FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 30, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14595

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 0 2 8 - CV J A C K E . A L D E R M A N ,
P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W I L L I A M T E R R Y , W a r d e n , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 30. 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N , an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T JO F L A T , C i rc ui tJudg e: T he pe t i t i one r , J a c k E . A l de r m a n, i s a G e or gi a pr i s one ron de a th r ow , ha vi ngThe Six th Amendment to the United States Constitut ion gua rante es a criminal 1 defendant in federal c ourt the right to the effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. J ohnson v. Z erbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462, 58 S. C t. 1019, 1022, 82 L . Ed. 1461 (1938). This right is gua rante ed a de fenda

nt in a state c ourt criminal prose cution by the Due Proc ess Clause of theFour teenth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 342, 83 S. C t. 792, 795, 9 L . Ed. 2d 799 (1963). 2 be e n c onvi c t e d of

the 1974 m ur de rof

hi s w i f e , B a rba r a J . A l de r m a n, i n the S up er i or C ou rtof C hatham C ou nty, G eorgi a. O n Jul y 16, 20 04 , the U ni t ed S t at es D i s tr i c tC our tf

orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof G e or gi a de ni e d hi s pe t i t i on f ora w r i tof habe a s c orpus , a nd he appe a l e d. W e gr a nt e d hi s appl i c a t i on f ora c e r t i f

i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty a s t o one i s s ue : w he the rA l de r m a n’ s tr i a l a tt orne y s de ni e d hi m the e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l i n the pe na l ty pha s e of hi s s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ngs by f a i l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd pr e s e ntt o the j ury hi s s oc i a l - hi s t ory ba c kgr ound. 1 F rom the t i m e of the m urder t o the pres entappeal , thi s c as e has ext ended o v e rth ir ty - tw o y e a r s . N e e d le s s to s a y , th e p r o c e d u r a l h is to ry o f th is c a s e is ex t en si v e an d co m p l ex . F o r th e sak e o f cl ari ty, w e o rg an i ze th e o p i n i o n as fo l l o w s: partI provi des the fa ctual backgrou nd and p roce du ra l hi st ory of the ca se ; partII fo cu se s o n A ld er m an ’s 1 9 8 4 re -s en ten cin g trial; p ar t III o u tl in es A ld er m an ’s in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im , th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d to th e S u p e r io rC o u r t o f B u tts C o u n ty, G eo rg ia at th e e v id en ti ar y h ea rin g ith eld o n th e c laim , an d th at co u rt’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w ; p a r t I V s p e lls o u t A ld e r m a n ’s c h a lle n g e to thos e f i ndi ngs a nd c onc l us i ons a nd e xpl a i ns w hy w e c a nnotove r turn the m a nd,In Alderma n v. Z ant, we affirme d the district court’s denial of a writ of habe as cor pus 2 on c laims tha

t areno t im

pli c ate d in

thi s a pp e al. 3 th erefo re, m u std en y th e rel i ef th atA l d erm an seek s. I. A . T he f ol l ow i ng s t a t e m e ntof

f a c t s i s a n e xc e rptf

r om A l de r m a n v. Z a nt , 22 F . 3d 15 41 , 15 44 –1 54 6 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). 2

T he P et i t i on er , Ja ck E . A l derm an (“ A l derm an”) , and h i s w i fe , B a rb a r a A ld e r m a n ( “M r s . A ld e r m a n ” ) , liv e d in a n ap a r tm e n t in C ha tha m C ounty [ , ] G e or gi a . A l de r m a n w a s e m pl oy e d a s a n a s s i s t a nt m anager a tthe l ocal P i gg l y W i gg l y s up erm arket . M rs . A l derm an w as em pl oyed i n the T ax A ss es sor’ s off i ce for the C i ty of S avannah. In c onj unc t i on w i th he re m pl oy m e nt , M r s . A l de r m a n m a i nt a i ne d a $10, 000. 00 l i f

e i ns ur a nc e pol i c y tha tpa i d doubl e be ne f i t s i n the e ve nt of ac ci dent al death. M rs . A l derm an al so had ano ther l i fe i nsurance po l i cy i n the am ou ntof $2 5, 00 0. 00 w hi ch nam ed her m other a s b en efi ci ary. A l derm an m etJohn A rthu r B row n (“ B row n”), l at erconv i ct ed a s a n a c c e s s ory t o M r s . A l de r m a n’ s m ur de r , w he n both A l de r m a n a nd B r ow n w e r e e m pl oy e d i n the ve hi c l e m a i nt e na nc e de pa r tm e ntf orthe C i ty of S a va nna h. B r ow n t e s t i f i e d tha ton S e pt e m be r19, 1974, A ld e r m a n p h o n e d B r o w n a n d a s k e d h im to m e e t h im a t th e P ig g ly W i gg l y s up erm arket . B row n st at ed thatdu ri ng thi s m ee t i ng A l derm an as ked B row n t o k i l l M rs . A l derm an i n exchang e f or hal f the i nsurance p ro ceed s. B ro w n , al th o u g h cl ai m i n g n o tt o t ak e A l d erm an seri o u sl y, a c c e pt e d the pr opos i t i on. O n S a tu r d a y , S e p te m b e r2 1 , 1 9 7 4 , A ld e r m a n a s k e d B r o w n to com e t o h i s apartm ent . W hen B row n arr i ved, A l derm an hand ed B r o w n a tw e lv e - in c h c r e s c e n t w r e n c h a n d in s tru c te d B r o w n to g o in to th e b e d r o o m a n d k i l l Mr s . Al d e r m a n . T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s th a tB r o wn w as i ni t i al l y r el uct ant , bu tagre ed t o stri ke M rs . A l derm an w hen pe r s ua de d by the gun w i e l di ng A l de r m a n. B r ow n e nt e r e d the di ni ng4

ro o m an d stru ck M rs. A l d erm an i n th e h ead w i th th e w ren ch . M rs. A l derm an cr i ed ou tand ran i nt o the l i vi ng room w here she c on fr on t ed he rhus ba nd. A l de r m a n t a c kl e d M r s . A l de r m a n, the n a s s i s t e d by B r o w n , p la c e d h is h a n d s o v e rM r s . A ld e r m a n 's n o s e a n d m o u th u n til sh e w as u n co n sci o u s. A l de r m a n a nd B r ow n c a rr i e d M r s . A l de r m a n’ s l i m p body t o the ba thr oom a nd pl a c e d i ti n the ba thtub. A l de r m a n s t a r t e d t o f i l l the tub w hi l e B r ow n c l e a ne d the bl ood s t a i ns f r om both the l i vi ng a nd di ni ng r oom s . A l de r m a n a nd B r ow n c ha nge d c l othe s a nd l e f tthe apa r tm e nt f o rs e v e r a l h o u r s . T h e tw o m e n w e n t to th e P ig g ly W ig g ly s upe r m a r ke tw he r e A l de r m a n borr ow e d $100. 00. A l de r m a n a nd B r ow n the n w e ntt o tw o l oc a l S a va nna h ba r s . A ts om e t i m e dur i ng the e ve ni ng A l de r m a n ga ve B r ow n the $100. 00. A l de r m a n a nd B r ow n r e turne d t o the apa r tm e nta r ound 10: 00 p .m ., r e m o v e d M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s b o d y f r o m th e b a th tu b a n d w r ap p e d it i n a gr e e n qui l t . T he tw o m e n c a rr i e d the body t o A l de r m a n’ s 1974 P on t i ac and p l ac ed i ti n the trunk . B row n d rove A l derm an’ s c aras A l de r m a n f

ol l ow e d on hi s m ot or c y c l e . A l ongs i de a c r e e k i n R i nc on, G e or gi a , B r ow n a nd A l de r m a n r e m ove d the body f r om the trunk a nd pl ac ed i ti n the dri ver' s s ea t . A tA l derm an' s di re ct i on , B row n rea ched i n the dr i ve r ' s w i ndow a nd r e l e a s e d the e m e r ge nc y br a ke a l l ow i ng the c a rt o r ol l i nt o the c r e e k. T he c a rs t oppe d ha l f w a y i nt o the c r e e k. A gai n atA l derm an’ s di re ct i on , B row n o pened the ca r doo r, pu l l ed M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s b o d y h a lf w a y o u t a n d a llo w e d h e rf a c e to f a ll in to the c r e e k. T he tw o m e n r e m ove d the gr e e n qui l ta nd the rubbe rtrunk m atfr om the ca r a nd fl ed the sc ene on A l derm an’ s m ot orcy cl e. L at erthateveni ng , on S ept em ber 21, 19 74 , R andy H od ges ( “ H odge s ” ) a nd T e rry C a l l a ha n ( “ C a l l a ha n” ) w e r e dr i vi ng hom e on B a ke rH i l l R oa d a nd H i ghw a y 131. A s the y turne d ont o H i ghw a y 131 a nd appr oa c he d D a s he r ’ s C r e e k, the y not i c e d a c a ri n the c r e e k. H odge s j um pe d out , s a w tha tthe r e w a s a w om a n i n the c a ra nd s e nt C a lla h a n to L a m a rR a h n ’s h o u s e to c a ll f o rh e lp . E f

f in g h a m C o u n ty S h e r if f L lo y d F u lc h e r( “F u lc h e r ” ) r e s p o n d e d to th e c a ll. U p o n h is arri val atthe sc ene, F ul cherfoun d the vi ct i m ’ s c ari n the w at er a d ja c e n t to th e b r id g e . F u lc h e rn o tic e d n o ap p a r e n t p h y s ic a l d a m a g e to the ca r. H e ordere d M rs . A l derm an’ s bod y t o b e r em ov ed fr om the ca r a n d ta k e n to th e h o s p ita l. F u lc h e ro b s e r v e d th a t th e r e w e r e n o s k id m a r ks f r om the c a rbuttha tm ot or c y c l e tr a c ks w e r e appa r e nti n the5

ar ea . F ul cheral so no t i ce d b l oo d st ai ns on the se atof the ca r a nd that the trunk m a tw a s m i s s i ng. Atth e d i r e c t i o n o f

F u l c h e r , Ga r d e n C i ty p o l i c e o f f i c e rJ . D. C r o s b y ( “C r o s b y ” ) w e n t to A ld e r m a n ’s ap a r tm e n t o n ly to f in d it l oc ke d. C r os by l a t e rr e turne d t o the apa r tm e nta tappr oxi m a t e l y 2: 30 a. m . and fou nd A l derm an there w i th a w om an. C rosby i nform ed A l de r m a n tha thi s w i f

e ha d be e n i nvol ve d i n a tr a f f i c a c c i de nt , a nd a s k e d h im to a c c o m p a n y E f f in g h a m C o u n ty a u th o r itie s to th e h o s p ita l. G eorgi a B ureau o f I nv es t i gat i on A gentH . H . K ea dl e ( “ K ea dl e” ) w as pres entatthe E ff

i ng ham C ou nty hospi t al . K ea dl e a nd F ul cherno t i ce d r e d /b r o w n s ta in s in th e s e a t a n d c r o tc h o f A ld e r m a n ’s p a n ts a n d o n h is b e l t . A tth a tt i me , A l d e r ma n ’ s c l o th e s w e r e t a k e n f r o m h i m. K e a dl e ’ s i nve s t i ga t i on c onf i r m e d C r os by ’ s f

i ndi ngs a tthe a c c i de nts c e ne . K e a dl e a l s o r e c ove r e d a s t a i ne d por t i on of a gr e e n rug a nd A l de r m a n’ s m ot or c y c l e he l m e t , w hi c h ha d be e n r e m ove d f r om th e A ld er m an ’s ap ar tm en t b y M rs . A ld er m an ’s m o th er . A ld er m an ’s fa ther, Ja ck A l derm an, S r. , al so gave the po l i ce the tw el ve i nch c r e s c e n t w r e n c h th a t h e h a d r e m o v e d f r o m A ld e r m a n ’s ap a r tm e n t. F o r e n s ic S e r o lo g is t E liz ab e th Q u a r le s , o f th e G e o r g ia S ta te C ri m e L ab o rat o ry, ex am i n ed th e b l o o d fo u n d o n A l d erm an ’ s cl o th es. T h e b l o o dty p e wa s c o n s i s t e n twi th Mr s . Al d e r m a n ’ s b l o o d . An e xa m i na t i on of

the ve hi c l e r e ve a l e d one pa l m pr i nta nd f our fin g erp rin ts w h ich w er e s ti p u lated as A ld er m an ’s. B ro w n ’s fi ng erpri nt s, ho w ever , w er e notfoun d o n the ca r. D r. C h arl es S u l l i n g er (“D r. S u l l i n g er”) p erfo rm ed th e au t o p sy upon M r s . A l de r m a n’ s body . D r . S ul l i nge rc onc l ude d tha tthe l acerati o n o n th e b ack o f M rs. A l d erm an ’ s h ead w as i n fl i ct ed b y a bl un ti nstrum ent . D r. S ul l i ng eral so concl ud ed thatbecause there ex i st ed o n l y a sm al l am o u n to f b l o o di n th e car, th e b l o w t o M rs. A l derm an’ s hea d d i d n otoccur as a r es ul tof the ac ci dent . D r. S ul l i nge rf

ound no e vi de nc e of

a ny abnor m a l i t i e s i n the he a r t , no sc ra t ches on the forearm s a nd no evi dence of s tra ng ul at i on . D r. S ul l i ng erconcl ud ed thatthe l i qu i d i n M rs . A l derm an’ s l un gs re veal ed tha tM r s . A l de r m a n di e d a s a r e s ul tof a s phy xi a due t o dr ow ni ng. K e a d le ’s in v e s tig a tio n le d h im to B r o w n . B r o w n e v e n tu a lly g a v e a s ta te m e n t in c r im in a tin g h im s e lf a n d A ld e r m a n . A t tr ia l, A ld e r m a n te s tif

ie d o n h is o w n b e h a lf

a n d d e n ie d th a t h e k ille d h is w i f e . A l de r m a n t e s t i f

i e d tha ton the ni ghtof

S e pt e m be r21, 1974, he6

a n d h i s wi f

e h a d a n a r g u m e n ta n d th a th e l e f tth e ap a r tm e n ta l o n e . He a l l e g e d l y t o o k a b u s t o S a v a n n a h wh e r e h e s p e n ts o m e t i m e a ttwo lo c a l b a r s . A ld e r m a n te s tif ie d th a t h e r e tu rn e d h o m e a t ap p r o x im a te ly 1 0 :0 0 p .m . b u t h is w if

e w a s n o t a t h o m e . A ld e r m a n d e c id e d to g o to R in co n , G eo rg ia to se e if M rs . A ld er m an w as at h erg ra n d p ar en t’ s hom e . A m or e c om pl e t e ve r s i on of A l de r m a n’ s de f

e ns e m a y be f

ound in A ld e r m a n v . S ta te , 2 4 1 G a . 4 9 6 , 2 4 6 S .E .2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4

– 4 5 , c e r t. d en ied , 4 3 9 U .S . 9 9 1 , 9 9 S .C t. 5 9 3 , 5 8 L .E d .2 d 6 6 6 (1 9 7 8 ), re h ’g deni ed, 43 9 U . S . 11 22 , 99 S . C t . 10 36 , 59 L . E d. 2d 84 (197 9). A ld e r m a n te s tif

ie d th a t o n h is w a y to R in c o n , h e o b s e r v e d h is c a ro n th e s id e o f

th e b r id g e a t D a s h e r 's C r e e k . A ld e r m a n s to p p e d h is m o t o rcycl e an d w en tt o th e car w h ere h e d i sco v ered h i s w i fe’ s b o d y. A ld e r m a n s ta te d th a t h e p ic k e d u p M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s h e a d a n d p la c e d it i n hi s l ap. U pon he a r i ng a noi s e , A l de r m a n f l e d the s c e ne i n s hoc k a nd f e a r . A ld e r m a n a lle g e d ly f o r g o t ab o u t h is w if

e ’s b o d y , d r o v e to S a va nna h a nd r e turne d t o a l oc a l ba r . A l de r m a n the n w e ntt o J ohnny G anem ’ s f

or breakfa stw i th fri ends. W hi l e a tbrea kfas t , A l derm an o ff er ed G er li n a C ar m ac k (th e f em ale p re se n t i n th e A ld er m an ’s apartm entw hen O ff

i ce r J . D . C rosby a rr i ved) a r i de ho m e. A l derm an ha d a l l e ge dl y s t oppe d a thi s apa r tm e ntt o pi c k up a j a c ke tw he n the p o lic e a rr iv e d a n d to o k h im to th e h o s p ita l w h e r e h e id e n tif ie d h is w i fe’ s b o d y. A ld e r m a n te s tif

ie d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w w h y h e h a d le f t h is w if e ’s b o d y in th e c r e e k ; th a t h e r e c a lle d n o th in g o f h is tr ip b a c k to S a v a n n a h ; a n d , th e f

a c t th a t h is w if

e w a s d e a d h a d c o m p le te ly le f t h is m in d . A p p e lla n t te s tif

ie d th a t h e f

ir s t r e a liz e d th e f

u ll f a c ts s urr oundi ng hi s w i f

e ’ s de a th a f

t e rbe i ng tr e a t e d by a ps y c hi a tr i s tw ho w a s abl e t o r e f

r e s h hi s m e m ory a s t o the e ve nt s s urr oundi ng he rde a th. H e f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha ta f

t e rbe i ng tr e a t e d by the ps y c hi a tr i s the re al i ze d thatfe arhad caused hi m t o l ea ve hi s w i fe ’ s bod y i n the cr ee k be c a us e he kne w he rf

a m i l y w oul d bl a m e hi m f orhe rde a th.7 B . A s n o ted su p ra , o n Ju ly 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d istrict co u rt d en ied A ld er m an ’s appl i ca t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus. A l derm an v. S chofi el d, N o. C V 40 3-02 8 at 5–9 ( S . D . G a . J ul y 16, 2004) . I n i t s di s pos i t i ve or de r , the c our tr e c ount e d the pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory of

thi s c a s e – the pr os e c ut i on i n the C ha tha m C ounty S upe r i or C o u r t, th e ap p e a ls to th e G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t, th e c o lla te r a l a tta c k s in th e B u tts C o u n ty S u p e r io rC o u r t, a n d th e h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g s in f e d e r a l c o u r t. O n J une 14, 1975, P e t i t i one rw a s c onvi c t e d i n the S upe r i or C ou rtof C hatham C ou nty f or ki l l i ng hi s w i fe , and then h e w as s e nt e nc e d t o de a th. F ol l ow i ng hi s c onvi c t i on, he appe a l e d t o the G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t, w h ic h d e n ie d h is ap p e a l o n J u n e 2 7 , 1 9 7 8 . C e r t i or a r i w a s l a t e rde ni e d by the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our ton N ove m be r27, 1978. H e the n f i l e d f ors t a t e habe a s r e l i e f

i n the S upe r i orC our tof

C ha tha m C ounty , G e or gi a . I n J une 1979, the G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d P e titio n e ra c e r tif ic a te o f p r o b ab le cause t o app ea l . T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed ce rt i orar i on F e brua ry 19, 1980, a nd de ni e d a r e he a r i ng on M a r c h 19, 1980. P et i t i on erthen fi l ed an appl i ca t i on for habeas re l i ef i n federa l di stri ctcourton June 27 , 19 80 . T hi s f i rs troun d o f f

eder al habeas appeal s c ul m i nat ed i n 1 98 3 w hen the F i fth C i rc ui t , U ni tB , ac t i ng en b a n c , g r a n te da n e w s e n te n c in g tr ia l, w h ic h b e g a n in M a r c h 1 9 8 4 . A f te rh is r e - s e n te n c in g tr ia l, P e titio n e rw a s a g a in s e n te n c e d to d e a th on A pri l 1, 19 84 . H e then fi l ed a m ot i on for new tri al and an a m e ndm e ntthe r e t o, w hi c h w e r e de ni e d i n a n or de rf i l e d on A ugus t27, 1 9 8 4 . P e titio n e rd ir e c tly ap p e a le d h is d e a th s e n te n c e to th e G e o r g ia S up re m e C ou rt , w hi ch af fi rm ed hi s new death sent ence on F ebruary 28 , 19 85 . O n O ct ob er15 , 19 85 , the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt de ni e d c e r t i or a r i a nd l a t e rde ni e d a r e he a r i ng on N ove m be r18, 1985. P e t i t i one rthe n be ga n a s e c ond r ound of habe a s appe a l s i n the s ta te a n d f

e d e r a l c o u r ts w ith th e s a m e a tto rn e y s w h o r e p r e s e n te d h im a tthe r e - s e nt e nc i ng tr i a l . H e f i l e d a s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on i n the8

S up er i or C ou rtof B ut t s C ou nty on F ebruary6, 19 86 . A n am ended habeas pet i t i on w as fi l ed June 16 , 19 87 , and a se cond am ended h abea s pe t i t i on w a s f

i l e d J une 25, 1987. F ol l ow i ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on J une 29, 1987, the s t a t e habe a s c our tdi s m i s s e d the pe t i t i on on S ept em ber 10, 19 87 , ho l di ng thatal l of P et i t i on er ’ s c l ai m s w er e ba rr e d f r om r e vi e w be c a us e of

pr oc e dur a l de f

a ul t . O n O c t obe r28, 19 87 , the G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed the appl i ca t i on for a c e r t i f i c a t e o f p r o b ab l e c a u s e t o ap p e a l . Th e U n i t e d St a t e s Su p r e me C our ts ubs e que nt l y de ni e d c e r t i or a r i on M a r c h 7, 1988, a nd de ni e d a r e h e a r in g o n A p r il 2 5 , 1 9 8 8 . P et i t i on erthen fi l ed a pet i t i on for habeas re l i ef i n federa l di s tr i c tc our ton J une 23, 1988. T he f e de r a l pe t i t i on w a s de ni e d a tthe tr i a l l e ve l on J une 6, 1989, w i thouta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. S ubs e que nt to th e e n try o f

ju d g m e n t, b o th P e titio n e ra n d th e S ta te f ile d m o tio n s to al t erand am end. O n Jun e 22, 19 89 , the D i stri ctC ou rtent er ed an o rd erd en yin g P etit io n er ’s m o ti o n , b u t d idn o t ru le o n th e S tate’s m ot i on. D ur i ng the pe nde nc y of the S t a t e ’ s m ot i on, P e t i t i one rf i l e d a no t i ce of appeal . O n A ug ust10 , 19 90 , the E l eventh C i rc ui tdi sm i ss ed the appe a l of

P e t i t i one rf

orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. O n r e m a nd, the D i s tr i c tC our te nt e r e d a n or de ron S e pt e m be r20, 1990, gr a nt i ng the S ta te ’s m o tio n to a lte ra n d a m e n d in p a r t a n d d e n y in g th e m o tio n in p a r t. P e t i t i one rthe n f

i l e d a n appe a l c ha l l e ngi ng the de c i s i on of the D istrict C o u rt, w h il e a t th e s am e tim e c h allen g in g th e c o u rt’s j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der hi s ow n app ea l du e t o the fa i l ure t o rul e on an i s s ue . O n D e c e m be r27, 1991, the E l e ve nth C i r c ui tdi s m i s s e d the ap p e a l f o rla c k o f

ju r is d ic tio n b e c a u s e th e D is tr ic t C o u r t f a ile d to ru le o n P e titio n e r ’s c la im r e g a r d in g th e g u ilt- p h a s e ju ry , b u t th e E le v e n th C i rc ui tdi d fi nd thatthe D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on t o h ol d an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g o n P et i t i o n er’ s . . . cl ai m s [G i g l i o v . U n i t ed S t at es, 405 U . S . 150 ( 1972) ; B r a dy v. M a ry l a nd, 373 U . S . 83 ( 1963) ] , a nd ordered the D i stri ctC ou rtt o h ol d such a heari ng . A ft eran evi dent i ary h e a r in g o n M a y 1 8 , 1 9 9 2 , th e D is tr ic t C o u r t f o u n d th e B r a d v /G ig lio c l a i m s t o be pr oc e dur a l l y ba rr e d, a nd the r e by di s m i s s e d the pe t i t i on o n J u n e 2 3 , 1 9 9 2 . T h e E le v e n th C ir c u it a f f ir m e d th e ru lin g o n A p r il 14, 1994, a nd de ni e d a r e he a r i ng e n ba ne on J ul y 12, 1994. T he U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our ta ga i n de ni e d c e r t i or a r i on D e c e m be r12, 1994, a nd de ni e d a r e he a r i ng on F e brua ry 21, 1995.In addition to the claim before us, Alder man asser ted that he wa s denied e ffe ctive 3 assistanceof counse l on his direct appe al from his 1984 re -sentenc ing trial in violation of the 9 P e t i t i one rbe ga n a thi r d r ound of habe a s a c t i on i n the S upe r i or C ou rtof B ut t s C ou nty on D ec em ber 22, 19 94 , chal l engi ng hi s new death sent ence on tw o g roun ds: i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l du ri ng the re -s ent enci ng tri al and i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l d u r in g th e ap p e a l f

r o m th e r e - s e n te n c in g tr ia l. T h e S ta te f ile d its a ns w e ron J a nua ry 13, 1995. F orr e a s ons unknow n t o the C our t , no ac t i on apparent l y occ urre d i n P et i t i on er ’ s c as e i n the st at e c ou rt s y s t e m unt i l 1999. O n M a r c h 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 , a n a m e n d e d h ab e a s p e titio n w a s f ile d in th e s ta te c o u r t. A n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g w a s c o n d u c te d in th e s ta te habeas courton M ay 5 and 6, 19 99 , and P et i t i on er ’ s c l ai m s w er e deni ed on D ec em ber 29, 19 99 . P et i t i on er ’ s app l i ca t i on for a c e r tif ic a te o f p r o b ab le c a u s e to ap p e a l w a s d e n ie d b y th e G e o r g ia S up re m e C ou rton Ja nu ary 10, 20 02 . O n O ct ob er21 , 20 02 , the U ni t ed S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d c e r tio r a r i. I n F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 , a f

te re x h a u s tin g th e s e r e m e d ie s , A ld e r m a n o n c e a g a in re turned t o the di stri ctcourtfor habeas corpus re l i ef . In a new pet i t i on , he cl ai m ed thathe w as deni ed const i tut i on al l y e ff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l athi s 198 4 res e nt e nc i ng tr i a l a nd i n hi s di r e c tappe a l f r om the de a th s e nt e nc e he r e c e i ve d. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t, r e ly in g o n th e r e c o r d c o m p ile d b y th e S u p e r io rC o u r t o f B u tts C ou nty on A l derm an’ s M ar ch 29 , 19 99 habeas pet i t i on and the court ’ s order de ny i ng r e l i e f

, de ni e d A l de r m a n’ s pe t i t i on a nd hi s s ubs e que ntm ot i on t o a l t e ra nd am end the j ud gm ent . In June 20 05 , w e gra nt ed A l derm an’ s app l i ca t i on for a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility o n th e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l is s u e s e t o u t in the ope ni ng pa r a gr aph of thi s opi ni on. 3S i x th , E i ghth , an d F o urt e e nthAm e n dm e nt s t o th eUn i t e d S t at e s C o n s ti tut i o n . S p e c i f i c al ly, Al derm an alle g e d th at hi s c ouns e l f aile d toinc ludein his b ri e f to th eGe org ia Sup remeCourt

a claim pre sented to the trial c ourt, that the State violated his rights under B rady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 8 3 ( 19 63 ), and

Gi g liov. Unite d St ate s, 40 5 U .S. 15 0 ( 19 72 ), by withh oldinge vide nc ethat it h a d p ro m i s e d J o hnB ro wnl e n i e n c y

i ne x c h an g ef

o r h i s t e s t i m o ny

ag ai n s tA l d e r

m an . In Alderma n v. Schofield, No. CV403-028 at 26–27 (S.D. Ga. July 16, 2004), the district cour t foun d th at A lderm an’ s a

pp e llatec ouns e l w a s n ot ine ff e c tiv efo r f

ailingto raisetheB rady

/G ig lio c laim o n a

pp e al. The Ge org ia statutes listed murder c ommitt ed for oneself or

another for the pur

pose of 4 rec eivingmoney

or any other thingof monetar

y value a s a circumstance that, upon a jury ’s finding , authorized the jury to return a

verdic t of death. GA . C ODE ANN . § 17-10-30(b)(4) (1984). 10 II. In subp artA , w e out l i ne the ca se thatthe S t at e pre se nt ed agai nstA l derm an athi s 198 4 re- se nt enci ng tri al (“ R S T ”) . In subp artB , w e out l i ne the ca se A ld e r m a n p r e s e n te d . A. A tA l derm an’ s R S T , the S t at e s ou gh tthe death p enal ty on the grou nd s that th e m o t i v e a n d m a n n e ri n wh i c h Al d e r m a n m u r d e r e d h i s wi f e c o n s t i tu t e d two a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s , e a c h o f w h ic h in d e p e n d e n tly w a rr a n te d th e d e a th penal ty: (1) he m urdered hi s w i fe t o o bt ai n i nsurance mo ney, and (2) he com m i tt ed th e m u r d e rin a n “o u tr a g e o u s ly v ile ” o r“in h u m a n ” w a y . A dd re ss i ng the fi rs taggravat i ng ci rc um st ance , the prosecut or t ol d the j ury thatA l derm an dese rved the death p enal ty bec ause he m urdered M rs . A l derm an

“ for . . . the pu rpose of r ec ei vi ng [i nsurance] m on ey . ” T he prosecut or es t abl i shed 4 thi s m ot i ve by pres ent i ng the t es t i m on y of C i ty of S avannah em pl oyee , S andraBrown testified at Alderman’s 1975 trial while under indictment for Mrs. Alderma

n’s 5 murder a nd awaiting his own trial. B rown wa s convicted le ss than sixmonths after A lderman’ s conviction. Sentenceof the Court, State v. B rown, No. 23499 ( Super. Ct. of Chatham Co. Dec . 4, 1975). The jur

y convicted B rown of murder, a nd their verdict called f

or the de ath penalty . I d. Whil ethec ourt

sentenc e d B ro wn

to de ath in 1 97 5, it gra

nte d a new tri al on

thesentenc ingph a se and re -sentenc ed B rown to life imprisonment on Dec ember 4, 1978. Order of the Court, State v. Brown, No. 23499 (Super . Ct. of Chatham Co. Dec. 4, 1978) . He wa s servingthat sentenc e of life imprisonment when hetestified at Alder man’s RST. 11 S u lliv a n . S u lliv a n , th e C ity ’s p e r s o n n e l te c h n ic ia n w h o h a n d le d e m p lo y e e b e n e f its a nd r e c or ds i n S e pt e m be r1974, t e s t i f i e d tha tM r s . A l de r m a n w a s e m pl oy e d by the C i ty atth e t i m e o f h er d eath an d ex p l ai n ed th at , as a C i ty em p l o yee, M rs. A l de r m a n pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the C i ty ’ s gr oup l i f e i ns ur a nc e pol i c y . T he pr os e c ut or p r o d u c e d a c o p y o f

th e C ity ’s g r o u p p o lic y , w h ic h p r o v id e d f o ra d e a th b e n e f

it c om m e ns ur a t e w i th s a l a ry— up t o $10, 000— w i th doubl e i nde m ni ty upon a c c i de nt a l de a th. H e a l s o of f e r e d a c opy of

M r s . A l de r m a n’ s e nr ol l m e ntc a r d f or the C i ty’ s group po l i cy , w hi ch l i st ed A l derm an as the sol e benefi ci ary. S ul l i van a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha ta tthe t i m e of

M r s . A l de r m a n’ s de a th, he rs a l a ry qua l i f i e d he rf or the m a xi m um $10, 000 de a th be ne f i t , w hi c h w oul d doubl e t o $20, 000 i n the e ve nt o f a c c id e n ta l d e a th . T he prosecut or used John B row n t o cem enthi s theory thatA l derm an ki l l ed hi s w i f e f orthe i ns ur a nc e be ne f

i t s . B r ow n t e s t i f

i e d tha ti n the da y s pr e c e di ng 5 M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s d e a th , A ld e r m a n e n lis te d h im in a p lo t to k ill h e r . B r o w n s a id tha tA l de r m a n pr om i s e d hi m ha l f of the i ns ur a nc e m one y f

orhi s r ol e i n theJ ohn Brown also testified that Alderman wa nted to kill his wife be causeshe “w as 6 wantinga divorc e from him and . . . was g oing to takehim through themill,” which Brown e xp l ai n e d t o m e an“ th ats h ew a s g o i n gt o t ak ee v e r yth i n gh eh a d . ”Ina d dre s s i n gth ej ur y, ho wever, thepros e c uto r did n ot a rguethat A lderm an kill e d h is wif ebe c a us esh ewa s p lanningto div orc ehim . Under Georg ia law, this ag gravating c ircumstancealso authorized the imposition of the 7 death penalty . GA . C ODE ANN . § 17-10-30(b)(7) (1984). 12 m urder. 6 R e ga r di ng the s e c ond a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e , the pr os e c ut orur ge d the j ury t o i nv ok e the death p enal ty bec ause the “ offe nse of m urder . . . w as ou tra geou sl y or w ant on l y vi l e, ho rr i bl e, or i nh um an i n thati ti nv ol ved t orture, de pr a vi ty of

m i nd, ora n a ggr a va t e d ba tt e ry t o the vi c t i m . ” B r ow n pr ovi de d the 7 S t a t e ’ s onl y e vi de nc e on thi s poi nt . H i s t e s t i m ony pa i nt e d a pi c tur e of w ha tthe p r o s e c u to rte r m e d a n “[ e ]x e c u tio n ty p e [ s ic ] k illin g .” B r o wn r e c o u n t e d th e e v e n t s o f th e n i g h to f

Mr s . Al d e r m a n ’ s d e a th . B r o wn sa i d thatw hen h e c am e over t o A l derm an’ s apartm entthateveni ng , A l derm an had h im f o llo w M r s . A ld e r m a n a r o u n d th e ap a r tm e n t w ith a w r e n c h in h is h a n d . B row n struck M rs . A l derm an i n the back of her head w i th the w re nch. A l derm an th en g o tM rs. A l d erm an o n th e fl o o r an d h el d h i s h an d o v er h er n o se an d m o u th so tha ts he c oul d notbr e a the . T he tw o m e n the n t ook M r s . A l de r m a n t o the ba thr oom tub and fi l l ed i tw i th w at er . A l derm an hel d h erhead un der w at er . T he tw o m en th e n le f t h e rth e r e a n d h e a d e d to th e lo c a l b a rf o raf e w d r in k s . U p o n th e irr e tu rn toAlderma n’s lawyers e xplained their strategy in considera

ble detail at the Ma

y 5-6, 1999 8 evidentiar y hearing theButts County Superior Court held on Alder man’s petition for a

writ of habea s corpus. 13 th e ap a r tm e n t tw o h o u r s la te r , B r o w n a n d A ld e r m a n p u t M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s b o d y in th e tru n k o f

th e A ld e r m a n s ’ c a ra n d d r o v e th e c a rto a c r e e k th a t w a s o n th e w a y to M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s g r a n d m o th e r ’s h o u s e . T h e y th e n p u t M r s . A ld e r m a n ’s b o d y in the dri ver’ s s ea t , rol l ed do w n the w i nd ow s, pu tthe gear i n n eutra l , and sentthe ca r in to th e c r e e k to m a k e it lo o k lik e a n a c c id e n t. B. A l derm an coun t er ed the S t at e’ s c as e by s ho w i ng thatB row n h ad a bett er m ot i ve f orki l l i ng M r s . A l de r m a n tha n he di d, a nd tha tB r ow n ha d c onf e s s e d t o a f e llo w ja il in m a te th a t h e h a d , in f a c t, c o m m itte d th e m u r d e r . P u t a n o th e rw a y , A l derm an’ s a tt orneys pu rs ued a l i ng er i ng or re si du al do ub ttheory a s t o w hether A l de r m a n m ur de r e d hi s w i f e a nd, i n doi ng s o, ga ve the j ury a ba s i s f orr e turni ng a ve r di c tof

l i f e i m pr i s onm e nti ns t e a d of the de a th pe na l ty . C ouns e l f e l ttha tthe l i ng er i ng do ub ttheory w as the approp ri at e s tra t egy bec ause a new j ury had been em panel ed for the R S T , the j ury thatconv i ct ed A l derm an i n 1 97 5 h avi ng been di s c ha r ge d. I f

s uc c e s s f ul , the l i nge r i ng doubts tr a t e gy w oul d y i e l d a s e nt e nc e of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nti ns t e a d of de a th. 8 I n c a rry i ng outthi s s tr a t e gy , c ouns e l f oc us e d on the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n theDef ense c ounsel presented the testimony of 30 witnesses, includingAlderma n. The 9 testimony of sixof them ca

me in the form of

transcripts of testimony

they had g iven at Alderma n’s 1975 trial. Thesetranscripts were read to the jur y . As for thelive witnesses, they did not testify

in the prec ise order

implied in the tex t following this footnote. F or convenience , however, wediscuss each witness’s testimony in relation to the purposefor which it was introduced, irrespec tive of the actual order of the te stimony at the RST. The State c halleng ed the credibility of Alder man’s testimony

at the 1975 trial a

nd at 10 the RST. The 1975 testimony was be forethe RST jury

via the State’s impeachment of some of 14 S t a t e ’ s c a s e , a s ki ng i n the i rope ni ng s t a t e m e nt( a f t e rthe S t a t e r e s t e d i t s c a s e ) a nd ag ai n i n cl o si n g arg u m en tth atth e j u ry n o tsen t en ce A l d erm an t o d eath b ecau se there w as consi derabl e dou btas t o w hether he had com m i tt ed the cr i m e. T hey s uppor t e d thi s s tr a t e gy w i th a n a l t e rna t i ve the ory of how the m ur de roc c urr e d: B r o w n a c te d a lo n e a n d k ille d M r s . A ld e r m a n f o rd ru g m o n e y . D ef ense coun se l proceeded w i th A l derm an’ s def ense as fol l ow s ( ea ch c a t e gory t o be di s c us s e d i n gr e a t e rde t a i l , i nf r a ) . F i r s t , the y pl a nt e d the s e e ds of 9 the i rl i nge r i ng doubtthe ory by i m pe a c hi ng B r ow n’ s c r e di bi l i ty – hi s s t ory about w hatm ot i vat ed M rs . A l derm an’ s m urder a nd ho w i toccurre d. T hey a cc om pl i shed thi s pr i nc i pa l l y thr ough the i rc r os s - e xa m i na t i on of B r ow n w hi l e he w a s on the w i tness st and i n the S t at e’ s c as e. T hen, they puton w i tness es w ho sa i d that A l derm an’ s r eput at i on (i n 1 97 4) for bei ng a l aw -abi di ng ci t i ze n w as go od – such tha ti tw oul d ha ve be e n c om pl e t e l y outof c ha r a c t e rf

orA l de r m a n t o ha ve mu r d e r e d h i s w i f

e –a n d th a th i s r e p u t a t i o n f o rtru th f u l n e s s ( i n 1 9 7 4 o ra tth e t i me o f th e R S T ) w as b ey o n d re p ro ac h . C o u n se l eli cited testim o n y o f A ld er m an ’s 10the testimony Alderma n g ave f rom the witness stand at the RST.

15 re pu t at i on for t el l i ng the truth b ec ause he w ou l d b e thei r f i nal w i tness , and the j ury w o u ld h a v e to b e lie v e h im if th e y w e r e to h a v e a lin g e r in g d o u b t a s to h is g u ilt. A ft erca l l i ng these “ re pu t at i on ” w i tness es , coun se l pres ent ed evi dence – m a i nl y thr ough the t e s t i m ony of A l de r m a n’ s f

a the r– aboutA l de r m a n’ s upbr i ngi ng a nd the s truggl e s A l de r m a n ha d t o ove r c om e t o be c om e a pr oduc t i ve m e m be rof so ciety. C o u n se l ad d ed to th is th e tes ti m o n y o f th o se m o n it o rin g A ld er m an ’s pr i s on be ha vi or ; the y s a i d tha tA l de r m a n w a s a m ode l pr i s one rw ho pos e d no thr e a tt o the s a f

e ty of f e l l ow i nm a t e s orpr i s on pe r s onne l , thus i m pl y i ng tha tthe ju ry n e e d n o t s e n te n c e h im to d e a th to p r o te c t th o s e in p r is o n . W ith a ll o f th is te s tim o n y b e f

o r e th e ju ry , c o u n s e l c a lle d A ld e r m a n to th e s ta n d . 1. B ecau se th e S t at e’ s case h i n g ed p ri n ci p al l y o n B ro w n ’ s t est i m o n y, d efen se c ouns e l w e nta l l outi n a n e f f or tt o de s tr oy B r ow n’ s c r e di bi l i ty . T o tha te nd, coun se l po rtra ye d B row n as al yi ng drug addi ct . C ou nsel qu es t i on ed B row n at grea tl ength abo uthi s hea vy use of a l coho l and i l l egal drug s. B row n con ce ded that he w entthrou gh abou tfour fi fths of w hi skeyper w ee k and sm ok ed as m uch as a n ounc e of m a r i j ua na pe rda y . H e a l s o a dm i tt e d t o t a ki ng ba rbi tur a t e s by the ha ndf ul a n d u s in g s p e e d , L S D , o p iu m , a n d q u a lu d e s .Walters took the stand “out of order,”after most of Alderma n’s cha rac ter witnesse s 11 had testified. We re late what he said here, in this part of the opinion, bec ause his testimony bore solely on Brown’s credibility . See supra note 9. 16 W hi l e pre se nt i ng A l derm an’ s c as e, coun se l re ad t o the j ury atra nscr i ptof an in te r v ie w th a t a n a g e n t o f th e G e o r g ia B u r e a u o f

I n v e s tig a tio n c o n d u c te d w ith B row n w here i n B row n adm i tt ed thathe w as i nt ox i ca t ed atthe t i m e he hel ped A ld e r m a n k ill h is w if

e . B r o w n a ls o a d m itte d th a t h e e x p e r ie n c e d s p o r a d ic f la s h b a c k s o n a c c o u n t o f h is L S D u s e . D u r in g th e s e f la s h b a c k s , h e w o u ld bl a c kout , ha l l uc i na t e , a nd ge ne r a l l y ha ve no r e c ol l e c t i on of w ha the di d dur i ng the fl as hb ac k. B row n ackno w l edged, m oreover, thatdu ri ng hi s tri p b ac k t o the U ni t ed S t at es fro m m i l i t ary serv i ce i n V i etn am , h e rem o v ed fro m h i s m ed i cal reco rd s, w h ic h h a d b e e n e n tru s te d to h im , r e f e r e n c e s to h is f

r e q u e n t b la c k o u ts , in ab ility to co n tro l h i m sel f, an d i n ab i l i ty t o rem em b er h i s act i o n s d u ri n g b l ack o u t s. I n a ddi t i on t o por tr a y i ng B r ow n a s ha vi ng e xtr e m e di f f i c ul ty r e m e m be r i ng c r i t i c a l e ve nt s , A l de r m a n’ s de f e ns e c ouns e l c ount e r e d B r ow n’ s de s c r i pt i on of how th e mu r d e ro c c u rr e d . Fi r s t , th e y p r e s e n t e d th e t e s t i mo n y o f a ma n , Ro b e r tS. W a l t e r s , w ho oc c upi e d the s a m e c e l l bl oc k tha tB r ow n di d i n D e c e m be r1974, w hi l e B row n w as un der i nd i ctm entand aw ai t i ng tri al for the A l derm an m urder. 11 W al t ers t est i fi ed th atB ro w n g av e h i m th ree d i fferen tv ersi o n s o f h o w M rs. A l de r m a n di e d. I n the f i r s tve r s i on, A l de r m a n f or c e d B r ow n t o ki l l he rby17

th r e a t e n i n g h i m wi th a k n i f e . I n th e s e c o n d v e r s i o n , Al d e r m a n th r e a t e n e d B r o wn w i th a g u n . In th e fi n al v ersi o n , B ro w n reco u n t ed h o w h e al o n e k i l l ed M rs. A l derm an – w i tho utre fe re nce t o any i nv ol vem enton the partof A l derm an. In that a c c o u n t, B r o w n to ld W a lte r s th a t h e a n d M r s . A ld e r m a n h a d b e e n “h a v in g a n a f f a ir a nd tha the ne e de d m one y f ordope a nd tha thi m a nd he r[ s i c ] goti nt o a n a r gum e nt a nd f r om tha ta r gum e nthe pi c ke d up a w r e nc h a nd hi the ra nd the n puthe ri n the trunk of the ca r a nd drov e herou tt o the cr ee k. ” T he s e c ond w a y i n w hi c h de f e ns e c ouns e l c ount e r e d B r ow n’ s de s c r i pt i on of th e m u r d e rw a s to p r e s e n t th e te s tim o n y o f D r . S a n d r a C o n r a d i, a f o r e n s ic p a th o lo g is t. I n h is te s tim o n y in th e S ta te ’s c a s e , B r o w n s a id th a t A ld e r m a n p u t h is w i f e on the f

l oora nd he l d hi s ha nd ove rhe rm outh a nd nos e s o s he c oul d not br e a the . S he be c a m e unc ons c i ous . H e the n he l pe d A l de r m a n t a ke he rt o the bathroo m w here she w as pl ac ed i n the tub and d row ned. D r. C on ra di t es t i fi ed that her e xam i nat i on of M rs . A l derm an’ s aut op syre po rt , the tra nscr i ptof the 19 75 tri al t e s t i m ony of

the D i r e c t orof

the C ha tha m C ounty B r a nc h of the S t a t e C r i m e L ab, a nd va r i ous othe rdoc um e nt s i ndi c a t e d tha tthe r e w a s no s tr a ngl i ng, c hoki ng, s q u e e z in g o f

th e n o s e , o ra n y o th e rs ig n o f s tru g g le w ith M r s . A ld e r m a n p r io rto h e rd e a th .Th e sewitne sse s te sti fi e d a s toAl derm an’ s reputatio n f or tr uth fulne ss at th etim eof

his 12 1975 trial. Such reputation was relevant bec ause A lderman te stified at that trial and por tions of the transcript of his testimony were used by

the prosecutor at the RST to impeach him. When h esu

bs e que ntly

too k th ewitne ss s tand , A lderm an repe ate d muc h o f what hi s 13 father had said about his upbringingand the problems he enc ountere d and overcamefollowing the damag e to his left eye. 18 2. S e ve r a l w i tne s s e s por tr a y e d A l de r m a n a s a m a n i nc apabl e of the a c tJ ohn B r o w n a n d th e S ta te a c c u s e d h im o f c o m m ittin g a n d a s a p e r s o n w ith un i m peac habl e ver ac i ty. T he past or of the A l derm ans’ church, m em bers of that c hur c h, ne i ghbor s , a nd f or m e rc o- w or ke r s t e s t i f i e d tha tA l de r m a n ha d a r e put a t i on i n th e co m m u n i ty fo r b ei n g l aw -ab i d i n g an d tru th fu l . T h ey d escri b ed h i m as a 12 h a r d - w o r k in g m a n o f

g o o d c h a r a c te r . A ld e r m a n ’s p a s to r , R e v . J e s s e W . H ilto n , a B apt i s tm i ni s t e rw ho bapt i z e d A l de r m a n, a l s o t ol d of the A l de r m a ns i nvol ve m e nt in h is c h u r c h ; th e y w e r e a c tiv e in n o t ju s t o n e , b u t in a ll o f th e c h u r c h ’s m in is tr ie s . A C a thol i c c hapl a i n, F a the rR i c ha r d P a ul W i s e , w ho ha d c ons i de r abl e i nt e r a c t i on w i th A l derm an i n the pri son sett i ng , ec ho ed the past or’ s s ent i m ent s, addi ng that A ld e r m a n w a s o n e o f

th e m o s t h o n e s t p e o p le h e h a d e v e rm e t in p r is o n w o r k .

3. A l de r m a n’ s f

a the rde s c r i be d hi s s on’ s c hi l dhood a nd upbr i ngi ng. H e a nd 13 hi s w i f e di vor c e d w he n A l de r m a n w a s thr e e y e a r s ol d. F ol l ow i ng the di vor c e , he t ook A l de r m a n a nd hi s y ounge rs i s t e rt o l i ve w i th the i rpa t e rna l gr a ndm othe ra ndA psychiatrist, Dr. H erbert Smith, who examined Alderma n followinghis indictment 14 for Mrs. A lderman’ s murder a nd testified at Alder

man’s 1975 trial, de scribed what there after oc c ur re d in the sewo rd s: “ [A]f

ter s e veral op e ra

tio ns hewa s re le a se d f

ro m th eho sp ital and

a s f ate would have it, a . . . mentally reta rded child . . . stuck a hac ksaw bladein the same eye that ver y day and rippe d out most of the corne a, iris, and pupil, leavinghim totally blind in that eye.” A transcript of the psychiatrist’s entiretestimony was re ad to the jury

as par t of Alderma

n’s ca se at the RST. 19 s te p - g r a n d f

a th e r . T h e f a th e rto ld h o w A ld e r m a n lo s t h is le f t e y e a n d th e im p a c t th a t h a d o n h is s o n ’s d e v e lo p m e n t. A t th e a g e o f f o u r , A ld e r m a n w a s f

is h in g w ith h is grandm other a nd st ep-grandfather w hen h e a cc i dent al l y s t abbed h i m se l f i n the l ef t e y e w ith a f

is h in g k n if

e . F o llo w in g s u r g e ry a n d h is r e le a s e f r o m th e h o s p ita l, a 14 chi l d h i thi m i n the sa m e e ye w i th a hacksaw bl ade, w hi ch l ef thi m bl i nd i n that e y e . D e s p ite th is h a n d ic ap , A ld e r m a n ’s f a th e rr e c o u n te d th a t w h e n h is s o n w a s “in th e f if th g r a d e , h e h a d a lr e a d y [ g o n e ] th r o u g h th e s ix th g r a d e b o o k s a n d . . . h is te a c h e ra n d th e p r in c ip a l w a n te d h im to s k ip th e s ix th g r a d e .” A s y m p a th e tic bl i nd ness , “ op t i ca l neuri t i s, ” began t o d evel op i n A l derm an’ s f un ct i on al ey e, h o w ev er, an d A l d erm an l o stso m u ch v i si o n th ath e co u l d n o tsee o r w ri t e. A s a re sul t , he w as se ntt o the G eorgi a A ca dem y f or the B l i nd i n M ac on . H e s t ay ed th e r e th r o u g h h is ju n io ry e a ro f h ig h s c h o o l, e x c e llin g a c a d e m ic a lly . W h i l e atth e acad em y, A l d erm an w as h o sp i t al i zed o n th ree o ccasi o n s fo r eye su rg ery. T h e fi rstsu rg ery w as ex p eri m en t al t o red u ce i n fl am at i o n . T h e l ast s u r g e ry w a s p e r f

o r m e d to r e m o v e th e e y e s o a p r o s th e s is c o u ld b e im p la n te d .20

M e a n w h ile , th e s ig h t in h is r ig h t e y e im p r o v e d e n o u g h to e n ab le h im to tr a n s f e rto S av an n ah H i g h S ch o o l fo r h i s sen i o r year. H i s p erfo rm an ce d u ri n g th atyear so i m pres se d h i s hi gh sc ho ol coun se l or thatshe r ec om m ended h i m t o an em pl oyer w h o w as l o o k i n g fo r a stu d en tt o trai n i n i t s b u si n ess. A l derm an’ s f

ather c on cl ud ed hi s di re ct -e xam i nat i on by sa yi ng thathe l ov ed h is s o n , th a t h e v is ite d h im a t th e p r is o n “a c o u p le o f tim e s ,” a n d th a t h e “w a n te d to g o m o r e , b u t [ h is ] h e a lth w o u ld n ’t p e r m it it.” 4. O pe r a t i ng unde rthe a s s um pt i on tha tthe i rl i nge r i ng doubts tr a t e gy m i ght fa i l , defe nse c ou nsel soug htt o avo i d the death p enal ty by c on vi nci ng the j ury that A ld e r m a n w o u ld p o s e n o th r e a t to th e s a f e ty o f f e llo w p r is o n in m a te s a n d p e o p le w or ki ng a tthe pr i s on. T o thi s e nd, the y pr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of e l e ve n pr i s on g u ard s. A l l sai d th atA l d erm an w as a m o d el p ri so n er. T h ey d escri b ed h i m as a c o m m itte d C h r is tia n w h o f r e q u e n tly a s s is te d th e m in c a r in g f o rf e llo w in m a te s . A l tho ug h they di d n otsa y s o exp l i ci t l y, they c l ea rl y i m pl i ed thathi s e xecut i on w as notne c e s s a ry f

orthe pr ot e c t i on of

i nm a t e s a nd thos e w or ki ng i n the pr i s on f a c ility .The Aldermans lived in the sametown as Mrs. Alder man’s grandpa

rents bef ore 15 moving to the Sava

nnah apa rtment where they

were living at the time of Mrs. Alder man’s death. Af ter D r. Smith tre ate d A lderm an in June19 75 , A lderm an w a s a bleto re c all f

ragments 16 of the events that transpire d between the time he discovered his wife ’s body in the cre ek and the moment he identified it at the hospital. 21 5. C ouns e l pr e s e nt e d A l de r m a n a s the i rf i na l w i tne s s . T he i rdi r e c te xa m i na t i on w a s ta ilo r e d to th e lin g e r in g d o u b t th e o ry th e y h a d s e t b e f o r e th e ju ry in th e ir o p e n in g s ta te m e n t. A ld e r m a n d e s c r ib e d h is r e la tio n s h ip w ith h is w if e a n d h is w h e r e ab o u ts o n th e n ig h t o f h e rd e a th , a d e s c r ip tio n th a t s to o d in s h a rp c o n tr a s t to w ha tB r ow n ha d t ol d the j ury . A l de r m a n t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd M r s . A l de r m a n ha d a f ig h t th a t d a y r e g a r d in g th e irin ab ility to c o n c e iv e a c h ild . B o th w e r e c o n s id e r ab ly up se t , so he l ef

tthei r apartm entfor aw hi l e. U po n h i s r eturn, he foun d thatshe w as no tthere . T hi nk i ng thatshe had go ne t o h ergrandp ar ent s’ ho use, he began 15 d r iv in g th e r e . A b o u t ah a lf a m ile f r o m th e irh o u s e , h e s a w a c a rp a r tia lly s ubm e r ge d i n a c r e e k a nd de c i de d t o i nve s t i ga t e . U pon c l os e ri ns pe c t i on, he r e c o g n iz e d th e c a ra s h is o w n . I n th e c a r , h e f o u n d h is w if

e ’s b o d y . A ld e r m a n s a id tha tf r om the t i m e he di s c ove r e d he rbody i n the c r e e k unt i l he i de nt i f i e d he rbody a tthe hos pi t a l , he ha d no m e m ory of hi s a c t i ons ora ny a w a r e ne s s of he rde a th. 16 T o b ol st erthi s s t at em ent , A l derm an’ s c ou nsel re ad t o the j ury atra nscr i ptof the t e s t i m ony D r . H e rbe r tS m i th, a ps y c hi a tr i s t , ha d gi ve n a thi s tr i a l i n J une of22

1 9 7 5 . D r . S m ith h a d e x a m in e d A ld e r m a n a m o n th o rs o b e f o r e h is tr ia l to d e te r m in e th e c a u s e o f

A ld e r m a n ’s la c k o f

m e m o ry a t s u c h a c r itic a l p o in t in tim e . H e o p in e d th a t A ld e r m a n s u f f e r e d f r o m a “s e le c tiv e a m n e s ia [ th a t w a s ] p r o b ab ly s e c onda ry t o di s a s s oc i a t i ve r e a c t i on, ” a nd tha tupon s e e i ng hi s w i f e ’ s body i n the c r e e k, he “ w a s e m ot i ona l l y ups e t , s uf f e r i ng f r om s hoc k a nd di s be l i e f , a nd ov erw hel m ed w i th g ri ef . ” A l derm an then h ea rd a c arapproachi ng and ass um ed thatbecause he w as so cl ose t o the grandp ar ent s’ ho use, the ca r probabl y c on t ai ned he rr e l a t i ve s . H e r e a s one d tha t“ i f the y s a w hi m the r e the y w oul d j um p t o the concl usi on thathe w as re spon si bl e a nd they w ou l d h urthi m ph ys i ca l l y, ” a s “ they h a d th r e a te n e d to d o . . . in th e p a s t.” D r . S m ith th e n e x p la in e d h o w “th e m e c h a n is m s o f f ig h t o rf lig h t w e n t in to o p erat i o n an d [A l d erm an ] fl ed th e scen e t o av o i d w h ath e co n si d ered al m o st c e r t a i n phy s i c a l ha rm . ” T o ke e p f r om “ f e e l i ng unm a nl y a nd c ow a r dl y ” about l e a vi ng hi s w i f

e the r e , A l de r m a n e xpe r i e nc e d a di s a s s oc i a t i ve r e a c t i on. T he pa r tof h i s co n sci o u sn ess th atk n ew h e h ad d i sco v ered h i s w i fe “ w as sp l i to ff fro m th e rest of i ta nd . . . r e pr e s s e d i nt o the unc ons c i ous ne s s . T hi s c r e a t e d a di s a s s oc i a t i ve r e a c tio n a n d a lo n g w ith it th e a m n e s ia .” T h is , in tu rn , e n ab le d A ld e r m a n to

“ subcon sc i ou sl y deny thathe had fou nd hi s w i fe ’ s bod y a nd there fore deny that s h e w a s a c tu a lly d e a d a t a ll, s o th a t h e d id n o t h a v e to f e e l g u ilty ab o u t le a v in g h isPrior to her de ath, Mrs. Alder man’s insuranc e with the City of Savanna

h had lapse d. 17 As the state ha

beas c ourt stated in its order denying A lderman relief, de fensecounsel “presented witnesses who testified that, if any life insuranc e policies had exis ted at the time of themurder, they had lapse d prior to Mrs. Alder man’s death.” Alder

man v. Head, No. 94-V- 720 at 22 (Super. Ct. of Butts County

Dec . 29, 1999). The State’ s insurancemotivation for the murder there fore depende d solely

on the testimony

of John Brown.

23 w if e a n d h e w o u ld a ls o b e ab le to e s c ap e th e te rr ib le f e a ro f p h y s ic a l h a r m b y h is i n-l aw s. ” D r. S m i th sai d thatA l derm an’ s a m nesi a “ l as t ed fr om the t i m e he s po tt ed h is w if e ’s b o d y in th e c r e e k u n til th e tim e h e id e n tif ie d [ h e r ] b o d y a t th e h o s p ita l.” R es po nd i ng t o the S t at e’ s theory thathe ki l l ed hi s w i fe t o col l ec ti nsurance pr oc e e ds , A l de r m a n t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd M r s . A l de r m a n ha d a good m a rr i a ge a nd tha the ha d no m or e m one t a ry i nc e nt i ve t o ki l l hi s w i f e tha n a ny othe rhus ba nd w ho se w i fe had l i fe i nsurance. C on tra ryt o B row n’ s s t ory, A l derm an t es t i fi ed 17 th ath i s w i fe w as n o tco n t em p l at i n g a d i v o rce. A l d erm an sai d th ath e an d M rs. A ld e r m a n h a d a n o r m a l, h e a lth y m a r ita l r e la tio n s h ip . A l derm an’ s l aw ye rs thu s i m pu gn ed John B row n’ s c re di bi l i ty, and there fore the S t a t e ’ s the ory of

the c a s e , by por tr a y i ng B r ow n a s a l y i ng drug- a ddi c t , a nd o fferi n g h i s o w n , ex cu l p at o ry v ersi o n o f ev en t s. III. I n hi s habe a s pe t i t i on t o the B utt s C ounty S upe r i orC our ton D e c e m be r22, 1994, A l de r m a n c l a i m e d tha thi s a tt orne y s de ni e d hi m the e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l by fa i l i ng t o i nv es t i gat e a nd pres entt o the j ury hi s s oci al -hi st oryAt the habe as cor pus hearing, F ather

Wis e expressed that “J ack always impressed me. 18 . . [He] was probably

the most influential person that I knew back there [at the D-house ]. I re sp e c te d Jack’ s w isdom. ”F ather Wi sete sti fi e d th at hefe lt f ru strate d at no t be inga

bleto elaborate moreon these opinions at the RST. 24 backgrou nd . T he heartof hi s c l ai m w as thathi s “ coun se l ’ s f ai l ure t o i nv es t i gat e, de ve l op a nd pr e s e ntm i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e be y ond l i nge r i ng doubte vi de nc e w a s not th e r e s u lt o f

a ta c tic a l o rs tr a te g ic d e c is io n . R a th e rit w a s th e r e s u lt o f a c o m p le te f a ilu r e to u n d e r s ta n d th e m e a n in g , p u rp o s e a n d s c o p e o f m itig a tio n e v id e n c e a t a c ap ita l s e n te n c in g tr ia l.” T he s upe r i orc our the l d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on the pe t i t i on on M a y 5–6, 1999. A l de r m a n’ s habe a s a tt orne y s e xa m i ne d s i x w i tne s s e s : F a the rR i c ha r d P a ul W i se , C atheri ne T ho m pson , M artha M urph y D avi s, Ja ck B oyd D ea l , G eorge T erry J a c k s o n , a n d M ic h a e l S c h ia v o n e . F a th e rW is e w a s th e c h ap la in a t th e G e o r g ia D i a gnos t i c a nd C l a s s i f

i c a t i on C e nt e rf

r om 1980–1986, a nd c a m e t o know A l d erm an w h i l e h e w as o n d eath ro w th ere. F ath er W i se, w h o h ad t est i fi ed as a defe nse w i tness atthe R S T , com pl ai ned thathe “ di dn ’ tgeta c hance t o sayw hat [ he ] w a nt e d t o s a y . ” H e r e m e m be r e d, how e ve r , be i ng a s ke d hi s opi ni on of 18 A ld e r m a n a n d c o m m e n tin g th a t “h e w a s p r o b ab ly o n e o f th e m o s t h o n e s t p e o p le [he had] m eti n p ri son w ork. ” C atheri ne T ho m pson , A l derm an’ s e x-w i fe , st at ed tha tw hi l e s he t e s t i f

i e d a s a de f

e ns e w i tne s s a tA l de r m a n’ s 1975 tr i a l , s he w a s not as ked t o t es t i fyathi s R S T . T ho m pson w ou l d h ave t es t i fi ed thatA l derm an neverDavis testified that she w ould have c ommented on Alder man’s physical, spiritual, and 19 intellectual discipline had shebeen c alled to testify at the RST: “J ack ha s stood out in m any ways . . . his capac ity

. . . through all that he’s be en through . . . to maintain a sense of focus a nd an amazing level of

discipline.” 25 ab u sed h er, an d th atsh e h ad “ n ev er seen h i m g eti n an y k i n d o f arg u m en t s, fi g h t s .

. . tha tw a s n’ thi s na tur e . ” S i m i l a r l y , M a r tha M urphy D a vi s , a P r e s by t e r i a n pa s t or a nd di r e c t orof

the S outhe rn P r i s on M i ni s try i n G e or gi a , a ve rr e d tha ts he di d not testify a t A ld er m an ’s R S T b u t w o u ldh av e b ee n w il li n g to d o so . A ld er m an ’s 19 l a w y e r s a tthe e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a l s o c a l l e d J a c k B oy d D e a l , a r e t i r e d hi gh s c hool t ea cherw ho t augh tA l derm an atS avannah H i gh S choo l i n 1 96 8 and 19 69 . D ea l sa i d thathe w as no tcont ac t ed t o serve as a def ense w i tness atthe R S T , bu ti f gi ven the c ha nc e t o t e s t i f

y he w oul d ha ve de s c r i be d A l de r m a n a s a m ode l s tude nt w ho “ go tal on g w el l w i th h i s pee rs and h i s other t ea cher s. ” T h e c ru x o f th e e v id en ti ar y h ea rin g fo cu se d o n th e tes ti m o n y o f A ld er m an ’s att orneys , G eorge T erryJa ckson and M i chae l S chi avon e. In t erm s of e xp er i ence , Ja ckson h ad been a prac t i ci ng att orney f or tw el ve ye ar s, and h ad hand l ed se vera l d e a th p e n a lty c a s e s , s o m e o f w h ic h w e n t to tr ia l, b y th e tim e h e w a s ap p o in te d to re pres entA l derm an. In l i gh tof hi s e xp er i ence i n capi t al ca se s, Ja ckson w as w r itin g a r tic le s a n d s p e a k in g a t s e m in a r s r e g a r d in g d e a th p e n a lty litig a tio n . Ja ckson o cc up i ed the fi rs tchai r, and S chi avon e w as the se cond chai r a t A ld e r m a n ’s R S T .26

A tthe R S T , J a c ks on w a s pr i m a r i l y r e s pons i bl e f orpr e pa r i ng w i tne s s e s on the l i nge r i ng doubtthe ory , a nd S c hi a vone m a i nl y or ga ni z e d the m i t i ga t i on e v id e n c e . J a c k s o n te s tif ie d th a t w h ile lin g e r in g d o u b t w a s th e irp r im a ry d e f e n s e to the death p enal ty, they a l so w ant ed “ t o sho w w hatki nd of pers on Ja ck A l derm an w as , thathe w as w el l re spec t ed i n the com m un i ty a nd trust ed. ” J ac kson expl ai ned th at th eir c h ar ac ter w itn es se s w er e q u es ti o n ed at th e R S T ab o u t A ld er m an ’s re pu t at i on i n the com m un i ty f or bei ng a truthful , l aw abi di ng ci t i ze n, and thatthere w a s n o ta c tic a l r e a s o n f o rn o t a s k in g th e m ab o u t A ld e r m a n ’s lif e a n d b a c k g r o u n d . J a c ks on a l s o s a i d tha the di d notha ve a pa rt i c ul a rr e a s on f ornotha vi ng A l de r m a n’ s e x- w i f

e t e s t i f y ori ntr oduc i ng por t i ons of A l de r m a n’ s m e di c a l a nd e d u c a tio n a l r e c o r d s . J a c ks on t e s t i f

i e d tha the hi r e d tw o i nve s t i ga t or s t o l oc a t e a num be rof w i tne s s e s . I n pa r t i c ul a r , he w a s i nt e r e s t e d i n de t e r m i ni ng the w he r e about s of J on S ato . S ato an d B ro w n w er e h o u se d in th e s am e c ellb lo ck fo ll o w in g B ro w n ’s c onvi c t i on i n 1975. S a t o ga ve a t ape d, s w orn s t a t e m e ntt o hi s a tt orne y de s c r i bi ng h o w B ro w n h ad co n fe ss ed to co m m itti n g th e m u rd eralo n e, w ith o u t A ld er m an ’s i nv ol vem ent . P ri or t o the R S T , S at o and the t ape di sapp ea re d. Ja ckson d es cr i bed th e le n g th s th e d e f

e n s e te a m w e n t to in a n a tte m p t to s e c u r e S a to ’s te s tim o n y . T h ey d i sco v ered S at o b u to n l y aft er th e j u ry h ad retu rn ed i t s v erd i ctag ai n stSee supra part II .B.4. 20 It is apparent from the re cord that Schiavone wa s ref erring to Alderman’s f

riends, who 21 testified to his reputation as be ing a law-a biding a nd truthful person. Seesupra pa rt II .B.2. 27 A ld e r m a n a n d h e h a d b e e n s e n te n c e d . J a c k s o n a ls o d is c u s s e d h is d e c is io n to c a ll D r. C o n ra d i as a d ef

en se w itn es s. W h il e D r. C o n ra d i w as n o t p ar t o f th e d ef en se ’s ca se atthe 19 75 tri al , Ja ckson w ant ed t o em ph as i ze the abse nce of the ph ys i ca l fi nd i ng s thatshou l d h ave been pres enton M rs . A l derm an’ s bod y had B row n b ee n te llin g th e tru th . A s f or m i t i gat i ng evi dence, Ja ckson and S chi avon e c al l ed as char ac t er w i tne s s e s e l e ve n c orr e c t i ons of f i c e r s , s e ve n of

A l de r m a n’ s f

r i e nds , a nd f

i ve of A l derm an’ s pre vi ou s e m pl oyer s or c o-w orkers . S chi avon e t es t i fi ed that“ [he] 20 w ant ed backgrou nd i nform at i on abou tJa ck and abo uthi s f am i l y a nd thi ng s of that na tur e . Y ou know , m y r e c ol l e c t i on i s tha te ve n though i tw a s a r e - s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng the m ai n thrustof ou r app roac h w as that– w as t o p rove Ja ck’ s i nn ocence, tha tthe y s houl dn’ tputa n i nnoc e ntm a n t o de a th. ” W he n a s ke d w he the rhe ha d a stra t egi ca l re as on for noti nq ui ri ng i nt o the det ai l s of A l derm an’ s “ l i fe e xpe r i e nc e s , ” S c hi a vone r e s ponde d tha tthe r e w a s “ no t a c t i c a l ors tr a t e gi c r e a s on I c a n thi nk of

, j us tpr obabl y di dn’ ta s k the m . ” U pon f ur the ri nqui ry , S c hi a vone 21 sa i d: “ w e probabl y w er e thi nk i ng that[the re pu t at i on evi dence] w as the ext entthat w e c o u ld g o in to a t th e tim e .”28

O n D ec em b er2 9 , 1 9 9 9 , th e B u tt s C o u n ty S u p er io r C o u rt d en ied A ld er m an ’s p etit io n fo r w rit o f h ab ea s c o rp u s. A fterd iscu ss in g Ja ck so n an d S ch iav o n e’s re pres ent at i on of A l derm an, the courtfoun d that“ tri al coun se l brou gh t‘ t o b ea r s uc h s ki l l a nd know l e dge a s w i l l r e nde rthe tr i a l a r e l i abl e a dve r s a r i a l t e s t i ng proces s. ’ ” A l derm an v. H ea d, N o. 94 -V -720 at20 (S up er . C t . of B ut t s C ou nty D ec . 29 , 19 99 ) ( ci t i ng S tri ckl and v . W as hi ng t on , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 8 (19 84 )) . T he court fu rth er fo u n d th atd efen se co u n sel ’ s “ strat eg y t o sh o w ‘ resi d u al d o u b t , ’ w as a re as on abl e, profes si on al deci si on i n l i gh tof the i nform at i on and fact s thatw er e a va i l abl e t o tr i a l c ouns e l a tthe t i m e . ” I d. A s the j ury a tthe r e - s e nt e nc i ng tr i a l w a s notthe s a m e j ury w ho f ound A l d erm an g u i l ty o f th e cri m e, th ere w as a p o ssi b i l i ty th atth i s j u ry, w h o h e a r d th e e n tir e g u ilt/in n o c e n c e e v id e n tia ryp r e s e n ta tio n , w o u ld bel i eve thatsom e dou btexi st ed as t o A l derm an’ s gui l t . Itw as re as on abl e f

or M r. Ja ckson t o b el i eve thatpres ent i ng evi dence that A l de r m a n’ s m othe rha d l e f tthe f a m i l y w he n he w a s a c hi l d a nd evi dence about hi s vi si on prob l em s w ou l d n otsw ay a j ury t o i m po se a lif e s e n te n c e in s te a d o f

d e a th . I n f

a c t, in o r d e rto e f

f e c tiv e ly p r e s e n t a p e n a lty p h a s e d e f

e n s e o f m e r c y b a s e d o n s a d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f h is c h ild h o o d a n d a d o le s c e n c e , A ld e r m a n m a y h a v e h a d to a d m it to c o m m ittin g th e c r im e a n d th e n a s k th e ju ry to s p a r e h im th e d e a th penal ty due t o h i s di ff

i cul tchi l dh oo d. B ec ause A l derm an m ai nt ai ned h is in n o c e n c e th r o u g h o u t th e f ir s t tr ia l a n d th e r e - s e n te n c in g tr ia l, su ch a strat eg y w o u l d h av e b een i n co m p at i b l e w i th h i s t est i m o n y; th erefo re, th e resi d u al d o u b tstrat eg y u sed b y M r. Jack so n w as a r e a s onabl e one ba s e d on the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s a s M r . J a c ks on k n e w th e m to b e a t th a t tim e . A l de r m a n v. H e a d, N o. 94- V - 720 a t23 ( S upe r . C t . of B utt s C ounty D e c e m be r29,A re adingof the quoted por tion of the superior c ourt’s dec ision mi ght convey the 22 impression that defense counse l did not present “evidencethat Alderma n’s mother had left the family when hewas a

child and evidence a

bout his visi on problems.” As our discussion in part II .B.3 indicates, counsel did pre sent such evidence through the testimony of Alder man’s father and Dr . Smith, the psychiatrist, who testified f or the de fensevia a tra

nscript of the te stimony

he g ave at Alderman’ s 1975 trial. Given this reality , and as w e point out in the tex t infra, what the court obviously

meant in the abovequotation is that defensecounsel did not present Alderman’ s life history

to the extent habeas c ounsel contend they should have. 29 19 99 ). 22 I n r e s p o n s e to th e c la im th a t h is a tto rn e y s f a ile d to c o n d u c t a n a d e q u a te pretri al i nv es t i gat i on of A l derm an’ s l i fe hi st ory, the courtfoun d thatcoun se l th o r o u g h ly in v e s tig a te d A ld e r m a n ’s b a c k g r o u n d w ith th e a id o f tw o in v e s tig a to r s . T he c our ta l s o r e

j e c t e d the c l a i m tha tc ouns e l f a i l e d t o unde r s t a nd the s c ope of a v a ilab le m itig a tin g e v id e n c e , a n d th u s f a ile d to p r e s e n t s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e in m itig a tio n . T h e c o u r t f

o u n d th a t A ld e r m a n ’s a tto rn e y s p r e s e n te d “s u b s ta n tia l” m i t i gat i on evi dence. Id. at25 . In sum , the courtconcl ud ed that“ A l derm an has fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thathe re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l un der e i ther pron g o f the S tri ckl and st andard and rel i ef on thi s c l ai m i s deni ed on the m er i t s. ” I d. a t30. IV . A l de r m a n c ha l l e nge s the B utt s C ounty S upe r i orC our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w on the gr ound tha tboth a r e unr e a s onabl e unde rthe A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f

f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 ( A E D P A ) , 2 8 U .S .C . §“ Se c tio n 2 25 4, a s amende d b y theAnti- Terrorism

and Ef fe c tiv eDe ath P e nalty

Ac t, 23 Pub.L . No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1218 (1996), e stablishes a more de ferential standard of review of state habe as judgments.” F ug ate v. He ad, 261 F .3d 1206, 1215 (11th Cir. 2001). In addition to section 2254(d), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (1) provides that “In a proc eeding 24 instituted by

an application for a writ of habea s corpus by a per son in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State c ourt, a determination of a f actual issue made by

a State cour

t shall be presumed to becorrect. Theapplicant shall have the burden of rebutting thepresumption of c or re c tne ss b y

c le ar a nd c onvin c inge vide nc e .”This s e c tio n re fersto t hepetition e r’ s b urden in federal district cour

t to overcomethe state c ourt’s fact findingby “cle ar a nd convincing e vide nc e .”Sin c eweultimate ly c on c ludetha

t A lderm an doe s n ot s atis fy thec on dition s set f

or th in e ith e r § 22 54 (d)( 1) or

§2 25 4( d) (2 ), wene e d n ot add re ss t hea pp lic atio n o f § 22 54 (e ) in this case . 30 2254( d) . B e c a us e the s t a t e c our ta dj udi c a t e d hi s habe a s c orpus c l a i m on the m er it s, w e c an g ra n t h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w rit o f h ab ea s c o rp u s o n ly if th at co u rt’s a dj udi c a t i on: (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es ; or ( 2 ) r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le de t e r m i na t i on of

the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g . 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) . A c c or di ngl y , f orA l de r m a n t o s e c ur e f e de r a l habe a s c orpus 23 re l i ef , he m ustdem on stra t e thathi s c as e s at i sf i es the cond i t i on s s etforth i n ei ther § 2 25 4(d)(1) or §22 54 (d)( 2). 24 S p e c if ic a lly , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t p r o v id e d g u id a n c e ab o u t h o w to in te rp r e t § 2254( d) i n W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U . S . 362, 120 S . C t . 1495, 146 L . E d. 2d 389 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . U n d e rs e c tio n 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) , th e “c o n tr a ry to ” a n d “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ” c la u s e s a r e in te rp r e te d a s in d e p e n d e n t s ta tu to ry m o d e s o f a n a ly s is .31

S ee W i l l i am s, 52 9 U . S . at40 5– 40 7, 12 0 S . C t . at15 19 –1 52 0. W i l l i am s hel d that there ar e tw o w ay s i n w hi ch a s t at e- courtdeci si on m ay be “ contra ryt o” F eder al la w : “F ir s t, a s ta te - c o u r t d e c is io n is c o n tr a ry to th is C o u r t’s p r e c e d e n t if th e s ta te c o u r t a rr iv e s a t a c o n c lu s io n o p p o s ite to th a t r e a c h e d b y th is C o u rto n a q u est i o n o f l aw . S eco n d , a st at e-co u rtd eci si o n i s al so c o n tr a ry to th is C o u r t’s p r e c e d e n t if th e s ta te c o u r t c o n f

r o n ts f a c ts thatar e m at er i al l y i nd i st i ng ui shabl e f rom a r el evantS up re m e C ou rt prec edentand arr i ves a ta r es ul top po si t e t o o urs. ” 52 9 U . S . at40 5, 12 0 S . C t . at15 19 (O ’ C on no r, J. , for m aj ori ty) . H ow ever , W i l l i am s does notl i m i tthe construct i on of “ contra ryt o” t o the tw o exam pl es se t f o r th ab o v e . S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ’s “c o n tr a ry to ” s im p ly im p lie s th a t “th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n m u s t b e s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e r e n t f r o m th e r e le v a n t p r e c e d e n t o f th is C o u r t.” I d . A l t ernat i vel y, w hen the fe dera l courti s f ac ed w i th a “ run-of-the-m i l l st at ec o u r t d e c is io n ap p ly in g th e c o rr e c t le g a l ru le ,” th e c o m p a n io n “u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on ” provi si on of § 2 25 4(d)(1) i s the prop erst atut ory l ens. 52 9 U . S . at 40 6, 12 0 S . C t . at15 20 . In other w ords, i f the st at e c ou rti dent i fi ed the corre ct l egal pri nci pl e butun re as on abl y app l i ed i tt o the fa ct s of apet i t i on er ’ s c as e, then th e fed eral co u rtsh o u l d l o o k t o § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 )’ s “ u n reaso n ab l e ap p l i cat i o n ” cl au se f orgui da nc e . “ A f

e de r a l habe a s c our tm a ki ng the ‘ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on’ i nq ui ryshou l d ask w hether the st at e c ou rt ’ s app l i ca t i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed32

f e de r a l l a w w a s obj e c t i ve l y unr e a s onabl e . ” 529 U . S . a t409, 120 S . C t . a t1521 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . I n a ddi t i on t o § 2254( d) ( 1) , § 2254( d) ( 2) r e gul a t e s f e de r a l c our tr e vi e w of s ta te c o u r t f

in d in g s o f

f a c t; th e s e c tio n lim its th e a v a ilab ility o f r e lie f to “d e c is io n [ s ] th a t w [ e r e ] b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te r m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g .” § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . F in a lly , § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) p r o v id e s th e f r a m e w o r k f

o rg r a n tin g h ab e a s c o rp u s r e lie f in s itu a tio n s w h e r e th e f

e d e r a l c o u r t h a s f

o u n d c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r . S e e , e .g ., W i ggi ns v. S m i th, 539 U . S . 510, 528, 123 S . C t . 2527, 2539, 156 L . E d. 2d 471 ( 2003) ; T a y l orv. M a ddox, 366 F . 3d 992, 999–1001 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , c e r t . de ni e d, 5 4 3 U .S . 1 0 3 8 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 8 0 9 , 1 6 0 L .E .2 d 6 0 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) , e s t abl i s he s the t e s ttha tgove rns c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l , i . e . , the “ c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w ” r e l e va ntt o thi s c a s e unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) . T he pe t i t i one rm us ts a t i s f y S tr i c kl a nd’ s tw o- pa r tt e s tt o m ount s u c c e s s f u l l y a n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. 4 6 6 U . S. a t6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. C t . a t2064. I n othe rw or ds , the pe t i t i one rm us ts how both 1) de f i c i e nt p er fo rm an ce o f c o u n se l an d 2 ) p re ju d icial i m p ac t stem m in g fr o m co u n se l’ s defi ci entperf

orm ance . Id. U nd erthe fi rs tpron g, the pet i t i on erm ustshow “ that33

c o u n s e l m a d e e rr o r s s o s e r io u s th a t c o u n s e l w a s n o t f u n c tio n in g a s th e ‘c o u n s e l’ gua r a nt e e d the de f

e nda ntby the S i xth A m e ndm e nt . ” I d. T he ha l l m a r k of the seco n d p ro n g i s rel i ab i l i ty: “ T h i s req u i res sh o w i n g th atco u n sel ’ s erro rs w ere so s e r io u s a s to d e p r iv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f a f a irtr ia l, a tr ia l w h o s e r e s u lt is r e liab le .” I d . W he n a s s e s s i ng w he the rc ouns e l f ul f i l l e d the i robl i ga t i ons unde rS tr i c kl a nd, the S upr e m e C our tha s “ f oc us [ e d] on w he the rthe i nve s t i ga t i on s uppor t i ng co u n sel ’ s d eci si o n n o tt o i n tro d u ce m i t i g at i n g ev i d en ce o f [p et i t i o n er’ s] ba c kgr ound w a s i t s e l f

r e a s onabl e . ” S e e , e . g. , W i ggi ns v. S m i th, 539 U . S . 510, 5 2 3 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 , 2 5 3 6 , 1 5 6 L .E d .2 d 4 7 1 (2 0 0 3 ) ( co n clu d in g th at co u n se l’ s de c i s i on nott o e xpa nd the i ri nve s t i ga t i on be y ond thr e e s our c e s f e l l s hor tof

the r e qui r e d pr of

e s s i ona l s t a nda r ds ) . F ur the r m or e , i n e va l ua t i ng the r e a s onabl e ne s s of the i nve s t i ga t i on, “ a c our tm us tc ons i de rnotonl y the qua ntum of e vi de nc e a l r e a dy k n o w n to c o u n s e l, b u t a ls o w h e th e rth e k n o w n e v id e n c e w o u ld le a d a r e a s o n ab le a tt orne y t o i nve s t i ga t e f ur the r . ” W i ggi ns , 539 U . S . a t527, 123 S . C t . a t2538. T h is is n o t to s u g g e s t th a t th e r e is s o m e la te n t m a g ic n u m b e ro f w itn e s s e s to i nt e r vi e w ordoc um e nt s ore xhi bi t s t o r e vi e w . O n the c ontr a ry , the r e i s “ no ab s o lu te d u ty to in v e s tig a te p a r tic u la rf a c ts o ra c e r ta in lin e o f

d e f e n s e s .” F u g a te v . H e a d , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o tin g th a t “a c o m p le te f a ilu r e to34

in v e s tig a te m a y c o n s titu te d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e o f

c o u n s e l in c e r ta in c i r c um s t a nc e s ” ) . R a the rtha n s c rut i ni z i ng c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e thr ough the n arro w l en s o f h i n d si g h t , th e co u rtm u stco n si d er “ th e su m t o t al o f [co u n sel ’ s] e f f o r ts .” I d . a t 1 2 4 0 . F u r th e r m o r e , th e r e is n o t o n e “c o rr e c t” w a y f o rc o u n s e l to p r o v id e e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . T o uphol d a l a w y e r ’ s s tr a t e gy , w e ne e d nota tt e m ptt o di vi ne the l aw ye r’ s m ent al proces se s und er l yi ng the stra t egy . . . N o l aw ye r c an be expect ed t o h ave c on si dere d al l of the w ay s. If a def ense l aw ye r pu rs ued cou rs e A , i ti s i m m at er i al thatsom e other r ea sonabl e c ou rs es of de f e ns e ( tha tthe l a w y e rdi d notthi nk of a ta l l ) e xi s t e d a nd tha tthe l aw ye r’ s pursui tof course A w as no ta del i bera t e c ho i ce betw ee n course A , course B , and so o n . . . ou r i nq ui ryi s l i m i t ed t o w hether thi s s tra t egy . . . m i gh thave been a re as on abl e one. C hand l erv. U . S . , 21 8 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 16 n. 16 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). E ve n i f the pe t i t i one rc l a i m s tha thi s a tt orne y w a s una w a r e of a r e l e va nt d e f e n s e , “p e titio n e rm u s t p r o v e th a t th e ap p r o a c h ta k e n b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l w o u ld notha ve be e n us e d by pr of e s s i ona l l y c om pe t e ntc ouns e l . ” H a r i c h v. D ugge r , 844 F . 2d 1464, 1470 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( abr oga t e d on othe rgr ounds ) . A s S tr i c kl a nd em ph as i ze d, “ a c ou rtm usti nd ul ge a s trong pres um pt i on thatcoun se l ’ s c on du ct f a l l s w i thi n the w i de r a nge of r e a s onabl e pr of

e s s i ona l a s s i s t a nc e ; tha ti s , the de f e nda ntm us tove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on tha t , unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , the c ha l l e nge d a c t i on ‘ m i ghtbe c ons i de r e d s ound tr i a l s tr a t e gy . ’ ” 466 U . S . a t689 ( c i t i ng M i c he l v. L oui s i a na , 350 U . S . 91, 101, 76 S . C t . 158, 164, 100 L . E d. 8335

( 1 9 5 5 ) ) . H er e, A l derm an cont ends thatthe st at e habeas courtun re as on abl y app l i ed S tri ck l an d ’ s st an d ard as t o th e d efi ci en tp erfo rm an ce p ro n g o f h i s i n effecti v en ess c la im s . A ld e r m a n m a in ta in s th a t u n d e rS tr ic k la n d , h is a tto rn e y s ’ f a ilu r e to i nve s t i ga t e l i f

e - hi s t ory m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e w a s r e a s onabl e onl y i f c ouns e l m a de a n i nf or m e d s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on t o f or e go s uc h a n i nve s t i ga t i on. I n thi s r e ga r d, A ld er m an q u es ti o n s th e s tate h ab ea s c o u rt’s d eter m in atio n th at co u n se l’ s pr e s e nt a t i on of

l i nge r i ng doubte vi de nc e e f f e c t i ve l y pr e c l ude d a f

i ndi ng of defi ci entperf

orm ance . A l de r m a n f

ur the rc l a i m s tha tthe s t a t e habe a s c our t ’ s de c i s i on s houl d be di s r e ga r de d be c a us e the c our tba s e d i t s de c i s i on on unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i ons of fa cti n l i gh tof the evi dence before the court . H e c on t ends thatthe re cord c le a r ly e s tab lis h e s th a t h is a tto rn e y s d id n o t m a k e a s tr a te g ic o rta c tic a l d e c is io n to f or e go pr e s e nt i ng l i f

e - hi s t ory m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e , buti ns t e a d m i s unde r s t ood the l a w r e ga r di ng m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e , i . e . , the y be l i e ve d tha tthe onl y e vi de nc e the l a w pe r m i tt e d the m t o pr e s e ntw a s t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng hi s r e put a t i on i n the co m m u n ity f

o r b ein g law ab id in g an d tru th fu l. A ld er m an em p h as izes Ja ck so n ’s statem en t at th e e v id en ti ar y h ea rin g th at th e m it ig atio n ev id en ce A ld er m an ’s habeas att orneys proferre d w as no ti ncon si st entw i th the l i ng er i ng do ub ttheory36

th a tc o u n s e l a d o p t e d a tth e RS T. W e c onc l ude tha tthe s t a t e c our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of S tr i c kl a nd w a s not obj e c t i ve l y unr e a s onabl e , a nd tha tde f e ns e c ouns e l ’ s l i f

e - hi s t ory i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr e s e nt a t i on of

m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e di d notc ons t i tut e i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l u n d e rS tr ic k la n d . W e a ls o c o n c lu d e th a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to p r e s e n t th e e v id e n c e h ab e a s c o u n s e l p r o f f e r e d a t th e e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g d id n o t const i tut e a n err or so “ se ri ou s a s t o d epri ve the defendantof a f ai r tri al , a tri al w ho se re sul ti s r el i abl e. ” C ouns e l w a s notr e qui r e d t o e xa m i ne e ve ry pos s i bl e l e ga l s tr a t e gy or de f e ns e a va i l abl e . S tr i c kl a nd f oc us e s on w he the rthe i nve s t i ga t i on s uppor t i ng c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n w a s its e lf r e a s o n ab le . C o n tr a ry to A ld e r m a n ’s v ie w , th e s ta te c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tc ouns e l c onduc t e d a thor ough ba c kgr ound i nve s t i ga t i on w i th the a i d of

tw o i nve s t i ga t or s , pr e s e nt e d s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n m i t i ga t i on, a nd h a d a r e a s o n ab le tr ia l s tr a te g y . A s th e c o u r t s ta te d , “tr ia l c o u n s e l’s s tr a te g y to s how ‘ r e s i dua l doubt ’ w a s a r e a s onabl e , pr of e s s i ona l de c i s i on i n l i ghtof i nf or m a t i on a nd f

a c t s tha tw e r e a va i l abl e t o tr i a l c ouns e l a tthe t i m e . ” A l de r m a n v. H ea d, N o. 94 -V -720 at20 (S up er . C t . of B ut t s C ou nty D ec . 29 , 19 99 ). F u r th e rm o r e , A ld e r m a n ’s c la im th a t c o u n s e l n e e d e d to m a k e a s tr a te g ic deci si on t o forego a l i fe -hi st ory i nv es t i gat i on t o sat i sf y S tri ckl and p re supp oses“Character witnesses testifying on behalf of theaccused are limited on direct 25 e xamina tio n tostatingthat th ede fendant’ s reputatio n in thec omm

unity is g oo d. Th ewitne ss may not givehis personal opinion of the accuse d’s cha rac ter, or relate spe cific instanc es of conduct that illustrate the de fenda nt’s g ood character.” Paul S. Milich, Courtroom Handbook on Georg ia Evidenc e § 11.4 (2006 e d.) (c itations omi tted). A witness may also testify

as to the accused’s reputation for truth and verac ity where the accuse d’s credibility is at issue. I d. 37 tha tc ouns e l di d noti n f a c tm a ke s uc h a de c i s i on. A ttr i a l , thr ough the t e s t i m ony o f A ld er m an , h is fa th er , an d D r. S m ith , co u n se l eli cited an ac co u n t o f A ld er m an ’s up bri ng i ng : A l derm an di d n otre m em ber hi s m other a tal l ; the chal l enges he f ac ed du e t o h i s e ye i nj ury a nd subsequentbl i nd ness ; and the ye arthathe spentaw ay fro m h i s fam i l y w h i l e atth e G eo rg i a A cad em y fo r th e B l i n d . In ad d i t i o n , d efen se c o u n s e l e lic ite d h is f

a th e r ’s te s tim o n y o f

lo v e f o rh is s o n . N otw i thst andi ng coun se l ’ s pre se nt at i on of such m i t i gat i ng evi dence, A l derm an cont ends thatthe st at e c ou rt ’ s f i nd i ng thatdefe nse c ou nsel pres ent ed

“ s ubs t a nt i a l ” m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e c ons t i tut e s a n unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of f a c t in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e b e f

o r e th e c o u r t. S p e c if

ic a lly , h e c o n te n d s th a t h is a tt orne y s di d not , a nd c oul d not , m a ke a s tr a t e gi c ort a c t i c a l de c i s i on t o f or e go pr e s e nt i ng l i f

e - hi s t ory m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e , be c a us e the y m i s unde r s t ood w ha tthe l aw w ou l d p erm i tas m i t i gat i ng evi dence. A cc ordi ng t o A l derm an, coun se l th o u g h t th a t th e o n ly e v id e n c e th e c o u r t w o u ld p e rm it to c o m e b e f o r e th e ju ry in m i t i gat i on w ou l d b e w hati s tra di t i on al l y r ef erre d t o as “ char ac t er ” e vi dence. 25 T ha ti s , the c our tw oul d a l l ow w i tne s s e s t o t e s t i f y aboutA l de r m a n’ s goodAs noted in Alderma n v. Head, No. 94-V- 720 at 20 (Super. Ct. of B utts County Dec . 26 29 , 1 99 9) , F re dric k J. H e a d, rather t ha n T ony Turp in, wa s th ewa

rde n o f t heGe org ia

Di agno sti c and Classification Prison at the time of the superior cour t’s order denying A lderman ha

beas relief , and thus was the proper respondent in the c ase. 38 r e put a t i on i n the c om m uni ty , butnothi s di f f i c ul tc hi l dhood a nd the hur dl e s he fa ce d as a r es u lto f h is ey e in ju ry . A ld er m an b as es h is as se rtio n o n S ch iav o n e’s t e s t i m ony . W he n a s ke d w he the rhe ha d a t a c t i c a l r e a s on f ornotpr e s e nt i ng the det ai l s of A l derm an’ s l i fe hi st ory, S chi avon e r es po nd ed thatthere i s “ no t ac t i ca l ors tr a t e gi c r e a s on I c a n thi nk of , j us tpr obabl y di dn’ ta s k the m . ” A l de r m a n v. T urpi n, N o. 94 -V -720 , E vi dent i ary H r’ g at25 6 (S up er . C t . of B ut t s C ou nty M ay 21, 1999) . U pon f

ur the ri nqui ry , S c hi a vone s pe c ul a t e d tha tthe y “ w e r e thi nki ng 26 tha t[ the c ha r a c t e re vi de nc e ] w a s the e xt e nttha tw e c oul d go i nt o a tthe t i m e . ” I d. a t257. A l de r m a n s e i z e s upon thi s s t a t e m e nta s pr oof tha tS c hi a vone a nd J a c ks on b e lie v e d th a t th e y w e r e lim ite d in th e irp r e s e n ta tio n o f m itig a tin g e v id e n c e . T h es e r es p o n se s m u st b e v iew ed , h o w ev er , i n li g h t o f b o th S ch iav o n e’s g u id a n c e to th e c h a r a c te rw itn e s s e s a n dth e m itig a tin g e v id e n c e c o u n s e l a c tu a lly pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury . F ore xa m pl e , S c hi a vone c om m e nt e d on w ha the t ol d the char ac t erw i tness es i n p re pari ng them t o t es t i fy : “ I m ea n I as sum e I w ant ed backgrou nd i nform at i on abou tJa ck and abo uthi s f am i l y a nd thi ng s of thatnature . . . m y r e c o lle c tio n is th a t e v e n th o u g h it w a s a r e - s e n te n c in g h e a r in g th e m a in thrustof ou r app roac h w as that– w as t o p rove Ja ck’ s i nn ocence, thattheyIt is apparent to us that the court considered Schiavone ’s testimony as a whole and 27 disreg arde d the statement Alderman seizes upon for his claim that counsel fe lt that the presentation of traditional cha rac ter evidencewas a s far as they could g o in introducing mitigatingevidenc e. 39 s h o u ld n ’t p u t a n in n o c e n t m a n to d e a th .” F u r th e r m o r e , it w o u ld b e in a c c u r a te to s e ve rS c hi a vone ’ s s t a t e m e ntf r om the t e s t i m ony the j ury a c tua l l y he a r d r e ga r di ng A l de r m a n’ s s oc i a l - hi s t ory ba c kgr ound. A s r e l a t e d above , the j ury he a r d about A l derm an’ s c hi l dh oo d, ey e i nj ury, subsequentbl i nd ness , ye araw ay fr om the f a m i l y , a nd the f

a the r ’ s l ove . S i gni f

i c a nt l y , upon r e vi e w i ng thi s t e s t i m ony , the s t a t e c our t , i n m a ki ng i t s c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s a nd f i ndi ng the s a l i e ntf

a c t s , ha d the autho ri ty t o d i sc re di tS chi avon e’ s s t at em ent– thatdefe nse c ou nsel bel i eved that th e la w lim ite d m itig a tio n e v id e n c e to “c h a r a c te r ” e v id e n c e –a n d to f in d , a s it d id , tha t“ tr i a l c ouns e l br ought‘ t o be a rs uc h s ki l l a nd know l e dge a s w i l l r e nde rthe tri al a r el i abl e a dv er sa ri al t es t i ng proces s. ’ ” A l derm an v. H ea d, N o. 94 -V -720 at 20 (S up er . C t . of B ut t s C ou nty D ec . 29 , 19 99 ). 27 T h e s tate h ab ea s c o u rt w as n o t u n re as o n ab le in d ec id in g th at A ld er m an ’s l aw ye rs m ade astra t egi c dec i si on t o forego the pres ent at i on of l i fe -hi st ory e v id e n c e a s f

u lly a s A ld e r m a n ’s h ab e a s c o u n s e l c la im s th e C o n s titu tio n r e q u ir e s . U nd er§ 2 25 4(d)(2), there i s nothi ng i n the re cord t o sug gestthatthe st at e c ou rt e nga ge d i n unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i ons of f a c t . C ons i de r i ng J a c ks on a nd S c hi a vone ’ s t e s t i m ony a s a w hol e , a nd the ove r - a r c hi ng “ l i nge r i ng- doubt ” s tr a t e gy40

c ouns e l e m pl oy e d, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe s t a t e c our tba s e d i t s de c i s i on on u n r e a s o n ab le d e te r m in a tio n s o f f a c t in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e b e f

o r e it. O f te n in h e r e n t in th e c h o ic e to p u r s u e o n e s tr a te g y is a la te n t d e c is io n n o t to e nga ge i n a di f

f e r e ntt a c t i c orl i ne of

de f e ns e . W hi l e S c hi a vone r e s ponde d tha the c oul d notthi nk of

a t a c t i c a l r e a s on f

ornotpur s ui ng m or e de t a i l e d r e s pons e s f r om hi s w i tne s s e s aboutA l de r m a n’ s l i f e hi s t ory , tha ti s s i m pl y a r e f l e c t i on of

the c a r d in a l e m p h a s is o n th e lin g e r in g d o u b t s tr a te g y . E v e n a s s u m in g th a t h is att orneys w er e notful l y a w ar e of the sc op e of perm i ss i bl e m i t i gat i ng evi dence, A l de r m a n w oul d ne e d t o s how tha tthe appr oa c h the y ul t i m a t e l y t ook “ w oul d not ha ve be e n us e d by pr of

e s s i ona l l y c om pe t e ntc ouns e l . ” H a r i c h v. D ugge r , 844 F .2 d 1 4 6 4 , 1 4 7 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( ab r o g a te d o n o th e rg r o u n d s ) . G iv e n th e s ta te court ’ s f i nd i ng s r egar di ng coun se l ’ s s ki l l , kn ow l edge, and p er form ance , coup l ed w ith th e c o u r t’s f

in d in g th a t “c o u n s e l p e r f o r m e d b o th r e a s o n ab ly a n d e f f e c tiv e ly in th e irr e p r e s e n ta tio n o f A ld e r m a n ,” A l de r m a n v. H e a d, N o. 94- V - 720 a t30 (S up er . C t . of B ut t s C ou nty D ec . 29 , 19 99 ), w e c anno tsa y thatA l derm an w as d e n ie d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to c o m p e te n t r e p r e s e n ta tio n . A dd re ss i ng S tri ckl and’ s s ec on d p rong , prej ud i ce , the st at e habeas court c onc l ude d tha tde f

e ns e c ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o i ntr oduc e l i f

e - hi s t ory e vi de nc e t o the e xt e nthabe a s c ouns e l c ont e nd the C ons t i tut i on r e qui r e s c a us e d A l de r m a n no41

pr e j udi c e . T he di s tr i c tc our t , r e vi e w i ng tha tc onc l us i on, a gr e e d. A s s um i ng, f or th e sak e o f arg u m en t , th atco u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce fai l ed t o m eetS tri ck l an d ’ s fi rst pron g, w e r ea di l y c on cl ud e on the re cord before us that“ coun se l ’ s e rr ors w er e [ n o t] s o s e r io u s a s to d e p r iv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f a f a irtr ia l, a tr ia l w h o s e r e s u lt is r e l i abl e . ” 466 U . S . a t687, 104 S . C t . a t2064. T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s acco rd i n g l y a f f i r m e d. S O O RD E RE D.