1



### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 70053

P A U L E V E R E T T E W O O D W A R D , P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. CHR I S T OP HER B E P P S , C OMM I S S I ONE R, MI S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M ENT O F C O R R E C T IO N S , R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , ST E W A R T , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . C A R L E
. ST E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg e: PaulW o o dwar d was c o nvi c t e d o f c ap i t alm ur de ra nd s e nt e nc e d t o de at h. A f t erex haust i ng s t at e c our t pro c ee di ngs, W oo dw ar d f i l ed a pet i t i on f

orhabeas
re li e f i n th e fed e ra l d istr ict co u rt. T h e d istr ict co u rt d e n ied th e re q u e ste dre li e f, bu ti ti ssu e d a cert i f i cat e of app eal abil i t y ( “ C O A” ) as t o t h ree i ssues: w h et h er W oodw ard’ s c on st itu tiona lri gh t s w ere vi ol ated (i) w h en hi s t ri alcoun sel
c o n c e d e dg u ilt t o th e ju r yw ith o u t fir s t s e c u r in gW o o d w a r d ’ s c o n s e n t; (ii) b yh is at t o r ne y’ s fail ur e t o o bj e c tt o the S t ate’ s us e o f o t he rb ada c t s i n i t s c l o s i ng ar gum e nt s ; a nd (i i i) b y t he t r i alc o ur t ’ s r e f us alt o pr o vi de W o o dwar d wi t h f unds t o sec u re an i n dep en d e n tpsychiat ri stt o ( a) hel p p repare a m i t i gati on defen se United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 06- 70053

Woodward also appeals the di strict c ou rt’s denial of hi s request for funds toret ain 1 anexpertund er 21 U .S .C
. § 8 4 8
. As w e di scu ss infra Part III .C., we will also consi der this cl aim
. 2 and (b) h el p p r epar e de fens e c ounse lf orc r os s- exam i nat i on o f t he s t at e’ s m ent al h e a lt h e x p e r t s . T h e d is t r i c tc o u r td e n ie d , b u tth is c o u r tg r a n t e d , W o o d w a r d ’s requ estf

or a C O Aon a f

ou rt h i ssue, w h et h er t h e State’ s use of perem ptory
c hal l e nge s a tW o o dwar d’ s r e s e nt e nc i ng vi ol atedhi s Fo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt ri gh tt o equ alprot ect i on un der B at s on v. K e nt ucky , 476 U
. S. 7 9 ( 19 86 )
. Fo rt he 1 fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , w e a ffir m . I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n app eal , W oodw ard d oes n otd i spu t e the fact s of the cri m e a s r ecoun t ed byt he M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e Cour ti n W o o d w a rd v . S ta te , 843 So. 2d 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ W

oo d w a rdIV

”): A r ound noon o n Jul y 23, 1986, R honda C r ane, age t w ent y- f our , w as t ravel i n g on M i ssi ssi pp iH i gh w ay 29 south of N ew A u gu st a i n P erry C ou n ty, M i ssissi p p ito j oin h er p a ren ts on a ca m p i n g trip. Aw h i te m a le d r iv in gaw h i t e l o gtr u c k fo r c e dh e rca rto s to p in th e m id d le o f th e ro a d
. T h e w h ite m a le th e n e x ite dth e tr u c k w ith ap is to l in h i s han d a n d f

orced C ran e t o geti n t o hi s t ruck. Th e m an t h en dr o ve t he vi c t i m t o an i s o l at e d ar e a, f o r c e d he ro uto f

hi s t r uc k a nd i nt o t he w o o ds a tg unpo i nta nd f o r c e d he rt o have se xua lr e l at i o ns w i t h hi m . Rho ndaCr ane w as s ho ti n t he bac k of herhea d a nd d i e d. Cra ne ’ s a ut om obil e w as l e f to n t he hi ghwayw i t h t he e ngi ne r u n n in g , th e d r iv e r ’ s d o o ro p e n a n dh e rp u r s e o n th e ca rs e a t. A m o to r is t tra ve l i n g in a v eh i cl e on the sam e h i gh w a y sa w a w h i te c o l o r e d, unl o ad e d, l o gg i ng t r uc k m ovi ng away f r o m t he Cr ane v e h icle, a n dn o tifi e dth e a u th o ritie s . A d d iti o n a lly , a h o u se w ife r e s i di ng o n ab l uf

f a l o ng t he hi ghwaya tt he l o c at i o n o f t he Cr ane car noted a lo g g ing tr u ck w i t h a w h i t e cab st op i n f ront of her d r iv e w a y . Aw h ite m a le e x ite da n dw a lk e dto w a r dth e b a c k o f h is t ruck and ret u rned w i t h a bl on de hai red w om an w earin gyel l ow c lo th in g . A s h e h e ldh e rb yh e ra r m , th e m a le y e lle ds u ffic ie n tly l ou d f or t h e h ou sew i fe t o h ear t h e w ords “ get i n , geti n , ” an d f orcedN o. 06- 70053

He was also sentenced to two thirty -ye ar sentences on the kidnapping an d oral sexu al 2 batt ery char ges, to run cons ecutively. 3 t he bl onde w om an i nt o t he driver ’ s doo rof the t r uck and t hen dro ve o f f
. The ho us e w i fe i nve s t i ga t e d t he s c e ne o n t he hi ghwayi n f r o nt o f he rho us e , di s c o ve r e d t he ab and o ne d Cr ane c ar , a nd n o t i f i e d t he au t h ori t i es. L aw enfor cem en tof

f i cers began an i n v e st i gati on t o l ocat e C ran e. Th e o f f i c er s di sc ove r ed t hatPaulE ver et t e W oo dw ar d unl oade d l ogs at a pulp m i l lan d d epa rt ed the yard at 11: 36 a
. m . i n a w h i t e M ack lo gtr u c k . W o o d w a r da r r i v e d a t h is w o o dy a r da t a p p r o x im a te ly 12 : 45 t o 1 : 00 p. m . The yar d m ana ge rnot e d t hathe w as l at e a r r ivi ng att he y ar d a nd was w e tf r o m s w e at i ng. A d r ive f r o m t he m i l lt o t he w oo dya rdtak es a p p rox i m a tel y th i rty m i n u tes. Ash erif f’ s d ep u ty s t o ppe d W o o dwar d, w ho w as dr ivi ng a w hi t e M ac k l oggi n g t r uc k, arou n d 2: 00 p
. m . on the af t ernoon of Ju l y 23, t o ask i f he h ad seen a n y t h in gth a tw o u ld a s s is tin th e in v e s t ig a t io n o f R h o n d a C r a n e ’s di sa ppear ance . W oo dw ar d r epl i ed t hathe had nots ee n anyt hi ng. Th r ough t he i nves t i gat i on, i tw as asc er t ai ned t hatW oo dw ar d w as t he o nl y dr iverof

a w hi t e l ogg i ng t r uck o per at i ng att he nearby t i m beryar ds on t hatdat e. O n t he f ol l ow i ng day, C r ane’ s body w as l o c at e d i n t he ne arbyw o o de d a r e a byhe rfat he ra nd af r i e nd. W o o dwar d was a r r e s t e d, a nd ul t i m at e l y he m ad e bo t h w r i t t e n a nd vi deotaped confessi on s. W oodw ard als o confe ss e d t o hi s em pl oyer o v e rth e te le p h o n e . Id
. at4- 5. W oo dw ar d w as c harge d w i t h ki dnappi ng, or als exualbat t er y, and c api t al
m ur de rw i t h a n und e rl yi n g cri m e o f r ap e . H e w as t r i e d b e f o r e aj ur y and convic t ed of

al lcoun t s. I n a separate s en t en ci n g h eari n g, t h e j u ry sentenced W o o dwar d t o de at h f o rt he c ap i t alm ur de rc o nvi c t i o n . W oodwar d a ppe al e d, 2
r ai s i ng num e r o us i s s ue s r e ga r di ng t he g ui l t
- i nno c e nc e pha s e a n dth es e nt e nc i ng pha s e o f t he t r i al
. The M i s s i s s i ppi Supr e m e Cour t af f i r m e d t he c o nvi c t i o n a nd
s e n te n c e . W

o o d w a rdv. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d4 1 8 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 49 0 U
. S. 1 0 2 8 (1 9 8 9 ), reh’

g d enie d , 4 9 0 U .S
. 1 1 1 7 (19 8 9 ) (“ W o o dw ar d I

”).N o. 06- 70053

4 W o o dwar d t he n f

i l e d hi s f

i r s ta ppli c at i o n f

o rpos t
- c o nvi c t i o n r e l i e f t o t he M i s s i s s i pp iSupr e m e Cour t , a nd t he c o ur tv ac at e d hi s de at h s e nt e nc e a nd
r e m a n d e d fo r a n e w s e n te n c in g . S eeW o o d w a rdv. S ta te , 6 35 S o. 2 d 805 (M i ss. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ W

oo d w a rdII

” )
. O n rem an d, the cou rtagain i m posed t h e death sen t en ce, w h ic h w a s a ffir m e do n d ir e c t a p p e a l. W o o d w a rdv. S ta te , 7 26 S o. 2d 52 4 (M i ss. 1 9 9 7 ), cer t . den i ed5 2 6 U .S
. 1 0 4 1 (19 9 9 ) (“ W oo d w a rdIII

” )
. W oo d w a rd f

i l ed
an ot h er p et i t i on forp ost
- convic t i on rel i ef, w h i ch t h e M i ssi ssi pp iS u prem e C ou rt d e n ie d
. W

oo d w a rdIV

, 8 4 3 S o . 2 da t 2 1
. W oodw ard f

i l ed h i s f

ederalha beas peti t i on i n M arch 20 04, an d the di st ri ct
c o u r t d e n ie dr e lie f. W o o d w a r ds o u g h t a C O Ao n fo u ris s u e s , re la tin gto (1 ) h is
coun sel ’ s c on ce ss ion of g u il t w ith o u t se cu rin gh is co n se n t; (2 ) h is co u n se l ’ s f ail u re t o o bj e c tt o t he i nt r o duc t i o n o f o t he rb ad ac t s ; ( 3) t he t r i alc o ur t ’ s r e f us alt o f und
an i n dep en den tpsychiat ri ston re- sentenci n g; an d ( 4) an al l eged v iol ati on of B ats on , based on the S t ate’ s u se of p erem ptory cha l l en ges t o st ri ke every black j u r o r . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e da COAo n i s s u e s 1 , 2 , a n d3 , a n dd e n i e da C OA f ori ss ue 4; and w e g r ant ed a C O Af ort hati ss ue: w het herW oo d w a rd w as en t i t l ed to h abea s r el i ef un der B ats on . I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h e A n tit e r r o r is m a n dE ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (“A E D P A”) c o n tr o ls
o u rre v ie w in th is ca s e . S ee Penry v. Joh n son , 5 3 2 U .S
. 7 8 2 , 7 9 2 (2 0 0 1 ); W ood
v . Q uar t e r m an , 49 1 F
. 3 d19 6 , 20 1 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 7 ). 28 U
. S
. C
. § 22 5 4 (d) pro h ib i ts a federalcourtf

rom gran t i n g a peti t i on f or a w ri tof

ha beas corpu s w i t h res pect t o ac l ai m a dj udi c at e d o n t he m e r i t s i n s t at e c o ur tunl e s s t hata dj udi c at i o n ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hatw as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvolved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on of, cl ear l y e st abl i she d Feder all aw , as det e r m i ne db yt he Su p r e m e Co ur to f t he Uni t e dSt a t e s ; o r( 2) r e s u lte din ad e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e do n a n u n r e a s o n a b leN o. 06- 70053

5 de t e r m i nat i o n o f

t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n t he St at e c our tpr oc ee di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 )-(2 ); seePenry , 532 U
. S. at792. T h e stat e cou rt ’ s deci si on i s con traryto t h e S u p rem e C ou rt’ s cl ea rl y e sta b li sh ed pr ece d en t if th e sta te
c o u r t e ith e r“a p p lie s aru le th a t c o n t r a d ic ts th e g o v e r n in gla w s e t fo r th in [S u p r e m e C o u r t] c a s e s ,” o r“c o n fr o n ts as e t o f fa c ts th a t a r e m a te r ia lly i n di st i n gu i sha bl e f

rom a deci si on of

[t h e Su prem e C ou rt] an d n e v e rth el ess a rrives a t a [ d i ff

ere n t resu l t]
. ” Penry , 5 32 U
. S. a t7 92 (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o ns a nd ci t ati on s om i t t ed). T h e st ate c ou rt ’ s deci si on i s an u n reasona bl e app l i cat i on of t he Supr e m e C o ur t ’ s cl e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d pr e c e de nti f i t“ c o r r e c t l y i de nt i f

i e s t he gov er ni ng l egalr ul e b utappl i es i tunre as onabl y t o t he fac t s of a par t i c ul ar p ri son er’ s ca se.” Id
. (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s a n dcit a tio n s o m itt e d ).

“W e m u stpresum e t h at t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s f ac t ualf i n di n gs are c orrec tun l ess [W o o dwar d] m e e t s hi s b ur de n o f r e but t i ng t hatp r e s um pt i o n b y c l e ara nd
c o n v i n ci n g e vid en ce.” R e e d v
. Q uar t e r m an , 5 5 5 F. 3 d3 6 4 , 3 6 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 09) (ci t i n g 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2254 ( e) ( 1) )
. “I n revi ew i n g t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of § 225 4( d) t o t h e sta te c o u rtdeci si on , t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n gs of

factare r e v ie w e d fo rc l e a re r r o r ; [th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ] c o n c lu s io n s o f la w , de no vo .” Pond ex t e rv . Q u art e r m an , 537 F. 3d 511, 519 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (c i t i ng Fost e rv. Joh n son , 2 9 3 F .3 d7 6 6 , 7 7 6 (5 C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). th I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A
. In effec tiveA ss ista n ceof Co u n se l:Co n ce ss ion of G u ilt

“ I n al lc r i m i nalpr os ec ut i ons , t he ac c use d s hal lenj oy t he r i ght
. . . t o have t he Ass i s t anc e o f

Coun selforhi s de fe nc e . ” U
. S. C ONST . a m e nd VI
. U nde rt he
w el l

- est abli shed St r i c kland t e s t , W o o d w a r d m u s t s h o w (1 ) th a t h is c o u n s e l’s p e r fo r m a n c e w a s d e fic ie n t, a n d(2 ) th a t t h e d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e p r eju d ic e dh isN o. 06- 70053

6 d e fe n s e . S t ri cklan dv. W ash i ngt on , 466 U
. S
. 668 , 689

- 94 ( 198 4)
. U n der t h e f i rst pro ng, “ [t] o e st abl i sh de f i c i entperf

or m ance , a pet i t i onerm ustdem ons t r at e t hat
c o u n s e l’s r e p r e s e n t a t io n ‘fe llb e lo w a n o bje c t i v e s t a n d a r do f r e a s o n a b le n e s s .’” Wig g in s v . S m ith , 5 3 9 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 2 1 (2 0 0 3 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). C o u n s e l “is
s tr o n g l yp r e s u m e dto h a v e re n d e r e da d e q u a te a s s is ta n c e a n dm a d e a ll
s ig n ific a n t d e c is io n s in th e e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b le p r o fe s s io n a l ju d g m e n t.” St r i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0
. “[T ]o e s ta b lis h p r eju d ic e , ad e fe n d a n t m u s t sh ow tha t t h e r e is are a s o n a b le pr o ba bil i t y t hat , b utf o rc o uns e l ’ s unp r o fe s s i o nale r r o r s , t he r e s ul to f t he p roce ed i n g w ou l dh a ve b e e n d ifferen t. ” Wigg i ns , 539 U
. S
. at 534 (ci t ati on om i tted). T h ere are , h ow ev er, “som e eg reg i ou s ci rcu m stan c es . . . ‘ so li k ely to prej udi c e t he acc use d t hatt he c os tof l i t i gat i ng t hei ref

fec ti n a par t i c ul art r i al i s u nj u sti fi ed
. ’” B u rdine v. Joh n son , 26 2 F. 3d 33 6, 34 4 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1) ( quo t i ng Un itedS ta tes v . C ro n ic , 466 U
. S
. 648 , 658 ( 198 4) )
. P rej u di ce i s presum ed w h ere ( 1) t h ere i s a c om pl et e den i alof coun sel , or ( 2) cou n se l e n t i rel y fai l s t o subj ect th e p r o s e c u tio n ’ s ca s e to m e a n in g fu l a d v e r s a r ia l te s tin g . C ro n ic , 466 U
. S. at 6 5 9
. D u ri n g t h e gu i l t
- i n n ocence ph ase of t ri al , W oodw ard’ s c ou n seldivi ded
r e s p o n s ib ilityfo rth e clo s in ga r g u m e n ts
. F ir s t, J e ff B r a d le ya r g u e dre a s o n a b le d ou b t as to ea ch of th e crim es u p o n w h ich the j u ryw a s i n stru cted
. N ex t, W o o dwar d’ s othe ra t t o r ne y, RexJ o ne s , c o nc l ude d t he de fe ns e ’ s c l o s i ng a rg u m en ts. S eco n d s i n to h i s ar gu m en t, Jo n es m a d e th e fol l ow i n g sta tem en t t o t he j ury: I think – I’ m g o i ng t o s ays o m e t hi ng, I ’ve ne ve rl i e d t o J ur i e s a nd I’ m not goi n g t o st artnow , I t h i n k P au lW oodw ard is gu i l t y of kidna pp i n g R h on da C ran e, an d I t h i n k Pa u lW oodw ard i s gui l t y of t he m ur de ro f

Rhond a Cra ne . N o w , w e do ha ve apr o bl e m , I t hi nk l egall y, i n re gar d t o t he c harge s he’ s gui l t y o f
. T h e C our thas i ns t r uc t e d yo u t hatyo u’ve go tt o t ak e t he ve r s i o n o f t he D e fe nda ntN o. 06- 70053

Glenn White wa s counselfor the State
. 3 7 as t rue i f

an d u n l ess i ti s c on t radi ct ed byeyew i t n esses or by other e v id e n c e . I d o n ’t k n o w w h a th a p p e n e do u tth e r e th a td a y , a n dI ’m n otgoi n g t o st an d here an d t ry t o convince you on e w ay or t h e ot h er. Y o u ’v e h e a r dth e s a m e th in gI’v e h e a r d
. A l m osti m m edi ately, t h e State o b jec te d t h at “t h e defen se at t orney h as j u st in te rje c te dth a t t h e D e fe n d a n t is g u iltyo f th e ch a r g e o f k id n a p p in ga n dm u r d e r .” T h e State requ est ed that t h e courtgive W oodw ard a n o pp ort u n i t y t o express w het her he w as i n agr ee m ent w i t h hi s c ounse l ’ s t ac t i c s. The f ol l ow i ng exc hange
e ns ue d: C O U R T : W el l , I cert ai n l y feell i ke thi s D efen da n t h as been

a ffo r d e dafa irtr ia l. D o you ha ve an y probl em s w i t h t h i s proceedi n g, M r. W o o dwar d? W O O D W A R D : N o, si r. CO U RT : You’ve ha d afairt r i al , ha dn’ ty o u? W O O D W A R D : Y es, si r. CO U RT : Al lr i ght
. Tha nk y o u. M R
. W H I TE : D oe s he under st and w hat– 3 CO U RT : D o y o u und e r s t andw hatM r . J o ne s s ai d? W O O D W A R D : Y es, si r. C O U R T : A l lri gh t. M R
. W H IT E : D oe s h e a gr ee w i th i t? M R
. B R A D LE Y : Y ourhonor , he s ai d t hat– M R . W H IT E : I a s k th a t th a t b e n o te d in th e r e c o r dth a t h e is in

agreem en tw i t h t h e t ri alproceedi n gs. CO U RT : Al lr i ght
. Le tt hats o b e no t e d.N o. 06- 70053

8 Jo ne s t he n c o nt i nue d hi s s um m at i o n. I n a ddr e s s i ng t he r ap e c har ge , he s t at e d: T h e t h i n g t h at i s t roub l i n g m e i n regards to th e rape – I’ m not s ay i ng t hathe r ap e d he ra ts o m e po i nt–h e s ai d i n t he s t at e m e nt t h a tit w a s n ’t , b u tI ’m n o ts a y in gh e d id n ’t, b u tth e th in gth a t ’s t r oubl i ng t o m e, at t he t i m e of t he ki l l i ng, att he t i m e o f t he ki l l i ng, sh e w a s f

u l l y cloth ed , n o clothin g w a s torn , a n dI reali ze yo u sayto m e –I know w hatt hey’ r e g oi ng t o say, “W el lyo u know , i f yo u had a g u n o n y o u , y o u w o u ld s u b m it” a n dc e r t a in lyI w o u ld a n dI d o n ’t d e n yth a t, b u t I d o n ’ t k n o w a t w h a t p o in t in tim e th a t oc c u r r e d
. . .

. So, w hatI am tr yi ng t o sayi s t hatw hi l e It hi nk t hatm aybe w hat he di d i s t urned a nd ran and f i r ed, and t hat ’ s t he onl y r eas on I s ay t hat , and i f

he ki l l ed heri n t hatr egar d, t hen I t hi nk t he c harge w ou l d be m u rder. Th e c as e pr oc ee ded t o t he j ury, w hi c h r eac hed a g ui l t y ve r di c t , s t at i ng t hat

“ [w ] e, the j ury, f

i nd t he D ef

endant , PaulE ver et t e W oo dw ar d, gui l t y o f C api t al M urde r . ” Th e c api t alm urde rc onvi c t i on w as bas ed o n t he j ury’ s f i ndi ng t hat

“ t he c api t alm urde r of R honda C r ane w as c om m i t t ed w hi l e PaulW oo dw ar d w as en ga ge di n the com m i ssion of ra p e.” Th e St a te argues t hatW oo dw ar d’ s c ounse l ’ s st r at egyw as t o a dm i tt hat W o o dwar d ki dna ppe d and m ur de r e d t he vi c t i m , w hi l e a t t ac ki ng t he pr o o f o f t he
u n d e r ly in gra p e in a n a tt e m p tto g e t t h e ju r yto s e tt le o n av e r d ic t o f s im p le
m u rder and ki dn ap pi n g, w i t h ou ta f i n d i n g of

capi t alm u rder. W oodw ard
c o nt e nds t hatt he co nc e s s i o n of gui l tre s ul t e d i n t he c o m pl e t e b r e ak do w n o f t he
a d v e r s a r ia l p r o c e s s a n d , th u s , p r eju d ic e s h o u ldb e p r e s u m e d
. W o o d w a r dp r e s e n te dth is cla im to th e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t inh is p e tit io n fo rp o s t-c o n v ic tio n re lie f fr o m h is o r ig in a l tr ia l. W oo d w a rdII, 635 So. 2d at8 0 5
. T h e c o u r ta n a l y z e dW o o d wa r d ’ s c l a i m u n d e rt h e t wo - p r o ng St r i c klanda n a ly s is . I t n o te dth a t ith a d“p r e v io u s lyfa c e ds im ila ra lle g a tio n s in ot h er cases, a n d f

ou n d t h at the att orney’ s s t rat egi c deci si on t o adm i tt o a l esser cri m e t han t hatc har ge d i n t he i ndi c t m e ntdi d no ta m o untt o de f i c i e nt p erform a n ce.” I

d. at 808 (c i t i ng Wiley v. S ta te , 51 7 So
. 2 d 1 37 3 (M i s s . 1 98 7) a ndN o. 06- 70053

9 Fa r agav. S ta te , 51 4 So
. 2d 29 5 (M i s s . 19 87 ) )
. The c o ur t f o und t hateven assum i n g t h at W oodw ard’ s coun sel w as defi ci en t i n t h e gu i l tph ase, W oodw ard d idn o t sh o w th a t h e sa tisfied th e p reju d ice p ro n gof St r i c klandb e c aus e “ [t] he p roo f i n this case d o e s n ot p rese n t reas on a b l e p rob a b i l i ty su ff i ci en t t o

‘ u n d erm i n e con fi d en ce in th e ou tcom e.’” I d. at809 ( quot i ng St r i c kland , 4 66 U
. S.
a t 6 9 4 )). W oo dw ar d urg es t hi s c our tt o a ppl y C ro n ic ’ s presum pti on of p rej u di ce.

“An att orney undo ubt e dl y has adut y t o c o ns ul tw i t h t he c l i e ntr e ga r di ng

‘ im p o r ta n t d e c is io n s ,’in c lu d in gq u e s tio n s o f o v e r a r c h i n gd e fe n s e s tr a te g y .” Flori d a v. Nixon , 543 U
. S. 175, 187 ( 2004)
. H er e, how eve r , th e tri a lj udge
a ffo r d e dW o o d w a r da n o p p o r t u n it yt o e x p r e s s d is a g r e e m e n tw it h h is c o u n s e l’s t ac t i c s o n t he r e c o r d, w hi c h he di d not
. H adW o o dwar d ex pr e s s e d d i s ag r e e m e nt
w i t h hi s co u n se l’ s s t rat egy, t h i s m i gh tpresent a c l oser qu est i on as t o w h et h er C ro n ic ’ s p r e s u m p tio n o f p r eju d ic e a p p lie s . Cf. id
. ( ackn ow l edg i n g t h at defen se c ounse l“ w as obli ged t o, and i n fac t se ver alt i m es di d, ex pl ai n hi s pro pos ed t r i al
s t r at e gy” t o de fe nda nt , b utg ive n de fe nda nt ’ s “ c o ns t ant r e s i s t anc e t o a ns w e r i ng i nquir e s , ” de fe ns e c o uns e l“ w as no ta ddit i o nal l yr e q u ir e d t o g ai n e xp r e s s c o ns e nt b e for e co n ce d in g. . . g u il t”). Bu t s e e Uni t e d St a t e s v . Tho m as , 4 17 F. 3d 1053, 1057 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) (r ef usi ng t o a ppl y C ro n ic ’ s p resum pti on of prej u di ce w h ere coun sel conceded gu i l tw i t h ou tconsult i n g defenda n t , an d d en yi n g rel i ef becau se defenda n tfai l ed to est abli sh p rej u di ce un der St r i c kland)
. W e f i nd t hat St r i c kland ’ s s ta n d a r da p p lie s h e r e . I n t h i s c a s e , w e a s s u me t hatW o o dwar d’ s co uns e lw as de f i c i e nti n fail i ng t o sec u re W oodw ard’ s consen t t o t h e defense st rat egy. N on et h el ess, W oodw ard
c anno te s t ab l i s h t hatt he s t at e c o ur t ’ s f i ndi ngs w e r e unr e as o nab l e i n l i ghto f t he evi denc e pr es ent ed. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( d ). Th e e vi denc e o f gui l tw as o ve r w he l m i ng, a s t he M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e Cour tr e c o unt e d:N o. 06- 70053

10 In a dd i t i on t o separate w ri t t en an d vi deotaped confessi on s, w h i ch w ere properlya d m itted , th e S ta te p re se n te dam o u n ta in of evi den ce. Ahou sew i fe nea r t h e sc en e of the cri m e saw a w h i t e loggi n g t ruck st opp ed i n f

r o nto f he rho us e a nd aw hi t e m an f o r c i ng a bl o nde w o m an i n ay e l l o w dr e s s i nt o hi s t r uc k. Af t e rt he t r uc k dr o ve o f f, t he h ou sew i fe f

ou n d the vi ct i m ’ s car on t h e h i gh w ay, w i t h t h e door open andt he m o t o rs t i l lr unni ng. A m o t o r i s tre po r t e d t o l aw enf o r c e m e nt of f i c er s t hathe saw a w hi t e l ogg i ng t r uck m ovi ng aw ay f r om a c ar w i t h an ope n dooron t he hi ghw ay. W oo dw ar d unqu es t i onabl y w as i n the ar e a t h a t d a y, drivingh i s w h i te l og gin g tru ck
. H i s w h i te lo g g in gtr u c k w a s th e o n lyw h ite lo g g in g tr u c k a t th e lo g g in gm ill. Law e nf o r c e m e ntf

o und a f o unt ai n pe n a tt he c r i m e s c e ne m at c hi ng pen s f ou n d i n W oodw ard’ s t ruck. T est s of W oodw ard’ s bl ood sh ow ed t h at he coul d n otbe excl u ded as t h e perpetrat or. W oo d w a rdII, 635 So. 2d at 80 9. “A t t orneys representi n g capi t aldefen da n t s face da unt i ng c hal l e nge s i n de ve l o pi ng t r i al s t r at e gi e s , no t t he l e as t becau se t he d efen d a n t’ s gu i l t i s often cl ea r. P rose cu tors a re m ore lik e lyt o see k the de a th p e n a lty , a n dto re fu s e to a c c e p t a p le a to alife s e n te n c e , w h e n th e e v id e n c e is
ov erw h elm i n g an d th e cri m e he i n ou s. ” Nixon , 5 4 3 U .S
. a t 1 9 1 (cita tion om itted ). In t h i s c ase, i n volvi n g w ri t t en an d vi deo confess i on s and cor roborat i n g evi den ce, “a v o id in ge x e c u tio n [m a y h a v e b e e n ] th e b e s t a n do n lyre a lis tic re s u lt p o s s ib le .” I d. (c ita tio n o m itt e d ); a cc o rdMcNeill v. Po lk , 476 F
. 3d 206 , 217

- 218 ( 4th C i r. 2 007 ) (rej ect i n g, un der St r i c kland , de fe nda nt ’ s c l ai m o f i ne f fe c t ive a s s i s t anc e w h e r e co u n s e l c o n c e d e dd e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt w ith o u t c o n s e n t); S t enson v. L am bert , 50 4 F. 3d8 73 , 8 91 ( 9t h C i r . 200 7) ( “W he n t he e vi de nc e a ga i ns tade fe nda nti n a c ap i t alc as e i s o ve r w he l m i ng and c o uns e l c o nc e de s guil t i n a n e f f o r tt o a vo i d t he dea t h pen al t y, ‘ coun selcan n otb e d eem ed i n ef fect ive f or at t em pti n g t o i m press th e j u ryw i th h i s ca n d or.’”) (ci tati on om i tted). W oo d w a rdi s n ot en ti tl ed to hab e as r e l i e f

o n t hi s g r o und. B
. In effec tiveA ss ista n ceof Co u n se l:E v id en ceof B a dA ctsN o. 06- 70053

11 W oodw ard argu es t h at duri n g resenten cin g , hi s at t orneys w ere cons ti t u t i on al l y i n ef fect ive f

or “ open i n g t h e door” t o al l ow i n evi den ce of W oodw ard’ s pri or bad ac ts a n d f or fai l i n g t o obj ectt o t h e State’ s i n vocati on of pr i o rb ada c t s i n i t s c l o s i ng s t at e m e nt
. D ur i ng r e s e nt e nc i ng, de fe ns e c o uns e lput W oodw ard’ s father on the st an d. H e te stified t h at W oodw ard st ol e a car as a young M ar i ne s o he c oul d r et u rn h om e f orhi s gr andfat her ’ s f uneraland t hat W oodw ard h ad been arres t ed i n L ou i si an a f or at t em pted m u rder. D efen se c ounsela l so c al l ed D r . Th urm an, a pr ivat e c l i ni c alps yc hol ogi str et ai ned by W oo dw ar d’ s fam i l y, t o t es t i f y. I ncl uded i n D r . Th urm an’ s r epo r t , w hi c h w as e nt e r e d i nt o t he r e c o r d, w as ade s c r i pt i o n o f W o o dw ard’ s p astc o nvi c t i o ns a nd
ar r es t s, i ncl udi ng t he at t em pt ed m urde rc harge f r om Loui si ana, t he s t ol en c ar c o nvi c t i o n, a s w e l la s a l l e ge dl y unf o unde d c har ge s o f

m i s de m e ano rr ap e a nd
u n l a w fu lora lsex . T h e p rose cu ti on u sed the pr i or a rres ts an dba dacts to i m pe ac h de fe ns e w i t ne s s e s . In ad di t i o n, dur i ng hi s c l o s i ng ar gum e nt , t he p r o s e c u to rco m m e n te do n W o o d w a r d ’ s h is to r yo f b a da c ts , a n dth e d e fe n s e d id
n ot ob j ect to this arg u m en t. W o o dwar d c o nt e nds t hatt he a dm i s s i o n o f t he e vi de nc e o f

b ada c t s w as t he
r e as o n t he j ur y di d no tl i s t“ l ac k o f s e r i o us c r i m i nalhi s t o r y” a s am i t i ga t i ng fact or i n i t s verdi ct
. T h e st ate court f ou n d t h at W oodw ard’ s c ou n selpresented t h e bad act s e v id e n ce in t h e contextt h at t h ese act s w ere exam pl es of W o o dwa rd’ s l on g ba t t l e w i t h m e nt ali l l ne s s . I tf o und t hathi s c o uns e lm ad e st r at egi c c hoi c es r egar di ng t he m i t i gat i on c as e, sho w i ng so und tri a ls t r at egy rat h er t h an def

i ci en t perf

orm an ce. Th e st ate c ou rtal so f ou n d that W oodw ard h ad not s h ow n an y prej u di ce t o hi s defen se. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta gr e e d wi t h t hi s a s s e s s m e nt
. I tf o und t hatb e c aus e t he prosecuti on w ou l d hav e been able t o i n t rodu ce t h e bad act s becau se t h e yw ere r e fe r r e dto in D r . T h u r m a n ’ s r e p o r t , t h e d e fe n s e co u n s e l w e r e n o t o bje c tiv e lyN o. 06- 70053

12 u n rea son a b l e for pr ee m p tive l y in trod u ci n g th e ev i d en ce in o rd er to b est fititi n to t h ei r t ri alst rat egy. M oreover, t h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d W oo dw ard could not dem on st rat e t h at he h ad been prej u di ced by c ou n sel ’ s al l eged def i ci en cy becau se t h e bal an ci n g t estw h i ch the j u ry w as t o em pl oy to d e t erm i n e w h et h er W oodw ard sh ou l d receive t h e death p en al t y w as un al t ered by the i n t rodu ct i on of t h e bad act s evi den ce. T h e q u estion u n d er th e fi rst St r i c klandpr o ng i s w he t he rW oodw ard dem on st rat ed “t h at c ou n sel ’ s r epresentati on fel lbel ow an obj ect ive st an da rd of
rea son a b l en ess . ” Wigg i ns , 539 U
. S. at521. There i s a “ st r ong pr es um pt i on t hat
c ounse l ’ s c onductfal l s w i t hi n a w i de r a n ge o f r eas onabl e pr of es si onal
a ssistan ce.” R om e r o v . Lynaugh , 884 F. 2d 871, 879 ( 5t h C i r. 1989) (i nt er nal quot at i on and c i t at i on o m i t t ed)
. “Ac ons c i ous and i nf or m ed d ecis i on o n t r i al t act i cs an d st rat egy can n otbe t h eb as i sf o rc o ns t it ut i o nal l y i n ef fect ive assi st an ce o f c o uns e lunl e s s i ti s s o i l l c ho s e n t hati tpe r m e at e s t he e nt i r e t r i alw i t h o bv i o us u n fa ir n e ss. ” Mart i nezv. D r e t ke , 4 0 4 F
. 3 d8 7 8 , 8 8 5 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 2 8 7 F .3 d3 2 5 , 3 3 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). W oo dw ar d ar gues t hatt he bad a c tev i denc e i n ques t i on cou l d nothave bee n adm i t t ed byt he pr os ec ut i on and t her ef or e, i tw as nota r eas onabl e t r i al
s t r at e gyt o o pe n t he do o rt o i ta nd t o failt o o bj e c tt o t he St at e’ s us e o f t he evi den ce duri n g cl osi n g argu m en t s. M i ssi ssi pp iR u l e of E vi den ce 705 st ates: T h e e x p e r t m a y te s tify in te r m s o f o p in io n o rin fe r e n c e s a n dg iv e h is reasons t h eref

or w i t h ou tpri or d i scl osure of the u n derl yi n g fact s or da t a, unl e s s t he cou r tr e quir e s o t he r w i s e . The e xp e r tm ayi n a ny even tbe requir ed t o d i scl ose the u n derl yi n g fact s ordate on cros se xa m i nat i o n. M IS S . R. E VID . 7 0 5
. T h e Mi s s i s s i p p iS u p r e me C o u r t , i n r e v i e w i n gt h i s c l a i m, h el d that: “ [ S ] i n ce W oodw ard’ s p rio r cri m i n alhi st ory w as i n cl u ded i n D r. T h u r m a n ’ s re p o r t a s p a r t o f th e in fo r m a tio n w h ic h fo r m e dth e b a s is fo rh isN o. 06- 70053

As discu ssed indepthinthe di strict court’s opinion, there is some inconsi stency 4 between this hol ding

an d the Mi ssissippi Supre me C ourt’s p rior treatment of this matter. De sp ite thisincon si st ency , Wood wa rd IV is clear that under Mi ssissippi law, the prosecution wouldh ave b eenentitledto introduceth es e prior b a d act s. 13 o pi ni o ns , W oodw ar d’ s t r i alc o uns e lc o ul d no tha ve b e e n s uc c e s s f uli n a ny ob j ection ra i sed reg a rd i n g t h e con ten ts of t h e rep ort. ” W oo d w a rdIV

, 843 So. 2d
a t 9
. T h e r e fo r e , W o o d w a r d ’ s co u n s e l w a s n o t d e fic ie n t in p r e e m p tiv e ly

4 i n t rodu ci n g t he e vi de nc e o ri n fail i ng t o o bj e c tt o t he e vi de nc e dur i ng c l o s i ng argu m en t s. W oodwar d a l s o a r gue s t hatb o t h t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd t he s t at e c ou rt fai l e d t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n tt h a t“ r e g a r d l e s s o f M i s s i s s i p p ie v i d e n t i a r yl a w, t he
w a y in w h i ch the pr ose cu ti on w a s p erm i tted to lead t h e j u ryto retu rn a d ea th
sen ten ce b a sed on i n a ccu ra te or un reli a b l e i n form a ti on ru n s a fou l of t h e E i gh th A m e n d m e n t.” W o o d w a r d c ite s to th r e e S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s in s u p p o r t o f th is
a r g u m e n t: Zantv . St e phe ns , 4 6 2 U .S
. 8 6 2 , 8 8 7 , n n . 2 3 , 2 4 ( 1 9 8 3 ), E ddi ngs v. O k la h o ma , 45 5 U
. S. 10 4 ( 19 82 ) , and L o ck et v . O h io , 4 3 8 U .S
. 5 8 6 (19 7 8 ). Im p o r ta n tly , W o o d w a rdpr ese n ts n o ev i d en ce th a t D r. T h u rm a n ’ s re p o r t a c tu a lly
c o nt ai ne d “i nac c ur at e o runr e l i ab l e ” i nf o r m at i o n. W o o dwar d r e po r t e d t o t he ps yc ho l o gi s tdur i ng hi s e va l uat i o n t hathe c o m m i t t e d t ho s e cr i m e s , a nd b e yo nd bare al l egati on s, he p resents no evi den ce th a t h i s s t atem en t s w ere un t rue or ot h erw i se un rel i able. Eve n a s s um i ng t h atW o o dwar d’ s c o uns e lw as de f i c i e nt , b o t h t he M i ssissi p p iS u p rem e C ou rt a n dthe distri ct cou rt f ou n dtha t W oo d w a rdfa i l ed to dem ons t r at e t hath e w as pr ej udi c ed bys uch def i c i enc y. I n t he c ont extof c api t al
rese n ten ci n g, t h e sta n d a rdi s “w h eth er t h e r e is a rea son a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t, absen tt h e e rror s, t h e sentencer .
. . w ou l d h ave con cl u ded t h at t h e bal an ce of
a gg ra va ti n g a n dm i ti ga ti n g ci rcu m stan ces d i dn ot w a rra n t d ea th
. ” St r i c kland , 46 6 U
. S. a t6 9 5
. W o o d wa r da r g u e s t h a th e wa s p r ej u d i c e db e c a u s e o n c e t heN o. 06- 70053

14 pros e cu tor w as abl e t o delve i n t o W oodw ard’ s bad a ct s, he w as abl e t o subv ert t h e m i t i gati n g fact or “l ack of pri or c ri m i n alhi st ory” i n t o an un en u m erat ed agg ravati n g fact or. J u r ie s a r e p r e s u m e dto fo llo w th e la w . S eeUn itedS ta tes v . Mu sq u iz , 45 F
. 3d 927 , 9 31 ( 5th C i r. 1 995 )
. U n der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , a death sen t en ce c an n ot b e b a s e d o n n o n -s ta tu to r ya g g r a v a tin gfa c to r s . S ee M IS S . C ODE A NN . § 99- 19- 10 1. I n a c c o r da nc e w i t h t hi s r ul e , t he j ur y w as i ns t r uc t e d t o r e c o m m e nd t he dea t h sentence on l y i f i t f ou n d t h at t h e presence of th e stat u t ori l y- provi ded agg ravati n g fact ors o u t w ei gh ed the presence of t h e st atutor i l y- provi ded
m i t i ga t i ng fac t o r s . H e r e , t he j ur y l i s t e d t hr e e ag gr av at i ng fac t o r s : ( 1) t hatt he
c api t alm urde roc c urr ed dur i ng t he c om m i ss i on o f r ape; ( 2) t hatt he m urde rw as pa rt i cul arl y h ei n ou s; an d ( 3) t h at t h e of fen se w as com m i t t ed f or t h e pu rpose of
a v o id in ga r r e s to re ffe c t in ge s c a p e fr o m c u s t o d y . E v id e n c e o f W o o d w a r d ’s al l e ge d p r i o rb ada c t s w o ul d ha ve no b e ar i ng o n t he j ur y’ s f i n di ngs r e ga r di ng th es e t hre e a ggr avat i ng fac t or s. Thu s, ev en as sum i ng argu end o t hat W oodw ard’ s c ou n selw as def i ci en t , t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s f i n di n gs are n ot
u n rea son a b l e in li gh t of t h e e v id en ce p rese n ted
. W oo d w a rdi s n ot en ti tl ed to h a b e a s r e l i e f

o n t h i s c l a i m. C
. R equ estf

or I n d epend ent Psychi atr i c Expert W o o d w a r d ’ s co u n s e l m a d e e ffo r ts to o b ta in a n in d e p e n d e n t p s y c h ia tr ic evaluati on at t h e f

i rstt ri ali n 198 7, an d ag ai n at resen te n ci n g i n 199 5. Th ey s o u g h t a s s is ta n c e to h a v e W o o d w a r de x a m in e db yap s y c h ia tr is t r e g a r d in gh is
m e nt ala nd e m o t i o nals t at e a n d t o de t e r m i ne W o o dwar d’ s c o m pe t e nc y att he t i m e o f t he cri m e, s oughtev al uat i on by a ps yc hi at r i stve r se d i n se xual psych opa t h i c beh avior , an d s ou gh t assi st an ce of a m en t alhea l t h expert t o assi st W o o d w a r din h is d e fe n s e . T h e ya ls o a r g u e dth a t a p s y c h ia tr ic e v a lu a tio n w o u ld
a l l o w t h e d e fe n s e t e a m t o a s s e s s t h e p r e s e n c e o f m i t i g a t i n gc i r c u m s t a n c e s . AtN o. 06- 70053

15 t he m ot i on hear i ng, t he t r i alc our ts ugges t ed t hatW oo dw ar d be exam i ned by W h itfie ldS ta te H o s p ita l ( “W h itfie ld ”). D e fe n s e c o u n s e l a r g u e dt h a t t h is w o u ld be i ns uf

f i c i e nta nd r e que s t e d f unds t o hi r e t he i ro w n ps yc hi at ri c exper t
. The tr ia l co u r t d e n ie dth e irre q u e s ts a n do r d e r e dW o o d w a r dto b e ta k e n to W h itfie ld t o rec eive a psych i atr i c exa m i n ati on . T h e order r equ i red t h e hosp i t alt o report i t s f i n di n gs t o defe n se c ou n sel , t h e prosecutor s, an d the court. La t er, af t er W oodw ard’ s f

am ily pa i d f

o ra n i nit i alc on sul t ati on w i t h D r. T h u rm an , W oodw ard f i l ed a m ot i on t o obt ai n addi t i onalf und s t o se c ure D r . Th urm an’ s at t endance at t r i ala nd f

o ra ddit i o nale va l uat i o n. Thi s r e que s tw as g r ant e d. Af t e rr e m and , W o o dwar d was r e pr e s e nt e d b y At t o r ne ys Rus hi ng and Adel m an athi s 1 99 5 r e s e nt e nc i ng. Rus hi ng andAde l m an s o ugh t , b e f o r e t he resentenci n g, f

u n ds to h i re an i n dep en den tpsychiat ri st
. Th e f u n di n g m ot i on w as sup pl em en t ed w i t h t w o af f i da vi t s, one f

rom D r. T h u rm an an d one f rom D r. R itt e r , ap s y c h ia tr is t w illin gt o a s s is t d e fe n s e c o u n s e l. D r . T h u r m a n ’ s a ffid a v it stated tha t [ g] ive n the sev erity of M r. W oo d w a rd ’ s em oti on a lpr ob l em s, Ibe li eve th a t h is r e q u e s t fo r e x a m in a tio n a n d a s s is ta n c e b y a fo r e n s ic psy c hi a t r i s ti s r e a s o na b l yn e c e s s a r yt o h i s d e fe ns e . S uc h an exam i n ati on w ou l d com pl em e n t m y ow n i n t ervi ew s and provi de a di f fer entper spe c t ive r egar di ng hi s em ot i onalpr obl em s. Ibe l i eve s u c hf u r t h e re x a m i n a t i o n b yam e d i c a l l yli c e n s e dp s y c h i a t r is t w o u ld no tb e cum ul at ive a nd woul d c o nt r ibut e s ubs t ant i al l y and s ig n ific a n tlyto M r . W o o d w a r d ’ s d e fe n s e . The c o ur tg r ant e d a nd de ni e d t he m o t i o ns i n pa r t
. I ts us t ai ne d t he pa r to f t he de fe ns e m o t i o n r e que s t i ng D r . Thur m an’ s c o nt i nue d a s s i s t anc e , b utde ni e d t he pa r to f t he m o t i o n r e que s t i ng f unds f o r Ri t t e r . The c o ur t al s o o r de r e d t hat“ t he d e fe n d a n t b e a llo w e de v a lu a tio n a t[W h itfie ld ] if h e s o d e s ir e s p s y c h ia tr ic
e x a m in a tio n .” W o o d w a r dw a s n o t e x a m in e da t W h itfie ld
.N o. 06- 70053

16 W o o dwar d ar gue s t hatt he M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n t o de ny fu n d s fo r a n in d e p e n d e n t p sy ch ia tris t w a s a n u n re a so n a b le a p p li c a t io n of A ke
v . O k la h o ma , 470 U
. S. 68 ( 1985)
. H e c ont ends t hatt he o ppor t uni t y t o b e exam i ned by a psyc hi at r i stat t he st at e m ent alhos pi t alw as i nsuf f i c i entand t hat hi s r i ght s w e r e v i o l at e d when he w as no tpr o vi de d wi t h a n i nde pe nde nt ps yc hi at r i s ta tr e s e nt e nc i ng. Thi s i s s ue w as pr e s e nt e d t o , and r ej e c t e d b y, t he M i ss i ss i ppiSuprem e Court. Thu s, as di sc uss ed ab ove , f orW oo dw ar d t o b e e n t it le dto r e li e f h e m u s td e m o n s t r a t e th a tt h e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s deci si on w as “ contrary to, or an u n reasona bl e app l i cat i on of, cl earl y est abli shed fe de r all aw” o r w as “ba s e d o n an unr e as o nab l e de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fac t s i n l i ght
o f th e ev id e n ce p re se n te d .” 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 2 5 4 (d). I n A ke , t h e Su prem e C ou rthel d that, up on request, a t ri alcourtm u st
a p p oin t a p sy ch i a tri st f or a n i n d i ge n t d efen d a n t if a de fen d a n t de m on strate s to t he t r i alj udg e t hathi s s anit y at the t i m e o f t he o f fe ns e i s t o b e as i gnif i c ant fac t o ra tt r i ala nd, i n t he cont e xto f ac ap i t als e nt e nc i ng pr o c e e di ng, w he n t he st ate pres en t s psychi atr i c evi den ce of th e defen da n t ’ s f

u t u re dan gerousn ess. A ke , 4 70 U
. S. at8 2- 83
. The Cour te xp l ai ne d t hat“ w he n t he St at e ha s m ad e t he de fe nda nt ’ s m e nt alc o ndi t i o n r e l e va ntt o hi s c ri m i nalc ul pa bil i t y andt o t he pun i shm enthe m i ghtsuf fer , the as si st ance of a psy c hi at r i stm ay w el lbe c r uci al to the de fen d a n t’ s ab i l i ty to m a rsh a lh i s d efen se.” Id
. at80. The s t ate c o ur tf

o und W o o dwar d’ s r i ght s w e r e no tv i o l at e d b e c aus e t he
o r de ra l l o w i ng W o o dwar d t o be e xa m i ne d at W hi t f i e l d s at i s f

i e d A ke
. U n der A ke , a c r i m i naldef

endanti s notent i t l ed “t o cho ose a ps yc hi at r i stof hi s per so nal l i k i n g o r to receive f u n d s to h i re h i s ow n . ” W oo d w a rdIII, 7 2 6 So
. 2 da t529 (c i t i ng A ke , 470 U
. S
. at 83). R ather, the defenda n tm u stbe af f orded a cces s t o a “com p eten t p sy ch i a tri st. ” I d. T h e dist ri ct cou rt ag ree d , h oldin g th a t t h e cou rtau t h ori zed psych i atr i st s t h at w ou l d h ave p erf orm ed h i s eval u ati on w ereN o. 06- 70053

The Supre me C ourtdenied certiorari in Granviel v. Texas , 4 9 5U .S
. 963 (1 9 9 0). 5 Justices Marshall and Brennan dissente d from the denial of certiorari, arguing that the Texas procedure i s unconstitutional b ecau se Akewas “directed at providing a defendant with the tool s nec es saryto pres ent aneff ective defen sewithinth e context of our a dver sari al syst em , in whicheach partymarsh als evidence favorab le to its sidean d aggre ssivelych allenges the evidence p resented by the other side .” Id
. at 964 (Marshall, J., dissenting). The dis s ent arguedthat T exas ’sprovis ion of a “dis inte res ted” expert doe s notsati sf y Ake , becau se the functionof the psychiatrist i s to assist the defen dantinpreparing an d pre sentinghis defense. This position has not been adopte d by the Supre me Court, and therefore , AEDPA’s limitations app ly. 17 “ ne ut r al , ” a nd t hus s at i s f i e d A ke ’s r e q u i r e m e n t s . I n a c c o r dw it h th is c ir c u it ’s in te rp re ta tion of A ke , w e al so agree. I n G r anvi e lv. Ly n augh , 8 81 F. 2d1 85 , 1 91 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 9) , a n i ndi ge nt def endantc hal l enged Texas’ s pra c t i c e o f al l ow i ng a tri alj udge t o a ppoi ntan exp ertt o eval u ate t h e defen da n tan d p rovi de a report t o both t h e prosecuti on andt he de fe ns e . Relyi ng o n A ke , w e uphel d t he pr oc edur es , s t at i ng: G ran vi el ’ s abi l i t y t o u n cover the t ruth concerni n g h i s s an i t y i s not p reju d ice db yaco u rt-a p p o in te d , n e u tra l ex p e rt. Av a il a b il ityof a neut r alex pertpr ovi des def endant s w i t h “ t he r aw m at er i al s i nt egr al to th e bu i l d i n g of a n eff ective d efen se.” A ke , 105 S. C t
. a t1 09 3. The st ate i s n o t r equ i red t o perm i tdefen da n t s t o shop aroun d f or a fa v o ra b le e x p e rt. .
. . H e h a s n o rig h t to th e a p p o in tm e n t of a psych i atr i stw h o w i l lreach bi ased or onl y favorab l e concl u si on s. G ran vi el , 8 81 F. 2da t1 92
. I ns t e ad , t he Cour t ’ s “ c o nc e r n [w as ] t hatt he i ndi ge nt 5 def endanthave ac c es s t o ac om pet entps yc hi at r i stf orth e purpos e w e have d is c u s s e d , a n d
. . . [itle ft] to th e S ta te th e d e c is io n o n h o w to im p le m e n t t h is ri gh t. ” A ke , 4 7 0 U .S . a t 8 3 ; a cc o rdS m ith v. Mitch ell , 348 F
. 3d 177 , 208 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (ho l d i n gtha t A kedo e s no te nt i t l e ade fe nda ntt o a n i nde pe nde nt p s y c h ia tr is t o f h is ch o o s in g , o n lyaco m p e te n t p s y c h ia tr is t). B u t see St arrv. L ockh art , 23 F
. 3 d12 8 0 , 12 9 0 -91 ( 8 th C i r. 19 9 4 ) (s ta tin g th a t A ke“e x p r e s s ly d isa v o w s” th e th e o ryth a t d u e p ro ce ss is sa tisfied b yth e a p p o in tm e n t of a
n e u tr a l e x p e r t); S m i t h v. McCorm i ck , 914 F. 2d 1153, 1 1 58- 59 ( 9t h C i r . 1990)N o. 06- 70053

18 ( “ U n der A ke , e va l uat i o n b y a ‘ ne ut r al ’c o ur tps yc hi at r i s tdo e s no tsati sf y due p r o c e s s . . . . [T h e d e fe n d a n t] w a s e n tit le d to h is o w n c o m p e te n tp s y c h ia tr ic
e x p e r t.” ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Slo an , 776 F. 2d 926, 929 ( 10t h C i r . 1985) (f i ndi ng t hat a st ate’ s du t y u n der A ke “ can n otbe sat i sf i ed w i t h t h e app oi n t m en tof an expert
w h o u ltim a te lyte s tifie s co n tr a r yto th e d e fe n s e o n th e is s u e o f c o m p e te n c e ”). A kedo es n o t c lea rl y p rov i d e a con sti tu ti on a lri gh t t o a n “i n d ep en d en t” ps yc hi at r i s t
. Gi ve n t he l ac k o f ac l e arSupr e m e Cour tho l di ng t hat a de fe nda nt is e n tit le dto in d e p e n d e n t p s y c h ia tr ic a s s is ta n c e a n dth e d iffe r e n t c ir c u it in te rp re ta tion s o f A ke o n t h i s p o i n t , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Mi s s i s s i p p iS u p r e me C o u r tw a s n o t “ c o n tr a r yto ” o ra n “u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f” c le a r ly
e s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w . S ee Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 529 U
. S
. 362 , 381 ( 200 0) (rel i ef pr e c l ude d if

t he Supr e m e Cour tha s no t“br o ke n s uf f i c i e ntl e ga lg r o und” o n a c o n s tit u tio n a l p r in c ip le a d v a n c e db yap e tit io n e r). Iti s un di spu t ed that W oodw ard ref u sed t o be exam in ed at W h i t f i el d f or t h e res en t en cin g . W oodw ard theref ore does not argu e t h at th e exam i n ati on pro v id e d for hi m w as i n ad equ ate; rat h er, he argu es t h at itw ou l d h ave been i nad e qua t e . I n s upp o r t , he po i nt s to h i s pr e vi o us W hi t f i e l d e xa m i nat i o n, obtai n ed i n 198 7. H e argu es t h at t h i s exam i n ati on contai n ed grav e def i ci en ci es, in c lu d in g th a t n o te s ts w e r e g iv e n to e v a lu a te th e p o s s ib ility o f o r g a n i c b r a in d a m a ge . H ow ev er, W h i tf i e ld l i m i tedthe scop e of the 19 8 7 ex a m i n a ti on to
es t abl i sh w het herW oo dw ar d w as com pet entto st and t r i alan d w het herh e w as c ap ab l e o f di s t i ngu i s hi ng r i ght f r o m w r o ng at t he t i m e o f t he c r i m e . Gi ve n t he di f fe r e nt s c o pe o f t he r e s e nt e nc i ng pr o c e e di ngs , i t i s e nt i r e l y po s s ibl e t h at t he W hi t f i e l d e xa m i nat i o n f

o rpur po s e s o f

r e s e nt e nc i ng w o ul d ha ve b e e n dif fer e nt i n na t u re and m ay h ave been m ore f ocused on i den t i f

yi n g an d d evel opi n g ot h erN o. 06- 70053

Alternatively , an d as the district courts t at ed , “[h]ad Woodward gone to the State 6 Hospitalfor anotherevalu ation, he may haveactuallybeen supplied with evi denceto support histh eoryth at the psychiatris tsth ere werep re di sp os edto favorth e St ate’sp osition .”

This provi sionwas repealed byPublic Law 10 9-77 , 12 0 S tat. 231 , Title II , Sec . 22 2 7 (M arch9 , 2 0 0 6). S uchf un din gi s nowgovern edb y1 8U .S .C
. § 3 5 9 9(f)an d (g)(2). Althou gh Woodward did not request a COA on this claim, a C OA i s not necessary to 8 app eal th e denial of

f un dsf orexperta ssi st ance . See Smith v. Dretke , 422 F.3 d 26 9, 2 88 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 5). 19 m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . W o o dwar d p r o vi de s no e vi de nc e es t ab l i s hi ng t hatt he 6 h ospi t alw ou l d n otha ve p rovi ded t h e t est s orw as un able t o provi de the t est s. Wo o d w a r dt h e r e f

o r e i s n o te n t i t l e dt o h a b e a s r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m. D
. Di s t r i c tCour t ’

s D e ni alof

W o o dw ar d’

s §8 48Req ue s tf

o rFundi ng I n t he di st r i c tc our t , W oo d w a r d appl i ed f orex per tf

und s purs uant t o 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 848 ( q) ( 4 ) a n d (q)( 9) , contending that t h e assi st an ce of a psych i atr i st 7
w a s n e e d e dto d e te r m in e w h e th e r , a t t h e re s e n te n c in g , aco m p re h e n s iv e fo r e n s ic
e va l uat i o n woul d ha ve r e ve al e d m i t i ga t i ng fac t o r s f o rde fe ns e c o uns e lt o pr e s e nt att he r es ent enc i ng. The di st r i c tc our tdeni ed t h e m ot i on, f i ndi ng t hat “W oo d w a rd ’ s ap p l i ca ti on i s n ot cl ea r as to w h y th e ev a lu a ti on s of t h e sta te ho s pit al and D r . Thur m an di d no t c o m pl y w i t h A ke
. ” Th e di st ri ctcourtt h eref ore con cl u d ed tha t W oo d w a rdh a dn ot esta b l i sh ed tha t gra n ti n g h i m the f u n d s to
r e t ai n Dr. Sum m e r s w as “ r e as o nab l y ne c e s s ar y” t o pur s ue hi s ha be as pe t i t i o n. 8 T h e State argu es t h at t h i s court l acks j u ri sdi ct i on over t h i s c l ai m becau se W oodw ard fai l ed t o incl u de t h e ord er d en yi n g exp erta ssi st an ce i n h i s n ot i ce of
a p p ea l
. W oo d w a rdarg u es th a t th e i n terim ord er d en yin g fu n d i n g m erg ed i n to t h e f i n alj u dg m en t ; theref ore, h i s n ot i ce of

t h e app ealof

t h e f i n alj u dg m en tal so not i c ed t he appea lof t he o r derdenyi ng f und i ng. I ti s und i sput ed t hat W o o d w a r d ’ s n o tic e o f a p p e a l d o e s n o t sp e c ific a lly r e fe r e n c e th e o r d e r ; in s te a ditN o. 06- 70053

20 st at es t hatW oo dw ar d “n ow pr ovi des not i c e o f hi s appeal
. . . f

r om t he f

i nal ju d g m e n t e n te r e din th is a c tio n o n A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 6 .” Anoti ce of

app eali s r equ i red t o “ desi gn ate t h e j u dg m en t , order, or pa rt th e r e o f b ein g a p p ea l ed
. ” F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 (c ) ( 1 ) ( B)
. Th e g e ne r a lr ul e i s t hat

“ [w ] h ere t h e app el l an tn ot i ces t h e a pp ealof a speci f i ed j u dg m en tonl y or a part t h ereof
. . . t h i s c ou rtha s no j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a n y ot h er j u dg m en t s ori ssues w h i ch are not expressly ref erred t o an d w h ich a re n oti m pl i edl y i n t en ded f or a p p ea l
. ” L ocket tv. A n d ers on , 230 F. 3d 695, 699 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng Capi t al Parks, I

n c. v. S e. A d vert . & S ale s S ys. , I n c. , 3 0 F .3d 6 2 7 , 6 3 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). H ow ever, “ [ a] n app ealf rom a f

i n alj u dg m e n t p re serves al lpri or or ders i n tertw i n ed w i th the f i n a lj u d gm en t. ” New Y ork L if e I n s. Co. v. D eshot el , 142 F .3 d8 7 3 , 8 8 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d ). A n app el l ate c ou rt ’ s c on si derati on of t h e d en i alof § 8 48 fun di n g w i l lof t en im p lic a te th e m e r its o f a p e tit io n e r ’ s h a b e a s cla im
. S eeS m ith , 422 F. 3d at288. E v e n if th e r e w a s am is ta k e in d e s ig n a tin gth e ju d g m e n t, a m is ta k e in des i gnat i ng or der s t o b e a ppeal ed s houl d n otbar re vi ew “if t he i nt entt o a ppeal a pa rt i cul ar j u dg m en tcan be fai rl y i n ferred, an d i f t h e ap pel l ee i s not prej u di ced
o rm is le d b yt h e m is ta k e .” Fri ou v. Ph i l l i ps Pet roleum Co. , 948 F. 2d 972, 974 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) (c i t at i on o m i t t ed)
. W oo dw ar d’ s i nt ent t o appeal t hi s i ss ue i s c l ear f r o m a n e xa m i nat i o n o f W o o dwar d’ s r e que s t f o r a CO A i n t he di s t r i c t c o ur ta nd h is o p e n in ga p p e lla te b r ie f, b o th o f w h ic h e x p lic itlyre fe r e n c e th e § 8 4 8 d e n ia l. S ee D eshot el , 142 F. 3d at884. A l so , the St at e has notdem ons t r at ed t hati tw as in a n yw a yp r eju d ic e db yW o o d w a r d ’ s fa ilu r e to d e s ig n a te th e § 8 4 8 d e n ia l in h is
n o tic e o f a p p e a l. I

d. P u rsuan t t o 21 U
. S
. C
. § 848 ( q) ( 9) , a di st ri ctj u dg e, i n a capi t alcase, “ u pon a f i n di n g t h at i n vest i gative, exp ert , or ot h er servi ces are reasonab l y n ecess ary f or t h e repres e n t ati on of t h e defen da n t , ” m ay au t h ori ze f u n di n g f

or s u chN o. 06- 70053

21 s e r v ic e s . F

ost er v. Joh n son , 293 F
. 3d 766 , 775 n. 8 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. W e revi ew f or a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f § 8 4 8 fu n d in g . S m ith , 4 22 F. 3da t2 88
. The d en i a lof su ch f

u n d i n g h a s be en u p h eld “w h en a p etitio n e rh a s ( a ) fai l ed to sup pl em en thi s f

u n di n g requ estw i t h a vi able constit u t i on alcl ai m t h at i s not procedu ral l y barred, or (b) w h en t h e sough t
- af t er ass i st an ce w ou l d on l y sup port
a m e r i t l e s s c l ai m , o r( c ) w he n t he so ugh taf t e ras s i s t anc e w o ul d o nl y s upp l e m e nt p ri or ev i d en ce.” I

d. (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). In l i gh t of ou r h ol di n g on t h e m eri t s of W oodw ard’ s A kecl ai m , w e h ol d t h at the di st ri ctcou rtdi d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on in d e n y in gth e fu n d in gre q u e s t. E
. B a tso n C la im T h e Su prem e C ou rtha s m ad e cl ear t h at t h e E qu alP rotect i on C l au se of t he Fourt ee nt h A m endm ent pro hibi t s pro se c ut or s f r om st r i ki ngpr os pec t ive ju r o r s s o le lyo n th e b a s is o f r a c e . Bat s o n v . Ke nt ucky , 4 7 6 U .S
. 7 9 , 8 9 (19 8 6 ); Mo o dyv . Q uar t e r m an , 4 76 F. 3d2 60 , 2 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 07 )
. I n Mi l le r - E lv. D r e t ke , 545 U
. S. 231 ( 2005) , the Sup r em e C our texpl ai ned som e of the ef fec t s of r ac i al di s c r i m i nat i o n i n j ur y s e l e c t i o n: [ P ] rosec u t ors draw i n g raci all i n es i n pi cki n g j u ri es es t abli sh st atespo nso r ed grou p s t er eo t ypes r oo t ed i n, and r ef l ec t ive of, hi st or i c al preju d ice
. . . . W h en t h e governm en t ’ s c h oi ce of j u rors i s t ai n t ed w i t h raci al bi as, t h at over tw rong casts dou bt overt h e obl i gati on of t he par t i es , t he j ury, and i ndeed t he co u rt t o a dher e t o t he l aw th r o u gh ou t th e t ri a l
. T h a t i s, th e very i n teg ri ty of th e cou r ts is j eo pa r di z e d when a pr o s e c ut o r ’ s di s c r i m i nat i o n i nvit e s c yni c i sm respect i n g t h e j u ry’ s neu t ral i t y, an d u n derm i n es pu bl i c c on f i den ce i n adj u di cat i on [
. ] So, f or m ore t h an a century, t h i s C ou rt c ons i st ent l y and r epe at edly h a s rea ff i rm ed t hat r ac i al di sc r i m i nat i on by t he St at e i n j ury se l ec t i on o f fends t he E qual P rot ect i on C l au se. Mi l le r - El , 54 5 U
. S. a t2 37

- 38 (i nt e r nalc i t at i o ns , q uo t at i o ns , a nd a l t e r at i o ns om i t t ed). “ [ T ] h e C on st i t u t i on f orbi ds st ri king even a si n gl e prospect ive j u ror f orN o. 06- 70053

22 a dis c r im in a torypu rp ose . ” Snyd e rv . Lo ui s i ana , 128 S. C t
. 1203, 1208 ( 2008) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. V asqu ez- L opez , 2 2 F .3d 9 0 0 , 9 0 2 (9t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). I n B ats on , th e C o u rt d e li n e a te dath re e -ste p a n a lys is forev a lu a tion of a d e fe n d a n t’s cla im th a t a p r o s e c u to ru s e dap e r e m p t o r ys tr ik e in ara c ia lly di sc r i m i nat or y m anner: ( 1) a def endant m ust m ake a pri m a fac i e s how i ng t hat t he pr o s e c ut o re xe r c i s e d hi s pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s o n t he b as i s o f ra c e ; ( 2) t he bu rden t h en shi f

t s t o t h e prosecutort o art i cu la te a race- n eu t ralreason f or s t r i ki ng t he j ur o ri n que s t i o n; and ( 3) t he t r i alc o ur tm us tde t e r m i ne w he t he rt he d e fe n d a n t c a r r ie dh i s b u r d e n o f p r o v in gp u r p o s e fu l d is c r im in a tio n . S ee Hernan d ez v. New Y ork , 500 U
. S. 3 52 , 3 58

- 59 ( 19 91 ) (pl ur al i t y o pi ni o n) (c i t i ng B ats on , 4 7 6 U .S . a t 9 6 -9 8 ); Mo o dy , 47 6 F
. 3 dat 26 6 -67
. T h i s an a l ys i s “pe rm i ts pro m ptr ul i ngs on o bj ec t i ons t o pe r em pt or y c hal l enges w i t houts ubst ant i al d i sru p ti on to t h e j u ryselecti on pr oce ss. ” Hernan d ez , 5 00 U
. S. a t3 59
. The
u ltim a te b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s io n lie s w ith th e d e fe n d a n t. S ee P u rket tv. E lem , 514 U .S
. 7 6 5 , 7 6 8 (19 9 5 ). U p o n r e m a n d , t h e tr ia l c o u r tc o n d u c t e dju r ys e le c t io n fo rW o o d w a r d ’s resentenci n g . Th e State perem ptoril y cha l l en ged six j u rors , i n cl u di n g t h ree b la c k m e m b e r s o f th e v e n ir e p a n e l. A t t h is p o in t, W o o d w a r dra is e dacla im
u n der B ats on . The c o ur tr e que s t e d t hatt he St at e of fe rre as o ns fo rst r i ki ng t he t hr e e b l ac k j ur o r s , num be r s 7 , 1 2, a nd 2 2, to w hi c h t he f o l l o w i ng c o l l o quy e ns ue d: M R . W H IT E : If

itp le a s e t h e C o u r t, th e S ta te ’ s re a s o n s o n N o . 7 [,] [M s .] P r o c to r , sh e is u n e m p lo y e da n do n a p r e v io u s c a s e w a s u n a b le t o reach a verdi ct
. Ju ror N o. 1 2, [M s. ] M cAbree, w as un responsive. M r. K l ei n an d M r. C al l ah an both i n di cat ed to m e t h at s h e w as very h ost i l e w h en t h e State w as on voirdi re and open to th e defen se. Fur t he rt hathe rr e l at ive w o r ks i n Le ak e s vil l e w i t h t he pr i son sy st em and w e s t r uck heron t hatbas i s. W e di dn’ tw anthert o have a n ya ffilia tio n s w ith th a t. . .
.N o. 06- 70053

23 . . . [M s . ] St e e l e [Jur o rN o . 2 2]
. . . That ’ s t he l ad y w i t h t he oran ge h ai r t h at gave un responsive an sw ers. CO U RT : A n d t h at ’ s t he o ne t haty o u pr o f fe r e d f o rc aus e b utt he Co u r td i dn o ta l l o w. M R
. A D E L M A N : B u tas far a s P roct or goes, I ’ d say that t h e fact th a t s h e w a s u n a b l e to rea ch a v erd i ct i n som e p ri or juryi s n ot a r ac i al l y ne ut r alr e as o n. I t ’ s ano n- r ac e a nd it ’ s a n i r r e l e va ntr e as o n. M R . W H I T E : I td o e s n ’t h a v e t o b e a r e le v a n tr e a s o n a s l o n ga s it ’s r a c e n e u tr a l. C O U R T : A re t h ere ot h ers? M R
. A D E LM A N : M cA b r ee , N o. 12. H e s ai d s om et hi ng aboutt hat she w as hosti l e. Irem em ber her as bei n g very cooperative. M R
. W H I TE : Th at ’ s exac t l y w hat w e’ r e sa yi ng, she w as c oo per at ive w i t h y o u. M R . A D E L M A N : N o , s h e w a s c o o p e r a t iv e w it h e v e r yb o d y . I d o n ’t rem em ber her bei n g h ost i l e. C O U R T : T h e C ou rti s of t h e opi n i on th a t t h e st ri kes w ere not raci al l y m ot ivated an d w as not bei n g don e t o const i t u t e m em bers of a ce r ta in ra c e o n th e ju r yp a n e l. .
. . W o o dwar d t he n o f

fe r e d hi s s t r i ke s . Dur i ng t he ne xts e r i e s o f s t r i ke s , t he S t ate s t ruck four add i t i on alj u rors , am on g t h ese j u ror s w as one black j u ror, Juro r56. W oo dw ar d obj ec t ed, s t at i ng t hat“[t] hey st r uck t he onl y bl ac k i n t hat gr ou p , w h o w a s [M s. ] G ri ff i n . T h ey h a ve n ow stru ck ev ery b la c k a v a i l a b l e.” The St at e r e s po nde d: M R
. W H I TE : . . . [M s. ] G r i f f i n on S- 10. M R. AD EL M AN : She ’ s b l ac k. M R
. W H I TE : Y es . W e t al ked t o Jer r y G ar dner
. Sh e i s related to a n o th e r p o te n tia l ju r o r , N o . 6 7 , o n th e p a n e l, butherhus ba nd ha s h adlaw enfor cem ent proble m s at a t rai ler pa rk, accor d i ng t o Jerry G a rd n er . A n dw e str u ck h ero n th a t b a sis
. W e t ho ugh tt he r e m i ght be s o m e em pat hy w i t h t hatpa r t i c ul arc as e . She l ive s i n t he Sa nd R i dge Trai l erPark her e i n N ew A ugust a.N o. 06- 70053

24 T h e tr ia l co u r t d e n ie dth e o bje c tio n a n ds tr u c k h e rfr o m th e p a n e l. T w o m ore s e rie s of

st ri kes f

ol l ow ed, an d the S t ate s t ruck M s. W i l l i am s, Juro r67, w ho i s bl ac k. Th e St at e o f fer ed as an ex pl anat i on t he fac tt hats he w as a ps yc ho l o gy m aj o r and t hat t he y di d no tha ve aw r i t t e n r e s po ns e f r o m he r . The t r i alc o ur tr ul e d t hatt he s t r i ke w as no tm ad e f o rar ac i al l y m o t iva t e d r e as o n, a n ds tr u c k M s . W illia m s fr o m th e p a n e l. T h e courtt h en m oved t o t h e sel ect i on of t h e al t erna t es. W oodw ard st ruck th e fir s t a lte r n a t e , a n d t h e S ta te s tr u c k th e n e x t a lte r n a te , J u r o r7 2 , w h o is bl ac k. The St at e s ai d t hati t s s t r i ke w as b as e d on h i s respo ns e t o t he r ap e que s t i o n, a s w e l la s the fac tt hathi s b r o t he r - i n- l aw i s ac o nvi c t e d f e l o n. The de fe ns e t hen st ated: “Fo rt he r e c o r d, w e w antt o no t e t hat[Jur o r7 2] i s b l ac k. T h ey h ave n ow st ruck every bl ack j u ror. ” A s a resul tof t h ese c h al l en ges, every b la c k p e r s o n w a s re m o v e dfr o m t h e ju r yp a n e l, a n dth e ju r yth a t w a s e v e n tu a lly
em pa n el ed w as com posed enti rel y of w h i t e m em bers. A tthe r e s e nt e nc i ng, t he St at e di d no tdi s put e w he t he rW o o dwar d m ad e a pr i m a fac i e s ho w i ng t hatt he St at e e xe r c i s e d it s pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s o n t he basi s of race, an d w e need not add ress t h e fi rstprongof t h e Bat s o n an al ysi s. Hernan d ez , 500 U
. S. at359 ( “ O nce a pr os ec ut orhas of fer ed a r ac e- neut r al
e xp l ana t i o n f

o rt he pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s a nd t he t r i alc o ur tha s r ul e d o n t he
u lt i m ate q u e stio n of in te n tion a l dis cr im in a tion , th e p reli m i n ary i ssue of w h eth er t he de fe nda ntha d m ad e apr i m a fac i e s ho w i ng be c o m e s m o o t
. ” )
. Fort he s e c o nd st ep of t h e an al ysi s, a prosecutori s n ota l l ow ed t o m erel y den y t h at he di d n ot h a v e ad is c r im in a to r ym o t i v e ; h e m u s t p r o v id e as p e c ific e x p la n a tio n th a t is
c l e a ra n dre a s o n a b le
. E lm , 5 14 U
. S. a t7 68
. The s e c o nd s t e p, ho w e ve r , “ does
n ot d em a n dan ex p l a n a ti on tha t i s p ersu a sive, or ev en plau sibl e.” I d. W oodw ard’ s B ats on cla im w a s p re se n te dto th e M iss iss ip p i S u prem e C ou rt
o n d ir e c t r e v ie w o f th e re s e n te n c in gtr ia l. W oo d w a rdIII, 726 So. 2d at529- 534.N o. 06- 70053

25 T h a t cou rt review ed ea ch pe rem p torych a l l en ge an dco n c lu d ed tha t t h e S tate h ad m eti t s burd en of of feri n grace- n eu t ralreasons f or it s perem ptory
c h a lle n g e s . I

d. at 530

- 533
. T h e cou rtn ot ed t h at “[t] h e establ i shm en tof a raceneut r alr eas on is n ot a d i f f i c ul tt as k” and t hata “t r i alj udge’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs rel ative t o a prosecutor ’ s u se of p erem ptory cha l l en ges on m i n ori t y persons are to be acco rd ed gre a t d e fere n ce.” I d. at530 (c i t i ng S tew a rt v . S ta te , 662 So. 2d 55 2, 5 57

- 58 (M i s s . 19 95 ) )
. W o o dwar d ha s no tde m o ns t r at e d t hatt he M i s s i s s i ppi Suprem e C our t ’ s de c i s i o n was b as e d o n a n unr e as o nab l e de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fact s i n l i gh tof

t h e evi den ce presented. 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2254 ( d). W e f i n d n o err or i n t he s t at e c o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatt he St at e s at i s f i e d the second p r o ng o f t he Bat s o n an al ysi s. W h et h er a defen da n tha s carri ed h i s burd en un der B ats on ’ s th i rdstep to p rov e p u rp ose ful d i scrim i n a ti on is b a sed o n th e p ersu a siven ess a n dcred ib i l i ty
o f th e p r o s e c u to r ’ s ju s tific a tio n fo rh is e x e r c is e o f th e p e r e m p to r ys tr ik e . I d. B ecau se of

t h e i m portance of dem ean or an d c redibi l i t y evi den ce i n m ak i n g such determ i n ati on s, w e give st rong d eference t o t h e deter m i n ati on of t h e t ri alj u dg e, con sist en t w i th A E D P A
. S ee Hernan d ez , 50 0 U
. S
. at 36 9 ( “[W ]e de cl i n e to
o ve r t ur n t h e s t at e t r i alc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng o n t he i s s ue o f di s c r i m i nat o r y i nt e nt
u n les s c on vi n ced t h at it s det erm i n ati on w as cl earl y erroneou s. ” )
. H ow ever,

“ i m pl ausibl e o rfant as ti c ju sti f i c at i ons m ay ( and pro babl y w i l l) be f ound t o b e p retex ts f

or p u rp ose ful discri m i n a ti on . ” E lm , 514 U
. S. at768. W oodw ard argu es that t h e t ri alcourt ’ s fai l u re t o m ak e a f i n di n g of dem eanoras t o M s. M cAbr ee es t abl i she s a Bat s o n e r r o r , r e l yi ng o n Snyde rv. Loui s i ana , 128 S. C t
. 1 203 ( 200 8)
. W h ere t h e perem ptory c h al l en ge i s based on
a po t e nt i al j ur o r ’ s de m e ano r , “ t he t r i alc o ur tm us te va l uat e no to nl y w he t he rt he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s de m e anorb e l i e s adi s c r i m i nat o r y i nt e nt , b uta l s o w he t he rt he j ur o r ’ s de m e ano r c an c r e dibly be s ai d t o ha ve e xhibi t e d t he b as i s f o rt he s t r i keN o. 06- 70053

26 a ttrib u tedto th e j u ror b y th e p rose cu tor. ” S nyd er , 128 S. C t
. at1208. Fact ual f i ndi ngs r el at i ng t o t he j uro r ’ s dem eanor ar e es se nt i al t o our r evi ew of a B ats on c la im
. Se e i d. a t1 20 9. I n S nyd er , t he pr os ec ut i on o f fer ed t w o r ac e- neut r al reasons f

o rs t r i ki ng a po t e nt i alj ur o r : t he “ m ai n r e as o n” w as t hatt he j u ror

“ l o o ke d v e r y n er vo us ” t hr o ugh o utq ue s t i o ni ng; t he o t he rr e as o n r e l at e d t o t he ju r o r ’ s co m m itm e n ts a s as tu d e n t t e a c h e r . Id
. at 12 08. T h e defen da n tdi spu t ed both exp l an ati on s. T h e S u prem e C ou rt reversed, based i n part on t h e “ absen ce of an ythi n g i n t h e record sh ow i n g t h at t h e t ri alj u dg e cr edi t ed the cl ai m t h at M r. B roo k s w a s n erv ou s. ” Id
. at1212. R ather t h an m ak i n g a speci f i c f i n di n g on t h e rec ord concerni n g M r. B r ook s’dem eanor , t he t r i alj udge s i m pl y al l ow ed t he c hal l enge w i t ho utex pl ana t i o n. I ti s po s s ibl e t hatt he j udg e di d no tha ve a ny i m pressi on one w ay or the ot h er concern i n g M r. B rooks’dem ean or.

. . . O r, t h e t ri alj u dg e m ay h ave f ou n d i tun n ecess ary t o co n sider M r . Br o o ks ’dem e ano r , i ns t e adbas i ng hi s r ul i ng c o m pl e t e l y o n t he s e c o n d p r o f

fe r e d j u s t i f

i c a t i o n f

o r t h e s t r i k e . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , we c a n n o tp r e s u m e th a tth e tr ia l ju d g e c r e d i t e dth e p r o s e c u t o r ’s assert i on t h at M r. B rooks w as nervou s. I d. a t1 20 9. I n t hi s c as e , a s i n S nyd er , t h e State o ffer e d m u l t i pl e reasons f or s t r ik in gM cAb r e e a n dw e c a n n o tp r e s u m e th a tth e tr ia l c o u r tc r e d it e dth e S t a t e ’s assert i on th a t M cA b ree w as hosti l e. W oodw ard, how ever, ha s fai l ed to show t h at t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s fact u al f i n di n gs w ere u n reasona bl e i n l i gh tof t h e evi den ce pr e s e nt e d. W oodw ard d i d n otrebut t h e State’ s r ace- n eu t ralreason f or al lt h e ot h er c h a lle n g e s . O n a p p e a l, h o w e v e r , W o o d w a r dn o n e th e l e s s a r g u e s th a t h e is
en t i t l ed to rel i ef

un der Ba t s o n b e ca u se ( 1) t h e reasons given by the State f or s t r i ki ng bl ac k j ur o r s w e r e noteq ual l y ap pl i e d t o w hi t e j ur o r s ; a nd ( 2) b o t h t he di st ri ctcourtan d the M i ssi ssi pp iSt at eSupr e m eCourterr ed byconsi deri n g each pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge i ndivi dua l l y, r at he rt han e xa m i ni ng “ t he t o t al i t y o f t he
r e le v a n t fa c ts a b o u t a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s co n d u c t d u r in gth e d e fe n d a n t’s o w n tr ia l.”N o. 06- 70053

27 Rel yi ng o n Mi l le r - Ela nd S nyd er , W o o dwar d a r gue s t hata s l o ng as t he r e l e va nt facts w ere b efore th e tri a lcou rt, i t w a s n ot n ece ssa rytha t pa rti cu l a r arg u m en ts b e m a d e in s u p p o r t o f a s h o w in go f p r e te x t . E s s e n tia lly , W o o d w a r dw o u ld i m p ose on t he st at e t r i al c our t t he dut y t o c onduct a c om par i so n anal ys i s to i den t i f y possibl e i n st an ces w h ere t h e reasons f or perem ptory c h a ll e n ges are une qua l l y ap pl i e d t o b l ac k a nd w hi t e j ur o r s , r e ga r dl e s s o f w he t he rade fe nda nt art i cul ates a rebu t t alargu m en tregardi n g u n e qu alapp l i cat i on of reasons f

or s tr ik e s . W o o d w a r dre lie s h e a v ilyo n th e fo llo w in gla n g u a g e fr o m afo o tn o te in Mi l le r - Elto su p p ort h i s ar gu m en t: T h e di ssent contend s t h at com pa ri sons of bl ack an d n on bl ack ven i re p a n e li s t s , a lo n gw it h M il le r -E l’s a r g u m e n t s a b o u tt h e p r o s e c u t io n ’s di sparate questi on i n g of bl ack an d n on bl ack pa n el i st s an d i t s use of j ur y s huf

f l e s , a r e no t pr o pe r l y be f o r e t hi s Cour t , no tha vi ng be e n pu t bef ore t h e T exas courts
. B u tt h e d iss e n tconf l ates t h e di f

ference bet w ee n evi denc e t hatm ust b e p resente d t o t he s t at e c our t s t o b e consi dered b y federalc o u rt s i n ha beas proceedi n gs an d theori es a b o u t t h a t e v id e n c e . Mi l le r - El , 5 45 U
. S. a t2 41 n. 2 (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o ns a nd c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. I n t he
sa m e f oo t not e, t he C our tgo es on t o e xpl ai n t hat [t] he r e c an be no q ue s t i o n t hatt he t r ans c r i pto f v o i r di r e , r e c o r di ng t h e evi den ce on w h i ch M i l l er- E l bases h i s argu m en t s and on w h i ch w e b as e o urr e s ul t , w as be f o r e t he s t at e c o ur t s , no rdo e s t he di s s e nt contend t h at M i l l er- E ldi d n ot fai rl y present hi s Bat s o n c l ai m t o t he st ate c ou rt s. O n l y as t o t h e j u ror qu est i on n ai res an d i n f orm ati on cards i s t h ere questi on abou tw h at w as bef ore t h e st ate c ou rt s. Id
. ( i nt e r nalq uo t at i o ns a nd c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. Bec aus e ade fe nda ntha s t he
u ltim a te b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s io n , it is im p o r ta n t th a t h e “fa ir lyp r e s e n t” h is cla im t o t he s t at e c o ur ti n s e e ki ng t o pe r s uad e t he s t at e c o ur tt hatdi s c r i m i n ati on exi st s. The St at e r e l i e s he av i l y o n t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o ns i n Wrig h t v . Ha r ris Co u n ty , 536 F
. 3d436 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) a nd Un i t ed Stat es v. A rce , 997 F. 2d 1123,N o. 06- 70053

28 112 7 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) , t o argu e t h at W oodw ard w aived hi s Bat s o n c l ai m b y fail i ng to reb u t th e Sta te’ s ra ce-n eu tral rea son s for stri k i n g t h e bl a ck j u rors . Wr ight
w as a civi lsui tw h ere onl y on e bl ack ven i rem an ha d a “r e a li sticchan ce” of
se r vi ng on t he j ury. Wr ight , 5 36 F. 3da t4 37
. I n A rce , a nonc api t alc r i m i nal
c as e , w e he l d t hat “ [b] y fail i ng t o di s put e t he pr o s e c ut i o n’ s . . . e xp l ana t i o n i n t he d is tr ic t c o u r t, d e fe n d a n t s h a v e w a iv e dth e irrig h t t o o bje c t t o it o n a p p e a l.” Ca p it a lc as e s e m pl o y di f fe r e nts t and ar ds t han no nc ap i t alc as e s a tt i m e s , a nd o ur m o r e r e c e ntde c i s i o n i n Re e dv . Qu a r t e r m an , 5 5 5 F .3 d3 6 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ),
s u g g e s ts th a t w a iv e rd o e s n o t a p p lyin ca p ita l ca s e s . [T ]h e tr ia l c o u r t s ta te da t th e h e a r in gth a t itw a s co n s id e r in go n ly t he v o i r di r e t r ans c r i pt s o f t he t e n Af r i c an- Am e r i c an j ur o r s t hatt he pr o s e c ut i o n s t r uc k, nott ho s e o f a ny o t he rj ur o r s . Fur t he r , t he prosecutornoted, “[ a] tn o ti m e h as [M i l l er- E l] u rged t h at there are u n ch a l l en ge dve n ire p erso n s w h o d i dn ot h a ve the se sa m e traits t hatthe pr os ec ut or s t es t i f i ed ei t herat t r i alori n t hi s hear i ng t hat th e yre lie do n in e x e r c is i n gth e S ta te ’ s p e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e s .” M i l l er- E ldi d n otres pon d t o this stat em en ta n d di d n otask the court t o consi der an y ot h er portio n s o f t h e voi r di re t ran scr i pt. A f t er r e vi e w i ng t he v o i rdir e t r ans c r i pt o f o nl y t he c hal l e nge d j ur o r s , t he j udg e a c c e pt e d t he pr o sec ut o r ’ s r ac e - ne ut r ale xp l ana t i o ns f o rt he s tr ik e s a n dfo u n dth a t t h e r e w a s “ n o p u r p o s e fu l d is c r im in a tio n .” Th e [ Texas C our tof

C r i m i nalA ppeal s] af f i r m ed, s t at i ng t hati thad
“ c ar ef ul l y r evi ew ed th e voi rdi r e e xam i nat i on” of t he pr os pec t ive b la c k ju r o r s a n dfo u n d“a m p le s u p p o r t. . . fo rth e p r o s e c u t o r ’s raci al l y n eu t ralexpl an ati on s. ” A gain, itis i m portant t o em ph asi ze t h at t h e T C C Anev er r evi ew ed the en t i re voi r di re t ran scr i pt or consi dered a com pa rat ive an al ysi s. R eed , 5 55 F. 3da t3 71
. N o t w i t hs t and i ng t hat“M i l l er- El ’ s a r gum e nt s g av e t he st ate court n o reason t o go l eaf i n g t h rough t h e voi r di re t ran scr i pt, ” t h e Mi l le r - El
m ajo r it y“s o u n d lyr eje c t e d ” th e d is s e n t ’s a r g u m e n tth a tth e s t a t e c o u r t ’s
c ons i der at i on of

ev i denc e s upport i ng a B ats on cl a i m i s “u n rea l i sti c. ” Id
. at372 ( q uo t i ng Mi l le r - El , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 2 8 3 (T h o m a s , J ., d is s e n tin g)). Con t ra S nyd er , 128 S. C t
. at1214 (Th om as , J. , di ss ent i ng) ( “W e have no busi nes s ove r t urni ng aN o. 06- 70053

Inth at ca se , there were20bl ackmemb er s of a 1 0 8 -p er so nvenire pan el
. Mi ller- El , 9 545U.S. at 2 4 0
. One served , 9were excu se d for cau se , an d 1 0werep eremptorilystruck
. Id
. at 240 -41. Th e C ourt st ate d th at “[h]app en st ancei s unlikely” the cau seof the pros ecutorsu se of p eremptorystrike s to exclu de9 1 % of b lackj urors . Id
. at 2 4 1
. Th e C ourtdes crib edTexa s’ s j uryshuff lep roce durea s f

ollows: 10 [E]itherside mayliterallyreshuff leth e card s b earin gp anelme mb er s’n a me s, thu s rearranging the order in which members of a venire panel are seatedan d reached for questi on ing . Once the order is e stablishe d, the panelmembers seatedatthe b ack are likelyto escape voir direaltogether, forthose not que stioned by the end of the week aredismissed. I d
. at 253 . The Court also note d th at the prosecutors noted the raceof eachpaneli st onall of the j uror card s. I

d
. at 250n .7. Id
. at26 1-63
. 11 29 convic t i on , years af

t er t h e factan d af

t er extensive i n t ervening li t i gati on , based
o n a r gum e nt s no tpr e s e nt e d t o t he co ur t s be l o w . ” )
. W e t he r e f o r e dec l i ne t o f

i nd t hatW oo dw ar d w aived any Bat s o n cl ai m b a se d on a com pa ri son an al ysi s. W o o dwar d no ne t he l e s s m us tcarr y hi s b ur de n o f pr o vi ng pur po s e f ul di s c r i m i nat i o n, a nd f o rpur po s e s o f

ourr e vi e w , he m us tde m o ns t r at e t hatt he st ate c ou rt ’ s fa ct u alf i n di n gs w ere un reasona bl e i n l i gh tof t h e evi den ce pr e s e nt e d. I n Mi l le r - El , the C ou rt recog n i ze dtha t M ill er-E l ’ s ev i d en ce w a s op en to j u dg m en tcal l s “atsom e p oi n t s, ” b u tthe C ou rtconsi dered su bstanti alevi den ce i n d e t e r m i ni ng t hatdi s c r i m i nat i o n e xi s t e d, i nc l udi ng j ur o rc o m pa r i s o n s, st ati st i caldata, prosecutor s’use of a procedu re kn ow n a s t h e j u ry shu f f l e, 9 1 0
c ont r as t i ng voi r di re que s t i o ns , “ m ani pul at ive m i ni m um pun i s hm e nt qu estioni n g, ” an d the D al l as C ou n t y of f i ce prosec u t ors’“ speci f i c pol i cy of syst em ati cal l y excl u di n g bl acks f rom j u ri es. ” I n t h i s c ase, W oodw ard rel i es on 11
s ta tis tic s a n d j u r yco m p a r is o n s to a r g u e th a t t h e s ta te co u r t c le a r lye r r e din f i ndi ng no di s c r i m i nat i o n.N o. 06- 70053

Mr. O’B anner wa s analtern ate juror. 12 30 The St at e us e d p e r e m pt o r y s t r i ke s t o e xc l ude 1 00 % o f b l ac k j ur o r s , b ut W o o dwar d ha s no tpr o vi de d t he Cour tw i t h i nf o r m at i o n r e ga r di ng t he m ak e up o f th e e n tir e ju r yp o o l. SeeMe del l i n v. D r e t ke , 371 F. 3d 270, 278 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) ( “ F or t h e st ati st i calevi den ce t o be rel evan t , da t a concerni n g t h e en t i re j u ry pool i s necessary. T h e n u m b e r of st ri kes u sed t o excuse m i n ori t y an d m al e j u ry m em b ers is i rrelev a n t on i ts ow n . ”) ;cf
. Uni t e d S t at e s v . Al v e r ado , 923 F. 2d 253, 255 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( “ [ T] he pr os ec ut i on’ s c hal l enge r at e a gai nstm i nor i t i es w as 50 percent (t h ree of

six) i n t h e sel ect i on of t h e j u ryo f 1 2 , an d 57 percent (f ou r of
sev en ) i n the s e le cti on of th e j u ryof 1 2 plu s altern a tes. W h eth er th i s ra te creat es a stat i st i cald i spari t y w ou l d requ i re k n ow i n g t h e m i n ori t y percentage of th e v e n ir e ; fo re x a m p le , if th e m in o r ityp e r c e n ta g e o f th e v e n ir e w a s 5 0 , it co u ld be exp ect ed that a prosec u t or, a ct i n g w i t h ou tdi scr i m i n ator y i n t en t , w ou l d u se 5 0 p e r c e n t o f h is ch a lle n g e s a g a in s t m in o r itie s .”). F o re x a m p le , if th e r e a r e o n ly 3 bl ack m em bers of a 100

- m em ber ven i re pa n el , i
. e. , 3% bl ack, t h ere i s a w eak er ar gum en ttha te xc l us i o n o f 1 00 % o f

t he b l ac k m e m be r s e vi de nc e s pur po s e f ul di scr i m i n ati on . I f, how ever, t h ere w ere 10 bl ack m em bers of a 40 m em ber ven i re pa n el , i
. e. , 25% bl ack, t h e argu m en t st rengthen s as t o pu rposef u ldi scr i m i n ati on i f t h e State st ri kes 10 0% of t h e bl ack m em bers. W e k n ow t h at t h e perem ptory
c h a lle n g e s w e r e u s e d to e x c lu d e 1 0 0 % o f th e b la c k ju r y v e n ir e m e m b e r s , b u t t h is
s ta tis tic s ta n d in ga lo n e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t a fin d in go f d is c r im in a tio n . W o o dwar d a l s o m ake s ac o m pa r i s o n a nalys i s t o e s t ab l i s h pu r po s e f ul d is c r im in a tio n . I n t o ta l, th e S ta te u s e ds ixp e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e s to s tr ik e a ll
ava i l ab l e b l ac k j ur o r s : M s . Pr o c t o r , M s . M cAbr e e , M s . St e e l e , M s . G r i f f i n, M s. W i l l i am s, an d M r. O ’ B an n er. W ith respectt o M s. P roct or, t h e State al l eged 12 t hati ts t r uck herbe ca u se she w as unem pl oye d and on a pre vi ous c as e w asN o. 06- 70053

The trialj udge see med toagree with the State’s ch aracterization , stating that “[s]he 13 was incoherentatti mes Ithought, and her bodylanguage was such that shedid appear nervous.” 31 unab l e t o r e ac h av e r di c t
. W o o dwar d d o e s no ta s s e r tt hatw hi t e m e m be r s o f t he p a n e l w e r e sim i l a rl y situa ted , bu t he su gg ests th a t t h e cou rt an dthe S tate
s h o u ld h a v e fu r t h e r e x p lo r e d t h e r e a s o n s fo r t h e s t r ik e . “ [T ]h e p r o s e c u t io n ’s fai l u re to q u estion a po ten ti a l j u ror a b ou t a ch a ra cterist i c tha t t h e S tate a sse rts i s i m portant i s evi den ce t h at t h e a ss ert ed reason w as act u al l y a pretextf or d is c ri m i n a ti on . ” R eed , 555 F. 3d at376 (c i t i ng Mi l le r - El , 5 4 5 U
. S
. a t 2 4 6 ). A revi ew of

t h e State’ s voi r di re r e ve al s t hat i ta s ke d no q ue s t i o ns r e ga r di ng em pl oym en t o r p ri or j u ry servi ce. B ecau se em pl oym en tan d p ri or j u ry servi ce q u e s tio n s w e r e o n th e ju r o rq u e s tio n n a ir e , h o w e v e r , it d o e s n o t a u to m a tic a lly f o l l o w t hata bs e nc e o f t he q ue s t i o ns i n voi r di re i s i n d i c a t iv e o f p r e t e x t
. O n hab e as r e vi e w , W o o dwar d ha d t o m ak e a s t r o nge rs ho w i ng t o e s t ab l i s h t hatt he
s t a t e c o u r t ’ s f

i n d i n g s w e r e u n r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h to f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d
. H e has no tm ade t hats how i ng. Th e St at e a l l ege d t hati ts t r uck M s. M cAbr ee be c ause s he w as u n r e s p o n s iv e , h o s t i l e , a n dh a dr e l a t iv e s t h a two r k i n t h e p r i s o n s y s t e m. As we di s c us s e d sup ra , t h e tr i a lc o u r tm a d e n o fi n d in g s r e g a r d in gM s . M cAb r e e ’s hos t i l i t y, and w e do notpr es um e t h a t itc r edi t ed t he St at e’ s as se r t i on o f t hat
r e as o n. W o o dwar d s t i l lo f fe r s no r e but t alt o t he St at e ’ s f i r s tr ac e - ne ut r alr e as o n, th a t M s . M cAb r e e w a s u n r e s p o n s iv e . In h is b r ie f, W o o d w a r ds im p lyig n o r e s th is
r a c e -n e u tr a l re a s o n , st a tin gth a t t h e p r o s e c u to rp r o v id e do n lytw o re a s o n s . W e fi n d n o e r r o r in t h e s t a t e c o u r t ’s fi n d in go f n o r a c e d is c r im in a t io n in th e S t a t e ’s st ri king of

M s. M cAbree. Th e St at e o r i gi nal l y chal l enged M s. St ee l e f orc ause , s t at i ng t hats he w as i n coheren tan d u n responsive. T h e t ri al j u dg e of fered t o bri n g h er back f or v o ir 13N o. 06- 70053

32 d i re , bu tt h e State d e clin e d . W oodw ard of fers n o evi den ce of

di scr i m i n ator y in te n t ex c e p t th e fa c t th a t M s . S te e le w a s b la c k
. A g a in , w h e r e W o o d w a r dfa ils t o rebut t h e State’ s r ace- n eu t ralreason f or stri king a j u ror, evi den ce of race st an di n g al on e of

fers l i t t l e evi den ce of di scr i m i n ator y i n te n t. Th e st ate c ou rt
w as no tunr e as o nab l e i n f i ndi ng no r ac e di s c r i m i nat i o n. Regar di ng M s . G r i f f i n, W o o dwar d m i s i nt e r pr e t s t he r e c o r d a s t o t he S t ate’ s r e a so n forst ri king h er. W oodw ard assert s t h at t h e State st ruck M s. G r i f f i n bec ause she had a r el at ive on t he j ury and bec ause her husband had l aw en f orcem en tprobl em s. R ead i n context , i ti s c l ear t h a t t h e S ta te st ruck h er be c aus e he rhus ba nd h adl aw enf o r c e m e n tp r o bl e m s , no tb e c aus e s he ha d a rel ative on t h e j u ry. N ot ably, t h e rec ord does not sh o w the rel evan ce of Jerry G ardn er, bu tW oodw ard m ad e no obj ect i on t o t h e S ta t e’ s r el i an ce on M r. G ar dner ’ s i nf

or m at i on r el at i ng t o M s. G r i f f i n’ s h u sb and’ s pro bl em w i t h l aw e n for ce m e n t. Afi n d in gof n o d iscr im in a to ryin te n t inth e S ta te ’ s u se of a pe r e m pt o r y s t r i ke t o e xc l ude M s . G r i f f i n i s no tunr e as o nab l e i n l i ghto f t he
e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d. R egar di ng M s. W i l l i am s, t he St at e b as ed it s st r i ke on t he fac tt hats he w as a psych ol ogy m aj or, an d i tadd ed that i tdi d n otha ve a w ri t t en resp o n se f rom h er. A gain, W o o d w a rd onl y att em pts t o chal l en ge t h e State’ s r eason based on t he l ac k o f

aw r i t t e n r e s po ns e , a r gui ng t hato t h ers fai l ed t o r e s po nd. The p r im a r yre a s o n fo rth e S ta te ’ s s tr ik e w a s b a s e do n M s . W illia m s s tu d ie s in psy c hol ogy . D uri ng voi r di re , one of t he ques t i ons t he St at e a ske d w as “ [h] ave you or a m em ber of

you r fam i l y ever st u di ed psych ol ogy or an y t yp e of f i el d su ch
as t hat ? ” M s . W i l l i am s i ndi c at e d t hatps yc ho l o gyw as he rm aj o ri n co l l e ge , a nd t h e State asked her severalqu est i on s r el ati n gto th e top i c. Th e evi den ceN o. 06- 70053

33 s u p p o r ts th e t r ia l c o u r t’s fin d in gth a t t h e S ta te d idn o t s tr ik e h e rfo rara c ia lly
m ot ivated reason, an d the deci si on w as not un reasona bl e. F i n al l y, W o o dwar d o f f e r s noa rgum en ton ap pea lrel ati n g t o M r. O ’ B an n er, ot h er t h an t h e factt h at he i s bl ack. C on si deri n g t h e enti re r e co rd, W oodw ard h as not dem on st rat ed that t h e M i ssi ssi pp i S u prem e C ou rt ’ s den i al of hi s B aton
c l ai m w as b as ed o n a n unr e as o nab l e de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he evi den ce presented. 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2254 ( d). A ccor di n gl y, W oodw ard i s not en t i t l ed t o h a b e a s r e l i e f

o n t h i s c l a i m.

CO NC L US I ON F o rth e re a s o n s d is c u s s e da b o v e , W o o d w a r d ’ s r e q u e s t fo rh a b e a s re lie f is DENI ED
.