Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 43( c) ( 2) , M ar tySi r m ons * i s s u b s t i tu t e d fo rM i k e M u l l i n a s W a r d e n o f t h e O k l a h o m a S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a ry.



## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t3,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
J I M M Y DAL E BL AND,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 6013 M A R T Y SI R M O N S, W ar den, O k l a h o m a S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y, *

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. NO . CI V- 0 1 - 7 1 8 - L) D a v id A u try , O k lah o m a C ity , O k lah o m a , fo r P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. Set h S. B r anham, A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al of O kl ahoma ( W . A . D r ew Ed mo n d s o n , At t o r n e yGe n e r a l o f Ok l a h o ma , wi th h i m o n t h e b r i e fs ) , Ok l a h o ma C i t y , O kl ahoma, forR es pondent - A ppel l ee. B efo re KELLY , B RI S CO E , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL, C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

Jim m yD a le B lan d , an in m a te o n d e a th ro w in th e O k lah o m a S tate Peni t ent i ary , appea l s t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. M r . B l and w as convi ct ed of one count o f fi r s t - d e g r e e ma l i c e - a fo r e t h o u g h tmu r d e r . T h e j u ryfo u n d th e e x i s t e n c e o f two aggr avat i ng fac t or s and r ecomm ended thathe be s ent ence d t o death. T he tr i al cour tadopt ed the j ur y ’ s r ecomm endat i on, and the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A p p e a ls a ffir m e d . B la n dv . S ta te , 4 P. 3d 702, 709 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 2000) . T he sta te c o u rts d e n ied h is re q u e sts fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. M r. B lan d n o w a p p e a ls t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on, chal l engi ng as pect s of both the g u i l ta n d s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e s o f h i s tr i a l . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tfo r th b e l o w, we a ffirm th e d e c isio n o f th e d istric t co u rt.

I . Backg r ound A . Th e Crim e O n N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 6 , Jim m yD a le B lan d sh o t an d k ill e d D o y le W in d le R a in s in M r. R a in s ’s g a ra g e in M a n ito u , T illm a n C o u n ty, O k la h o m a . B land , 4 P . 3d at70 9. H e had been ou tof p ri son les s than a y ear. H e had served al m ost tw en tyy ea rs of

a 6 0 -y ea r sen tenc e fo r kil li n g a m an an d k idn ap p ing the v ict im ’s w ife a n d so n . T r. Ju ryT ri al, D ayS ev en , at 39 -45 , 5 5 , 6 2 -64 , 1 0 7 . A t tri al, M r. B l and admi t t ed ki l l i ng M r . R ai ns , butdefe nded on the gr ound t hatt he ki l l i ng w as n e ith e r m a lic e -a fo re th o u g h t m u rd e r n o r fe lo n ym u rd e r. B land , 4 P. 3d at710.-3-

A ccor di ng t o t he governm ent ’ s evi dence , M r . B l and w or ked forM r . R ai ns d o in g m is c e lla n e o u s c o n s tru c tio n a n d h a n d ym a n jo b s . Id . a t 7 0 9 ; T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yF iv e , a t 3 3 . M r. R a in s w a s ro m a n tic a lly in v o lv e d w ith M r. B la n d ’s m o th e r. T r . J ur yT r i al , D ayFi ve, at26. A l though M r . B l and t es t i fi ed thatthe tw o m en w er e “pr et t ygood fr i ends , ” i d. at 27 , their fina n cial rel ati o n s, as w ell as M r. R ains ’s relat ion sh ip w ith M r. B land ’s m o ther, w ere so u rce s o f f ri cti o n . M r. B la n d w a s c h ro n ic a lly sh o rt o f m o n e y , w h ic h h e u s e d to fe e d h is d ru g h a b it. See i d. a t7 9 . M r . Ra i n s wo u l d a l l o c a t e th e i re a rn i n g s b e twe e n th e two o f th e m, u s u a lly k e e p in g w e ll m o re th a n h a lf fo r h im s e lf. S e e id . at35- 36. O n atl eas tone o cc asio n , M r. B land told h is girl frien d , C o n n ie L o rd, th at he p lann ed to k il l M r. R ai ns , and s ai d t hathe w oul d di s pos e of the bodybypl aci ng i ti n a w el l and p u ttin g c e m e n t o n it. T r. J u ry T ri a l, D a yF o u r, a t 6 8 , 7 3 -7 4 . O n N o v em b er 1 4 , 1 9 9 6 , M r. R ains lent M r. B land h is C ad il lac so that M r. B la n d c o u ld d ri v e to O k la h o m a C ity a n d v is it M s . L o rd . B land , 4 P .3 d a t 7 0 9 . D uri ng t he v i si t , M r. B l and spent nearl yal l of the cash he broug ht w i th h i m , m ost o f it o n d ru g s , w h ic h h e a n d M s . L o rd im m e d ia te ly in g e s te d . Id. M s . L or d gave M r. B la n d $ 1 0 .0 0 s o th a t h e c o u ld re tu rn h o m e . Id. O n the w ayhom e, M r . B l and s to p p e d a n d c o n s u m e d th e re m a in in g d ru g s h e h a d p u rc h a s e d in O k la h o m a C ity. T r. Ju ryT ri al, D ayF ive, at 41 . O n h is r eturn to M an it o u , b efo re g o ing h o m e, M r. B la n d d ro v e to M r. R a in s ’s h o m e to re tu rn th e C a d illa c . B land , 4 P .3 d a t 7 0 9 . H e b ro u g h t a .2 2 -c a lib e r b o lt- a c tio n ri f le , c o n c e a le d in a ro ll o f c o v e ra lls . Id .-4-

A ngr yw i t h M r . R ai ns and des per at e forcas h, M r . B l and s hotM r . R ai ns i n the b a c k o f th e h e a d . Id. M r . B l and then l oaded M r . R ai ns ’ s bodyi nt o a pi ckup t ruck, w as hed outt he gar age a r ea w her e the ki l l i ng had occ urr ed, dr ove t o a rur al ar ea, and “[ d] um ped [the] bodyi n a cr eek a nd cover ed i tup, ” hopi ng thatno one w o u ld fin d it. T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yF iv e , at 6 7 -6 8 ; B land , 4 P .3 d a t 7 0 9 . M r . B l and offer s a s l i ght l ydi ffe r ents t or y . A ccor di ng t o hi s t es t i m onyat t r i al , he had t aken the r i fl e w i t h hi m on hi s tr i p t o O kl ahoma C i ty , i n acc or dance w ith h is u su a l p ra c tice . T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yF iv e , at 5 3 . It w a s s til l w ith h im in th e C a d illa c w h e n h e a rr iv e d a t M r. R a in s ’s h o m e . Id. A l though M r . R ai ns had g iv e n M r. B lan d th e g u n to “ [ s]h o o t f ro g s o r sn a k e s o r w h a tev e r,” M r. B lan d d id no tw ant M r. R ai ns t o k no w t hat he “w as carry i ng i taround dri ving [M r. R ai ns’s ] car . ” Id. at54. T o ens ur e thatM r . R ai ns di d nots ee the w eapon, M r . B l and r emoved i tfr om t he vehi cl e, r ol l ed i ti nt o a pai rof cove r al l s , and ca rr i ed i tunder h is a rm . Id. at53- 54. T he tw o m en goti nt o a fi ghtovera damaged hubca p on th e C a d illa c . Id. at60. W hi l e i n M r . R ai ns ’ s gar age, M r . R ai ns t ook a s w i ng at M r . B l and, and M r . B l and then “l eane d back a nd ki cked [ M r . R ai ns ’ s ] l eg out f ro m u n d e r h im ,” a t w h ic h p o in t b o th m e n fe ll d o w n . Id. a t 6 2 -6 3 ; B land , 4 P. 3d at710. W hen M r . B l and fe l l , “the cove r al l s fel l outfr om under[hi s ] arm , ” then “[t ] he gun fe l l outand [he ] j us tpi cked i tup and fi r ed. ” Tr. J ur yT r i al , D ayFi ve, a t 6 3 ; B l and , 4 P .3 d a t 7 1 0 .-5-

W hat evert he pr eci s e s equenc e of e vent s atM r . R ai ns ’ s hom e, M r . B l and admi t s t hathe l oaded the bodyi nt o a pi ckup truck, dr ove t o a r emot e ar ea, d u m p e d th e b o d yin to a c re e k , a n d c o v e re d it w ith lo g s . B land , 4 P .3 d a t 7 1 0 . W hen he w as appr ehende d byl aw enfor cements ever al day s l at er , he had ove r $ 3 0 0 in c a s h o n h is p e rs o n , p re s u m a b ly ta k e n f ro m M r. R a in s . Id. H e then re tu rn e d to M r. R a in s ’s h o m e a n d s p e n t th e n ig h t th e re . B land , 4 P . 3 d a t7 0 9 . He to ld h is m o th e r t h e n e x t d a yth a t h e h a d g o n e to w o rk w ith M r. R a in s . Id. Itw as several day s befo re M r. B l and w as apprehen ded . O n a ti p from M s. L o rd , co n v e y e d th ro u g h h e r sis ter , T ill m a n C o u n tylaw e n fo rc e m e n t o fficia ls vi s i t ed and s ear ched M r . R ai ns ’ s hom e, di s cover ed thatM r . R ai ns and hi s pi ckup w er e mi s s i ng, and obs erved bl ood on the gar age f l oorand on a s pr ayw as herthey fo u n d in th e g a ra g e . Id. ; T r . J ur yT r i al , D ayT hr ee, at75. T heyl i s t ed M r . R ai ns a n d h is p ic k u p o n th e N C IC re g is te r o f m is s in g p e rs o n s . B land , 4 P .3 d a t 7 0 9 -1 0 . O n N ovember16, M r . B l and dr ove M r . R ai ns ’ s truck off the s i de of the r oad b e t we e n S t r o u d a n d Ch a n d l e r , Ok l a h o ma . T r . J u ryT r i a l , Da yF o u r , a t2 9 - 3 0 . He w a s a rr e s te d fo r d ri v in g u n d e r t h e in flu e n c e , a n d re le a s e d o n b o n d . B land , 4 P. 3d at710. A tt hi s poi nt , l aw - enfor cementoffi ci al s had dr aw n no connec t i on betw een M r . B l and and the di s appea r ance of M r . R ai ns . Shor t l yther eaf t er , how ever , the sh e riff in C h a n d ler c o n tac ted th e sh e riff ’s o ffice in T ill m a n C o u n ty r egar di ng t he N C IC lis tin g fo r t h e m is s in g tru c k . T r. J u ry T ri a l, D a yT h re e , a t 8 1 -8 2 . A-6-

w arr antw as i s s ued fort he arr es tof M r . B l and forthe unauthor i zed us e of a m ot or v e h ic le . Id. at83. O n N ovember20, l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s l ocat ed and a rr e s te d M r. B la n d a t a f ri e n d ’s h o m e , w h e re h e w a s h id in g in a c lo s e t. Id. at 1 1 6 -2 0 . N e ith e r th e n , n o r d u rin g h is p re v io u s e n c o u n ter w ith law e n fo rc e m e n t in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d ru n k -d riv in g a c c id e n t, no r in a n e a rlier c o n v e rsa tio n w ith h is m o th e r, d id M r. B la n d e x p la in th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f M r. R a in s ’s d e a th . M r . B l and w as t aken t o t he Ti l l m an C ountys her i ff’ s offi ce, w her e he c o n fe s s e d to k illin g M r. R a in s . B land , 4 P .3 d a t 7 1 0 . M r. B lan d to o k o ffice rs to th e c re e k w h e re h e h a d d u m p e d M r. R a in s ’s b o d y . Id. A l though the bodyw as badl ydecompose d, an aut ops yes t abl i s hed thatthe ca us e of de ath w as a bul l et w o u n d to th e b a c k o f

th e h e a d . Id. B . Judi ci alP r ocee di ngs A tt r i al , M r . B l and admi t t ed thathe s hotM r . R ai ns , butcl ai m ed thathe n e v e r i n te n d e d to k ill h im . Id. T he St at e ar gued thatM r . B l and comm i t t ed the m u r d e rw i t h m a l i c e a fo r e t h o u g h ta n d a s p a r to f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f

a fe l o n y, n a m e lyro b b e ry . T h e S tate ’s th e o ryw a s th a t M r. B lan d k ill e d M r. R a in s to o b tain m o n eyto p u rch ase d rug s, o r alt ern ati v elythat M r. B land inten d ed to k il l M r. R ai ns fors ever al m ont hs pr i ort o the ac tual m ur derbeca us e M r . B l and w as d isplease d w ith h is em p loym en t arrang em en t and tr o u b led b yM r. R ains ’s r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi s m other . D efe ns e couns el s t i pul at ed thatM r . B l and w as guil t yof fi rs t -degree heat -of- passi on m ansl aug hter . D efen se coun sel al so-7-

co n tend ed that M r. B land w as u n d er the influen ce o f d rug s w h en h e k il led M r. R a in s .T he j ur yconvi ct ed M r . B l and onl yof fi r s t - degr ee mal i ce- afor ethought m u rd e r. Id. a t 7 0 9 ; O .R . V o l. II, D o c . 3 8 3 -8 4 . A t th e se n ten c in g p h a se , the B ill of Par t i cul ar s char ged thatt he cr i m e comm i t t ed byM r . B l and s houl d be puni s hed bydeath due t o t he exi s t ence of thr ee a ggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s : ( 1) M r . B l and

“ w a s p re v io u slyc o n v icte d o f a fe lo n yin v o lv in g th e u se o r th re a t o f v io len c e to t he per s on”; ( 2) t he “mur derw as comm i t t ed fort he purpos e of a voi di ng or p re v e n tin g a law f

u l ar re st o r p ro se c u tio n ” ; an d (3 ) th e “ e x iste n c e o f a p ro b a b ili ty t hatt he defendantw oul d comm i tcr i m i nal act s of vi ol ence t hatw oul d cons t i tut e a c o n tin u in g th re a t to s o c ie ty.” O .R . V o l. I , D o c . 7 . T o es t abl i s h t hes e aggr avat i ng fac t or s , t he pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed evi dence aboutt he ci r cumst ance s of M r . B l and’ s pr i orki dnappi ng and mansl aught er convi ct i ons . T he pr os ecut i on s how ed thatM r . B l and, w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed, arr i ved at R aym ond Pr ent i ce’ s hom e, w ai t ed forM r . Pr ent i ce t o appea ron the fr ontpor ch, an d sh o t M r. P ren ti ce three ti m es. T r. Ju ryT ri al, D ayS ev en , at 63 -64 . M r. B l and then w enti ns i de, found M r s . Pr ent i ce a nd hert hr ee- y earol d s on, and o rd e re d th e m in to a c a r. Id. at38, 45, 64. B efor e theycoul d l eave t he Pr ent i ce h o m e , h o w e v e r, M rs . P re n tic e ’s b ro th e r c a m e to th e d o o r. Id. at44. M r . B l and fir e d n u m e ro u s s h o ts a t h e r b ro th e r, b u t d id n o t k ill h im . Id. M r . B l and then k id n a p p e d M rs . P re n tic e a n d h e r s o n . Id. at45. T he or deal ended i n a s hoot out-8-

b e tw e e n M r. B la n d a n d th e p o lic e . Id. at48. T he pr os ecut i on al s o focus ed on the h eino u s n ature o f b o th crim es a n d the s h o rtp eriod o f ti m e b etw ee n M r. B land ’s re le a s e a n d h is s e c o n d k illin g . See i d. at158, 191. A ft erevi dence w as pr es ent ed atthe s ent enci ng phas e, the courts truck the “comm i t t ed forthe purpos e of a voi di ng orpr event i ng a l aw ful arr es t ” aggr avat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e . Id. a t1 4 5 . T h e j u ryfo u n d th e e x i s t e n c e o f th e r e ma i n i n g two a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d s e n te n c e d h im to d e a th . Id. at 20 6 ; O . R . V o l. III , at411- 12. T he O C C A aff

i r m ed M r . B l and’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . B land , 4 P. 3d at 735. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeni ed M r . B l and’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof c e rt io ra ri o n J a n u a ry 8 , 2 0 0 1 , B l a n dv . Ok la h o ma , 5 3 1 U . S . 1 0 9 9 (20 0 1 ) (m em . ), and the O C C A deni ed pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n an unpubl i s hed opi ni on on J une 2 6 , 2 0 0 0 , B la n dv . S ta te , N o. PC D - 99- 1200 ( J une 26, 2000) . O n N ovember26, 2 0 0 1 , M r. B la n d file d a p e titio n fo r w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 in th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt fo r t h e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f O k la h o m a . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the pet i t i on on D ece m ber14, 2004, butgr ant ed a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yon s i x gr ounds : ( 1) j uryi ns truct i ons and pr os ecut or i al ar gum entr egar di ng t he l es s eri ncl uded offens e of f i r s t - degr ee mans l aught er ; ( 2) p ro se c u to ria l ar g u m e n t d im in ish in g th e ju ry ’s s e n se o f re sp o n sib ili tyfo r a d e a th ver di ct ; ( 3) M r . B l and’ s abs ence fr om a port i on of voirdir e ; ( 4) pr os ecut or i al comm ent s on M r . B l and’ s pos t - arr es ts i l ence ; ( 5) pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct ; and-9-

(6 ) i n e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. R . D o c s . 6 1 , 7 1 ; B r. o f P e t./A p lt. A tta c h . 5 . O n M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , in a c a se m a n a g e m e n t o rd e r, th is C o u rt g ra n ted a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i t yas t o t w o addi t i onal i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe s t at e courtdepr i ved M r . B l and of “ a fa i rt r i al byr efus i ng t o s ubm i tan i ns truct i on on t he offens e of ‘m an slau g h ter byresist ing crim inal [a tt em p t] ’”; an d (2) w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt s houl d have gr ant ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng on w hetherM r . B l and w as deni ed the effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . C as e M gm t . O r der , M ar . 17, 2005, at1- 2; B r . of P e t./A p lt. A tta c h . 6 . I I . St andard of R evi ew B e c a u se M r. B lan d filed h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n a f ter th e e ffe c tiv e d a te o f th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t o f 1 9 9 6 (A E D P A ), it s sta n d a rd s a p p lyto c laim s in th is a p p e a l adju d ica ted o n th e m e rits b yth e sta te c o u rt s . See Tu rr e n tin e v . Mu lli n , 3 9 0 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); Sm al lw ood v. G i bs on , 1 9 1 F .3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). U n d e r A E D P A , a pet i t i oneri s ent i t l ed t o fede r al habea s r el i ef onl yi f the s t at e courtdeci s i on “w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” or“w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 )-( 2 ). In eval uat i ng a s t at e pr i s oner ’ s habea s pet i t i on, w e pr es um e thatt he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the s t at e courtar e corr ectand pl ace t he bur den on the pet i t i onert o r ebutt hat-10-

p re s u m p tio n b yc le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . Id. § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 ); Sm ith v . Mu lli n , 379 F. 3d 919, 924- 25 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s l egal anal y s i s of the s t at e courtdeci s i on de novo . Turr ent i ne , 390 F. 3d at1189. I n appl y i ng § 2254( d) , w e fi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe pr i nci pl e of feder al l aw on w hi ch the pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m i s bas ed w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed bythe S u p re m e C o u rt a t th e tim e o f th e s ta te c o u rt ju d g m e n t. Id. I f s o, w e then c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e sta te c o u rt d e c isio n w a s “ c o n tra ryto ” o r a n “ u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of” thatcl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw . A deci s i on i s “contr aryt o” cl earl yest abli shed federal l aw for pu rposes of § 2 25 4 if “the st at e cou rtapp l i es a ru le th a t co n tra d icts th e g o v e rn in g law se t fo rth in [ S u p re m e C o u rt] c a se s” o r if “the s t at e courtconfr ont s a s etof fa ct s thatar e mat er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om a dec i s i on of [the Supr eme C our t ] and neve r thel es s arr i ves ata r es ul tdi ffe r ent f ro m ” th e re s u lt r e a c h e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt . Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U . S. 362, 405- 06 ( 2000) . I ti s notenough thatthe s t at e courtdeci ded an i s s ue contr aryt o a low er fed era l cou rt ’s co n ce p ti o n o f h o w the ru le sh o u ld b e a p p li ed ; th e state c o u rt deci s i on m us tbe “di amet r i cal l ydi ffe r ent ” and “ m utual l yoppos ed” t o the S u p re m e C o u rt d e c is io n its e lf. Id. at406. A s t at e courtdeci s i on i nvol ves an “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” of feder al l aw i f “the s t at e courti dent i fi es the corr ect g o v e rn in g leg a l p rin c ip le f ro m [ S u p re m e C o u rt] d e c isio n s b u t u n re a so n a b ly appl i es t hatpr i nci pl e t o t he fa ct s of the pr i s oner ’ s cas e. ” Id. at413.-11-

E ven i f the s t at e courtdeci s i on w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , ouranal y s i s i s not com plet e. U nles s the err or i s a structural defe cti n the tri al that defi es harm l esserr oranal y s i s , w e mustappl yt he harm l es s - err ors t andar d of B r echtv. A br aham s on , 507 U . S. 619 ( 1993) , and O ’Nealv. McAni nch , 513 U . S. 432 (1 9 9 5 ). Turr ent i ne , 3 9 0 F . 3 d at 11 8 9 . U n d er B r echt , h a b e a s re lief is p ro p e r o n ly i f the err orhad a “ ‘ s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effectori nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . ’ ” B r echt , 507 U . S. at623 ( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed Stat es , 328 U . S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 (19 4 6 )). U n d er O ’Neal , a “ su b sta n tial a n d inju rio u s e ffe c t” e x ists w hen the courtfi nds i t s el f i n “gr ave doubt ” aboutthe effec tof the err oron the ju ry’s v e rd ic t. O ’Neal , 513 U . S. at435. “G r ave doubt ” exi s t s w her e the i s s ue of harm l es s nes s i s “s o evenl ybal ance d that[the court ] fee l s [i t s el f] i n vi r tual equi poi s e as t o t he harm l es s nes s of the err or . ” Id. T h e § 2 2 5 4 (d ) sta n d a rd d o e s n o t ap p lyto iss u e s n o t d e c id e d o n th e m e rits b yth e s ta te c o u rt . Turr ent i ne , 3 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 9 ; se e A y c o x v . Ly tle , 196 F. 3d 1174, 1177 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( not i ng thatt he § 2254 s t andar d does notappl yt o a d e c i s i o n d i s p o s i n g o f a c l a i m o n p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s ) . F o rt h o s e c l a i ms , we revi ew t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s l egal conclusi on s de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs for c le a r e rr o r. Mi tchel lv. G i bs on , 2 6 2 F . 3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). H o w ev er, i f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tb a s e d i t s fa c tu a l fi n d i n g s e n t i r e l yo n t h e s t a t e c o u r tr e c o r d , we re v ie w th a t r e c o rd in d e p e n d e n tly. Turr ent i ne , 390 F. 3d at1189.-12- I I I . I s s ues for R evi ew A. Heatof

P as s i on ManslaughterInstr ucti on M r . B l and fi r s tar gues t hathi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw undert he Four t eenth A m endmentw as vi ol at ed thr ough j uryi ns truct i ons and pr os ecut or i al ar gum entt hatpr event ed the j ur yfr om cons i der i ng hi s aff i r m at i ve defens e of he at of pas s i on m ans l aught er . Speci fi cal l y , he ar gues t hatt he j ur yi ns truct i ons fai l ed to re q u ire th e S tate to d isp ro v e h e a t o f p a ss io n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, i n vi ol at i on of the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Mul laney v . Wi l bur , 421 U . S. 684, 7 0 4 (19 7 5 ). H e a lso c o n tend s tha t th e p rose cu ti o n im p rop erlyarg u ed to the jury th a t m a n sla u g h ter c o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d u n les s a re a so n a b le d o u b t ex iste d a s to t he m urder charge. T he S t at e argues t hat he fai l ed to exh austhis Mul laney c l a i m, and al so defend s the d eci si on on t he m eri t s. In h is brief o n d ir ec t app ea l t o the O C C A , M r. B land co n ce d ed that the ju ry w as i ns t ruct ed i n acc or dance w i th Mc C o rm ickv . S ta te , 845 P. 2d 896, 900- 01 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1993) , w hi ch uphel d O kl ahoma’ s i ns truct i ons on heat - ofpas s i on m ans l aught eragai ns ta Mul laney c h a llen g e . In ste a d , h e fo c u se d h is argum ent on t he p rosecut i on ’s cl osi ng argum ents . B r. of A pp el l ant, O C C A C ase N o. F- 98- 152, at34. H e ar gued that“[t ] he tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng the pr os ecut i on t o i ns t ructt he j ur yt o notcons i derM r . B l and’ s aff i r m at i ve defens e of fi rs tdeg ree m ansl aug hterun l ess the juryhad fi rs tfou nd reas on able dou bt forfi rs t degr ee mur der . ” Id. at 33 (em p h asis o m itted). In m ak ing this argu m en t, M r.-13-

B l and ci t ed both Mul l aney and Uni t ed Stat es v. Lof t on , 7 7 6 F .2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 1 (1 0 th C i r . 1985) , a dec i s i on fr om t hi s C our ti nt erpr et i ng Mul laney t o r equi r e the governm entt o pr ove, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , the abs ence of hea tof pas s i on t o obt ai n a murde rconvi ct i on. B r . of A ppel l ant , O C C A C as e N o. F- 98- 152, at 3 3 -3 4 . E ss e n tially , h e a rg u e d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n ’s d e c isio n to “ sp e c ifica lly t [el l ] the juryt hat i tcou l d n ot consi der defen dan t ’s affirm at i ve d efen se of fir st deg ree m ansl aug hterun l ess the juryfi rs tfou nd reas on able dou bt forthe o ffen se of fi r s tdegr ee mur der ” effec t i vel ym odi fi ed the i ns truct i ons s uch thatthey vi ol at ed McC or m i ck , Lof t on , and Mul laney . Br . of A pp e l l a nt , O CC A Cas e N o. F9 8 -1 5 2 , at 3 4 . M r. B lan d c o n c lu d e d th is a rg u m e n t w ith a o n e -se n ten c e c itatio n to Mul l aney , s t at i ng t hathi s “r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as vi ol at ed bec aus e the St at e w as exempt ed fr om i t s dut yt o pr ove fi r s tdegr ee mur derbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id. a t 3 5 . N ot i ng M r . B l and’ s conce s s i on thatthe j ur yi ns truct i ons w er e pr operunder O kl ahoma l aw , t he O C C A cons t rued M r . B l and’ s ar gum ents ol el yas one of p ro s e c u to ri a l m is c o n d u c t. B l and , 4 P. 3d at726. B eca us e defens e couns el di d not o bject t o the p rose cu ti o n ’s arg u m en t attr ial , the O C C A rev iew ed M r. B land ’s c la im fo r p la in e rr o r. Id. T he O C C A concl uded thatbeca us e the j ur yw as pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed as t o t he manneri n w hi ch the murde rand mansl aught er c h a rg e s s h o u ld b e c o n sid e re d , an d th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t th e ju ryfa iled to-14-

fol l ow t hei rw r i t t en i ns t ruct i ons , anym i s s t at ement s bythe pr os ecut or“coul d not have a ffe ct ed the out come of t he tr i al . ” Id. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on i n t he di s tr i ctcourt , M r . B l and ar gued both thatthe t r i al cour t“s houl d have gi ven an i ns truct i on thatunl es s the St at e di s pr oved the aff i r m at i ve defens e of ‘ heatof pas s i on’ i tcoul d notconvi ctof m ur der , ” and that t he pr os ecut i on i m pr oper l yar gued thatthe j ur ym us tdeci de M r . B l and’ s gui l ton t he murde rchar ge befor e i tcoul d cons i derthe mansl aught erchar ge. R . D oc. 18, at27. I n r es pons e, t he St at e ar gued thatM r . B l and di d notexhaus ts t at e r emedi es fo r his ch all en g e to th e juryinstruction s. M r. B land rep li ed that the ju ry i ns t ruct i on ar gum entw as exhaus t ed bec aus e i ti s the “s ubs t ant i al equi val ent ” t o, “ar os e undert he s ame feder al cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on” as , and “w as a l ogi cal ext ens i on” of, t he ar gum entm ade t o the O C C A . R . D oc. 33, at2. T he di s tr i ct cour tagr eed, and found thatM r . B l and “fai r l yr ai s e[d] the i s s ue of w hetherthe j ur yi ns t ruct i ons gi ven, combi ned w i th [the] pr os ecut or i al ar gum entm ade, m i s l ed t he j ur yconce rni ng t he pr os ecut i on’ s bur den of pr oof. ” R . D oc. 61, at9. T he di s t r i ctcourtnonethel es s deni ed r el i ef be caus e the j ur yi ns truct i ons cl ear l ys et for t h t he var i ous offe ns es forw hi ch M r . B l and coul d have be en convi ct ed, and the p ro s e c u to r’ s c o m m e n ts d id n o t in f ri n g e o n a p a rt ic u la r c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. Id. at 1 0 -1 1 . O n a p p e a l, th e S tate re a ss e rts its c laim th a t M r. B lan d fa iled to p re se n t h is j u r yi n s t ru c t i o n c l a i m t o t h e OC CA .-15-

1. Exhaus t i on A s t at e pr i s onergener al l ym us texhaus tavai l abl e s t at e- courtr emedi es b e fo re a fe d e ra l c o u rt c a n c o n s id e r a h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )(1 )(A ); Ha w k in s v . Mu lli n , 2 9 1 F .3 d 6 5 8 , 6 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). A c laim h a s b e e n e x h a u s te d w h e n it h a s b e e n “ fa ir ly p re s e n te d ” to th e s ta te c o u rt . P i card v. C onnor , 404 U . S. 270, 275 ( 1971) . “Fai rpr es ent at i on” r equi r es m or e than p rese n ti n g “a ll the fac ts ne ce ssaryto su p p o rtthe fed era l cl aim ” to th e state c o u rt orar t i cul at i ng a “s om ew hats i m i l ars t at e- l aw cl ai m . ” A nd erson v. Harl ess , 459 U . S. 4, 6 ( 1982) ( percur i am). “Fai rpr es ent at i on” means thatthe pet i t i onerhas ra is e d th e “ s u b s ta n c e ” o f th e fe d e ra l c la im in s ta te c o u rt . P i card , 404 U . S. at 2 7 8 . T h e p eti ti o n er n ee d n o t ci te “‘b o o k an d v erse o n the fed era l con sti tuti o n , ’” i d. ( quot i ng D aughar t y v. G l adden , 257 F. 2d 750, 758 ( 9th C i r . 1958) ) , butthe pet i t i onercannotas s ertent i r el ydi ffe r entar gum ent s fr om thos e r ai s ed befor e the s t at e court . Forexampl e, i n Haw ki ns , 291 F. 3d at669, the defendantar gued on d ire c t ap p e a l th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in n o t co n sid e rin g w h e th e r h e k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e . In h is r eques tforfede r al habea s corpus r el i ef, how ever , he ar gued thattr i al couns el w as in e ffe c tiv e in fa ilin g to in v e s tig a te p o s s ib le m itig a tin g e v id e n c e . Id. W e h e ld t hathe had fai l ed t o exhaus tt hatcl ai m beca us e “[ w ] hi l e [the defendant ’ s ] s t at ecour tcl ai m s focus ed on the tri al court ’s a c t i o n s ” h i s fe d e r a l h a b e a s c l a i ms

“ sp e c ifica llyc h a llen g e [ d ] o n lydefense coun sel ’s fai l i ngs . ” Id. (em p h asis ad d ed ).-16-

M r . B l and’ s ar gum ent s on di r ectappea l w er e l i m i t ed t o obj ect i ons t o the p ro se c u tio n ’s m isc h a ra c ter iza tio n o f ju ryin stru c tio n s d ire c tin g th e ju ryto cons i dert he murde rand mansl aught erchar ges s i m ul t aneous l y . I n the cour s e of that arg u m en t, M r. B land n o t on lyn eg lected to arg u e tha t th e tri al co u rt ’s i ns t ruct i ons w er e err oneous , butexpl i ci t l yconce ded thatthe i ns truct i ons comport ed w i t h McC or m i ck . H i s due pr oces s ar gum entbefor e the O C C A w as l i m i t ed t o “mi s i nform at i on pr es ent ed bythe pr os ecut i on” and di d notm ent i on any e rro rs b yth e c o u rt in iss u in g its w ritten ju ryin stru c tio n s. B r. o f A p p e llan t, O C C A C as e N o. F- 98- 152, at35. M r. B lan d c o n ten d s th a t th e O C C A e x a m in e d th e ju ryin stru c tio n s a n d h e ld t hatt he i ns t ruct i ons s at i s fi ed Mul laney , and thatbeca us e the courtaddr es s ed the c la im it w a s e x h a u s te d . S e e A b d u s-S a m a dv . B e ll , 4 2 0 F . 3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 3 (6th C ir . 2005) ( “A cl ai m i s exhaus t ed i f the s t at e courtaddr es s ed the s ubs t ance of the asse rt ed claim . ”). W e d o n o t agre e. A lth o u g h the O C C A d id n o te th at “[ t] h e jury w as pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed as t o t he manneri n w hi ch the offens es w er e t o be cons i der ed, ” thi s comm entw as i n connec t i on w i th the court ’ s cons i der at i on of w hethert he pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s had the effec tof pr event i ng the j uryfr om fo llo w in g th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s in s tru c tio n s . See i d. A chal l enge t o the ac t i ons of the pr os ecut i on di ffe r s s i gni fi cant l yfr om a cha l l enge t o the i ns truct i ons gi ven byt he c o u rt . See Haw ki ns , 291 F. 3d at669. B eca us e pr es ent at i on of a “ s om ew hat sim ilar” c laim is in su fficie n t to “ fa irlyp re se n t” a fe d e ra l cla im b e fo re th e sta te-17-

c o u rts, w e c o n c lu d e , co n tra ryto th e d istric t co u rt, th a t M r. B lan d fa iled to exh austhis Mul l aney c l a i m. G ener al l y , a fe der al cour ts houl d di s m i s s unexhaus t ed cl ai m s w i thout p reju d ic e s o th a t th e p e titio n e r c a n p u rs u e a v a ila b le s ta te -c o u rt re m e d ie s . See D em ar es tv. P r i ce , 1 3 0 F .3 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). H o w e v e r, “if th e c o u rt to w hi ch Pet i t i onerm us tpr es enthi s cl ai m s i n or dert o m eetthe exha us t i on requi rem ent w ou l d n ow fi nd t ho se cl ai m s procedu ral l ybarr ed, there i s a pr ocedur al defa ul tfort he purpos es of fe der al habea s r evi ew . ” D ul i n v. C ook , 957 F. 2d 758, 759 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) . T her e i s no ques t i on thatO kl ahoma w oul d deem M r. B la n d ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im re g a rd in g th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . O kl ahoma’ s U ni form Post - C onvi ct i on Pr ocedur e A ctr equi r es that“[a ] l l gr ounds fo r re lief

a v a ilab le to a n a p p lica n t u n d e r th is a c t m u st b e ra ise d in h is o rig in a l, supp l em ental or am end ed ap pli cat i on . A nygroun d final l yadjudi cat ed o r notso r ai s ed . . . m aynotbe the bas i s fora s ubs equentappl i cat i on. ” O kl a. St at . t i t . 22, § 1 0 8 6 ; see also Medlock v. Ward , 200 F. 3d 1314, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( “O kl ahoma deems w ai ved cl ai m s thatw er e notr ai s ed i n an i ni t i al appl i cat i on for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef in a d ea th p en altyca se.”). A p e tit io n e r m a yo v e rc o m e th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r o n lyif h e c a n “ d e m o n stra te caus e fort he defaul tand ac tual pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the al l eged vi ol at i on of fede r al l aw , ordemonstr at e thatfai l ur e t o cons i derthe cl ai m s w i l l r es ul ti n a fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” C ol em an v. Thomps on , 501 U . S. 722, 750-18-

(1 9 9 1 ). M r. B lan d h a s n e ith e r a ss e rte d c a u se a n d p reju d ice e x c u sin g th is d e fa u lt, n o r su g g e ste d th a t th is C o u rt m u st re v iew th e m e rits o f h is c laim to p re v e n t a f u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . A c c o rd in g ly , M r. B lan d fa iled to e x h a u st h is cl ai m t hatt he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons vi ol at ed Mul laney a n d h e is n o w p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d f ro m ra is in g th a t c la im in th is C o u rt . 2. The Ins tr uct i ons E v e n w e re w e to a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t M r. B lan d ra ise d h is Mul l aney cl ai m befor e the O C C A , he w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. I n ar gui ng that h e e x h au sted this clai m , M r. B land take s the p o sit ion that “the stat e c o u rt confr ont ed s quar el yt he appr opr i at enes s of the w r i t t en j ur yi ns truct i ons c h a l l e n g e d h e r e . ” Re p l yBr . o f P e t . / Ap l t . 5 . I f

h e i s c o rr e c t , th e n th e OCCA rej ect ed M r. B l and ’s Mul l aney cl ai m on the mer i t s , the s t andar d of r evi ew i n § 2254 appl i es , and w e coul d r ever s e onl yi f the O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw as d e ter m in e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt. Mul l aney i nvol ved a c hal l enge t o a M ai ne murde rs t atut e thatal l ow ed any i nt ent i onal orcr i m i nal l yr eckl es s ki l l i ng t o be puni s hed as m ur der“unl es s the d e fe n d a n t p ro v e s b ya fa ir p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t itw a s c o m m itt e d in t he hea tof pas s i on on s udden pr ovocat i on, i n w hi ch ca s e i ti s puni s hed as m ans l aught er . ” Mul l aney , 4 2 1 U .S . at 6 9 1 -9 2 . T h e C o u rt d e c lar e d th e sta tu te u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se “ th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se re q u ire s th e p ro se c u tio n to-19-

pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthe abs ence of the hea tof pas s i on on s udden pr ovocat i on w hen the i s s ue i s pr oper l ypr es ent ed i n a homi ci de ca s e. ” Id. a t 7 0 4 . T w o y ear s aft eri s s ui ng t he dec i s i on i n Mul laney , h o w ev er, th e S u p rem e C o u rt cl ar i fi ed thati t s hol di ng s houl d be narr ow l ycons trued. I n P atterson v. New York , 4 3 2 U .S . 1 9 7 , 2 1 4 (1 9 7 7 ), th e d e fe n d a n t ar g u e d th a t Mul laney p ro h ib ited a sta te fr om perm i t t i ng gui l torpuni s hm ent“t o depend on the pr es ence orabs ence of an i dent i fi ed fa ctw i t houtas s um i ng the bur den of pr ovi ng the pr es ence orabs ence of t hatfac t , as t he ca s e maybe, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” The C our tr ej ect ed that in terp re tatio n . A lth o u g h it ac k n o w led g e d th a t Mul laney r equi r es a s t at e t o pr ove

“ e v e ryin g re d ien t o f

a n o ffe n se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t” a n d p ro h ib its a sta te fr om “s hi ft [i ng] t he bur den of pr oof t o the defendantbypr es um i ng thati ngr edi ent u p o n p ro o f

o f th e o th e r e lem e n ts o f th e o ffe n se ,” th e C o u rt d e c lar e d it “unnec es s ary ” t o have gone fur t heri n Mul laney . Id . a t 2 1 5 . P at t ers on ther eby l i m i t ed Mul l aney to situ a tio n s w h e re a fa c t is p re su m e d o r im p lied a g a in st a d e fe n d a n t. See i d. a t 2 1 6 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Mol i na- Ur i be , 853 F. 2d 1193, 1203- 04 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), over r ul ed i n par ton othergr ounds by Uni t ed Stat es v. B achyns ky , 934 F. 2d 1349 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) ( en banc ) . B eca us e the w r i t t en i ns t ruct i ons di d notperm i tt he j uryt o pr es um e mal i ce a for ethought , r equi r ed the St at e t o pr ove mal i ce a for ethoughtbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and def i ned mal i ce a n d h e a t o f

p a ss io n a s m u tu a llye x c lu siv e , the in stru c tio n s p ro v id e d to th e ju ryin M r . B l and’ s cas e di d notvi ol at e P at t ers on . See D avis v. Mayn ard , 869 F. 2d-20-

1401, 1406- 07 ( 10t h C i r . 1989) ( r ej ect i ng a Mul laney c h a llen g e to su b sta n tially s im ila r j u ry in s tru c tio n s ), v a c a t e ds u b n o m. , Saf f l e v. P arks , 4 9 4 U . S . 4 8 4 (19 9 0 ), op i nion rei nstated i n p art , 9 1 1 F . 3 d 4 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (pe r cu ri am ). M r . B l and r el i es on ourdeci s i on i n Lof t on , 776 F. 2d at920, t o cl ai m thathe w as ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on thatthe pr os ecut i on had the bur den t o pr ove the abs ence of hea tof pas s i on bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . I n Lof t on , w e des cr i bed P at t ers on a s p re s e rv in g , n o t lim itin g , Mul laney ’ s hol di ng thatthe governm ent m u st p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th e a b se n c e o f a n yd e fe n se th a t se rv e s to n e g a te a n e le m e n t o f

th e c ri m e . See i d. (n o tin g th a t u n d e r th e sta tu te in P at t ers on , m al i ce w as notan el ementof s econd- degr ee mur der , and the aff i r m at i ve defens e of e xt r eme em ot i onal di s turbance ther efor e di d notnegat e an el ementof the offens e) . W e hel d thatw her e mal i ce i s an el ementof m ur derand a heat - of- pas s i on defe ns e w oul d negat e thatel ement , as i n Mul laney , the defendant

“ is e n tit led to in stru c tio n s in fo rm in g th e ju ryo f . . . the G o v e rn m e n t’s d u tyto p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th e a b se n c e o f h e a t o f p a ss io n in o rd e r to o b tain a murde rconvi ct i on. ” Id. I f thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Lof t on w er e contr ol l i ng, M r . B l and mi ghtw el l be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. U ndert he A E D PA s t andar d of r evi ew , how ever , a habe as pet i t i on s hal l notbe gr ant ed unl es s t he s t at e- courtdeci s i on “w as contr aryt o, or in v o lv e d a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d F e d e ra l la w , as det er m i ned by the Supr em e C our tof the Uni t ed Stat es . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 1)-21-

(em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e d ec isi o n s o f lo w er fed era l cou rt s ap p ly ing S u p rem e C o u rt p re c e d e n t a re n o t d e te rm in a tiv e , s e e Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U . S . at40 6, and i n thi s case t he l ow erfede r al court s have i n fac tdi vi ded as t o the pr opers cope of Mul laney af ter P at t ers on . C ompar e Lof t on , 7 7 6 F .2 d a t 9 2 0 -2 1 , w i th Mol i na- Ur i be , 853 F. 2d at1203- 04. B eca us e the O C C A ’ s deci s i on r eas onabl yappl i es the corr ect l e g a l ru l e f

r o m Mul l aney , as t he Supr eme C our tcons trued thatrul e i n P at t ers on , t he O C C A deci s i on i s nei t hercontr aryt o, noran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Supr eme C our tpr ece dent , notw i ths t andi ng the i nt erpr et at i on o f th a t ru le in th is C ir c u it. 3 . P ro se c u to ria l Miss ta tem e n ts W e tur n now t o M r . B l and’ s ar gum entthatthe pr os ecut or s m i s s t at ed the j ur yi ns t ruct i on r egar di ng t he l es s eri ncl uded offens e, and thus vi ol at ed due p ro c e s s . T o p re v a il o n a c la im b a s e d o n im p ro p e r r e m a rk s b yth e p ro s e c u to r, a p e tit io n e r g e n e ra llym u st d e m o n stra te th a t th e re m a rk s “ so in fe c ted th e trial w ith unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s . ” D o n n e lly v. D eC hrist op ho ro , 4 1 6 U .S . 6 3 7 , 6 4 3 (1 9 7 4 ); se e a lso L e v . Mu lli n , 311 F. 3d 1002, 1013, 1018 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( r equi r i ng a s how i ng thatthe tr i al w as “funda m ent al l yunfai r ” w her e the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s appea r ed t o contr adi ct t he j uryi ns t ruc t i on s ) . Bec a us e t he O CC A c on s i de r e d thi s c l a i m, A ED PA s t andar ds of r evi ew appl y , and w e mayr ever s e onl yi f the O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as-22-

“l egal l yorfac tual l yunr eas onabl e. ” G i ps on v. Jor dan , 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , the pr os ecut i on ar gued thatthe j ur yneed not cons i dert he l es s eri ncl uded offens e of f i r s t - degr ee mans l aught eri f the j uryfound b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t th at th e d efen d an t i s g u il tyo f fir st- d eg ree m u rde r. T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yS ix , at 8 , 1 0 . T h e d e fe n se d id n o t o bjec t to th e a rg u m e n t at tria l, butM r . B l and now cont ends t hatthe ar gum entvi ol at ed O kl ahoma l aw and m i s s t at ed the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons byi nvi t i ng the j ur yfi r s tt o cons i derthe murde r char ges and “then onl yl ook att he mansl aught er ” i f the j uryw as unabl e t o fi nd m u rd e r b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id. a t 1 0 6 . R evi ew i ng forpl ai n err or , the O C C A found none. B oth defe ns e couns el and the pr os ecut i on r emi nded the j ur yt o r efe rt o the w r i t t en i ns truct i ons dur i ng d e lib e ra tio n s . See i d. at9 (Stat e’s cl osi ng argum ent) (“R ead the Instruct i on s, stu d yth e m .”); i d. at59 ( D efe ndant ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent ) ( “I w anty ou back i n the j ur yr oom [, ] as I know y ou w i l l [, ] t o r ead a l l of the i ns truct i ons . ”) . M r . B l and has c o n c e d e d th a t th e w ritten in stru c tio n s p ro v id e d to th e ju ryw e re in a c c o rd w ith McC or m i ck , th e c o n tr o llin g O C C A p re c e d e n t. See Bl and , 4 P. 3d at726; B r . of A p p ell an t, O C C A C ase N o . F -98 -15 2 , at 34 . O n e ins tru cti o n p rov ided that “[ i] f y o u h a v e a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b to f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s g u i l to f th e c h a r g e s o f

M UR DER FI RST DEG REE ( PREM EDI TATED ) AN D M UR DER FI RST DEG REE ( FELONY M UR DER ) , y o u mus tth e n c o n s i d e rth e c h a r g e o f M AN SLAU GH TER-23-

F I RS T DE GREE BY DAN GEROUS W EAP ON ( HEAT OF P ASS I ON) . ” O. R. V o l. II, a t 3 7 4 . A n o th e r in stru c tio n e x p lain e d : I f y ou have a r eas onabl e doubtas t o w hi ch offens e the defendant m aybe gui l t yof, M ur derFi r s tD egr ee ( Pr emedi t at ed) , and/ orM ur der Fi r s tD egr ee ( Fel onyM ur der ) , orM ans l aught erFi r s tD egr ee by D a n g e ro u s W e a p o n (H e a t o f P a ss io n ), y o u m a yfin d h im g u iltyo n ly of the l es s eroffe ns e, M ans l aught erFi r s tD egr ee byD anger ous W e a p o n (H e a t o f

P a s s io n ). * * * I f y ou fi nd t he defendantgui l tyof one orboth of the cha r ges of M ur derFi r s tD egr ee . . . , then y ou m aynotal s o r endera ver di cton t he l es s eroffe ns e of M ans l aught erFi r s tD egr ee byD anger ous W ea p o n (H ea t of

P assio n ). Id. at381. B as ed on i t s r evi ew of the r ecor d, the O C C A found no evi dence that th e ju ry d id n o t fo llo w th e w ri tte n in s tru c tio n s . B land , 4 P . 3 d at 72 6 . M o reo v er, th e O C C A c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n ts “ w e re n o t so e g re g io u s a s to have de ni ed [M r . B l and] a fa i rt r i al ort o have a ffe ct ed the out come of t he tr i al . ” Id. W e hav e careful l yexam i ned the record i n li gh tof p et i t i on er’ s ar gu m ents , and ca nnots ayt hatt he O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , as r efl ect ed i n the d e c isio n s o f

th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt. A lth o u g h th e p ro se c u to r in th is cas e di d m i s s t at e the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , both defe ns e couns el and the pr os ecut i on r emi nded the j ur yt hati ts houl d r efe rt o the w r i t t en i ns truct i ons dur i ng d e lib e ra tio n s . T h e ju ry is p re s u m e d to fo llo w its in s tru c tio n s , Weeks v. A ngel one ,-24-

5 2 8 U .S . 2 2 5 , 2 3 4 (2 0 0 0 ), e v e n w h e n th e re h a s b e e n m is le a d in g a rg u m e n t. See B oy d e v . C a lif

o rn ia , 494 U . S. 370, 384 ( 1990) ( expl ai ni ng that“ar gum ent s of couns el gener al l ycarr yl es s w ei ghtw i th a j urythan do i ns truct i ons fr om the c o u rt” ); Li ngarv. B ow ers ox , 176 F. 3d 453, 460- 61 ( 8th C i r . 1999) ( “W hen c o u n se l m iss tate s th e law , the m iss tate m e n t is h a rm les s e rro r if th e c o u rt p ro p e rly in stru c ts th e ju ryo n th a t p o in t o f law o r in stru c ts th a t th e a tto rn e y s’ s tate m e n ts a n d a rg u m e n ts a re n o t e v id e n c e .” ). Fur therm or e, ther e w as s tr ong evi dence that M r . B l and w as gui l t yof m al i ce- afor ethoughtm ur derr atherthan hea t - of- pas s i on m ans l aught er : t hatM r . B l and’ s gr i evanc es agai ns tthe vi ct i m w er e l ong- s t andi ng, t hathe t ol d hi s gi r l fr i end he w as goi ng t o m ur derM r . R ai ns m onths befor e doi ng so , tha t h e w e n t to M r. R a in s’s h o m e w ith a .2 2 -c a lib e r rifle h id d e n in h is cover al l s , t hathe s hotM r . R ai ns i n the bac k of the hea d, thathe s t ol e moneyfr om M r. R a in s, a n d th a t h e to o k e lab o ra te s tep s to h id e th e b o d y , m u c h a s h e h a d to ld h is g ir lf ri e n d h e w o u ld . I n l i ghtof thes e cons i der at i ons , the O C C A ’ s deci s i on wa s n o ta n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. B . Jury Instr ucti on on Manslaughterby R es is ting a Cr im inalA ttempt O k laho m a p rov ides three d efinit ion s fo r first -de g ree m an slau g h ter: m i s demeanor - m ans l aught er , heatof pas s i on m ans l aught er , and mansl aught erby r es i s t i ng a cr i m i nal at t empt . O kl a. St at . t i t . 21, § 711. M ans l aught erbyr es i s t i ng a cr i m i nal at t empt occur s w hen a homi ci de i s “perpetr at ed unnec es s ar i l yei ther w hi l e r es i s t i ng an att empt byt he per s on ki l l ed t o comm i ta cr i m e, oraft ers uch-25-

at t empt s hal l have fai l ed. ” Id. § 711( 3) . T he defens e di d notr eques ts uch an i ns t ruct i on att r i al , butM r . B l and now cont ends thatther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence to su p p o rt su c h a n in stru c tio n a n d th a t th e trial c o u rt’s fa ilu re to g iv e it s ua sp o n te v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h tt o d u e p r o c e s s a s d e fi n e d b y B e c kv . A la b a ma , 44 7 U. S. 625, 627 ( 1980) . H e al s o ar gues thatthe O C C A i m pr oper l yappl i ed a ne w and m or e exa ct i ng s t andar d t o det erm i ne w hetherhe w as ent i t l ed t o thi s i ns truct i on. M r . B l and r ai s ed the tr i al court ’ s fai l ur e t o i s s ue an i ns truct i on for m a n sla u g h ter b yre sis tin g a c rim in a l atte m p t o n d ire c t ap p e a l o f h is c o n v ictio n to t he O C C A . T he O C C A r ej ect ed the ar gum ent . C l ar i fy i ng pr i orhol di ngs of that cour t , w hi ch had be en i n di s arr ay , the O C C A hel d thata j ur yi ns truct i on on a l es s eri ncl uded offens e i s w arr ant ed onl yw hen p rim a fa c ie evi dence has been p re s e n te d to s u p p o rt th e le s s e r o ffe n s e . B land , 4 P. 3d at719- 20. I tthen found th a t th e re w a s in s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e in th is c a s e to w a rr a n t s u c h a n in s tru c tio n . Id. at720. T he O C C A not ed thatthe onl yevi dence s uppor t i ng the i ns truct i on w as s el f- s ervi ng t es t i m onybyM r . B l and thathe ki l l ed M r . R ai ns t o pr eventthe l at t erfr om as s aul t i ng hi m , and thatt es t i m onyw as i ncons i s t entw i th other evi dence s how i ng t hatM r . R ai ns w as s hoti n the bac k of the hea d, “s ugges t [i ng] th e v ic tim h a d tu rn e d a w a yf ro m ” M r. B la n d . Id . M r . B l and fi l ed a pe t i t i on for r e h e a r i n g b e fo r e t h e OC CA a r g u i n g th a tth e n e w p rim a fa c ie ev iden ce stan d ard vi ol at ed the pr i nci pl es i n B eckas w el l as l ongs t andi ng O kl ahoma l aw . D i s tr i ct C t . A pp. V ol . I , at464- 67. T he O C C A r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m i n i t s or derdeny i ng-26-

r ehea r i ng, hol di ng t hatt he p rim a fa c ie e v id e n c e sta n d a rd “ is n o t in c o n sis ten t” w i t h B ecko r O k la h o m a c a s e la w . Id. at37. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on befor e the di s tr i ctcourt , M r . B l and ar gued both that t he tr i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de an i ns truct i on on m ans l aught erbyr es i s t i ng a cr i m i nal at t empt vi ol at ed B eck , a n d th a tth e OC CA ’ s a d o p t i o n o f th e n e w p r i ma fa c ie sta n d a rd v io late d M r. B lan d ’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts a s a ju d icia l ex p o st fa c to vi ol at i on. R . D oc. 18, at39, 82 ( ci t i ng D evi ne v. N. M. D ep’tof C orr. , 866 F. 2d 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 )). T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t co n sid e r M r. B lan d ’s c laim u n d er B eck , bu ti trej ect ed M r. B l and ’s ex pos tf acto ar gum enton the gr ound that i ti nvol ved a mat t erof s t at e l aw i nappr opr i at e forr el i ef unde r§ 2254. M r . B l and re n e w s b o th o bjec tio n s in h is a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. I n B eck , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t “a se n ten c e o f d e a th [ m a yn o t] co n sti tuti o n all yb e im p o sed . . . w h en the ju ryw as n o t perm itted to co n side r a ver di ctof gui l tof a l es s eri ncl uded non- capi t al offe ns e, and w hen the evi dence w oul d have s uppor t ed s uch a ve r di ct . ” B eck , 447 U . S. at627 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T hi s rul e i s des i gned t o el i m i nat e the “di s t or t i on of the fac t fi ndi ng pr oces s ” thatoccur s “w hen the j uryi s for ced i nt o an al l - or - nothi ng choi ce be t w een c api t al m ur derand i nnocenc e. ” Spaz i ano v. F l or i da , 46 8 U. S. 447, 455 ( 1984) . H ow ever , t he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatthe rul e i s not i m pli cat ed w hen t he co urti nst ruct s the juryon on e l esseri ncluded offense s uppor t ed byt he evi dence , even i f i ns truct i ons on otherl es s eri ncl uded offens es-27-

m ig h t h a v e b e e n w a rr a n te d . Schad v. A r iz ona , 5 0 1 U .S . 6 2 4 , 6 4 7 -4 8 (1 9 9 1 ); s ee Will in g h a m v . Mu lli n , 2 9 6 F .3 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 3 -2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he juryatM r. B l and ’s t ri al w as i nst ruct ed o n the l esseri ncluded offense o f fir s t- d e g re e h e a t- o f-p a s s io n m a n s la u g h te r. M r . B l and does notdi s put e that t h e r e w a s e v i d e n t i a r y s u p p o r tfo rh e a t - o f- p a s s i o n m a n s l a u g h t e r . A c c o r d i n g l y, even i f the tr i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de the addi t i onal m ans l aught eri ns truct i on vi ol at ed s t at e l aw , w hi ch i s an i s s ue w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derunder28 U . S. C . § 2254( a) , i tdi d notvi ol at e B eck , “as the juryhad the o pti on of at l east one l es s eri ncl uded offens e. ” Jam es v. G i bs on , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 5 4 3 , 5 5 5 (10 th C ir . 2000) . A ccor di ngl y , t he O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as notcontr aryt o, and di d not in v o lv e a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, B eck . W e turn no w t o M r. B l and ’s ex pos tf acto ar gum ent . A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 10, C l aus e 1 of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s s t at es fr om pas s i ng any“ex pos tfac t o L aw . ” A n ex p o st fa c to l aw i s anyl aw that, am on g o ther things, “depr i ves one cha r ged w i t h cr i m e of a nydefe ns e ava i l abl e ac cor di ng t o l aw att he t i m e w hen the ac tw as comm i t t ed. ” B e a ze ll v. O h io , 269 U . S. 167, 169- 70 ( 1925) . A l t hough “[t ] he Ex P o st Fa c to C l aus e i s a l i m i t at i on upon the pow er s of t he Legi s l atur e and doe s notof i t s ow n for ce appl yt o the J udi ci al B r anch, ” Marks v. Uni t ed Stat es , 430 U . S. 188, 191 ( 1977) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) , the Supr eme C our thas appl i ed thi s rul e equa l l yt o s t at e s upr eme cour t s thr ough the D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t, s ee B o u ie v . C ity o f C o lu m b ia ,-28-

3 7 8 U .S . 3 4 7 , 3 5 3 -5 4 (1 9 6 4 ) (“ If a sta te le g isla tu re is b a rre d b yth e E x P o st F a c to C lau se f ro m p a ss in g su c h a law , itm u st fo llo w th a t a S tate S u p re m e C o u rt is barr ed byt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e fr om achi evi ng pr eci s el ythe s ame r es ul tby jud ici al co n stru cti o n . ”). I n ch all en g ing the O C C A ’s ad o p ti o n o f a n ew stan d ard fordet erm i ni ng w hen a de fenda nti s ent i t l ed t o an i ns truct i on on a l es s eri ncl uded offe ns e, M r . B l and ar gues t hatt he dec i s i on depr i ved hi m of a de fens e t o w hi ch he w oul d have be en ent i t l ed undert he l aw as i texi s t ed atthe t i m e of hi s offe ns e. Pr i ort o i t s deci s i on uphol di ng M r . B l and’ s convi ct i on, the O C C A had enunci at ed s om ew hatdi ffe r ents t andar ds fordet erm i ni ng w hetherevi dence w a rr a n te d a n in s tru c tio n o n a le s s e r h o m ic id e o ffe n s e . See Bl and , 4 P .3 d a t 7 1 9 . Ini t i al l y , t he st and ard w as “w hetherthere i s any ev i dence th a t w o u ld ten d to r educe t he degr ee of

t he offens e. ” Ta rte r v . S ta te , 3 5 9 P . 2 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 1 ( Ok l a . Cr i m. A pp. 1961) ( or i gi nal emphasi s om i t t ed, new emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Welbor n v. S ta te , 1 0 5 P .2 d 1 8 7 (O k la C rim . A p p . 1 9 4 0 )). In late r c a se s, th e O C C A g ra d u a lly tig h ten e d th e sta n d a rd , h o ld in g th a t th e in stru c tio n w a s w a rra n ted w h e n “ th e re is e v id e n c e th a t t ends t o pr ove t he l es s eri ncl uded offens e, ” R a w lin gs v . S ta te , 740 P. 2d 153, 160 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1987) ( emphasi s added) , w hether“the evi dence in a ny re a so n a b le v iew su gg e sts ” th e le s s e r o ffe n s e , B oy dv . S ta te , 839 P. 2d 1363, 1367 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1992) ( emphasi s added) , orw hether“the evi dence w o u ld per m i tthe j ur

y r at i onal l

y t o f i nd. . . the l es s eroffe ns e, ” Ma lo n e v . S ta te , 876 P. 2d 707, 711- 12 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1994) ( emphasi s added) . Fi nal l y , i n B land , 4-29-

P . 3d at71 9-20, the O C C A “cl ear[ed] up an ycon fusi on caused bythis pri or case law ” a n d an n o u n ce d that the tri al j u d g e m u st de term ine “ w h ethe r p rim a fa c ie ev iden ce o f th e lesse r offe n se h as b ee n p rese n ted to w arran t th e ins tru cti o n . ” It defi ned p rim a fa c ie evi dence as “[e ] vi dence good and s uffi ci enton i t s fac e, ” s uch t hatt he evi dence “i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a gi ven fa ct. . . and w hi ch i f not r ebut t ed orcontr adi ct ed, w i l l r emai n s uffi ci ent. . . t o s us t ai n a j udgm enti n favor of the i s s ue w hi ch i ts uppor t s . ” Id. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M r . Bl a n d c l a i ms t h a tt h i s n e w p rim a fa c ie ev iden ce stan d ard is m o re s t r i ngentt han the pr evi ous s t andar ds , and thati tther efor e depr i ved hi m of the o p p o rtu n ityto p ro v id e th e ju ryw ith a n a d d iti o n a l n o n -c a p ital o ffe n se o n w h ich to convi ct . W e nee d notdel ve i nt o thi s ar gum entbeca us e, even unde rthe ea r l i er s t andar d of Mal one , 876 P. 2d at711- 12, the evi dence i n the r ecor d di d not s u p p o rt p ro v id in g in s tru c tio n o n m a n s la u g h te r b yre s is tin g a c ri m in a l a tte m p t. T he onl yevi dence s uppor t i ng s uch an i ns truct i on w as M r . B l and’ s ow n t es t i m ony t hatM r . R ai ns as s aul t ed hi m . T hatt es t i m onyw as contr adi ct ed bythe fa ctthat M r . R ai ns w as s hoti n t he bac k of the hea d, el i m i nat i ng anyr at i onal i nfer ence t hat M r . B l and w as r es i s t i ng as s aul tatthe t i m e he s hotM r . R ai ns . I tther efor e di d not m att er w h ethe r th e O C C A ap p li ed it s ea rl ier Mal one s t a n d a r d o ri t s n e w p r i ma fa c ie evi dence s t andar d; M r . B l and w as notent i t l ed t o the defens e underei ther st and ard. T he O C C A ’s rej ect i on of M r. B l and ’s ex pos tf acto arg u m en t th ere fo re-30-

w a s n o t co n tra ryto , an d d id n o t in v o lv e a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly e sta b lish e d S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. C. A rg u m e n t D im in ish in gth e Ju ry ’s S e n se o f R e sp o n sib ility M r. B land n ex t cl aim s tha t com m en ts m ad e d u ri n g the p rose cu ti o n ’s cl osi ng argum ent att he sentenci ng ph ase of the tri al dim i nis hed the jury ’s sense of r es pons i bi l i t yfori m pos i ng t he dea th penal ty , i n vi ol at i on of C aldw el lv. Mis s is s i ppi , 4 7 2 U. S . 3 2 0 , 3 2 8 - 2 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . He p o i n t s i n p a r t i c u l a rt o two ar gum ent s . D ur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , one pr os ecut orar gued: T hei ratt or neyt el l s y ou t hatw e w anty ou t o ki l l hi m . L et ’ s getone thing str aigh t. I did n ’task to b e h ere , y o u d idn ’task to b e h ere . If h e g e t s t h e d e a t h p e n a l t yy o u d o n ’ tk i l l h i m a n d I d o n ’ tk i l l h i m. H e’s p u t him self in th at po sit ion b yw h at he ’s do n e a n d b yw h at he ’s d o n e in th e p ast. H e’s fo rce d m e, he ’s fo rce d [th e o ther p rose cu tor], he’ s for ced y ou and I beca us e of w hathe di d and w ho he i s t o deci de u n d e r th e law w h e th e r h e q u a lifie s fo r a n d d e se rv e s th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h e re is n o th in g sin iste r o r sh a m e f u l ab o u t th a t. T h e d e a th penal t yi s per fec t l yl egal and a [ s i c] appr opr i at e puni s hm entunder th e S tate law s, y o u h a v e to d e c id e d [ sic ] w h e th e r th is c a se a n d th is D efen d an t m eritthe d ea th p en alty . If y o u so d ec ide th en y o u h av en ’t ki l l ed anybody , y ou’ ve s i m pl yfol l ow ed the l aw thatthe C our ts etout fory ou. T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, at160. I n a s epar at e cl os i ng ar gum entanother p ro se c u to r a rg u e d : I f t h e De fe n d a n tg e t s t h e d e a th p e n a l tyi t ’ s n o ty o u o rI th a tk i l l h i m.

. . . H e’ s t he one that ’ s for ced y ou and I beca us e of w hathe di d and w ho he i s t o be i n t hi s pos i t i on thatw e’ r e i n t oday . . . . L adi es and g e n tlem e n , the re is n o th in g sh a m e f u l ab o u t th a t, ab o u t h a v in g to m ake thatdeci s i on. T he dea th penal tyi s a per fec t l yl egal and appr opr i at e s ent ence underthe l aw s of the St at e of O kl ahoma. A nd y ou m us tdeci de w hethert hi s cas e and thi s D efe ndantm er i t s [s i c] the-31-

d e a th p e n a lty . A n d if y o u so d e c id e th a t th e n y o u a re h e re in th is po si t i on no tbecau se of an ything t hat y ou or I hav e do ne, bu tbecau se t hi s D efe ndantchoos es nott o l i ve bythe rul es of s oci etyand the la w s o f th e S ta te o f

O k la h o m a . Y o u w ill n o t h a v e k ille d a n y o n e . Y ou w i l l s i m pl yhave fol l ow ed the l aw thatthe C our thas gi ven y ou, n o th in g m o re a n d n o th in g le s s . Id. at 19 2 -94 . T h e d efen se d id n o t object t o eith er a rgu m en t attr ial , b u t M r. B l and cont ended on di r ectappea l thatthes e ar gum ent s vi ol at ed C a ldw e ll . R evi ew i ng forpl ai n err or , the O C C A r ej ect ed thi s ar gum entbeca us e “the pr os ecut orneveri nt i m at ed i n anyw aythatthe ul t i m at e r es pons i bi l i tyfor det erm i ni ng t he pr opers ent ence r es t ed anyw her e other[than] the j ur y . ” B land , 4 P. 3d at727. T he di s t r i ctcour tl i kew i s e deni ed M r . B l and’ s r eques tforhabea s corpus rel i ef on t his cl ai m , fi nd i ng that the p rosecut or’ s com m ents , view ed as a w h o le, d id n o t m isl ea d juro rs or a tt em p t t o d im inish the irresp o n sibil ityfo r a d e a th s e n te n c e . U n d er C a ldw e ll , a dea t h s ent ence i s uncons t i tut i onal i f the det erm i nat i on w as “made bya s ent ence rw ho has been l ed t o bel i eve thatthe r es pons i bi l i tyfor det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at enes s of the defendant ’ s death r es t s el s ew her e. ” C a ldw e ll , 4 7 2 U .S . at 3 2 8 -2 9 . In re v iew in g a p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, how ever , w e pl ace i s ol at ed comm ent s w i thi n the cont extof the ent i r e cl os i ng a rg u m e n t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e ju ryh a s b e e n m isle d a b o u t it s ro le in re n d e ri n g a d e a th v e rd ic t. See Nei l lv. G i bs on , 2 7 8 F . 3 d 1 0 4 4 , 1 0 5 9 (10 th C ir . 2001) . I ti s t her efor e s i gni fi cantthat , i n addi t i on t o the r emar ks quot ed above ,-32-

t he fi r s tpr os ecut oral s o s ai d: “Y ou, the J ur y , have the fi nal s ay . Y ou’ r e the p e o p le o n w h e th e r [ sic ] th is u n su sp e c tin g w o rld is k e p t sa fe f ro m Jim m yD a le B l and. I t ’ s a s ober i ng t houghtcons i der i ng havi ng t o as s es s the dea th penal ty . ” Id. at164. T he s econd pr os ecut orr emi nded the j ur y , “[y ] ou deci de w hatthe pr i ce i s fors hoot i ng a defens el es s s i xt ytw o y earol d m an i n the bac k of the hea d, ” i d. at197, and cl ar i fi ed that“[y ] ou have the fi nal s ayon w hetherT i l l m an C ountyand t he w or l d i s [s i c] kepts afe fr om J i m m yB l and i n the futur e, ” i d. a t 1 9 8 . V i ew i ng t he pr os ecut or s ’ ar gum ent s i n cont ext , w e do notbel i eve thatthey vi ol at ed C a ldw e ll

— l etal one thatthe O C C A ’ s concl us i on w as contr aryt o, or in v o lv e d a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, C a ldw e ll . A tw orst , the p rosecut ors’ c o mm e n t s ma yh a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a tM r . Bl a n d wa s r e s p o n s i b l e fo rh i s o wn pr edi cament . T hatw as nott he vi ce of C a ldw e ll : i n thatcas e, the j ur yw as in d u c e d to b e liev e th a t so m e o th e r g o v e rn m e n tal d e c isio n m a k e r w o u ld u lti m a tely deci de, and bea rt he r es pons i bi l i tyfordeci di ng, w hetherthe defendants houl d be e x e c u te d . S e e C a ldw e ll , 472 U . S. at325- 26. N othi ng i n C a ldw e lls ugges t s that th e re is a n yth in g w ro n g w ith a ju ryb e in g re m in d e d th a t ca p ital p u n ish m e n t is u ltim a te ly a r e s u lt o f

th e d e fe n d a n t’ s o w n a c tio n s . S e e Co l e ma n v . Br o wn , 802 F .2 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 4 0 -4 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (d istin g u ish in g b e tw e e n th e a rg u m e n t in C a ldw e ll , w hich sugg est ed to the jurythat “s om eon e el se now has c o n tro l over th e d e fe n d a n t’s fa te,” a n d a n a rg u m e n t th a t b rin g s in to fo c u s “ th a t d e fe n d a n t is r es pons i bl e forhi s ow n pl i ght ”) . L i kew i s e, the pr os ecut or ’ s comm entthatthe-33-

j ur y , i n r ender i ng a dea t h ver di ct , w oul d “s i m pl yhave fol l ow ed the l aw ” di d not a lle v ia te th e ju ry’s u ltim a te re s p o n s ib ility fo r r e n d e ri n g a d e a th v e rd ic t. See Pa rks v . Br o wn , 860 F. 2d 1545, 1549 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( en banc ) ( fi ndi ng thatt he pr os ecut i on’ s s t at ementt hat“[s ] o al l y ou ar e doi ng i s y ou’ r e j us tfol l ow i ng the l aw , and w hatt he l aw s ay s . . . . T he l aw does al l of thes e thi ngs , s o i t ’ s noton y ourcons ci ence ” di d notr educe the j ury ’ s s ens e of r es pons i bi l i tyforr ender i ng a d e a th s e n te n c e ), r e v ’ do n o th e rg r o u n ds s u b n o m. , Saf f l e v. P arks , 494 U . S. 484 (19 9 0 ). T h a t th e p ro se c u to rs’ re m a rk s d id n o t d im in ish th e ju ry ’s s e n se o f u lti m a te r es pons i bi l i t yi s es peci al l yevi dentw hen thes e s t at ement s ar e pl ace d i n the c o n te x t o f

th e e n tir e s e n te n c in g p h a s e . S e e id . at1550 ( “I n eval uat i ng the ch all en g ed stat em en ts, itis ne ce ssaryto ex am ine th e c o n text in w h ich th eyw ere m ade. ”) . T he pr os ecut i on’ s openi ng s t at ementemphasi zed t o the j ur or s thatthey coul d “as s es s a pena l t yof dea t h i f y ou fee l i ti s the appr opr i at e puni s hm entfor w hat the D efen dan tdid. ” T r. JuryT ri al , D ayS even , at19 . D efen se coun sel al so arg u ed that the d ec isi o n to im p o se a d ea th se n tenc e fell to the juryan d that juro rs “ca n’ tevers ayt he l aw m ade [ t hem] do orthe J udge made [them] do i t , orthe pr os ecut i on m ade [ t hem] do i t . ” Id. at181. E ven the pr os ecut or s ’ cl os i ng ar gum ent s had an unde r l y i ng t heme t hatthe j ur y , and no one e l s e, m us tm ake the d e c is io n to im p o s e a d e a th s e n te n c e . See i d. at164, 197- 98. Fi nal l y , the i ns t ruct i ons pr ovi ded t o t he j ur yunder s cor ed the j ury ’ s r es pons i bi l i tyi n r ender i ng-34-

a v e rd ict: “ It is n o w y o u r d u tyto d e ter m in e th e p e n a ltyto b e im p o se d fo r th is offe ns e. ” O . R . V ol . I I I , at394. G i ven thes e cons t antr emi nder s thatthe j uryw as sol el yres po nsi ble for the sentence i m po sed, w e cann ot fi nd that the p rosecut ors’ i s ol at ed r emar ks di m i ni s hed the j ur or s ’ s ens e of ul t i m at e r es pons i bi l i tyforthe se n ten c in g d e c isio n . T h e O C C A d e c isio n th e re fo re w a s n o t co n tra ryto , an d d id n o t in v o lv e a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, C a ldw e ll . D . Mr. B lan d’s A bsen ce fr om Indi vidu al VoirD ire O n t he s econd da yof j ur ys el ect i on, the tr i al courtconduct ed a l i m i t ed v o ir di r e o f th ir ty-tw o in d iv id u a l ju ro rs in c h a m b e rs . B land , 4 P . 3 d a t7 1 2 . I n i t i a l l y, ques t i oni ng focus ed on fi ve pot ent i al j ur or s w ho had expr es s ed per s onal conce r ns a b o u t s e rv in g o n th e ju ry. Id. O f thos e fi ve pot ent i al j ur or s , one w as excus ed for c a u se b e c a u se h e w a s g o in g th ro u g h a d iv o rc e a n d d id n o t th in k th a t h e c o u ld c o n c e n tra te o n th e c a se , an d a n o th e r w a s e x c u se d d u e to ill n e ss . T r. Ju ryT ria l, D ayT w o , at 4-7 , 1 5 . W h il e in c h am b ers, de fe n se c o u n sel ex p resse d co n ce rn reg ard ing p o tential juro rs’ aw are n ess o f p retri al pu b li cityreg ard ing M r. B land ’s pr evi ous convi ct i on, w hi ch had a i r ed on the l ocal new s the pr ece di ng eveni ng. T he courtagr eed t o ques t i on t he pot ent i al j ur or s i ndi vi dual l y , and i nqui r ed w h e th e r M r. B la n d ’s p re s e n c e w a s re q u ir e d . Id. at17. D efe ns e couns el s t at ed th a t M r. B lan d ’s p re se n c e w a s n o t re q u ire d . P o ten tial ju ro rs w e re in d iv id u a lly ca ll ed into c h am b ers a n d q u esti o n ed as to w h ethe r th eyw atch ed the n ew s o r he ard a b o u t a n yn e w s re p o rt s in v o lv in g th e c a s e . See Bl and , 4 P. 3d at712. O nl yone-35-

p o ten tial ju ro r w a s e x c u se d b e c a u se h e lea rn e d , fr o m a n in a c c u ra te n e w s re p o rt, th a t M r. B la n d h a d a p ri o r m u rd e r c o n v ic tio n . Id. at712- 13. T he r emai ni ng pot ent i al j ur or s r etur ned t o t he courtr oom and voirdir e w as conduct ed i n open c o u rt , w ith M r. B la n d p re s e n t a n d a b le to e x e rc is e h is p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s . Id. at713. D esp it e d efen se c o u n sel’s ex p li citstat em en t t o the tri al co u rtthat M r. B l and’ s pr es ence w as notr equi r ed dur i ng the i n- chamber s ques t i oni ng, M r . B l and now cont ends t hathi s abs ence vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o be pr es entatal l cr i t i cal s t ages o f th e tri al un d er Sny d e r v . Ma ss a c h u se tts , 2 9 1 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 5 -0 6 (1 9 3 4 ), over r ul ed i n par ton othergr ounds by Mal l oy v. Hogan , 378 U . S. 1 ( 1964) . M r . B l and r ai s ed thi s ar gum enton di r ectappea l t o the O C C A , w hi ch r ej ect ed i ton the g ro u n d th a t M r. B lan d ’s “ a b se n c e f ro m th e b rie f, li m ited , ind iv id u a l voirdir e w as n eith er a d u e p roc ess n o r st atuto ryv iolati o n , ” a n d that ev en if th ere w as e rror,

“ [ a ]n ye rro r in c o n d u c tin g th e in d iv id u a l voirdir e i n [h i s] absenc e w as harm l ess bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” B l and , 4 P .3 d a t 7 1 3 . T he di s tr i ctcourt , defe rr i ng to th e O C C A ’s d e c is io n , lik e w is e reje c te d M r. B la n d ’s c h a lle n g e . A l t hough a defendanthas a due pr oces s r i ght“t o be pr es ent. . . w heneve r h is p re se n c e h a s a re latio n , rea so n a b lysu b sta n tial, to th e f u lln e ss o f

h is o p p o rtu n ityto d e fe n d a g a in st th e c h a rg e ,” th is rig h t d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t a d e fe n d a n t b e p re s e n t a t a ll p ro c e e d in g s . Snyder , 291 U . S. at105- 06. I ns t ead, t he cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o be pr es entexi s t s “t o the ext entt hata fa i rand j us thear i ng-36-

w oul d be thw art ed byhi s abs ence , and t o thatext entonl y . ” Id. at107- 08. For exampl e, a defendantneed notbe pr es entdur i ng al l comm uni cat i ons betw een a ju d g e a n d a ju ro r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. G agnon , 470 U . S. 522, 526 ( 1985) ( per cur i am) ( hol di ng t hata defendant ’ s abs ence dur i ng an i n ca m era di s cus s i on b etw ee n the ju d g e a n d a juro r t o asc ertain b ias d id n o t violate the d efen d an t’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s ) . W hen the defendant ’ s “pr es ence w oul d be us el es s , orthe b e n e fit b u t a s h a d o w ,” d u e p ro c e ss d o e s n o t re q u ire th e d e fe n d a n t’s p re se n c e a t a tr ia l p ro c e e d in g . Snyder , 291 U . S. at106- 07. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherexcl us i on of a de fenda ntfr om a pr ocee di ng vi ol at ed due pr oces s , w e cons i derthe pr ocee di ngs “i n l i ghtof the w hol e r ecor d. ” G agnon , 4 7 0 U .S . a t 5 2 6 -2 7 . B e c a u se in th is in d iv id u a l voi rdi r e th e ju d g e c o n d u c ted a ll q u e stio n in g h im se lf an d p erso n all yd eterm ined w h ethe r ea ch juro r sho u ld b e e x cu sed fo r ca u se, M r. B lan d ’s p re se n c e c o u ld n o t h a v e h a d a n ye ffe c t o n th e o u tco m e , ren d e rin g h is pr es ence “us el es s ” ora mer e “s hadow . ” See Sny der , 2 9 1 U .S . at 1 0 6 -0 7 ; G agnon , 4 7 0 U .S . a t 5 2 7 . M r. B lan d a lso c o n ten d s th a t h e w a s p reju d ice d b e c a u se h e w a s u n a b le to obs erve pot ent i al j ur or s and cha l l enge them “si m pl yon the bas i s of s udden i m pr es s i ons orper s onal know l edge i ndi s pens abl e t o the s el ect i on of an i m part i al j ur y . ” B l and , 4 P. 3d at712. T hi s i s notenough t o es t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal v io la tio n . See G agnon , 4 7 0 U .S . at 5 2 7 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Sant i ago , 977 F. 2d 517, 522- 23 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( fi ndi ng thata defendant ’ s abs ence fr om an ex p a rte-37-

di s cus s i on w i t h a j ur orw as notfundament al l yunfai reven though the defendant coul d notobs erve j ur or ’ s pot ent i al bi as ) . C ons i der i ng M r . B l and’ s abs ence fr om in d iv id u a l voirdir e i n l i ghtof the ent i r e j ur ys el ect i on pr oces s , M r . B l and had ampl e oppor tuni t yt o obs erve j ur or s dur i ng voirdir e an d ex erc ise p ere m p tory chal l enges acc or di ngl y . H i s abs ence dur i ng thes e l i m i t ed pr ocee di ngs di d not i nfr i nge on hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s , and the O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as ther efor e not c o n tra ryto , an d d id n o t in v o lv e a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly e s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. E . Com m ents on P os t-A r r es tSilence M r. B lan d a lso c h a llen g e s s e v e ra l p ro se c u to ria l co m m e n ts o n h is p o starr es ts i l ence , w hi ch w er e i nt r oduced t o i m peac h hi s s t orythathe comm i t t ed the m ur deri n t he hea tof pas s i on. D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on the pr os ecut orengage d in th e fo llo w in g d ialo g u e w ith M r. B lan d : Q : D o y ou r emem berw hen A gentB r i ggs came and arr es t ed y ou i n t he, M i ke B aker ’ s hous e, don’ ty ou? A : Y es , s i r . I do. Q : W h yw e re y o u h id in g in th e c lo se t? A : B eca us e theyw er e try i ng, theyw er e knocki ng on t he doorand th e yw e re sa y in g it w a s a p o lice o ffice r a n d I w a s try in g to hi de. Q : Y ou di dn’ tfee l att hatpoi ntthaty ou neede d t o t el l them how th is a ll h a p p e n e d a n d e x p lain it? A : N o, s i r . I w as s t i l l s car ed.-38-

Q : Y ou w er e s t i l l runni ng, w er en’ ty ou? A : Y es, si r. Q : W el l , I ’ m s ur e thatw hen A gentB r i ggs goty ou outof the cl os ett he fi r s tt hi ng y ou w ant ed t o t el l hi m w as the c irc u m sta n c e s, w h yth is h a p p e n e d , tha t y o u d id n ’t in ten d to ki l l W i ndl e? T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yF iv e , at 7 2 . In c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, th e p ro se c u to r re fe rre d to M r. B lan d ’s s ilen c e o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s. H e rh e to ric a llyin q u ire d : W hydi dn’ the ca l l t he Sher i ff, w hydi dn’ the t el l T r ooperFi s her w hen he found hi m i n C handl er [?] . . . D i d he eve rcal l the cops and t el l t hem how W i ndl e att acke d hi m ? . . . I n O kl ahoma C i tyan O .S .B .I. a g e n t fin a lly sh o w s u s a n d d o e s h e s a y , g o s h , M r. B ri g g s , I had thi s r eal i m por t ants t or yt o t el l y ou abouthow thi s guyatt acke d m e . N o . . . . N o t fo r fo u r h o u rs h e d o e s n ’t s a ya n yth in g . . . . T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yS ix , at 3 1 -3 2 . T h e p ro se c u to r a lso u se d M r. B lan d ’s s ilen c e to la b e l h im a lia r. See i d. at35- 36 ( “N ow w ho do y ou thi nk i s l y i ng? . . . I t ’ s the s ame per s on w ho’ s been l y i ng al l al ong, he l i ed t o hi s m other , he l i ed t o A gent G os s and w ho di dn’ tt el l anyt hi ng t o A gentB r i ggs ort o anyof the otherpol i ce o ffice rs.” ); i d. a t 3 9 (“ H e w a s s till l y in g w h e n h e s p o k e w ith In s p e c to r G o s s . T e lli n g first n o th in g , the n o n lya v e rsio n th a t w o u ld h e lp h im m a k e so m e se lf d e fe n se c laim .”); i d. a t 9 5 -9 6 (“ [ I]f th a t’s re a llyw h a t h a p p e n e d , if th a t’s re a lly h is st o rythen h o w d o y o u ex p lai n h is si lenc e o n ce A g en t B ri g g s arrested h im ? ”). D e fe n se c o u n se l o bjec ted to th e p ro se c u tio n ’s u se o f p o st-a rre st s ilen c e in c lo s in g a rg u m e n t a n d re q u e s te d a m is tr ia l. Id. at95- 96. T he tr i al courts us t ai ned t he obj ect i on and admoni s hed the j ur yt o di s r egar d the “the comm ent s of couns el-39-

i n r egar d t o t he D efe ndant ’ s s i l ence ornon- s i l ence pr i ort o hi s begi nni ng t o m ake the v o lun tarystat em en t t o A g en t G o ss,” bu t ov erru led c o u n sel’s req u est fo r a m is tr ia l. Id. at96- 97. I n hi s di r ectappea l t o the O C C A , M r . B l and ar gued that t he tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o gr anta mi s tr i al . T he O C C A deni ed r el i ef, fin d in g th a t th e e rr o r w a s c u re d b yth e tr ia l c o u rt ’s a d m o n itio n to th e ju ry. B land , 4 P. 3d at730. T he di s t r i ctcourtfound thatthe O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as not u n rea so n ab le du e to th e su b stan ti al ev iden ce ind icati n g g u il t and the tri al co u rt ’s o rd e r s u s ta in in g th e o bje c tio n a n d is s u in g a c u ra tiv e in s tru c tio n . T he St at e cont ends her e, as i tdi d i n the di s tr i ctcour t , thatthe comm ent s on p o st- arrest sil en ce w ere n o t on lyh arm less b u t al so that theyd id n o t violate M r. B l a n d ’ s r i g h tt o d u e p r o c e s s a s d e fi n e d b y Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 384 U . S. 436 ( 1966) . W i t nes s es w ho t es t i fyi n court , i ncl udi ng cr i m i nal defe ndant s , m ay gener al l y“be i m peac hed byt hei rpr evi ous fai l ur e t o s t at e a facti n ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch thatfac tnatur al l yw oul d have be en as s er t ed. ” Jenki ns v. A nders on , 447 U .S . 2 3 1 , 2 3 9 (1 9 8 0 ) ( p e rm ittin g p ro s e c u to ri a l c o m m e n t o n p re -a rr e s t s ile n c e ). O ne exc ept i on t o t hi s rul e i s “w her e the governm entha[s ] i nduced s i l ence by im p lic itly a s s u ri n g th e d e fe n d a n t th a t h is s ile n c e w o u ld n o t b e u s e d a g a in s t h im ,” s uch as aft ert he i s s uance of Mi r anda w a rn in g s . F letc h e r v . We ir , 455 U . S. 603, 6 0 6 (1 9 8 2 ) (p e r c u ria m ); se e a lso D oy le v . O h io , 426 U . S. 610, 618 ( 1976) (h o ld in g th a t co m m e n tin g o n a d e fe n d a n t’s p o st-a rre st, p o st- Mi r anda s i l ence vi ol at es due pr oces s ) . H ow ever , “[i ] n the abs ence of the s or tof affi r m at i ve-40-

as s ur ance s embodi ed i n t he Mi r anda w arni ngs , ” the Supr eme C our thas hel d that i tdoes not“vi ol at e[] due pr oces s of l aw fora St at e t o perm i tcr os s - exami nat i on as t o pos t arr es ts i l ence w hen a de fenda ntchoos es t o t ake the s t and. ” F l etcher , 455 U . S. at607. M os tcomm ent s m ade byt he pr os ecut i on atM r . B l and’ s tr i al ar e ana l ogous t o t hos e made i n F l etcher . I n F l etcher , the d e fe n d a n t tes tifie d o n h is o w n b e h a lf t hathe di d s t ab the vi ct i m , butcl ai m ed ( forthe fi r s tt i m e) thathe ac t ed i n s el fd e fe n s e a n d th a t th e s ta b b in g w a s a c c id e n ta l. Id. at60 3-04. O n crossex am ination , the p rose cu tor ask ed w h yh e h ad fa il ed to as sert his ex cu lpato ry e x p la n a tio n u p o n a rr e s t. Id. at607. T he C our tfound no due pr oces s err ori n the pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i ons beca us e the pr os ecut i on us ed onl ypos t - arr es t , pr e- Mi r anda s i l ence . H er e, t he pr os ecut i on r epea t edl yr efe rr ed t o M r . B l and’ s pr e- arr es tand pos t - arr es t , pr e- Mi r anda sile n c e b ya sk in g M r. B lan d w h yh e d id n o t tell h is m ot her , T r ooperFi s her , orarr es t i ng offi cerA gentB r i ggs abouthi s confr ont at i on w ith M r. R ains . U n d er F l etcher , tho se sta tem e n ts, a n d re fe re n c e s to th e m in cl osi ng argum ent, did not vi olat e M r. B l and ’s ri gh tt o d ue p rocess . O nl yone comm entm ade bythe pr os ecut i on dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent re fe rre d to M r. B lan d ’s p o st- Mi r anda s i l ence , i n vi ol at i on of D oy le , 426 U . S. at 618. I n an i s ol at ed r emar k, t he pr os ecut ors ai d, “H e w as s t i l l l y i ng w hen he sp o k e w ith In sp e c to r G o ss . T e lli n g first n o th in g , the n o n lya v e rsio n th a t w o u ld-41-

hel p hi m m ake s om e s el f defens e cl ai m . ” Tr. J ur yT r i al , D aySi x, at39. T he O C C A fo u n d th is e rr o r h a rm le s s . B land , 4 P. 3d at730. W hen revi ew i ng a st at e cou rt ’s determ i nati on of h arm l essness , w e ask w hethert he cha l l enged c om m ent s had a “ s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effector i nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . ” B r echt , 507 U . S. at638 ( i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). W e con si der fi ve fa ct ors i n assess i ng harm l essness u n d er B r echt : “( 1) t he pr os ecut or ’ s us e of the pos t - arr es ts i l ence ; ( 2) w hethert he defe ns e orpr os ecut i on pur s ued thi s l i ne of que s t i oni ng; ( 3) the amountof e v id e n c e in d ica tin g g u ilt ; (4 ) th e f re q u e n c ya n d fo rc e o f th e re fe re n c e ; an d (5 ) if t he defens e r eques t ed a mi s t r i al orcur at i ve i ns truct i ons . ” Sal lahdi n v. G i bs on , 2 7 5 F . 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 3 0 -31 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). O f th ese , the fir st an d thir d fa ctors a re th e m o s t im p o rt a n t. Id. at1231. T h e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n t o n M r. B lan d ’s p o st- Mi r anda sile n c e in h is co n v ersa ti o n w ith Insp ec tor G o ss w as m ad e n o t as an arg u m en t t o estab li sh M r. B l and’ s gui l t , butt o i m peac h M r . B l and’ s s t orythathe ki l l ed M r . R ai ns i n the h ea t of p assio n af

ter an arg u m en t. S u ch u se w as c o n sist en t w ith the p rose cu ti o n ’s at t empt t o di s cr edi tM r . B l and’ s s t orybas ed on the l i es he t ol d t o hi s m otherand h is re p e a te d fa ilu re to te ll th e p o lic e a b o u t th e h o m ic id e , e v e n b e fo re h is a rr e s t. F u rth e rm o re , ex c lu d in g c o m m e n tar yo n M r. B lan d ’s p o st- Mi r anda sil en ce , there w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence es t abl i s hi ng M r . B l and’ s gui l ton the fi r s t - degr ee mal i ce afor ethoughtm ur derchar ge. M r . B l and s hotM r . R ai ns i n the bac k of the hea d,-42-

s ugges t i ng t hatM r . R ai ns had tur ned aw ayfr om M r . B l and atthe t i m e M r . B l and fi r ed. M r . B l and att empt ed t o coverup the cr i m e bym et i cul ous l ycl eani ng the cr i m e s cene and hi di ng M r . R ai ns ’ s bodyi n a cr eek, cover ed w i th l ogs , s o thatno one w oul d fi nd i t . H e l i ed t o hi s m otheraboutgoi ng t o w or k w i th M r . R ai ns the nextdays o t hats he w oul d nots us pectanythi ng had happe ned t o M r . R ai ns . T he sin g le, iso late d re fe re n c e to M r. B lan d ’s p o st- Mi r anda s i l ence coul d nothave affect ed the j ur y ’ s ver di ct , cons i der i ng the s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the ver di ctand the tr i al court ’ s cur at i ve i ns truct i on di r ect i ng the j ur yt o di s r egar d t he p r o s e c u t o r ’ s c o mme n t s o n M r . Bl a n d ’ s s i l e n c e . Th u s , we a g r e e wi th th e OCCA t hat anyerr or w as harm l ess. F. Claim s of

P r os ecutor ialMis conduct M r . B l and nextar gues t hats ever al of the pr os ecut or s ’ r emar ks depr i ved h im o f a fa ir trial a t b o th sta g e s o f h is tria l. In a d d iti o n to th e p ro se c u tio n ’s r o le i n t he err or s al l eged a bove, he r ai s es s i x addi t i onal cl ai m s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct : ( 1) i m pr oper l yar gui ng thathe i s a l i ar ; ( 2) demeani ng and r i di cul i ng hi m ; ( 3) demeani ng hi s m i t i gat i ng evi dence ; ( 4) t el l i ng the j uryi thad a c i vi c and m or al dut yt o convi ctand s ent ence hi m t o death; ( 5) ur gi ng a dea th s ent ence b ase d o n sym p athyfo r th e v ict im ; and (6) a rgu ing fa cts n o t i n ev iden ce . M r. B lan d c o n ten d s n o t o n lyth a t ea c h in sta n c e o f m isc o n d u c t is su fficie n t to v io late his ri gh tt o d ue p rocess , bu tt hat even if each com m ent i s foun d to be ha rm l ess, t he cumul at i ve effec tof the err or s w arr ant s r el i ef.-43-

T he O C C A r ej ect ed ea ch of M r . B l and’ s cl ai m s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct o n th e m e rits. T h e c o u rt fo u n d th a t itw a s n o t im p ro p e r fo r th e p ro se c u tio n to comm enton t he ver aci t yof M r . B l and’ s t es t i m onybycal l i ng hi m a l i ar , and that t he pr os ecut i on di d noti m pr oper l ydemean the mi t i gat i ng evi dence , s ugges tthat t he j ur y ’ s onl ym or al cour s e w as t o r etur n a convi ct i on, orevoke s ym pathyfort he v ic tim . B l and , 4 P. 3d at727- 28. A l though the O C C A di d not e thatthe pr os ecut i on i nappr opr i at el ycompar ed the pl i ghtof the vi ct i m t o M r . B l and’ s l i fe i n pr i s on and thatt he pr os ecut or i al ar gum entr i di cul i ng M r . B l and “t es t ed the bounds of pr operar gum ent , ” i tdeemed both err or s harm l es s bas ed on the s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. Id. at728. L i kew i s e, the O C C A h e ld th a t ev e n if th e p ro se c u tio n d id e rro n e o u slya rg u e fa c ts n o t in evi dence , “[a ] nym i s s t at ementcoul d nothave a ffe ct ed the out come of t he tr i al . ” Id. I n r ej e c t i n g M r . Bl a n d ’ s c l a i m o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l mi s c o n d u c t , th e OCCA appl i ed the s t andar d foradj udi cat i ng al l egat i ons of pr os ecut or i al m i s conducts et fo rt h in its p ri o r d e c is io n s . Id. at729 ( ci t i ng D u c ke tt v. S ta te , 919 P. 2d 7, 19 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1995) , fort he pr opos i t i on that“[a ] l l egat i ons of pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdo notw arr antr ever s al of a c onvi ct i on unl es s the cumul at i ve effec t w as s uch [a s ] t o depr i ve the defendantof a fai rtr i al ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). B e c a u s e th is s ta n d a rd is th e s a m e a s th a t u n d e r fe d e ra l la w , s ee Pat t on v . Mu lli n , 42 5 F. 3d 78 8, 81 1 ( 10 th Ci r . 20 05 ) , w e a pp l ythe de fe r e nt i a l A ED PA-44-

s t andar d of r evi ew , and exa m i ne w hetherthe O C C A ’ s deci s i on w as an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the s t andar d. W her e pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdoes noti m pl i cat e a s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal r i ght , i m pr operr emar ks r equi r e r ever s al of a s t at e convi ct i on onl yi f the r emar ks “s o i nfec t ed the tr i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s . ” D o n n e lly , 4 1 6 U .S . at 6 4 3 . T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a trial is r ender ed funda m ent al l yunfai r , w e exa m i ne the ent i r e pr ocee di ng, “i ncl udi ng t he s t r ength of the evi dence agai ns tthe pet i t i oner , both as t o gui l tatthats t age of t he t r i al and as t o m or al cul pabi l i t yatthe s ent enci ng phas e” a s w el l as “[a ] ny c a u tio n a ryste p s— su c h a s in stru c tio n s to th e ju ry— o ffe re d b yth e c o u rt to count er acti m pr operr emar ks . ” Le , 311 F. 3d at1013. “[I ] ti s notenough thatt he pr os ecut or s ’ r emar ks w er e undes i r abl e oreven uni ver s al l ycondemned. ” D ar den v. Wai nw r ight , 477 U . S. 168, 181 ( 1986) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he ul t i m at e ques t i on i s w hethert he j uryw as abl e t o fai r l yj udge the evi dence i n l i ght of the pr os ecut or s ’ conduct . H avi ng al r eadycons i der ed thos e cl ai m s of p rose cu tori al m isco n d u ct th at i n fring ed o n a sp ec ifi c c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h t and w ere n o t s u bje c t to th e f

u n d a m e n ta l fa ir n e s s te s t, see P axton v. Ward , 199 F. 3d 1197, 1217 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) , w e now cons i derw hetherthe otheral l egat i ons of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , i ndi vi dual l yorcumul at i vel y , depr i ved M r . B l and of a fa irtr ia l. 1. C har act er iz i ng Mr . B l and as a Li ar-45-

M r . B l and ar gues t hati tw as i nappr opr i at e forthe pr os ecut i on dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum enti n t he gui l tphas e of tr i al t o r efe rt o hi m as a l i ar . A l though l abel i ng a defendanta “l i ar ” i s oft en “unne ces s ary ” and “ unw arr ant ed, ” Uni t ed S ta tes v . Nich o ls , 21 F. 3d 1016, 1019 ( 10th C i r . 1994) , w e have hel d that re fe rrin g to tes tim o n ya s a lie is n o t pers e p ro s e c u to ri a l m is c o n d u c t, Uni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 9 7 8 F . 2 d 1 5 5 4 , 1 5 6 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). O n th e c o n tra ry , itis p e rm is s ib le fo r t h e p ro s e c u tio n to c o m m e n t o n th e v e ra c ity o f a d e fe n d a n t’ s s to ry. Un itedS ta tes v . He rn a n d ez-Mu n iz , 1 7 0 F . 3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 2 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . We have ther efor e r ej ect ed cl ai m s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conductw her e the pr os ecut i on r efe r r ed t o a defendantas a l i aron acc ountof i rr econc i l abl e di s cr epanc i es b e tw e e n th e d e fe n d a n t’ s te s tim o n ya n d o th e r e v id e n c e in th e c a s e . See i d. ; Nich o ls , 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 9 . H ere, t he p rosecut i on did not deri ve it s charact eri zat i on of M r. B l and as a l i art hr ough i nfer ence s , buti ns t ead r emi nded the j ur yt hatM r . B l and admi t t ed d u ri n g cro ss-ex am ination that h e li ed to h is m o ther a n d the a u tho ri ti es b efo re p u tt ing fo rth the s toryh e told in co u rt . F o r ex am p le, in resp o n se to M r. B land ’s tes tim o n yth a t h e d id n o t tak e M r. R a in s’s b ill fo ld , the p ro se c u tio n a rg u e d : Si m m ons found hi m w i t h a br ow n bi l l fol d w i th the moneyi n i t . N ow w ho do y ou t hi nk i s l y i ng? I thi nk y ou know . I t ’ s t he s ame per s on w ho’ s been l y i ng al l al ong, he l i ed t o hi s m other , he l i ed t o A gent G os s and w ho di dn’ tt el l anythi ng t o A gentB r i ggs ort o anyof the ot herpol i ce offi cer s . H e’ s admi t t ed he’ s l i ed. H e gotup her e and t ol d y ou he’ s l i ed. A nd now he’ s s t i l l l y i ng aboutt he bi l l fol d.-46-

T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yS ix , at 3 5 -3 6 . T h e p ro se c u tio n a lso c h a llen g e d th e c re d ib ili ty o f M r. B lan d ’s te stim o n y , arg u in g th a t M r. B lan d h a s “ g o t a m o tiv e o r re a so n to lie ” to s p a re h im s e lf

th e d e a th p e n a lty. Id. at 93 . T h ese refere n ce s to M r. Bl a n d ’ s v e r a c i t y , e v e n i f e x c e s s i v e , we r e p e r mi s s i b l e i n l i g h to f M r . Bl a n d ’ s o wn t es t i m ony . T he O C C A ’ s r ej ect i on of thi s cl ai m of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct t h e r e fo r e wa s n o ta n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. 2. D em eani ng and R i di cul i ng Mr . B land D u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t at b o th p h a se s o f trial, th e p ro se c u tio n re fe rre d to M r . B l and as a “s ni ffl i ng . . . cow ar d[] , ” a “ heart l es s and vi ci ous ki l l er , ” and a “vi ol entand evi l m an. ” Tr. J ur yT r i al D aySi x, at38; T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, a t 1 6 5 , 1 9 9 . T h e s e p ejo ra tiv e s w e re u n n e c e s s a ry a n d in a p p ro p ri a te . Se e Le , 311 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 1 (“ P e rso n a l atta c k s b ya p ro se c u to r a re im p ro p e r.”) . N o n e th e les s, in l i ghtof the overw hel m i ng evi dence s uppor t i ng both aggr avat i ng fac t or s and the r e l a t i v e d e a r t h o f

e v i d e n c e o n mi t i g a t i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we a g r e e wi th th e OCCA th a t th e c o m m e n ts d id n o t d e p ri v e M r. B la n d o f a fa irtr ia l. I n hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , M r . B l and conc eded one aggr avat or— thathe w as pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a vi ol entfel ony , namel yki dnapi ng and fi r s t - degr ee m ans l aught er . T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, at179. M r . B l and has s pental l butone y e a r o f h is a d u lt life in p ri s o n , a n d d u ri n g th a t tim e h e p e rp e tr a te d tw o h o m ic id e s . T h ere w as e v iden ce that M r. B land ab u ses d rug s an d alco h o l, an d h is ex p ert p sy c h iatris t, D r. S a llyC h u rc h , tes tifie d th a t su b sta n c e a b u se c o n trib u tes to h is-47-

v io le n t te n d e n c ie s . Id. at137. A l though M r . B l and pr es ent ed t es t i m onythathe w as nevervi ol entort hr eat eni ng dur i ng hi s pr evi ous tw entyy ear s i n j ai l , the pr os ecut i on r evea l ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thatthe pr i s on guar d and pr i s on couns el ort es t i fy i ng w er e notveryfami l i arw i th M r . B l and’ s conducti n pr i s on. Id. at86, 93. Fur t herm or e, t her e w as evi dence thatM r . B l and abus ed coc ai ne w h ile in p ri s o n , i d. a t 9 3 , w h ic h , a s n o te d , c o n tr ib u te s to h is v io le n t te n d e n c ie s . In contr ast , M r. B l and ’s m i t i gati ng evidence w as w eak. A l tho ug h the defen se at t empt ed t o es t abl i s h t hatM r . B l and w oul d be a good, non- vi ol entpr i s oner , and so u g h t to a ttribu te h is v io len c e to u n fo rtu n a te c h ild h o o d e v e n ts, th e re w a s littl e pos i t i ve t es t i m onyr egar di ng M r . B l and’ s char act erbeca us e he ha d been outof p ri so n fo r suc h a sh o rtp eriod o f ti m e w h en h e k il led M r. B land . T h e O C C A ’s d e c i s i o n t h e r e fo r e d i d n o tu n r e a s o n a b l ya p p l yc l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. 3. D em eani ng the Mi t igat i ng E vi dence M r. B lan d n e x t cla im s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n im p ro p e rlyd e m e a n e d h is m i t i gat i ng evi dence bys ugges t i ng thatthe j ur yi gnor e mi t i gat i ng evi dence and by re c h a ra c ter izin g th e m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e a s e v id e n c e in a g g ra v a tio n . R e fe rrin g to vari ou s m i t i gati ng evidence, t he p rosecut or rhetor i cal l yasked, “D o w e as a s oci etyoras a s y s t em of j us t i ce l etthos e thi ngs acta [s i c] s hi el d fr om acc ept i ng t he ful l r es pons i bi l i t yforhi s act i ons [?] ” Tr. J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, at163. T he pr os ecut oral s o r efe r r ed t o M r . B l and’ s m i t i gat i ng evi dence as “exc us es , ” and s ugges t ed thatt he di ffi cul t i es i n M r . B l and’ s l i fe, aboutw hi ch an e xpertt es t i fi ed,-48-

w er e the “ki nd of thi ngs t hatm ake c r i m i nal s outof or di naryci t i zens . ” Id. at 1 8 7 . A s l ong as the j ur yi s pr oper l yi ns truct ed on the us e of mi t i gat i ng evi dence , th e p ro s e c u tio n is f

re e to c o m m e n t o n th e w e ig h t th e ju ry sh o u ld a c c o rd to it. See Fox v. Ward , 20 0 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 99 (10t h C i r. 20 00 ). M r. B l and do es not contes t t he pr opr i etyof the mi t i gat i ng evi dence i ns truct i on, w hi ch pr ovi ded, i n per t i nent p a rt, th a t “[ t]h e d e ter m in a tio n o f w h a t circ u m sta n c e s a re m iti g a tin g is fo r y o u to re s o lv e u n d e r t h e fa c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e .” O .R . V o l. I II , a t 4 0 1 . T he pr os ecut or s , w hi l e cr i t i cal of M r . B l and’ s m i t i gat i ng evi dence , nevert ol d t he j ur yi tcoul d notcons i derM r . B l and’ s m i t i gat i ng evi dence . T he cha l l enged pr os ecut or i al ar gum entw as cons i s t entw i th the j uryi ns truct i ons and bor e onl yon th e w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e . N orw as i tm i s conductforthe pr os ecut i on t o s ugges tthats om e mi t i gat i ng e v id e n c e h e lp e d to e sta b lish th a t M r. B lan d w o u ld p o se a c o n tin u in g th re a t to so c iety . E v id e n c e c a n b e b o th m iti g a tin g a n d a g g ra v a tin g , an d th e p ro se c u tio n is fr ee t o expl ai n t o t he j ur yhow m i t i gat i ng evi dence t ends t o pr ove the exi s t ence of a n a g g ra v a tin g fa c to r. See Penr y v. Lynaugh , 4 9 2 U . S . 3 0 2 , 3 2 4 (19 8 9 ), o v e rr u ledo n o th e r g ro u n ds by A tkin s v . Virg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S . 3 0 4 (2 0 0 2 ); Mann v. Sc o tt , 4 1 F . 3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 9 -80 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e p rose cu tor’s rem ark s o n M r. B l and’ s m i t i gat i ng evi dence t her efor e di d notcons t i tut e mi s conductthatdepr i ved M r. B lan d o f

a fa ir trial.-49-

4. Ap p e a l to C ivic a n dMo ra l D u ty M r. B lan d n e x t ch a llen g e s th e p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t ab o u t th e ju ry ’s c iv ic dut y . H e cl ai m s t hati n t he gui l tphas e, the pr os ecut orar gued i n cl os i ng thatthe j ur yhad a c i vi c dutyt o convi ctM r . B l and. O urr evi ew of the r ecor d, and es peci al l yt he port i on of the tr ans cr i ptt o w hi ch M r . B l and r efe r s , does not i ndi cat e anys uch ar gum enti n t he fi r s tphas e of tr i al . H ow ever , i n the s econd p h a se , the p ro se c u to r a rg u e d : I f y ou gi ve hi m anyt hi ng otherthan the dea th penal tyy ou don’ tknow w h at w il l hap p en to h im o r w h at op p o rtu n it ies h e w il l get to h u rt ot herpeopl e. Y ou have one s ent ence opt i on avai l abl e t o y ou that y ou w i l l know , y ou’ ve gotone opt i on and one opt i on onl ythat guar ant ees t hathe’ s notgoi ng t o hur tanybodyel s e orki l l anybody el s e. Y ou, t he J ur y , have the fi nal s ay . Y ou’ r e the peopl e on w h e th e r [ sic ] th is u n su sp e c tin g w o rld is k e p t sa fe f ro m Jim m yD a le B land . . . . W e talke d ea rl ier ab o u t ci ti ze n sh ip in o u r gre at co u n try an d h o w so m eti m es itco m es w ith a p ri ce . T h ere are ti m es it ’s pa rt o f o u r c iv ic a n d m o ra l d u ties o f c iti z e n sh ip th a t w e ’re c a lled u p o n to fac e unpl eas ant l y , unpl eas antand di ffi cul tt as ks . Y ou’ r e [s i c] got o n e o f th o s e ta s k s fa c in g y o u to d a y . T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yS e v e n , at 1 6 4 ; see also i d. at198- 99. A s w e have s t at ed nu m erous t i m es, “[i ]ti s i m proper for a prosecutort o sug gestthat a j uryhas a ci vi c dutyt o convi ct . ” Th o rn b u rgv . Mu lli n , 4 2 2 F . 3 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 3 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); see also Ma lico a t v. Mu lli n , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 5 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Sp ears v . Mu lli n , 3 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 4 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Le , 311 F. 3d at1022 ( expl ai ni ng th a t su c h c o m m e n ts a re “ ‘o ffe n siv e to th e d ig n itya n d g o o d o rd e r w ith w h ich a ll pr ocee di ngs i n cour ts houl d be conduc t ed’ ” ( quot i ng Vi er eckv. Uni t ed Stat es , 318-50-

U . S. 236, 248 ( 1943) ) ) . T hati s notw hatthe pr os ecut ordi d i n thi s cas e. T he c iv ic d u tyto w h ich th e p ro se c u to r re fe rre d w a s n o t th e d u tyto c o n v ict, o r to r etur n a dea t h s ent ence , butr atherthe dutyt o deci de w hetherto se n tenc e M r. B l and t o death. W hi l e the pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum entm ayhave c om e cl os e t o the lin e , w e d o n o t b e lie v e h e c ro s s e d it. 5 . S y mp a thy fo r th e Victim M r. B lan d a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts im p ro p e rly e v o k e d sy m p a th yfo r th e v ictim , M r. R a in s, a n d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n im p ro p e rly co n tr asted M r. R ains ’s de ath w ith M r. B land ’s l ife in p ri so n . A s to the m o re gener al appea l s fors ym pathy , M r . B l and poi nt s t o one comm entateac h phas e of t he tr i al . D ur i ng t he fi r s tphas e, the pr os ecut i on s ai d: L adi es and gent l emen, on N ovemberthe 14th, 1996, J i m m yB l and w r ot e the endi ng t o t he s t or yof W i ndl e R ai ns ’ l i fe. A nd t odayy ou h a v e th e c h a n c e to w ri te th e e n d o f th e s to ry o f

W in d le ’s d e a th . D oes W i ndl e’ s m ur der ergo fr ee? D oes he getoff w i th a l es s er char ge bec aus e no one’ s her e t o s peak forW i ndl e as t o w hat h ap p en ed ? Y o u h av e the p o w er to d ec ide h o w the s toryo f W ind le’s l i fe a nd death w i l l end. T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySi x, at133. A tthe s ent enci ng phas e, the pr os ecut i on

“ re c o m m e n d [ e d ] fo r th e m u rd e r o f W in d le R a in s th a t [ th e ju ry ] se n ten c e th is D efen dan tt o d eat h b yl et hal i nject i on ” beca use M r . B l and w oul d be “ge t t i ng no m or e orl es s t han he de s erves forw hathe di d t o W i ndl e. ” Tr. J uryT r i al , D ay Seven, at201. W e ca nnots ayt hatthes e s t at ement s w er e i nt ended t o evoke-51-

sy m p a th yfo r th e v ictim , as th e yw e re sta tem e n ts b a se d o n th e ju ry ’s o b lig a tio n to c o n s id e r t h e e v id e n c e a n d re n d e r a v e rd ic t. T h e p rose cu ti o n ’s co m p arison o f M r. B land ’s l ife in p ri so n w ith M r. R ai ns ’ s death, how ever , w as i nappr opr i at e. W e r egr ett o obs erve thati n deathpenal t ycas e af

t erdeath- penal t ycas e, O kl ahoma pr os ecut or s have made s peec hes t o t he j ur ym aki ng l i ghtof the pena l tyof l i fe i n pr i s on t o demonstr at e thatthe onl ypr operpuni s hm entfora defendant ’ s cr i m e w as death. I n thi s cas e, the t erm i no l og yof ch oice w as: M aybe the D efe ndantw i l l be i n pr i s on, m aybe he w i l l be behi nd that concr et e and thos e j ai l bar s w i th hi s T . V . and hi s cabl e and good food. B utone thi ng . . . i s fors ur e, W i ndl e R ai ns w on’ tbe her e and h is fam il yw o n ’tb e a b le t o b e w ith h im , theyw o n ’tb e a b le t o sh are h o lid a y s w ith h im . A n d D o y le R a in s w o n ’t g e t th a t fin a l v isit w ith h im that h e h o p ed fo r. Id . at200. A s w e have s ai d m anyt i m es , i ti s pr os ecut or i al m i s conductforthe p ro se c u tio n to c o m p a re th e p lig h t o f th e v ictim w ith th e life o f th e d e fe n d a n t in p ri s o n . See, e. g. , D u c ke tt v. Mu lli n , 3 0 6 F .3 d 9 8 2 , 9 9 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); Le , 311 F. 3d at1015- 16. “ It is o f v ital im p o rta n c e to th e d e fe n d a n t an d to th e c o m m u n ity t hatanydeci s i on t o i m pos e the dea th s ent ence be, and appe art o be, bas ed on r eas on r athert han ca pr i ce oremot i on, ” G ar dnerv. F l or i da , 430 U . S. 349, 358 (1 9 7 7 ) (p lu ra lityo p in io n ), an d c o m p a riso n s s u c h a s th o se m a d e h e re c a ll i n to q u e s tio n th e in te g ri ty o f th e c ri m in a l ju s tic e s y s te m .-52-

Al t h o u g h we e mp h a t i c a l l yd o n o tc o n d o n e th e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s r e ma r k s , we m us tuphol d t he s ent enci ng det erm i nat i on i f w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe c o m m e n ts d e p ri v e d M r. B la n d o f a f u n d a m e n ta lly fa irtr ia l. Le , 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 6 . T her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence demonstr at i ng the exi s t ence of both aggr avat i ng fa c to rs a n d re la tiv e ly little e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h in g m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . P ro se c u to rs s h o u ld b e a w a re th a t ar g u m e n ts o f th is s o rt, w h ile u n n e c e ss a ryto ob t ai n a p roper verdi ct , creat e grave ri sk of u pset t i ng an o therw i se u n o bje c tio n a b le v e rd ic t o n a p p e a l o r o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . It is tim e to s to p . U n ab le t o co n clud e tha t th e c o m m en ts affec ted th e o u tcom e o f th e tri al, h o w ev er, w e fi nd t hatt he O C C A ’ s j udgm entfi ndi ng the err orharm l es s w as notan u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. 6. A rgui ng Facts noti n E vi dence Fi nal l y , M r . B l and cl ai m s thatt he pr os ecut i on ar gued fa ct s noti n evi dence d u rin g b o th p h a se s o f trial. D u rin g th e g u iltp h a se , the p ro se c u tio n a rg u e d th a t a p a ir o f e y e g las se s a t th e sc e n e o f th e c rim e b e lo n g e d to M r. R a in s. T r. Ju ryT ria l, D aySi x, at22. W e per cei ve no err or . A l though no di r ectt es t i m onyes t abl i s hed t hat the ey eglas ses bel on ged t o M r. R ai ns, his ow nershi p o f t he ey eglas ses w as a perm i s s i bl e i nfer ence t o dr aw fr om t he evi dence . A s t hi s C our thas hel d, “[a ] pr os ecut orm aycomm enton and dr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al . ” Tho rnbu rg , 4 2 2 F . 3 d a t1 1 3 1 . Th e p h o t o g r a p h o f t h e c r i me sce n e d ep ict ed ey eg lasses ly ing n ea r th e c ree k w h ere M r. B land d ispo sed o f M r.-53-

R a in s’s b o d y , an d S h e riff H a n e s te stified th a t th e g las se s w e re fo u n d “ju st a little w ay s fro m the p il e o f w o o d ” in w h ich M r. R ains ’s bo d yw as fo u n d . T r. Ju ry T ria l, D a yT h re e , at 8 7 , E x . 2 B . C o n sid e rin g th e p ro x im ityo f th e e y e g las se s to M r . R ai ns ’ s body , i tw as notunr eas onabl e forthe O C C A t o concl ude thatthe e v id e n c e p e rm itte d a re a s o n a b le in fe re n c e th a t th e g la s s e s b e lo n g e d to th e v ic tim . E v e n if th e p ro se c u tio n ’s a rg u m e n t ab o u t th e e y e g las se s w e re n o t a rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce fro m the e v iden ce , this m isst atem en t did n o t dep ri v e M r. B land o f a fa irtr ial . T h e p rese n ce o f th e g lasses d id n o t nec essa ri lyd iscred itM r. B l and’ s s t or yt hathe and M r . R ai ns s truggl ed. I tw as ent i r el ypos s i bl e forthe juryto b eli ev e tha t M r. B land an d M r. R ains stru g g led, bu t th at M r. R ains ’s gl as s es di d notfal l off unt i l M r . B l and t ook M r . R ai ns ’ s bodyt o the cr eek. Such a th e o ry is c o n s is te n t b o th w ith th e e v id e n c e a n d w ith M r. B la n d ’s te s tim o n y . T hus , even i f the pr os ecut i on err oneous l yattr i but ed the gl as s es t o M r . R ai ns , the erro r did n o t r en d er the tr ial fu n d am en tal lyu n fa ir . A t th e se n tenc ing p h ase , the p rose cu ti o n arg u ed that M r. B land k il led M r. R ai ns dur i ng a r obbery . T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, at155. M r . B l and cont ends t hatt hi s l i ne of a r gum entw as i m perm i s s i bl e, as the j urydi d notr eac h a ver di ctas t o fe l o n y m u r d e r . B e c a u s e t h e j u ry d i d n o tc o n v i c tM r . B l a n d o n th e fe l o n ym u rde r ch arg e, w h ich w as p red icated o n the th eo rythat M r. B land k il led M r. R ai ns i n t he cour s e of a r obbery , i tw as i nappr opr i at e forthe pr os ecut i on t o ar gue d u ri n g th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e th a t M r. B la n d k ille d M r. R a in s d u ri n g a ro b b e ry.-54-

H o w e v e r, th e e rro r d id n o t re n d e r M r. B lan d ’s s e n ten c in g f u n d a m e n tallyu n fa ir b ec au se th e n ature o f th e m u rde r (felo n ym u rde r or m ali ce -afo retho u g h t m u rde r) di d notaffecthi s el i gi bi l i t yfort he dea th penal ty , and w hetherM r . B l and r obbed M r. R ains d u ri n g o r af ter th e m u rde r did n o t affec t ei ther the ag g rav ati n g fa ctors o r m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . 7. C um ulat i ve Err or W e n o w a d d r e s s w h e t h e rt h e a b o v e e rr o r s , c o n s i d e r e d c u m u l a t i v e l y, depr i ved M r . B l and of a fai rt r i al atei therthe gui l tors ent enci ng phas e. “A cumul at i ve err oranal y s i s aggr egat es al l the err or s thati ndi vi dual l ym i ghtbe harm l es s , and i tanal y zes w hetherthei rcumul at i ve effec ton the out come of t he t r i al i s s uch thatcol l ect i vel yt heycan no l ongerbe det erm i ned t o be harm l es s . ” Tho rnbu rg , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 7 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). In d e a th -p e n a lty cas es , w e r evi ew w hethert he “i m pr opercomm ent s as a w hol e s o i nfec t ed the tr i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s , or r ender ed the s ent enci ng fundament al l yunfai ri n l i ghtof the hei ght ened de gr ee of r el i abi l i t ydemanded i n a ca pi t al cas e. ” Id. ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . B eca us e the O C C A concl uded thatthe cumul at i ve err or s di d not depr i ve M r . B l and of a fai rt r i al , w e mustdefe rt o i t s rul i ng unl es s i tcons t i tut es an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the cumul at i ve- err ordoctr i ne. T h ree erro rs affe cted the g u il t ph ase o f th e tri al: (1) a rgu m en t th at th e jury sh o u ld co n side r m an slau g h ter on lyaf ter i t r ejec ted fir st- d eg ree m u rde r; (2) a-55-

c o m m e n t o n M r. B lan d ’s p o st- Mi r anda si l ence; and (3) r i dicul i ng M r. B l and as a “s ni ffl i ng . . . cow ar d[] . ” The evi dence es t abl i s hi ng M r . B l and’ s gui l ton the fi r s t - degr ee mal i ce- afor ethoughtm ur derchar ge w as qui t e s tr ong. M r . B l and had pr evi ous l yt ol d M s . L or d t hathe w ant ed t o ki l l M r . B l and. H e admi t t ed t o hi di ng h is s h o tg u n in h is c o v e ra lls so M r. R a in s w o u ld n o t se e th e w e a p o n , an d to s hoot i ng M r . R ai ns i n t he bac k of the hea d. H e att empt ed t o coverup the murde r bycl eani ng t he gar age a nd di s car di ng M r . R ai ns ’ bodyi n a r emot e cr eek a nd cover i ng t he bodyw i t h l ogs . H e then l i ed t o hi s m others o thats he w oul d not k n o w th a t an yth in g h a d h a p p e n e d to M r. R a in s. E x c lu d in g a ll i m p e rm iss ib le pr os ecut or i al comm ent s and cons i der i ng anycur at i ve i ns truct i ons , i tw as not u n re a so n a b le fo r th e O C C A to c o n c lu d e th a t th e ju ryh a d su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to convi ctM r . B l and of f i r s t - degr ee mur der , and thatthe err or s di d notr es ul ti n a den i al of d ue p rocess . T her e w er e tw o i ns t ance s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conductatthe s ent enci ng phas e: ( 1) r i di cul i ng M r . B l and as a “vi ol entand evi l m an, ” and a “hea r t l es s and v ic io u s k ille r” ; a n d (2 ) c o m p a ri n g M r. B la n d ’s life in p ri s o n to M r. R a in s ’s d e a th . Forr eas ons al r eadyexpl ai ned, how ever , the evi dence s uppor t i ng both aggr avat i ng fac t or s w as overw hel m i ng and the mi t i gat i ng evi dence w eak. H avi ng r evi ew ed th e e n tire r e c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e O C C A re a so n a b lya p p lied c lea rly es t abl i s hed fe der al l aw i n det erm i ni ng thatthe s ent ence w as notthe cons equenc e o f a n yp ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t.-56-

G. Inef f ecti ve Ass is tance of

Counsel L as t , M r . B l and has r ai s ed thr ee gr ounds fori neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el : ( 1) fai l i ng t o r eques tan i ns truct i on on vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on; ( 2) fai l i ng t o adequa t el yi nves t i gat e, pr epar e, and us e ava i l abl e evi dence dur i ng bot h s t ages of tr i al ; and ( 3) fai l i ng t o l odge appr opr i at e obj ect i ons fort he cl ai m s di s cus s ed a b o v e . M r. B lan d a lso re q u e sts a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to f u rth e r d e v e lo p h is c laim s o f

in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. M r . B l and r ai s ed al l of thes e cl ai m s on di r ectappea l . A ppl y i ng the s t andar d of Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , t he O C C A r ej ect ed hi s vol unt ary - i nt oxi cat i on- i ns t ruct i on cl ai m , fi ndi ng thatM r . B l and w as not pr ej udi ced bycouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o r eques tt he i ns truct i on beca us e the i ns truct i on w a s n o t s u p p o rt e d b yth e e v id e n c e . B land , 4 P. 3d at731. T he O C C A deemed M r . B l and’ s fai l ur e- t o- i nves t i gat e cl ai m w ai ved bec aus e the ar gum ent s r el i ed on a ffid a v its th a t w e re n o t p a rt o f th e a p p e lla te re c o rd . Id. No n e th e l e s s , t h e OCCA c o n s id e re d th e c la im in lig h t o f M r. B la n d ’s re q u e s t fo r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . Id. at732. E xami ni ng t he affi davi t s t hatw oul d be pr oferr ed ats uch a he ar i ng, t he c o u rt reje c te d th e c la im s . Id. at 73 2 -34 . T h e O C C A also rejected M r. B land ’s cl ai m ar i s i ng fr om couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , fi ndi ng no r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hatt he r es ul tof the tr i al w oul d have be en di ffe r enthad c o u n s e l o bje c te d . Id. at 73 2 . T h e d istri ct co u rtli k ew ise rejected M r. B land ’s cl ai m s , “conf

i dentthatt he j ur yw oul d have c onvi ct ed Pet i t i onerof fi r s t - degr ee-57-

m u rd e r a n d re c o m m e n d e d a d e a th se n ten c e e v e n if trial c o u n se l h a d e m p lo y e d a ll of the tr i al t act i cs and had us ed al l of the i nform at i on thatPet i t i oner ’ s curr ent couns el s ugges t s he s houl d have. ” R . D oc. 61, at26. C l ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el pr es entm i xed ques t i ons of l aw a n d fa c t. Wallace v. Ward , 191 F. 3d 1235, 1247 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . T o pr evai l on s uch a c l ai m , a pet i t i oner“mustpr ove [1] thatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entand [2] thatcouns el ’ s defi ci entper form ance pr ej udi ced t he defens e, depr i vi ng t he pet i t i onerof a fai rtr i al w i th a r el i abl e r es ul t . ” B oyd v. Ward , 179 F. 3d 904, 913 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U . S . at 68 7 ). It is n o t en o u g h th a t co u n se l’s d e c isio n s w e re w ro n g in h in d sig h t; th e ym u st fa ll b elow “a n o bjecti v e stan d ard o f re aso n ab lene ss,” ev alua ted f rom co u n sel’s p e rs p e c tiv e a t th e tim e th e d e c is io n w a s m a d e . Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at689. For t hatr eas on, w e ar e “hi ghl ydefe r ent i al ” t o couns el ’ s deci s i ons , and a pe t i t i oner

“ m u st o v e rc o m e th e p re su m p tio n th a t co u n se l’s c o n d u c t w a s n o t co n stitu tio n a lly defe ct i ve. ” Wal l ace , 1 9 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 7 . W e n e e d n o t co n sid e r w h e th e r c o u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s d e ficie n t, h o w e v e r, i f

th e p e titio n e r w a s n o t p reju d ic e d b yth e a lle g e d d e fic ie n c y . See Al l en v . Mu lli n , 368 F. 3d 1220, 1245 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( pr ocee di ng di r ect l yt o pr ej udi ce a n a ly sis ). T o e sta b lish p reju d ice , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te “ a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at694. For-58-

chall eng es t o co un sel ’s con du ctdu ri ng the sentenci ng ph ase, a peti t i on er m ust sh o w “ a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, ab se n t th e e rro rs, th e se n ten c e r . . . w o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e b a lan c e o f a g g ra v a tin g a n d m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s d id notw arr antdeath. ” Id. a t 6 9 5 . 1. Fai l ur e t o R eques ta Vol untar y Int oxi cat i on Ins tr uct i on I n cons i der i ng t hi s cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance , the O C C A found that M r . B l and w oul d nothave be en ent i t l ed t o s uch an i ns truct i on and ther efor e w as n o t p reju d ic e d . B l and , 4 P. 3d at731. O kl ahoma l aw pr ovi des foran i ns truct i on o n v o lu n tar yin to x ica tio n o n lyw h e n a d e fe n d a n t p re se n ts s u fficie n t p rim a fa c ie e v id e n c e th a t h e m e e ts th e le g a l c ri te ri a fo r t h e d e fe n s e o f v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n . J a c kso n v . S ta te , 964 P. 2d 875, 892 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1998) . T o s at i s fythe l egal cr i t er i a, a defendantm us tactual l ybe i nt oxi cat ed and “ be s o ut t er l yi nt oxi cat ed, th a t h is m e n tal p o w e rs a re o v e rc o m e , ren d e rin g it i m p o ss ib le fo r a d e fe n d a n t to form t he s peci fi c cr i m i nal i nt entors peci al m ent al el ementof the cr i m e. ” Id. T he O C C A has hel d t hati tbel i es a defens e of vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on fora defendant to h a v e b e e n su fficie n tlya w a re so a s to b e a b le to tes tifya b o u t ev e n ts s u rr o u n d in g a m u rd e r. See i d. T h e O C C A ’s de cisi o n that M r. B land w as n o t entit led to a v o lun tary i nt oxi cat i on i ns t ruct i on w as notunr eas onabl e. A l though M s . L or d and M r . B l and b o th tes tifie d th a t h e c o n su m e d d ru g s b e fo re th e m u rd e r, M r. B lan d ’s a b ili tyto recal l , i n d et ai l , t he ev ents surr ou nd i ng the m urder— his argum ent w i th M r. R ai ns,-59-

pl aci ng t he gun i n hi s cover al l s , ki cki ng M r . R ai ns , cl eani ng the gar age, and hi di ng M r . R ai ns ’ s body

— defe at s hi s vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on defe ns e under O k lah o m a law . C o u n se l th e re fo re c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n in e ffe c tiv e in fa ili n g to r eques tan i ns t ruct i on t o w hi ch M r . B l and w as notent i t l ed bas ed on the evi dence , and the O C C A t her efor e di d notunr eas onabl yappl ycl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l a w. 2. Fai l ur e t o Inves t igat e, P r epar e, and U s e Avai labl e Evi dence A lth o u g h the O C C A fo u n d this clai m w aive d d u e to lac k o f e v iden ti ary su p p o rt, i t co n sid e re d th e c laim b a se d o n th e e v id e n c e th a t M r. B lan d w o u ld p ro v id e a t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g . F o r sim p licity , w e w ill c o n sid e r th e c laim s in l i ghtof the evi dence t hatM r . B l and w oul d pr es enti f w e w er e t o or deran evi dent i aryhear i ng. M r . B l and cha l l enges thr ee s peci fi c i t ems thattr i al couns el al l egedl yfai l ed t o i nves t i gat e: hi s ow n i nt oxi cat i on, M s . L or d’ s cr edi bi l i ty , and th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f

h is p rio r c o n v ictio n . H e a lso c o n ten d s th a t co u n se l fa iled to p rop erlyu se e v iden ce av ail ab le fro m D r. C h u rch to em p h asize the e x tent o f M r. B l and ’s m ental and subst ance-abu se probl em s. A s t o t he l evel of hi s i nt oxi cat i on, M r . B l and pr es ent s aff i davi t s fr om four di ffe r entpeopl e w ho r efe rt o hi s drug us e i m m edi at el ybefor e and a ft erthe m u rd e r. B l and , 4 P. 3d at733. T he O C C A found thatcouns el w as noti neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es entt hi s evi dence of i nt oxi cat i on beca us e tr i al couns el pr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence of M r . B l and’ s drug us e on the dayof the murde rand, i n any-60-

cas e, M r . B l and’ s det ai l ed r ecol l ect i on of the murde rpr ecl uded an i ns truct i on on v o lu n ta ry in to x ic a tio n . Id. T hi s concl us i on w as notan unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on o f S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. A s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , M r. B lan d w a s n o t en tit led to an i ns t ruct i on on vol unt aryi nt oxi cat i on. H e ther efor e s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce by co u n sel’s fa il u re to p rese n t add it ion al, red u n d an t evid en ce su p p o rt ing M r. B land ’s unr efut ed t es t i m onyt hathe cons um ed drugs i m m edi at el ybefor e and a ft erthe m u rde r. T o chal l enge M s . L or d’ s cr edi bi l i ty , M r . B l and cl ai m s thathi s tr i al couns el s houl d have a s ked the cus t odi an of r ecor ds atthe O kl ahoma C ountyJ ai l t o t es t i fy t hatM s . L or d w as i ncar cer at ed fors eventy - fi ve day s , begi nni ng on N ovember19, 1 9 9 6 . Id . T he O C C A hel d t hatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l thi s w i tnes s di d not p rejud ice M r. B land b ec au se tri al co u n sel su ffici en tl yca ll ed M s. L o rd’s c re d ib ility in to q u e s tio n . Id. A ttr i al , M s . L or d her s el f admi t t ed thats he had been i ncar cer at ed befor e tr i al and w as curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed. D efe ns e couns el also ca ll ed tw o w itn esse s to c h all en g e M s. L o rd’s truthf u lnes s. A ch il d w elfa re s peci al i s topi ned thatM s . L or d i s not“a truthful per s on. ” Tr. J uryT r i al , D ay Fi ve, at8. M s . L or d’ s s i s t ert es t i fi ed thatM s . L or d has “bee n untruthful . . . on num er ous occa s i ons ” and thats he ca nnot“r el yon hert o t el l the truth al l the t i m e. ” Id. a t 1 8 . In lig h t o f th e a m p le e v id e n c e trial c o u n se l p re se n ted to c h a llen g e M s. L o rd ’s c re d ib ili ty , the O C C A ’s d e c isio n th a t co u n se l’s fa ilu re to-61-

pr es entaddi t i onal i m peac hm entevi dence di d notpr ej udi ce M r . B l and and di d not i n v o l v e a n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. D i r ect i ng t he courtt o new s paperart i cl es , M r . B l and nextar gues thathad couns el ful l yi nves t i gat ed hi s pr i orconvi ct i on, couns el w oul d have di s cover ed t hatM r . B l and fi r ed hi s gun atpur s ui ng offi cer s onl yaft erthe off i cer s s hotat h im . B l and , 4 P. 3d at733- 34. T he O C C A found thatcouns el w as notdefi ci ent and that“[a ] nyaddi t i onal evi dence couns el m i ghthave pr es ent ed . . . w oul d not have be en found s uffi ci ent l ym i t i gat i ng bya r eas onabl e j ur ort o outw ei gh the evi dence i n aggr avat i on. ” Id. at734. T he evi dence i ntr oduced a ttr i al conce rni ng M r . B l and’ s pr i orm ans l aught erconvi ct i on i ndi cat ed thatthe pol i ce f i r ed fi r s tand t hatM r . B l and had be en dr i nki ng befor e the cr i m e. C ons i der i ng thatthe j uryw as in fo rm e d th a t th e p o lice fire d first, itw a s n o t u n re a so n a b le fo r th e O C C A to concl ude thatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o conductfur theri nves t i gat i on w as notdefi ci ent per form ance . N o r h a s M r. B lan d e sta b lish e d th a t co u n se l w a s d e ficie n t fo r fa ili n g to q u esti o n D r. C h u rch in su ch a w ayas to rev ea l th e f u ll ex tent o f M r. B land ’s m e n ta l a n d s u b s ta n c e -a b u s e p ro b le m s . See id . at732. D r . C hur ch’ s t es t i m ony w as w el l devel oped. She t es t i fi ed thatM r . B l and had “ l ow aver age i nt el l i gence ” and “di ffi cul t y. . . under s t andi ng j us tt he us ual s oci al s t andar ds of s oci ety ” and “m ak ing jud g m en ts ab o u t w h at i s ap p rop ri ate a n d w h at i s n o t app rop ri ate.” T r. J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, at117. She expl ai ned thathi s l ong hi s t oryof abus i ng-62-

su b sta n c e s m a k e s h im a “ c h e m ica llyd e p e n d e n t p e rso n ,” m e a n in g th a t h e w o u ld h a v e e v e n le s s a b iliti e s to o p e ra te u n d e r s tr e s s if h e w e re u s in g d ru g s . Id. a t 1 2 2 . She t al ked aboutt he chi l dhood t r auma he endur ed w hen hi s fathers uffe r ed a brai n inj ury , and t est i fi ed thatt his l i kelym anifest ed it sel f i n p ost -traum at i c stres s d is o rd e r. Id. at122- 24. W hen as ked w hetherhe w as l i kel yt o be a vi ol ent pr i s oner , s he emphas i zed thatM r . B l and “know s r i ghtfr om w r ong, ” and that“he w oul d be a good pr i s oner ” i n a “s tructur ed, s upervi s ed s i tuat i on. ” Id. a t 1 2 9 -3 0 . C ouns el t hor oughl yexpl or ed M r . B l and’ s backgr ound, m ent al s t atus , and chemi cal depende ncyw i t h D r . C hur ch. T he O C C A ’ s fi ndi ng thatcouns el w as not d e ficie n t th e re fo re d id n o t in v o lv e a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f c lea rly e s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. 3 . Fa ilu re to O b

jec t M r. B lan d a lso c laim s th a t co u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e b yfa ili n g to o bjec t to t he pr os ecut or i al m i s conductand others our ces of err ordi s cus s ed above . T he O C C A r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m , fi ndi ng thatt i m el yobj ect i ons w oul d nothave a ffe ct ed th e o u tc o m e o f

th e tr ia l. B l and , 4 P. 3d at732. Som e of the al l eged pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdi d notcons t i tut e err orforw hi ch an obj ect i on w oul d have be en s us t ai ned. T hi s i s t rue of the purpor t ed C a ldw e llv iolati o n , the p rose cu ti o n ’s char act er i zat i on of M r . B l and as a l i ar , and the al l egat i ons thatthe pr os ecut i on d e m e a n e d h is m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e , told th e ju ryit h a d a m o ra l an d c iv ic d u tyto c o n v ic t, e v o k e d s ym p a th yfo r t h e v ic tim , a n d a rg u e d fa c ts n o t in e v id e n c e .-63-

C ouns el i n fac tl odged obj ect i ons t o var i ous i m pr opers t at ement s , i ncl udi ng the p ro se c u tio n ’s o n lyc o m m e n t o n M r. B lan d ’s p o st-a rre st, p o st- Mi r anda sil en ce , T r. Ju ryT ria l, D a yS ix , at 9 6 ; B l and , 4 P . 3 d at 73 0 (no ti n g that the tri al co u rt su sta in e d th e o bjec tio n ), th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c o m p a riso n o f M r. B lan d ’s life in pr i s on w i t h M r . R ai ns ’ s death, T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySeven, at200, and the pr os ecut i on’ s ar gum entr i di cul i ng M r . B l and as a cow ar d, T r . J ur yT r i al , D aySi x, at38 . B ecause M r. B l and did not s uffer pr ej ud i ce from the rem ai ning err ors, namel yt he pr os ecut or ’ s i nacc ur at e cha r act er i zat i on of the j uryi ns truct i ons and ca ll ing M r. B land an “e v il m an ” a n d a “ h ea rt less an d v ici o u s k il ler, ” the O C C A ’s deci s i on t hatM r . B l and w as notpr ej udi ced bycouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectw as not c o n tra ryto , an d d id n o t in v o lv e a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly e s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . 4. R eques tf

orE vi dent i ar

y Hear i ng U nderA E D PA , a courtcannothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng unl es s ( 1) the c laim re lies o n a n e w ru le o f c o n stitu tio n a l law o r a fa c tu a l p re d ica te th a t co u ld n o t hav e b ee n p rev iou slyd isco v ere d , an d (2) the fa cts u n d erly ing the c lai m are s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatbutforthe cons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e j ur yw oul d have found the pet i t i onergui l ty . 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 2) . H ow ever , the pr e- A E D PA s t andar d appl i es w hen “a habea s pet i t i onerhas di l i gent l ys oughtt o devel op the fa ctual bas i s under l y i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on, buta s t at e courthas pr event ed hi m fr om doi ng s o. ” Mi l l erv. C hampi on ,-64-

1 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). B yse e k in g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g in sta te cour t , M r . B l and di l i gent l ys oughtt o devel op the fa ctual bas i s of hi s habea s pet i t i on. W e ther efor e appl ypr e- A E D PA s t andar ds , w hi ch ent i t l e hi m t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng i f “hi s al l egat i ons , i f true and i f notcontr avene d bythe exi s t i ng fac tual r ecor d, w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o habea s r el i ef. ” Id. H avi ng c o n sid e re d th e e v id e n c e M r. B lan d w o u ld in tro d u c e a t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g to s uppor thi s cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and havi ng found no m er i t or i ous i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- couns el cl ai m , w e fi nd thathe has not es t abl i s hed an e nt i t l ementt o habea s r el i ef. T o the contr ary , ourr evi ew of the re c o rd in d ica tes th a t M r. B lan d ’s tria l co u n se l w e re d ili g e n t an d th o ro u g h in th e ir r epr es ent at i on and w e comm end them for thei rw or k i n thi s cas e. T he di s tr i ct cour tt her efor e di d noterri n deny i ng hi s r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng. I V . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e AF F I RM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on den y i ng M r. B l and ’s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 p et i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus.