s af f i davi tot hert han hi s s t at ementthatl aw enf or cementoff

i ci al s had t ol d hi m thathe w oul d geta dea th s ent ence orl i f e i m pr i s onm enti f

he di d notcooper at e. E ven i f true, s uch s t at ement s by l aw enf or cementw oul d notr enderL i ps ey’ s s t at ementi nadmi s s i bl e. ¶44. N ot abl y, L i ps ey’ s cur r entst at ementdoes noti ncl ude any cl ai m t hatH ow el l di d not k il l Pe rne ll
. L ipse y ’s pre sen t t es ti m o n y is si m p ly tha t he d id n o t see the k il li n g . L ipse y ’s claim tha t he w as intox icated w h en h e w as interrog ated is insign if ican t ba sed o n the re co rd bef or e us . L i ps ey cl ai m s thathe dr ank “unt i l 3: 30 orl onger ; ” h ow ever, h e w as not ques t i oned unt i l 6: 30 p. m . , appr oxi m at el y f i f t een hour s l at er . L i ps ey’ s s t at ement t o l aw e n fo rc e m e n t w a s n o t in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e ; h o w e v e r, L ip se y te stifie d a t H o w e ll’s tria l, and he unque s t i onabl y does notcl ai m thathe w as i nt oxi cat ed atthe t i m e he t es t i f i ed attr i al that H o w ell w as th e sh o o ter. ¶45. A dam R ay’ s r eca nt at i on i s even mor e s us pectthan Li ps ey’ s r eca nt at i on. I n hi s curr ent
s t at ement , R ay admi t s thathe, L i ps ey, and H ow el l w er e t ogether“r i di ng ar ound” on t he ni ght
o f th e c r i me . I n s t a t i n g t h a ti twa s t o o d a r k t o s e e f r o m Ri c e ’ s h o u s e t o th e s tr e e ta tth e t i me of the s hoot i ng, R ay admi t s thathe, L i ps ey, an d H ow el l w er e atthe s cene of the ki l l i ng. Im p o rta n tly , R a y d o e s n o t cla im th a t H o w e ll d id n o t sh o o t P e rn e ll, b u t in ste a d , R a y ’s c laim
now i s m er el y thathe di d nots ee a nyone w i th a gun thatni ghta nd thathe ne verw oul d have
s ai d thatH ow el l w as the shoot eri f l aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s had nottr i cked hi m by t el l i ng h im th a t H o w e ll h a d im p lica ted h im
. R a y n e v e r tes tified at trial, an d h is o n ly a p p e a ra n c e in

### 22

the pr ocee di ngs i nvol ved the adopt i ve admi s s i on i n w hi ch B r andon Shaw t es t i f i ed thatR ay had s ai d i n H ow el l ’ s pr es ence thatH ow el l had s hota man. ¶46. W e not e the appar ent contr adi ct i on i n H ow el l ’s curr ent pos i t i on. A t tr i al and eve n
n o w , H o w e ll’s a rg u m e n t h a s b e e n th a t L ip se y o r R a y w a s th e a c tu a l m u rd e re r. Y e t in h is pet i t i on, H ow el l r el i es on af f i davi t s f r om both, one of

w hom he cl ai m s m ustb e the ac tual ki l l er . L i ps ey cl ai m s thathe does notknow w ho the s hoot erw as , buti tm ay be i m pl i ed f r om hi s af f i davi tthatL i ps ey i s i n ess ence st at i ng t hatH ow el l or R ay w as t he shoot er . L i kew i s e, R ay cl ai m s no know l edge of w ho s hotPernel l , butacc or di ng t o R ay, the onl y pos s i bi l i t i es a s to th e k ill e r ar e L ip se y an d H o w e ll. T h u s, a c c o rd in g to H o w e ll’s a ffid a v its, eith e r H o w e ll is th e k ill e r o r o n e o f h is a ffia n ts is n e c e ss a rily ly in g in h is a ffid a v it. ¶47. I n l i ghtof

the gene r al untrus tw or thi nes s of r eca nt ed t es t i m ony a nd i n cons i der at i on of the t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s of

the af f i davi t s and t he r ecor d bef or e us, w e f

i nd thatt he
curr entaf

f i davi t s of

R ay and Li ps ey w her ei n they r eca ntpr evi ous s t at ement s orpr i or test im o n y d o n o t entit le H o w ell to an y reli ef. I X. W H ETH ER TH E STA TE CO ER CE D O THER W I TNES S ES I NT O P ROVI DI NG FALS E TES TI M ON Y AG AI NST HO W ELL. ¶ 4 8 . C o n c e rn in g th is iss u e , H o w e ll a lleg e s th a t th e S tate im p ro p e rl y c o e rc e d sta tem e n ts f r om B r andon S haw , T onya Pet er s on and Ter keci a Pannel l
. Pet er s on and Pannel l di d not t es t i f y attr i al
. T he act i ons of l aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s i n the ques t i oni ng of Pet er s on and Pannel l have no r el evanc e her e.

### 23

¶ 4 9 . S h a w tes tified a t trial th a t, p rio r to th e k ill in g , h e h a d b e e n rid in g a ro u n d T u p e lo w ith R ay, L i ps ey, and H ow el l , and thatH ow el l had m ade a comm entaboutr obbi ng a man ata gas s t at i on w ho w as “an e as y l i ck. ” Shaw r ef us ed t o pa r t i ci pat e, and no r obbery occurr ed att hat po i nt. S haw l at er w ent hom e, and H ow el l , R ay, and L i psey lef tw i th o u t him
. S haw al so t es t i f i ed thats ever al hour s l at er , H ow el l , R ay, and Li ps ey r eturned t o Shaw ’ s hous e i n t he dark O l ds m obi l e. S haw t es t i f i ed t hatR ay had st at ed t hatH ow el l had shots om ebody. Shaw f ur ther t est i fi ed t hathe neve rs aw H ow el l w i th the gun butthatH ow el l had s om ethi ng
w r apped i n a gr een s hi r tunderhi s arm af t erthe s hoot i ng. Shaw t ol d l aw enf or cem ent of f i ci al s thathe had s een H ow el l w al k f r om behi nd hi s hous e w her e the gun w as l at erf ound. S h a w th e n d ro v e H o w e ll t o B lu e M o u n tain , a n d w h e n h e d ro p p e d H o w e ll o ff, H o w e ll t o ld hi m nott o t el l anyone. ¶50. I n hi s af

f i davi t , Shaw now r eca nt s part s of hi s pr i or t es t i m ony. Shaw does notr eca nt hi s tr i al t es t i m ony aboutthe adopt i ve admi s s i on w hen R ay cl ai m ed thatH ow el l had s hot
s o me o n e ; h o we v e r , S h a w n o w a t t e mp t s t o c l a r i f y s o me o f

h i s tr i a l t e s t i mo n y . S h a w c l a i ms thataf t erhe dr ove H ow el l hom e, H ow el l unw r apped the shi r tfr om hi s hand and no gun w as i ns i de. Shaw ’ s new s t at ements t i l l coi nci des w i th the proof of f er ed attr i al w her e i tw as s how n thatthe gun w as f ound atShaw ’ s hous e and musthave b een l ef tther e bef

or e Shaw dr ove H ow el l t o Bl ue M ount ai n. Shaw al s o cl ai m s thatR ay and Li ps ey t ol d hi m thatthe gun
w as behi nd the hous e and thathe neve rs aw H ow el l go behi nd the hous e. Shaw f ur ther cl ai m s thathi s t es t i m ony conce r ni ng H ow el l ’ s com m ent s aboutrobbi ng t he m an atthe gas sta tio n h a v e b e e n m isc o n stru e d
. H e n o w cla im s th a t “[w ]he n I t o ld the p o lice th a t [H o w e ll]

### 24

m ent i oned ther e goes an eas y l i ck i n T upel o t hatw as m eantt o s ay s el l s om eone f ake drugs o r to trick th e m . . . M a rlo n d id n o t m e a n ro b b e ry w ith a g u n .” S h a w ’s c u rre n t sta tem e n t is bel i ed by hi s tr i al t es t i m ony: Pr os ecut or : W hathappene d ther e [ i n T upel o] w hen you w entby the gas

s t at i on? Shaw : T hat i s w hen he m ade the comm ent about r obbi ng the m an that

w as s t andi ng out s i de. Pr os ecut or : W hen you s ay he w ho do you m ean by he ? Shaw : M ar l on. Pr os ecut or : W hatexac t l y w as s ai d? S h a w : H e s a id . . . th e re g o a n e a s y lic k ri g h t th e re . T he tr i al r ecor d cl ear l y r evea l s thatthe comm ent s aboutan eas y l i ck r ef err ed t o a robbe r y and
n o t a d ru g s c a m . ¶51. Shaw al s o cl ai m s that he w as pr es s ur ed by l aw enf or cement and that the pr oces s w as “s cary and unbel i evabl e. ” N o s peci f i cs of the al l eged pr es s ur e have been pr ovi ded. Shaw does notcl ai m thathe w as thr eat ened i n any w ay. ¶52. W e f

i nd thatShaw ’ s curr ents t at ementi s hi ghl y s us pectand thatH ow el l has not m ade a suf f i ci entshow i ng t hatan evi dent i ary hear i ng concerni ng Shaw ’ s t es t i m ony i s nece s s ary. T h e re fo re , w e fin d th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. X. W HETH ER THE S TA TE VI OLAT ED BA T S ON v. KENTUCKY AN D WHET HE R A J UR OR CO NC E AL E D I NF ORM AT I ON D U R I N G TH E JU R Y SEL EC TIO N PR O C ESS. ¶53. H ow el l has w i thdr aw n thes e cl ai m s and f ur therdi s cus s i on i s notr equi r ed. XI . W HET HER A P P EL LA TE COUNS EL F AI LE D T O P RE S ER VE A FE D ER A L ISSUE R EL A TE D TO A LE SSER - O FFE N SE I NS TR UCT I ON.

### 25

¶54 . H ere, H ow el l r ai ses tw o cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve assi st ance of co u n sel. H o w ell fi rst
m aintains that, alth o u g h h is at torn ey s at tri al an d o n ap p ea l raised issu es related to a lesse ro ffen se in stru cti o n , they fail ed to raise a fede ral claim alon g w ith tho se issu es. T h is C o u rt
a d d re ss e d in d e ta il w h e th e r H o w e ll w a s e n tit led to a les se r-o ffe n se in stru c tio n o n sim p le ( non- capi t al ) m ur derormansl aught era nd f ound thats uch an i ns truct i on w as nots uppor t ed b y th e e v id e n c e . Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d a t7 4 1
- 7 4 4 . Af t e rt h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our tgr ant ed H ow el l ’ s pe t i t i on f orc ert i or ar i , thatC our tf ound that“Pet i t i oner ' s br i ef i n the S ta te S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t p ro p e rl y p re s e n t h is c la im a s o n e a ri s in g u n d e rf e d e ra l la w .” How el l v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 543 U . S. 440, 443 125 S. C t . 856; 160 L . E d. 2d 873 ( 2005)
. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tthen di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on. ¶55 . H o w ell m aintains th at, i n no t raisi n g a fe d e ra l cla im , h is a tto rn e y s w ere cons t i tut i onal l y i nef

f ect i ve. In s how i ng t hathi s at t orneys fa i l ed t o r ai s e a f eder al i s s ue w hi ch
w oul d have be en r evi ew abl e i n t he Supre m e C our tor otherfe der al court s , H ow el l has m ade a faci al sho w i ng thatcouns el ’ s per f or m ance w as def

i ci ent . B utthe s econd pr ong of t he Str i c kl and t estrequi res a show i ng that the d efi ci ent per form ance b y the a t t orneys als o p re ju d ic e d th e d e fe n s e . Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687. I n the di r ectappea l , thi s C our tf ound thatunde rM i s s i s s i ppi l aw a nd the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al , H ow el l w as notent i t l ed t o a lesser-o ffen se instruc ti o n . E v en aft er furthe r r ev iew o f B e c kv. A la b a ma , 447 U . S. 625, 100 S. C t . 2382, 65 L . E d. 2d 392 ( 1980) , thi s C our tf i nds thatno l es s er - of

f ens e i ns truct i on w as
r equi r ed. I n B e c k

, the U
. S. Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned thatthe death s ent ence m ay notbe i m pos ed af

t era j ury ver di ctof

gui l ty of a capi t al of

f ens e w her e the j ury w as notperm i t t ed

### Ev en tho ug h life w ith paro le is no lo ng er ano ptio n un der our p arole law s, the same 2 

### ana lys is appl ie s be ca

usedeath i s not

an a utom atic se nte nceupo n conviction of ca pit al murd er. 26 to c o n s id e r a v e rd ic t o f g u ilt o f a le s s e r o ff e n s e . See G o o din v . S ta te , 787 So. 2d 639, 655 ( M i s s . 2001)
. T hi s C our thas hel d B eckto b e in a p p lic a b le to th is s tate ’s s tatu to ry c a p italm u rd e r se n ten c in g sc h e m e w h e re th e se n ten c e is u n tie d to th e c o n v ictio n a n d th e ju ry is ent i t l ed t o s ent ence a convi ct ed def endantt o death, l i f

e w i thoutpar ol e, orli fe w i th par ol e. I d. See a l so J a c kso n v. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). 2 ¶ 5 6 . In th e e n d , w e fin d tha t H o w e ll h a s n o t sh o w n th a t h is a tto rn e y s w e re c o n stitu tio n a lly in e ffe c tiv e a s to th is iss u e a n d th u s th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. X II. W H E T H E R T H E S T A T E M IS R E P R E S E N T E D H O W E L L ’S I NDI GENT S TA TU S ON AP PEAL OR, AL TE RNAT I VE LY , CO UNSEL W ERE I NEFF ECTI VE I N FAI LI NG TO S ECURE A FI NDI NG OF I NDI GENC E B Y T HE T RI AL COURT , AND W H E T H E R C O U N S E L F A IL E D T O S E E K A N D O B T A IN F U N D I N G F O R V A R I O U S D E F E N S E E X P E R T S . ¶57. H ow el l w as r epr es ent ed attr i al b y D un can L ott , w ho w as ass i s t ed by J ak Sm i th. A ppar ent l y, L ot tagr eed t o re pr es entH ow el l pr o bono as a f avort o H ow el l ’ s f

ather
. W hether H o w e ll w a s e n tit led to ex p e rt fu n d s w a s c o n tin g e n t on w h e th e r H o w e ll w a s in d ig e n t. In h is
concurr i ng opi ni on on H ow el l ’ s di r ectappea l , J us t i ce W al l er , j oi ned by thr ee otherj us t i ces and i n partby an addi t i onal j us t i ce, w oul d have f ound thatan ot herw i s e i ndi gentdef endant is en ti tl ed to ex p e rt fu n d ing ev en if that d efe n d an t i s b eing rep rese n ted b y an att o rne y p ro b o n o . Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at765 ( W al l er , J . , concurr i ng)
. H ow ever , J us t i ce W al l er ’ s opi ni on

### 27

m akes cl earthatno err orw as com m i t t ed i n thatH ow el l s uf f er ed no pr ej udi ce i n the r ef us al to p ro v id e e x p e rt fu n d s . I d. ¶58. H ow el l now cl ai m s t hati n t he di r ectappeal , t he St at e m i s r epr es ent ed t o t he C our t that H o w e ll w a s n o t in d ig e n t. H e p ro v id e s a n a ffid a v it fro m th e a tto rn e y w h o re p re se n ted H o w e ll pr i ort o L ot t ’ s entr y i nt o t he ca s e. T hatatt orney s t at es t hat he w as appoi nt ed t o r epr es ent H ow el l i n pr el i m i nary pr ocee di ngs and thathe neverw oul d ha ve been appoi nt ed i f ther e had been no f i ndi ng of i ndi gence . A f

t erthata t t orney cea s ed hi s r epr es ent at i on of H ow el l , the tr i al j udge ent er ed an or deral l ow i ng att orneys ’ f ees and expe ns es . T he or derr eci t es thatt he att orney i s t o be pai d “i nci dentt o his represent at i on of the above named i ndi gent . ” For
r eas ons unknow n, ne i therH ow el l northe St at e ment i oned thator deri n the or i gi nal br i ef i ng of thi s m att er . D es pi t e thator der , the St at e, i n i t s r es pons e t o the pet i t i on, m ai nt ai ns that“the p e titio n e r c o u ld n o t c ite to [s ic ] a n y in s ta n c e in th e re c o rd s u p p o rt in g h is c la im o f i n d ig e n c e .” T he St at e appa r ent l y m ai nt ai ns that , s i nce H ow el l w as l at err epr es ent ed by a pr o bono att orney of

hi s choos i ng, the pr evious f i ndi ng of i ndi gence had bee n ext i ngui s hed. I n l i ght of thator der , i ti s a ppar entthatthi s Court ’ s f i ndi ng thatH ow el l ha d ne verbe en det erm i ned to b e in d ig e n t w a s e rr o n e o u s . ¶ 5 9 . H o w e ll c laim s th a t h is a tto rn e y s sh o u ld h a v e so u g h t m o n e y fro m th e sta te in o rd e r to ret ai n d efense ex p erts w h o w ou l d h ave b een ab l e t o tes t i fy abou t(1) l i gh t i ng and defense per cept i on, ( 2) f

i ngerpr i ntanal ys i s , and ( 3) f i r earm s bal l i s t i cs . T he St at e m ai nt ai ns onl y t hat H o w e ll w a s n e v e r d e c lar e d to b e in d ig e n t an d th a t th e sta te w a s th e re fo re n o t re q u ire d to provide any funding for the p rocurem ent of defense exp ert s.

### 28

¶60. O n di r ectappea l , thi s C our tf ound that“[ s ] i nce H ow el l di d notproc eed as an i ndi gent
o r h a v e th e trial c o u rt d e c lar e h im to b e a n in d ig e n t, th e re is n o a u th o rity to re q u ire th e S tate t o f und hi s r eques tf

ordef ens e expe ns es . ” Ho w e ll v . S ta te , 860 So. 2d at721. A s not ed supra , the fin d in g in th e d ire c t ap p e a l th a t H o w e ll h a d n o t b e e n d e c la re d to b e in d ig e n t is in c o rre c t. H o w e ll h a d in fa c t b e e n fo u n d to b e in d ig e n t. T h e fa c t re m a in s, h o w e v e r, th a t in
o rd e r to b e e n tit led to s tate -fu n d e d e x p e rts, H o w e ll w a s re q u ire d to sh o w a n a c tu a l, sp e c ific
n e e d fo r t h o s e e x p e rt s . L o den v. S ta te , 9 7 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 8 , 5 6 3 -56 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) See a l so R u ffin v. S ta te , 44 7 S o. 2d 11 3, 11 8 (M i ss. 19 84 ) ( "[ a] n indi gen t ' s . . . ri gh tt o d efense expens es . . . i s condi t i oned upon a s how i ng tha ts uch expe ns es ar e nee ded t o pr epar e and p re se n t an a d e q u a te d e fe n se .”); G re e n v. S ta te , 63 1 So . 2d 16 7, 17 1- 72 ( M i s s . 1994) (“C o n cre te reaso n s for req u ir ing an e x p ert m u st be p rov ided b y the a cc u sed
. "). T h is C o u rt
o n d ire c t ap p e a l fo u n d n o p re ju d ice to H o w e ll. ¶61. H ow el l cl ai m s that he w as ent i t l ed t o a l i ght i ng- and- per cepti on s exp ert w ho m i ght have di s cr edi t ed R i ce’ s i dent i f i cat i on of H ow el l as the s hoot er . T hatexpert ’ s af f i davi thas been dis cussed p revi ou sl y. T he exp ertst at es t hat R i ce’s ident i fi cat i on w as suspectbecau se of the li gh t i ng , the dis t ance t o the subject , the rel at i ve p osi t i on i ng of the p art i es, and becau se R ic e i s w h it e a n d H o w e ll is b la c k . A s w e s ta te d in o u r d is c u s s io n o f I s s u e II I, supra , this i s s ue w as f

ul l y di s cus s ed and r es ol ved on di r ectappeal, an d al t ernat i vel y, f orthe r eas ons sta ted , this iss u e h a s n o m e rit. ¶62. H ow el l al s o now pr es ent s the af f i davi tof a f i ngerpr i nte xpert . The St at e’ s f i ngerpr i nt expertt es t i f

i ed attr i al thats ever al pa r t i al f i ngerpr i nt s ha d be en l i f

t ed f r om the w i ndow ar ea

### 29

of Pernel l ’ s vehi cl e butthat“ther e w er e no pr i nt s of val ue thatcoul d be compar ed t o anyone t o m ake a n i dent i f

i cat i on. ” H ow el l ’ s e xpertnow c l ai m s thatone of the part i al pr i nt s l i f

t ed from P ern ell ’s ve h icl e w as d etail ed en o u g h for an alys is. H e c lai m s tha t th e p ri n t “ap p ea rs t o be” par tof the l ef

ti ndex f i ngerand partof

the l ef tm i ddl e f

i ngerof s om e unknow n per s on. H e s t at es thatthe pr i ntl i f t ed f r om Pernel l ’ s vehi cl e has “a c oupl e” of di s t i nctf

eatur es and thatthos e di s t i nctf

eatur es can be di s t i ngui s hed f r om H ow el l ’ s know n pr i nt s . W e f i nd t hat the fing erp ri n t exp ert’s asserti o n s, ev en if a ssu m ed to b e true , d o n o t r eq u ir e a n ev iden ti ary heari ng on these i ssues. T here w as no tes t i m on y that H ow el l ev er t ou ched the w i nd ow po st
o f P ern ell ’s ca r. T h e fac t that P ern ell him self or a n y o ther u n k n o w n p erso n m igh t hav e left a p ri nt on t he carats om e poi ntpr i ort o the s hoot i ng does notl ead t o a conc l us i on t hat H ow el l w as notthe s hoot er . T he f i ngerpr i ntt es t i m ony w oul d have be en of m i ni m al
as s i s t ance t o the def

ens e. ¶63. A s t o the r eques t f or a f i r earm s bal l i s t i cs expert , w e f i nd that ther e has never been a n i s s ue aboutw hetherthe pi s t ol f ound be hi nd Bra ndon Shaw ’ s hous e w as the murde rw eapon. T h e S tate ’s fire a rm s e x p e rt m a tch e d th e p rojec til e fo u n d in P e rn e ll’s c h e st w a ll to th e L o rc in

. 380 c al i berpi s t ol
. H ow el l ’ s a r gum enta ttr i al a nd now i s thatR ay orL i ps ey s hotPernel l and then l ef tthe gun be hi nd Shaw ’ s hous e. H ow el l doe s pr es entthe af f i davi tof a purport ed fi rea rm s ex p ert w h o ex am ined the p isto l, the b u ll et, an d the s h ell ca sing
. H o w ell ’s ex p ert op i nes t hat the bu l l et“h as t he sam e ri fl i ng ch aract eri st i cs and som e m i croscopic s i m i l ari t i es”
as the pi s t ol , butt hatt he bul l etl acks suf f i ci entm i cr os copi c agr eementt o det erm i ne w hether the bul l etdef

i ni t i vel y came f

r om thatpar t i cul arpi s t ol
. L i kew i s e, H ow el l ’ s experts t at es t hat

### 30

th e c a rtrid g e c a se h a s a s im ilar firin g -p in im p re ss io n a s th e p isto l b u t in su ffic ien t d e tails to
m ake a pos i t i ve i dent i f

i cat i on. W e f

i nd t he i nconcl us i ve f

i r earm s t es t i m ony t o be i ns uf f i ci ent t o r equi r e a pos t - convi ct i on hear i ng on thi s i s s ue. XI I I . W HETH ER HO W ELL I S I NNO CENT. ¶64 . H ere, H ow el l s t at es that “[ n] o ph ysi cal evi den ce l i nk ed h im to the m u rde r of M r. Pernel l
. T he St at e had no f i ngerpr i nt s , no D N A , no f i ber s, no bal l i s t i cs , no conf es s i on, no pr opert y i n his p oss es s i on thatw as l i nked t o the vi ct i m , orany otherconcl us i ve, obj ect i ve evi dence thatl i nked M ar l on H ow el l to t he m ur derof D avi d Pernel l
. ” H ow el l al s o ar gues thatmany of

the w i tnes s es a gai ns tH ow el l ha ve r eca nt ed and thatR i ce ha s been di s cr edi t ed. ¶6 5. H ow el l al s o poi nt s t o the a f f i da vi tof Terke c i a Pa nn e l l , w ho a l l e ge s tha tRay and L ip se y c laim e d re sp o n sib ili ty fo r th e k ill in g . H o w e ll cla im s th a t th e cu m u lativ e res u lt o f a ll
o f h is a rg u m e n ts s e t o u t ab o v e is th a t h e is e n title d to a r e v e rsa l o f h is c o n v ictio n , o r a t a
m i ni mum , a n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng i n the tr i a l c ou r t . W e d i s a gr e e . H owel l ’ s g ui l thas been af f i xed by a j ury and af

f i r m ed by t hi s C our t . T w o eyew i tnes s es t es t i f i ed thatH ow el l w as t he
s hoot er . T he murde rw eapon w as f ound w her e H ow el l pr evi ousl y had b een. A s t at ement that“H ow el l s hota man” w as deemed an adopt i ve admi s s i on of gui l ta nd w as he ar d by t he j ury. H ow el l neede d m oney t o pay hi s pr obat i on off i cer . H e m ade a s t at ementaboutr obbi ng anotherm an pr i ort o thi s s hoot i ng. E ven af t erre vi ew i ng the r eca nt at i ons and the new af f i davi t s , w e f

i nd thatthe j ury’ s ver di cti s s uppor t ed by the evi dence
.

### 31

XI V. W HET HER T HE S TA TE S ’ S CL OSI NG ARGUM EN T W AS I M P ROP ER . ¶66. H ow el l ne xtc l ai m s thatthe di s tr i ctatt orney i m pr oper l y i nf l amed t he j ury by r ef

err i ng t o hi m w i th the ni ckname “C hi ef a” dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent . H ow el l m ai nt ai ns thatt he di s tr i ctatt orney’ s us e of the ni ckname w as m eantt o pl ay on the j ury’ s f ear s of gang vi ol ence . H o w e ll n o w c laim s th a t h is a d m itt e d n ick n a m e , “ C h ief a ,” h a d n o c o n n e c tio n to lea d e rsh ip in g an g ac ti v ity b u t i n stead referred to h is “n o n -vio lent n ature as w ell as h is t en d en cy to
s m oke mar i

j uana i n t he cont extof ‘ C hi ef a s m okes peac e pi pe. ’ ” The di s tr i ctatt orney r ef err ed t o H ow el l a s “ C hi ef

a” s ever al t i m es i n c l os i ng a r gum ent , a nd the def ens e att orney pos ed no obj ect i on. ¶67. W e f

i nd t hatt he cl ai m of i m pr opercl os i ng ar gum enti s proc edur al l y bar r ed. Fi r s t , no cont empora r y obj ect i on w as m ade. Second, thi s i s s ue coul d have be en r ai s ed i n the di r ect app eal
. B ecause itw as capab l e of r eview in previous proceed i ng s, iti s barr ed h ere. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 - 21 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). P roc ed u ral ba r no tw ith stan d ing , w e find n o erro r. T her e w as no di s cus s i on of any gang conne ct i on attr i al , and the r ecor d does notr evea l that th e n ick n a m e h a d a n y o b v io u s g a n g c o n n o tatio n . H o w e ll ad m its th a t “C h ief a ” w a s h is ni ckname. W e f

i nd thatthe pr os ecut orw as w i thi n r eas onabl e cl os i ng a r gum enti n r ef err i ng t o H ow el l by hi s admi t t ed ni ckname. A s w e f i nd no obj ect i onabl e er rorin the us e of t he
n i c k n a me , we a l s o f

i n d n o a t t o r n e y i n e f

f e c t i v e n e s s o n th i s c l a i m.

### 32

XV . W HE T HE R T HE S T AT E L AC KE D P RO B AB L E CA US E F OR THE AR RES T. ¶6 8. T he murde rof

Per nel l o c c urr e d on M a y 15 , 2 00 0. A tthe t i me, H ow el l w as on pr obat i on f

ora pr evi ous drug convi ct i on. A s a condi t i on of hi s pr obat i on, H ow el l w as
r equi r ed t o m ake a m onthl y paymentt o hi s probat i on o ff i cer . I n A pr i l 2000, af

t ers ever al
m onths of

m i s s ed payment s , H ow el l ’ s pr obat i on of f i ceri ni t i at ed the pr oces s of i s s ui ng an arr es tw arr antf

orH ow el l ; how ever , the w arr antw as note xecut ed. A f t erthe murde r , N ew A lb a n y p o lice o ffic e rs c o n tac ted th e p ro b a tio n o ff ic e to fin d o u t if the re w a s a n a v a ilab le phot ogr aph of

H ow el l
. A tthatt i m e they di s cover ed thatther e w as an out s t andi ng w arr ant f orH ow el l ’ s ar r es t . A proba t i on off i cersi gned t he w arr ant , and H ow el l w as ar r es t ed. A f t er the arr es t , H ow el l w as s ubj ect ed t o the l i neup and he al s o pr es ent ed hi s unver i f i abl e al i bi of bei ng i n C or i nth w i th an unknow n w om an. I n hi s pe t i t i on, H ow el l c l ai m s thatthe arr es tw as i l l e ga l a nd tha tthe c omm e nt s a nd the l i ne up w hi c h s t e mm e d f r om i ts ho ul d h a ve been
su p p resse d
. H o w ell l ikew ise claim s tha t l aw en forc em en t offi ce rs sh o u ld h av e b ee n aw are th a t th e trial ju d g e h a d h e ld a h e a ri n g o n th e m o rn in g o f M a y 1 5 a n d g ra n ted H o w e ll a
c o n tin u a n c e to p a y th e p ro b a tio n a rr e a ra g e . ¶69. T hi s m att er w as r ai s ed at the tr i al court l evel and w as dis cusse d i n H ow el l ’ s di r ect
a p p e a l. Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at731. T hi s C our tfound thatthe arr es tw as pr oper ; ther ef or e, this clai m is pro ce d u rall y b arred
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -21 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶70. H ow el l ’ s new w r i nkl e at thi s st age i n t he proceedi ngs i s that the St at e s houl d have know n thaton the s ame day thatthe w arr antw as exec ut ed, the tr i al j udge had e xt ended the

### 33

tim e fo r m a k in g th e p a st-d u e p ro b a tio n p a y m e n ts. T h e S tate fa ils to a d d re ss th is iss u e in its
r es pons e. ¶7 1. W e f

i nd t hatt he evi de nc e a dd uc e d a s a r e s ul tof the a rr e s tw a s pr op e r l y a dmi t t e d. T h is C o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d a g o o d -fa ith e x c e p tio n to th e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le in c e rta in
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See W

h ite v . S ta te , 84 2 S o . 2d 56 5 , 57 0 (M iss. 20 0 3 ). W h e re th e o ffi ce rs e x e c u te th e w a rra n t i n g o o d faith an d rea so n a b ly re ly o n th e w a rra n t, th e e v id e n c e is p ro p e rly
a d m itt e d
. T h e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th e o ffic e rs w h o a rre ste d o r q u e stio n e d H o w e ll
e x h ib ite d a n y b a d fa ith in re ly in g o n th e w a rr a n t. T h is is s u e is th u s w ith o u t m e ri t. XVI . W HETH ER CO UNSEL W ERE I NEFF ECTI VE I N FAI LI NG TO I NVE S TI GATE AND P RE S EN T R EL EV ANT F ACT S AB OUT THE AR RES T. ¶72. H ow el l m ai nt ai ns that hi s att orneys at tr i al f ai l ed t o pr oper l y i nves t i gat e and pr es ent evi dence aboutthe pr obat i on- vi ol at i on w arr ant . A l though H ow el l ’ s tr i al att orneys pr es ent ed
ar gum ent s thatthe arr es thad bee n i l l egal and s oughts uppr es s i on of any evi dence r es ul t i ng ther ef r om , H ow el l now cl ai m s thatthe att orneys s houl d ha ve i nves t i gat ed the cl erk’ s not es f r om the M ay 15 hea r i ng. H e al s o cl ai m s t hatt he att orneys s houl d have que s t i oned w i tnes s es
w ho w er e i n the courtr oom dur i ng the hea r i ng. H ow el l as s ert s thathi s att orneys s houl d have
so u g h t ev id e n c e in su p p o rt o f a rg u m e n ts th a t H o w e ll h a d re c e iv e d a n e x ten sio n o f h is
o b lig a tio n to p a y h is p ro b a tio n o ffic e r. I n its re sp o n se , th e S tate c laim s o n ly th a t th e v a lid ity of the w arr antw as r ai s ed on appe al
. T he St at e does notaddr es s the mer i t s of the i nef f ect i veas s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m . A s w e h ave found thatthe arr es tw as l egal , w e f i nd no d e fi c ie n c y o n th e p a rt o f H o w e ll’ s a tto rn e y s ; th e re fo re , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 34

XVI I . W HETH ER CO UNSEL W ERE I NEFF ECTI VE I N FAI LI NG TO DOCUM EN T A ND P RE S ER VE THE CHANGE - OF - VE NUE M OTI ON. ¶73. T he m ur der occurr ed i n U ni on C ounty, and, pr i or t o tr i al , H ow el l ’ s att orneys ar gued thatpr etr i al publ i ci ty pr event ed H ow el l f r om r ece i vi ng a f

ai rtr i al i n U ni on C ounty. I n t he
m ot i on t o t r ans f

ervenue, H ow el l ’ s a t t orney r ef err ed t o s ever al new s paperart i cl es and one t el evi s i on r eportaboutthe murde r . H ow el l s ubm i t t ed s even a f f i davi t s f r om ci t i zens w ho
s t at ed thathe c oul d notr ece i ve a f ai rtr i al i n U ni on Count y. T he St at e cal l ed sever al
w i tnes s es atthe hear i ng on t he mot i on t o tr ans f ervenue. T he w i tnes s es i ncl uded the U ni on C o u n ty c h a n c e ry c ler k , a fo rm e r U n io n C o u n ty c irc u it cle rk , an d tw o c u rre n t U n io n C o u n ty supervi sors . A l l of the U nion C ou nty off i cial s t est i fi ed thatdis cussi on of the H ow el l case had bee n m i ni m al and thatH ow el l coul d r ece i ve a f ai rtr i al i n U ni on C ounty. T he mot i on t o tr ans f ervenue w as deni ed af t erthe t ri al j udge f

ound thatthe St at e had ove r come t he pr es um pt i on of

part i al i ty a nd thatthe def endantc oul d r ece i ve a f ai rtr i al i n U ni on C ounty. ¶7 4 . T h e m erit s o f th e ch an g e-o f-ve n u e m o ti o n w ere d iscu ssed in the d ir ec t ap p ea l, w h ere th is C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d n o t ab u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to tr a n s fe r v e n u e . Ho w e ll , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d at 72 0 . T h is C o u rtfurthe r rev iew ed the ju ry v en ir e’s
r es pons es t o the tr i al court ’ s que s t i ons a boutpubl i ci ty a nd the j ur or s ’ abi l i ty t o f ai r l y j udge th e e v id e n c e . T h e C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t p re tr ia l p u b lic ity h a d n o t t a in te d th e ju ry p o o l. Id . ¶75. H ow el l now cl ai m s that hi s att orney f ai l ed t o adequa t el y i nves t i gat e and pr es entt he
m ot i on t o tr ans f

ervenue. H e of

f er s t he af f i davi tof a N or th C ar ol i na att orney w ho s t at es t hat the att orney w as i nef

f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o documentotherU ni on Count y c as es w her e venue

### 35

w as change d “w hi ch w oul d have s how n venue change s i n f arl es s publ i c ca s es . ” The af f i ant p r o d u c e s n o s u c h Un i o n Co u n ty c a s e s f o ru s t o r e v i e w. Th e o u t - o f
- s t a t e a t t o rn e y a l s o c l a i ms thatther e w as i nadequa t e br i ef i ng of t he m oti on t o change venue. H ow el l pr ovi des no sp e c ific a rg u m e n t a s to w h a t sh o u ld h a v e b e e n b rie fe d o r h o w a n y d iffe re n t ar g u m e n t w o u ld h a v e y ield e d a b e tter re su lt. In it s re sp o n se , th e S tate d o e s n o t ad d re s s th e a ffid a v its p rese n ted b y H o w ell an d p o ses n o arg u m en t as t o the m erit s o f th e ine ffecti v e-a ssist an ce -ofc o u n s e l c l a i m. ¶76. W e f

i nd that H ow el l ’ s att orney f i l ed a m oti on t o chan ge venue and s uppor t ed that
m o ti o n w ith nu m ero u s affi d av it s an d all kn o w n rel ev an t p ress d o cu m en tat ion
. T h e tri al co u rt h eld a h ea ri n g an d d eterm ined that a fa irtr ial co u ld b e h eld in U n ion C o u n ty, an d this C o u rt fou n d n o erro r on ap p ea l. T h e att o rne y ad eq u ately b ri efe d an d arg u ed the m o ti o n . T h e m ere f actthatthe mot i on t o tr ans f ervenue w as notgr ant ed does notl ead t o a fi ndi ng of i nef f ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. W e fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. XVI I I . W HET HER C OUNS EL W ER E I NE F F EC TI VE I N F AI LI NG

T O D E VE LOP AND P RE S EN T E VI DE NCE I N M I TI GAT I ON DUR I NG THE PENALTY PHASE OF TRI AL. ¶77. A f

t erH ow el l w as c onvi ct ed of c api t al murde r , the tr i al moved t o the penal ty phas e, atw hi ch t i m e the St at e s oughtthe dea th penal ty. I n m i t i gat i on , the de f ens e pr ovi ded t es t i m ony f

r om s ever al w i tnes s es . T om m y Shoem akert es t i f i ed thathe w as a managerat W al
- M art , thathe had be en H ow el l ’ s s upervi s orf ors i x t o e i ghtmont hs , and thatH ow el l had b e e n a s a t i s f

a c t o r y e mp l o y e e . E l a i n e S i mo n s o n , a l o n g - t i me f a mi l y f r i e n d wh o h a d k n o wn H ow el l al l of hi s l i f

e, t es t i f i ed thatH ow el l w as a r es pect abl e, l i keabl e, and ki nd per s on w ho

### 36

w as not pr on e t o v i olenc e. H ow el l ’s si st er, A presha P rather, t est i fi ed thatH ow el l w as a lov ing p erso n w h o w as o n ly tw en ty y ea rs old at th e ti m e o f th e crim e. L ikew ise, i t app ea rs f r om the r ecor d thatH ow el l ’ s m otherhad bee n pr epar ed t o t es t i f y i n the mi t i gat i on phas e but
w as unabl e t o t es t i f

y due t o bei ng ups etby the ver di cti n the gui l tphas e. ¶ 7 8 . Ho we l l n o w a r g u e s th a t th e tr i a l a t t o rn e y s we r e i n e f f e c t i v e i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . He
c l a i ms th a tth e a t t o r n e y s s h o u l d h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d Ho we l l ’ s s c h o o l r e c o r d s . Af t e rr e v i e w,
w e f i nd thos e r ecor ds t o be unr emar kabl e i ns of aras pr ovi di ng any bene fi tconce r ni ng
m iti g a tio n in th e p e n a lty p h a se o f th e trial. ¶7 9. H ow el l a l s o c l a i ms tha tthe tr i a l a t t orne ys s ho ul d ha ve c a l l e d B r andon Shaw and H ow el l ’ s t w o co- def

endant s , R ay and Li ps ey, t o t es t i f y. Shaw , R ay, an d L i ps ey have pr ovi ded af

f i davi t s i n w hi ch they cl ai m thatH ow el l w as not a viol entper s on. L i ps ey t es t i f i ed attr i al thatH ow el l ki l l ed Pernel l
. Shaw t es t i f i ed thatH ow el l di s cus s ed r obbi ng a
m an pr i ort o the eve ntual ki l l i ng. T hei rcurr entaf f i davi ttes t i m on y w oul d have be en unbel i evabl e on the hee l s of tr i al t es t i m ony t o the co ntr ary. R ay and Li ps ey had pl eade d gui l ty t o m ans l aught eri n Per nel l ’ s ki l l i ng. T he val ue of thei r t est i m ony f

orH ow el l i n t he
m iti g a tio n p h a se w o u ld h a v e b e e n n e g lig ib le in lig h t o f th e ir tria l tes tim o n y d u rin g th e g u ilt phas e. H ow el l al s o cl ai m s thatcouns el s houl d have c al l ed w i t ness es i n m i t i gat i on w ho
w oul d have t es t i f

i ed thatthe true meani ng of H ow el l ’ s “C hi ef

a” ni ckname had no gang connot at i ons butr ef

erred t o H ow el l ’ s pr opens i ty t o s m oke mar i j uana l i ke an I ndi an chi ef
s m okes a pea ce pi pe. T he att orneys w oul d ha ve been under s t andabl y r el uct antt o br i ng t he j ury’ s att ent i on t o addi t i onal l aw - br eaki ng by H ow el l
. A l s o, H ow el l r el i es i n parton t he

### 37

a ffid a v it o f D u n c a n L o tt, w h o sta tes th a t h is f a ilu re to in ter v iew w itn e ss e s a n d c o n su lt w ith expert s amount ed t o i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. A f t era ful l r evi ew of

the mi t i gat i on evi dence pr es ent ed dur i ng the pena l ty phas e and the af f i davi t s of f er ed i n the pos t - convi ct i on p ro c e e d in g s, w e d isa g re e . H o w e ll h a s o ffe re d n o su b sta n tial m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e w h ich h is att orneys f

ai l ed t o pr es ent ; ther ef

or e, w e f i nd H ow el l ’ s cl ai m o f i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n se l in d e v e lo p in g a n d p re se n tin g m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. X IX . W H E T H E R T H E C U M U L A T IV E E F F E C T O F C O U N S E L ’S PERF OR M ANC E AT THE TRI AL AND APP ELLATE L EVELS W AS I NEFF ECTI VE. ¶80. I n cons i der i ng t hes e tw o i s s ues t ogether , w e ar e mi ndf ul of w hatw e s t at ed i n B

yr om v. S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ): [ U ] pon appel l at e r evi ew of cas es i n w hi ch w e f

i nd ha r m l es s e rr ororany err or w hi ch i s nots peci f

i cal l y f ound t o be r ever s i bl e i n and of i t s el f , w e s hal l have the di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne, on a cas e- by- cas e bas i s , as t o w hethers uch err or orerr or s , a l though notr ever s i bl e w hen s t andi ng a l one, may w hen cons i der ed cumul at i vel y r equi r e r ever s al be caus e of the r es ul t i ng cumul at i ve pr ej udi ci al effec t. T h at ha v ing b ee n said, for the rea so n s h ere in stated , w e find that erro rs as m ay ap pear i n the r ecord b efor e us i n t od ay' s case, ar e i nd i vidual l y h arm l ess b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, a n d w h e n tak e n cu m u lativ e ly , th e eff e c t o f a ll erro rs co m m itted d u ri n g the tri al d id n o t dep ri v e M iche ll e B y rom o f a fu n d a m e n ta lly fa ira n d im p a rt ia l tr ia l. I d . a t 8 4 7 . ¶81. A ppl yi ng the B

yr om cr i t er i a, w e fi nd n o i nd i cat i on s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n s e l o u tsid e th e C o u rt’s s p e c ific f in d in g s o f p o ss ib le in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l,
an d w e thu s fi n d n o cu m u lat ive e rror. XX . W HETH ER H OW ELL W AS P REJ UDI CE D B Y T HE PRET R IA L L IN E U P P R O C E D U R E S A N D W H E T H E R H O W E L L ’S

### 38 COUNS EL RE NDE RE D I NE F F EC TI VE AS S I S TA NCE AT TR I AL CO NC E RN I NG E VI DE NC E RE L AT I NG T O T HE LI NE UP. ¶82. O n the day af

t er the cr i m e, H ow el l w as pl ace d i n a po l i ce l i neup i n w hi ch C har l es R i ce identi fi ed him as the shoo t er. In a subsequ ent heari ng on H ow el l ’s m oti on t o sup press th e lin e u p e v id e n c e , th e N e w A lb a n y C h ief o f P o lice te stifie d th a t h e b e liev e d th a t H o w e ll had bee n r epr es ent ed atthe l i neup by att orney R egan Russ el l
. I tappea r s f r om the r ecor d t hat th e tria l ju d g e fo u n d th a t H o w e ll h a d b e e n re p re se n ted b y R u ss e ll. In th e d ire c t ap p e a l, th is C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e li n e u p w a s n o t ov e rly su g g e stiv e a n d th a t th e trial ju d g e d id n o t er r in
a llo w in g th e lin e u p tes tim o n y . H o w e ll n o w c laim s th a t th e S tate m isre p re se n ted h is
r epr es ent at i on by couns el atthe l i neup, a nd that , i n f act , he ha d ha d no att orney atthe l i neup. I n the pet i t i on, H ow el l pr es ent s the af f i davi tof R egan Russ el l , w ho s t at es thathe w as not pr es entatthe l i neup and di d notr epr es entH ow el l atthatpoi nti n t i m e. ¶8 3. I n i t s r e s po ns e , the St a t e c l a i ms tha tthe p ol i ce c hi ef m i s s t at ed w ho r epr es ent ed H ow el l
. T he C hi ef

has now s w orn by af

f i davi tthatpubl i c def

enderT om M cD onough
ac tually w as p rese n t and rep rese n ted H o w ell at the li n eu p . T h e S tat e a rgu es th at H o w ell ’s
re p re s e n tatio n a t th e lin e u p sta g e w a s d isc o v e ra b le p rio r to trial a n d is b a rre d in th e p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . T he St at e al s o ar gues thatH ow el l w as r epr es ent ed atthe hea r i ng, a n d w h e th e r th e a tto rn e y w a s R u ss e ll o r M c D o n o u g h is im m a ter ial. ¶8 4. I n hi s r epl y t o t he St a t e ’ s r es pons e, H ow el l s ubm i t s an af f i davi tf r om T om M cD onough, w ho s w ear s thathe neve rr epr es ent ed H ow el l i n thi s c as e and w as notpr es ent atthe l i neup. H ow el l ’ s tr i al att orney di d fi l e a m oti on to s uppr es s the l i neup i n w hi ch he

### 39

al l eged thatH ow el l w as notr epr es ent ed atthe l i neup. H ow el l ’ s att orney appa r ent l y m ade no ef f or tt o conf

i r m w hetherR us s el l had bee n pr es entatthe l i neup ornot . H e pr es ent ed no evi dence i n s uppor tof

hi s ar gum entt hatH ow el l had notbeen notr epr es ent ed atthatcr i t i cal sta g e . H o w e ll n o w c laim s th a t h is p re v io u s a tto rn e y w a s in e ffe c tiv e in fa ili n g to in v e stig a te
w hetherH ow el l had an a t t orney pr es entatthe l i neup. ¶85. T he St at e argues in pa rtthatw hetherH ow el l had an a t t orney atthe l i neup i s not decis i ve. T he S t at e ci t es L a ttim o re v. S ta te , 9 5 8 S o . 2 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ), in w h ich th is C our tf ound t hatpr ocedur al pr obl ems i n the l i neup w er e notsuf f i ci ent l y pr ej udi ci al i n l i ght
o f th e w itn e ss ’s c lea r id e n tifica tio n a t trial. ¶8 6. I n l i ghtof t he af f i da vi t s f r om R us s e l l a nd M c D on ou gh , w e a r e un a bl e t o f i nd t hat H ow el l ’ s att orney w as noti nef f ect i ve i n hi s r epr es ent at i on thr ough the s uppr es s i on hear i ng. R ice ’s id e n tifica tio n o f H o w e ll w a s o b v io u sly c ru c ial to th e S tate ’s c a se . M in im a l ef fo rts on the partof

tr i al couns el coul d ha ve conf i r m ed R us s el l ’ s pr es ence ornon- pr es ence atthe l i neup. W e thus f

i nd thes e i s s ues t o hav e m er i t , and an e vi dent i ary hear i ng i s r equi r ed on thes e combi ned i s s ues of w hetherH ow el l ’ s att orney w as i nef f ect i ve atthe l i neup s t age. XX I . W H ET H ER TH E STATE FAI LED TO D I SC LO SE I NFORM ATI ON ABOU T TERKECI A PANNELL. ¶87. T erkeci a Pannel l w as B r andon Shaw ’ s gi r l fr i end at the t i m e of the m ur der
. O n t he ni ghtof t he c r i me, s he w a s w i th Sh a w a tSha w ’ s ho us e w he n How e l l , Ray, a nd Li ps ey
r eturned af

t erthe murde r . She w as ques t i oned by pol i ce and gave a s t at ementi n w hi ch s he cl ai m ed thatShaw had gi ven H ow el l a r i de home and thatShaw had s ai d thatH ow el l had

### 40

to ld h im th a t h e h a d k ille d a w h ite m a n o n th e n o rth sid e o f to w n . S h e w a s s u b p o e n a e d to t e s t i f y a ttr i a l b u twa s n o tc a l l e d
. P a n n e l l h a s n o w s u b mi t t e d a n a f f i d a v i ti n wh i c h s h e c l a i ms thats he t ol d pr os ecut or s thats he hear d Ray and L i ps ey s ay thatthey had s hota w hi t e man. She cl ai m s thats he hea r d R ay and L i ps ey di s cus s hi di ng t he gun behi nd the hous e. She now cl ai m s thatthe pr os ecut or s att empt ed t o gethert o t es t i f y thats he s aw H ow el l w i th the gun
o r h e a rd H o w e ll sa y th a t h e sh o t th e v ic tim . S h e sta tes th a t sh e in sis ted o n tellin g th e tru th and that , as a r es ul t , the St at e neve rcal l ed hert o t es t i f y. She cl ai m s thatl aw enf or cement of f i ci al s pr es s ur ed heri nt o si gni ng t he i ni t i al st at ement , butshe pr ovi des no s peci f i cs of t hat al l eged c oer ci on. She al s o cl ai m s thats he neve rr ead the s t at emen tshe gave t o l aw enf or cementdur i ng the i ni t i al i nves t i gat i on. H ow ever , thatcl ai m of ne verhavi ng r ead the
s t at ementi s bel i ed by the evi dence thats he made change s i n the mi ddl e of hers t at ementand i nit i al ed those chan ges. ¶8 8 . H o w ell claim s that P an n ell ’s su b seq u en t stat em en ts to p rose cu tors w ere ex cu lpato ry and w er e notdi s cl os ed t o the def ens e i n vi ol at i on of

B r ady a n d th e d isc o v e ry ru les . T h e S tate
s i m pl y m ai nt ai ns thatPannel l ’ s pr es entt es t i m ony i s notcr edi bl e. W e f i nd thatthi s i s s ue l i kew i s e has m er i tand thus m us tbe r es ol ved by w ay of an evi dent i ary he ar i ng t o det erm i ne the v al i dity o f Pann el l ’s presentcl ai m s. XX I I . W HE T HE R C OU NS EL W E RE I NE F F E CT I VE I N R E L AT I ON TO TERK ECI A PANNELL’ S S TATEM ENT. ¶8 9 . A ltern a tiv e ly , H o w e ll cla im s th a t h is att o rn e y s w e re in e ffe c tiv e in fa ili n g to i nves t i gat e Pannel l ’ s cl ai m s and t o cal l hert o t es t i f y attr i al
. Pannel l w as know n t o t he

### 41

def ens e. She w as l i s t ed as a St at e’ s w i tnes s and w as subpoena ed t o t es t i f y. H ers t at ement t o l aw e nf

or cementha d be en pr ovi ded t o the def ens e i n di s covery. Y eti tappea r s f r om the
r ecor d thats he w as neverques t i oned by the def ens e. Si nce w e have f

ound thatH ow el l w as ent i t l ed t o an evident i ary hear i ng on I s s ue X X I conce rni ng T erkeci a Pannel l , w e f i nd t hat H o w ell li k ew ise i s en ti tl ed to an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g o n w h ethe r his att o rne y s w ere i nef f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e Pannel l ’ s s t at ementand pos s i bl e t es t i m ony.

CO NC L US I ON ¶ 9 0 . T h e p e titio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief sh o u ld b e d e n ied in p a rt a n d g ra n ted in p a rt. H ow el l i s e nt i t l ed t o a n e vi dent i ary he ar i ng on the cl ai m s of R i ce’ s r eca nt ed t es t i m ony, the iss u e s re late d to h is re p re se n tatio n o r la c k th e re o f a t th e lin e u p , an d o n iss u e s re late d to T erk ec ia P an n ell ’s all eg ed ex cu lpato ry statem en ts. A s to th e rem ainin g issue s, H o w ell ’s pet i t i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s deni ed. ¶ 9 1 . AP P LI CAT I ON FOR POS T- CO NVI CTI ON RE LI EF I S DE NI ED I N P ART AND GR ANTED I N PART. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R . E A S L E Y , J ., D I S S E N T S W I T H O U T S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N . D I A Z , P .J ., CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y G R A V E S A N D D I C K I N SO N , JJ. DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N P ART AND DI S S EN TI NG I N PART: ¶92. I concur w i th the m aj or i ty opi ni on, but f i nd that H ow el l i s al so enti t l ed t o r el i ef on the s uppr es s i on of

L i ps ey’ s i ni t i al s t at ementand Li ps ey’ s r eca nt at i on.

### 42

¶9 3 . R e g a rd in g L ipse y ’s i n it ial st atem en t, th e m a jo rity fin d s th e iss u e w ith o u t m e rit b e c a u se “ [t] h e o n ly c h a n g e b e tw e e n th e first sta tem e n t a n d th e se c o n d sta tem e n t re late d to L ip se y ’s o w n c u lp a b ili ty .” H o w e v e r, th e m a jo rity is m ista k e n , as L ip se y ’s c u rre n t af fid a v it
c lea rly sta tes tha t no n e o f th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re inv o lv e d : “ We d id n o t sh o o t M r. P e rn e ll. T hi s i ncl uded M ar l on and w as the truth. ” ¶9 4 . T h is e rro n e o u s c o n c lu sio n a lso s u p p o rts the m ajority ’s fi n d ing that the is su e is pr ocedur al l y barr ed bec ause i tw as “ di s cus s ed f ul l y attr i al
. ” W hi l e Li ps ey di d of f er tes tim o n y a t trial a s to th e c o n ten ts o f h is firs t sta tem e n t, i t is d ire c tly c o n tra d icte d b y h is
curr entaf

f i davi t . T her ef

or e, thi s i s s ue coul d notha ve been di s cus s ed attr i al , and the mat t er i s notpr ocedur al l y barr ed. ¶95. I al s o f

i nd thatH ow el l has s uf f i ci ent l y demonstr at ed evi dence of a Bra dy viol at i on
w hich en t i t l es him to po st -convict i on rel i ef. A s t he m aj ori ty ex plai ns, i n o rdert o est abli sh
a B r ady vi ol at i on, t he defend antm us ts how : “( 1) thatthe governm entpos s es s ed evi dence f avor abl e t o t he def

endant(i ncl udi ng i m peac hm entevi dence ) ; ( 2) thatthe def endantdoes not pos s e s s the e vi de nc e n orc ou l d he o bt a i n i th i mse l f wi th a ny r e a s on a bl e d i l i ge nc e ; ( 3) t hat the pr os ecut i on s uppr es s ed the f avor abl e evi dence ; and ( 4) thathad the evi dence been di s cl os ed t o the def

ens e, a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty exi s t s thatthe out come of the pr ocee di ngs
w oul d have be en di f

f er ent . ” How ard , 945 So. 2d 326, 337 ( M i s s . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). ¶ 9 6 . M o re o v e r, w h e n th e “ re liab ili ty o f a g iv e n w itn e ss m a y w e ll b e d e ter m in a tiv e o f g u ilt
ori nnocenc e, ” i m peac hm entevi dence af f ect i ng the cr edi bi l i ty of

thatw i tnes s s houl d notbeI al s o not e thatR ul e 9. 04 of the U ni f or m R ul es of

ci r cui ta nd Count y CourtPr act i ce 3 r equi r ed the St at e t o di s cl os e “na m es and addr es s es of a l l w i tnes s es i n chi ef

pr opos ed t o be o ffered b y the p rose cu tio n a t tri al, tog ethe r w ith a c o p y o f th e c o n tents o f any s tat em ent , w r i t t en r ecor ded orotherw i s e pr es erved of e ach s uch w i tnes s and the s ubs t ance of any or al stat em en t m ad e b y an y w itn ess.” (em p h asis su p p li ed ). 

### 43 c o n c e a le d b y th e p ro s e c u tio n . N a p u e v. Illin o is , 360 U . S. 264 , 269 , 3 L. Ed. 2d 12 17 , 79 S. C t . 1173 ( 1959)
. T he duty t o pr ovi de B r ady e v id e n c e e x te n d s e v e n to e v id e n c e th a t is “know n onl y t o pol i ce i nves t i gat or s and nott o t he pr os ecut or . ” Y ou n gb loo d v. W

est V irg in ia , 547 U . S. 867, 869- 870, 126 S. C t . 2188, 165 L . E d. 269 ( 2006) ( quot i ng K yles v. W hitley , 514 U . S. 419, 438, 1155 S. Ct . 1555, 131 L . Ed. 2d 490 ( 1995) )
. “[ T ] he i ndi vi dual pr osecutor ha s a duty t o l earn of any f avor abl e evi dence know n t o the other s act i ng on t he governm ent ' s behal f

i n t he ca s e, i ncl udi ng the pol i ce. ” K yles , 5 1 4 U .S . a t 4 3 7 . ¶9 7. L i ps ey cl ai m s t hat “ [ m] y f i r s t s t a t e ment w hi c h I s i gn e d a ng e r e d the of f i c e r s . They rip p e d it u p w ith o u t m y p e rm iss io n an d told m e tha t I w a s g o in g to g e t d e a th o r life if I d id notcooper at e. ” Import ant l y, the St at e does notdis put e that the in terrog ati n g o ffi ce rs d e stro y e d th is firs t sta tem e n t o r th a t th e p ro se c u tio n d id n o t k n o w a b o u t th is s ta te m e n t. A d d iti o n a lly , the S tate d o e s n o t ad d re ss w h e th e r th e sta tem e n t co u ld h a v e b e e n u se d to i m peac h L i ps ey, one of the St at e’ s key w i tnes s es . B eca us e t he f i r s tst at ementw as des tr oyed, the def ens e coul d nothave l earned t he cont ent s of thi s st at ement . T aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on ourhei ght ened s crut i ny of death penal ty cas es , H ow el l i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng a s to w h e th e r th e S tate d e stro y e d e x c u lp a to ry im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e a ffe c tin g th e c re d ib ili ty
o f a m aterial w itn ess in v iolati o n o f B r ady . 3

### 44

¶9 8 . T h e su p p ression o f this init ial statem en t also su p p o rt s H o w ell ’s a rgu m en t th at h e is ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng as t o L i psey’ s r eca nt at i on. L i ps ey w as i nt egr al t o t he St at e’ s cas e, as he w as one of tw o eyew i tnes s es t o the cr i m e. “[ T ] he val i di ty of a r eca nt at i on by the ce ntr al w i tness t o a cr i m e ca nnotbe s um m ar i l y r es ol ved. T her e m ustb e a [p o stconvi ct i on] hear i ng. ” H a rdim a n v. S ta te , 789 So. 2d 814, 817 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) (S o u thw ick, J. ) (em p h asis su p p li ed ). ¶ 9 9 . F o r th e se re a so n s, I c o n c u r in p a rt a n d d iss e n t in p a rt. GRAVE S AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.