# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 31 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Keit h D. Nel so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an t - Ap

pe ll an t

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 8
Fi le d: Nov em

be r 28 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Keit h D. Nels on pl ead ed gu il ty to in te rs ta te ki dn ap pi ng res ul ti ng in th e de at h

of te n- y ear- ol d Pam el a B u t l er. At th e pe na lt y ph as e of th e tri al

, th e jury se nt en ced

hi m to de at h aft er co ns id erat io n of ag gr av at in g an d m it ig at in g fact or s. Afte r th is co ur t

affi rm ed hi s de at h se nt en ce, se e Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n (Nel so n I)

, 34 7 F.3 d 70 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 03 ), cer t. de ni ed

, 54 3 U.S. 97 8 (2 00 4)

, Nels on m ov ed fo r ha be as rel ie f un de r28 U.S.C. § 22 55 to se t as id e hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce of de at h. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io n with ou t a he ari ng

. W e su bs eq ue nt ly rem an de d fo r an ev id en ti ary
he ari ng on si x is su es

. Se e Nel so n v. Uni te d St at es (Nel

so n II)

, 29 7 F. App ’x 56 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ). Fo ll owi ng th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

Nels on ’s cl ai m s. Fo r pu rp os es of ou r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, we or de red th e pa rti es to br ie f

th e th ree cl ai m s fo r whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed rel ie f. In a d d it io n, we gr an te d

Nels on ’s m ot io n to m od ify th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y an d ex pa nd ed it to in cl ud e
Nels on ’s cl ai m th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead gu il ty.

Hav in g th or ou gh ly rev ie wed th e reco rd

, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of
§ 2 25 5 re li ef t o Nel so n.

I. Bac kg ro un d 1

A. Und er ly in g Fa ct

s

On Sep te m

be r 29

, 19 99

, Nels on ap pr oa ch ed Ja m es Ro bi ns on in th e pa rk in g lo t

of a te m po rary wor k se rv ic e in Kan sa s Ci ty, Kan sa s, an d as ke d Ro bi ns on if he wan te d

a job ha ul in g cem en t ou t of a ba se m en t. Ro bi ns on res po nd ed th at he di d. The two le ft

th e lo t i n a whi te Fo rd F– 15 0 p ic ku p t ru ck dri ve n b y

Nels on . Nels on an d R ob in so n

ha d ne ve r m et be fo re. W hi le at th e job si te

, Nels on to ld Ro bi ns on th at he wou ld li ke

to ki dn ap a wom an an d ta ke he r away fro m th e ci ty to to rtu re, rap e, el ect ro cu te

, ki ll

,

an d bu ry he r. Nels on sai d th at he wan te d to do th is be cau se he was de fin it el y go in g
ba ck to pr is on fo r ot he r ch arg es

. He fel t he ou gh t to go ba ck fo r so m et hi ng bi g. The

st at em en ts bo th ered Ro bi ns on , bu t he di sm is se d t h e m as Nels on si m pl y jok in g

cru de ly. He de ci de d n ot to co nt act th e p ol ic e.

Ju st th ree da y s la te r, Mi ch an ne Mat ts on was at ta ck ed ou ts id e of he r ap art m en t

bu il di ng

. Mat ts on was dr iv in g ho m e fro m a fri en d’s ho us e in th e earl y m or ni ng whe n

The fo ll owi ng fact s are ta ke n su bs ta nt ia ll y fro m Nel so n I, 34 7 F.3 d at 70 4– 06

, 1

wit ho ut fur th er at tri bu ti on

.

-2

-sh e pa ss ed a whi te pi ck up tru ck pa rk ed al on gs id e th e ro ad

. Afte r sh e pa ss ed th e tru ck

, it fo ll owe d he r fo r so m e di st an ce in to th e pa rk in g lo t of he r ap art m en t co m pl ex

. Sh e

ex it ed he r ve hi cl e an d no ti ced th at a m an ha d ex it ed th e w h i t e t r u c k

. As sh e

ap pr oa ch ed th e do or to h e r a p a rtment bu il di ng , th e sa m e m an , who m sh e la te r
id en ti fie d as Nels on , co nf ro nt ed he r on th e si de walk in a well li t area in fro nt of he r
bu il di ng

. Afte r a br ie f ex ch an ge , Mat ts on tu rn ed to go in to th e bu il di ng , an d Nels on

ru sh ed up be hi nd he r, gr ab be d he r, an d pl aced an ei gh t-i nc h kn ife to he r th ro at . He

fo rced a ha nd cu ff ont o Mat ts on ’s le ft wris t and dr ag ge d her th ro ug h th e pa rk in g lo t

to ward hi s ve hi cl e, ex c l a i mi n g th at sh e ha d be tt er sh ut up an d th at he was go in g to

ki ll h e r

. M a tt so n co nt in ue d to st ru gg le

, ev en tu al ly es cap in g Nels on ’s gr as p an d

cal li ng for he lp . Nels on ran ba ck to hi s t ru ck an d d ro ve away

.

On Octo be r 12

, 19 99

, Nels on to ld an acq ua in ta nc e th at he ha d sp ot te d a y ou ng gi rl in th e Kan sa s Ci ty, Kan sa s area th at he wan te d to ki dn ap , rap e, to rtu re, an d ki ll

,

an d th at no w was th e ti m e to do it

. Sh or tl y th erea ft e r , s e v e ral in di vi du al s sp ot te d

Nels on in th e area of 11 th an d Sco tt St reet s in a whi te p i c k u p t r uc k. At th at ti m e,

te n- y ear- ol d Pam el a Bu tl er (“ Pam el a”) was ro ll erb la di ng in th e st reet ne ar he r ho m e

in t h e s a me area . Ne ls on pa rk ed hi s ve hi cl e at th e si de of th e st reet an d la y in wait

. As Pam el a sk at ed ne ar th e sl ig ht ly ajar do or of th e tru ck

, Nels on qu ic kl y jum pe d ou t

of th e tru ck

, gr ab be d he r aro un d th e wais t, an d t h r e w h er in to th e tru ck

. Pam el a’s

si st er, Pen ny Bu tl er (“ Pen n y” )

, sa w Nels on gr ab he r si st er an d he r si st er’s st ru gg le

wit h Nels on in th e cab of th e tru ck

. Sev eral ot he r wit ne ss es al so sa w th e ki dn ap pi ng

. One pe rs on ev en ga ve ch as e in hi s own ve hi cl e. Nels on el ud ed hi m , bu t th e wit ne ss

was ab le to writ e do wn th e li cen se pl at e nu m be r of th e tru ck

—M is so ur i pl at e nu m

be r

17 7- CE2 . Sev eral ot he r ey ewit ne ss es ve rif ie d t he tru ck ’s li cen se pl at e n um be r.

Late r th at ev en in g, th e cu st od ia n of th e Grai n Vall ey Ch ris ti a n C hu rch in

K a n s a s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, an d hi s wife sa w a su sp ic io us whi te tru ck wit h Mi ss ou r i

li cen se pl at e nu m

be r 17 7- CE2 pa rk ed in th e ch ur ch lo t. The cu st od ia n’s wi fe wro te

do wn th e pl at e nu m

be r an d no t i c e d an afg ha n in th e fro nt se at of th e tru ck

. The y

-3

-c o n t a ct ed th e po li ce aft er se ei ng th e ki dn ap pi ng st or y on th e te n o’cl oc k ne ws a n d

in fo rm ed th em of th e lo cat io n of th e tru ck

. W he n th e po li ce arri ve d at th e ch ur ch

, th e

tru ck was g on e.

The tru ck was fo un d ab an do ne d th e n e x t d a y in Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri. A

po li ce do g th at ha d be en pr ov id ed wit h so m e of Pam el a’s cl ot hi ng was di sp at ch ed to

Nels on ’s m ot he r’s ho us e an d al ert ed to an afg ha n fo un d in si de th e re s i d e n c e. Tha t

sa m e da y a la rg e m an hu nt fo r Nels on co m m en ced

. On Octo be r 14

, a ci vi li an

em pl oyee of a po li ce de pa rtment sp ot te d Nels on hi di ng un de r a br id ge

. Afte r he was

sp ot te d, Nels on wen t in to th e riv er an d at te m pt ed to ge t away. W he n he m ad e it ba ck

to sh or e, he was su rro un de d by rai lro ad wor ke rs who de ta in ed hi m un ti l th e

au th or it ie s arri ve d. Afte r th e au th or it ie s arri ve d, an on lo ok er sh ou te d, “ W he re is th e

li tt le gi rl? ” Nels on tu rn ed to an of fic er an d st at ed , “ I kn ow whe re sh e’s at , bu t I’m 2

no t sa y in g rig ht no w.” His cap tu re was br oa dc as t li ve on te le vi si on

. The ne xt da y th e

po li ce f o u n d B u t l e r’s bo dy in a woo de d area be hi nd th e Grai n Vall ey Ch ris ti an
Ch ur c h

. Th a t di sc ov ery was br oa dc as t on lo cal te le vi si on , an d th e Uni te d St at es

Att or ne y he ld a li ve pr es s co nf e r en ce fro m th e di sc ov ery si te

. Su bs eq ue nt

in ve st ig at io n rev eal ed th at Pam el a h ad be en rap ed an d th en st ran gl ed to de at h wit h

w i r e

. The DNA in se m in al flu id ob ta in ed fro m Pam el a’s un de rp an ts m at c h e d

Nels on ’s DNA.

On O ct ob er 21

, 19 99

, a fed eral gr an d jury ch arg ed Nels on wit h (1 ) th e

ki dn ap pi ng an d un la wfu l in te rs ta te tra ns po rta ti on of Pam el a fo r th e pu rp os e of se xu al

ab us e whi ch res ul te d in th e de at h of th e vi ct im in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 12 01 (a)( 1)

an d (g ) an d 18 U.S.C. § 35 59 (d ) (1 99 4) ; an d (2 ) tra ve li ng acro ss st at e li ne s wit h th e

in te nt to en ga ge in a se x act wit h a fem al e un de r th e ag e of twel ve whi ch res ul te d in

Our pr io r op in io n record s th e on lo ok er as sh ou ti ng , “ [W] he re is th e li tt le gi rl? ” 2

Nel so n I

, 34 7 F .3d at 7 05 . The jur y tri al tra ns cri pt s re fle ct s t ha t t he on lo ok er y el le d

ou t, “ W ha t ab ou t th e gi rl? ” Tr. of Ju ry Tria l, Vol

. IV, at 26 8, Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , No. 4 :9 9- cr-0 03 03 -FJ G (W .D. Mo. No v. 1 9, 2 00 1) , ECF No. 4 62

.

-4

-th e d eat h o f th e v ic ti m in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 (c), 22 45

, an d 35 59 (d ). On

Octo be r 25

, 20 01

, Nels on pl ead ed gu il ty to co un t on e of th e i n d i ct m en t, an d th e
di st ric t co ur t, up on th e go ve rn m en t’s req ue st an d in acco rd wit h th e pl ea ag reem en t,

di sm is se d co un t two of th e in di ct m en t. Sev eral da y s la te r, Nels on at te m pt ed su ic id e by in ge st in g a la rg e a mou nt of pr es cri pt io n m ed ic in e. He was tre at ed at a lo cal

ho sp it a l

, a n d t he cas e th en pr oc eed ed to th e pe na lt y ph as e of th e tri al in Nov em be r

20 01

. The jury h e a r i n g th e pe na lt y ph as e ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t th at de at h sh ou ld be

im po se d.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t of fere d Nels on th e op po rtu ni ty to ad dr es s th e

co ur t. Nels on , sh owi ng no rem or se fo r wha t he ha d do ne , bl is te red th e di st ric t co ur t

an d th e vi ct im ’s f

am il y wit h a pr of

an it y la de n ti rad e. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t of

de at h ag ai ns t Nels on , an d th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e de at h se nt en ce in acco rd an ce
wit h th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. The di st ric t co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly de ni ed Nels on ’s m ot io n fo r a

ne w tri al

.

B. Pro ced ur al His to ry
Nels on ap pe al ed to th is co ur t, an d we affi rm ed th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s jud gm en t.

Nel so n I

, 34 7 F.3 d at 70 4. The reaf te r, th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ni ed Nels on ’s pe ti ti on fo r

cert io rari

. Nel

so n v . Uni te d S ta te s , 54 3 U.S. 9 78 (20 04 ).

Nel s on th en m ov ed to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t hi s se nt en ce in th e di st ric t

co ur t. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at no ev id en ti ary he ari ng

was ne ces sa ry an d th at it co ul d res ol ve Nels on ’s cl ai m s fro m th e tri al reco rd

. The

di st ric t co u r t d i s m is se d Nels on ’s § 22 55 m ot io n an d a co m pa ni on m ot io n to

di sq ua li fy

th e d is tri ct jud ge , and it su bs eq ue nt ly d en ie d Nels on ’s m ot io n to al te r or

am en d th e jud gm en t. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 59

. Nels on fil ed a no ti ce of a p p e a l a nd

so ug ht a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y fro m th e di st ric t co ur t. He so ug ht cert ifi cat io n on
each of hi s 60 se pa rat e cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al an d ap pe ll at e co un se l

in hi s § 22 55 m ot io n, th e de ni al of hi s recu sa l m ot io n, an d th e se pa rat e de ni al of hi s

-5

-m ot io n fo r ad di ti on al fu nd in g of ex pe rt an d in ve st ig at iv e se rv ic es

. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e cert ifi cat e. Nels on th en fil ed a m ot io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y wit h

th is co ur t.

W e gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on si x cl ai m s in Nels on ’s § 2 25 5

m ot io n:

A. Alle ga ti on s o f Tria l Co un se l’s Co ns ti tu ti on al Ine ffec ti ve ne ss :

( 2 ) & (3 ) Fai lu re to co nd uc t ad eq ua te m it ig at i o n in ve st ig at io n in cl ud in g fai lu re to m ov e f o r a co nt in ua nc e
to co m pl et e o ne

.

(4 ) Fai lu re to co n d uc t ad eq ua te in ve st ig at io n of
de fen da nt ’s m en ta l h eal th

.

(5 ) Adv is in g or ins tru ct in g de fen da nt to de cl in e to su bm it

to a m en ta l he al th ex am in at io n by a go ve rn m en t ex am in er.

(1 5) Fai lu re t o m ak e o bjec ti on s:

(e) to al le ge dl y in fla m

m at or y an d im

pr op er

co m m en ts in th e Gov ern m en t ’s cl os in g
arg um en t an d re bu tt al

.

B. All eg at io ns of Ap pe ll at e Co un se l’s Co ns ti tu ti on al Ine ffec ti ve ne ss :

(1 ) Fai lu re to co nd uc t ad eq u a t e r e vi ew of th e tri al reco rd

an d t he law.

(2 )(c) F a il ur e to rai se on ap pe al th e Gov ern m en t’s
al le ge dl y im pr op er co m

m en ts in clo si ng arg um en ts

.

Nel so n II , 29 7 F . App ’x at 5 65 –6 6 (i ta li cs om it te d)

.

-6

-W e rem an de d th e cas e to th e d is tri ct co ur t, d ire ct in g i t to ho ld an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng on th es e is su es an d to m ak e fin di ng s of fact an d co nc lu si on s of la w. W e
de ni ed a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e rem ai ni ng cla im s.

On rem an d, th e di s t r i c t c o u rt he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to ad dr es s th e si x
is su es

. It de ni ed ha be as rel ie f an d de ni e d Nels on a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

. Se e
Nel so n v. Uni te d St at es (Nel

so n III)

, 97 F. Su pp

. 3d 11 31 (W. D. Mo

. 20 15 ). Nels on

th en m ov ed th is co ur t fo r is su an ce of a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y , whi ch we de ni ed

.

Nels on pe ti ti on ed fo r reh eari ng by th e pa ne l or en ba nc , an d th e cas e was he ld

in ab ey an ce un ti l th e Su pr em e Co ur t is su ed it s de ci si on in Buc k v. Dav is

, 13 7 S. Ct

. 75 9 (2 01 7)

. The reaf

te r, Nels on fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r reh earing, an d th e go ve rn m en t fil ed

it s res po ns e. W e gr an te d Nels on ’s pe ti ti on f o r p an el reh eari ng

. W e su bs eq ue nt ly

gr an te d Nels on ’s m ot io n to m od ify th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y an d ex pa nd ed it to

in cl ud e th e cl ai m th at Nels on ’s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead

gu il ty.

II. Dis cu ss io n

W he n rev ie win g a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a § 22 55 m ot io n, we ap pl y de no vo

rev ie w “ to th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s, an d m ix ed qu es ti on s of la w an d fact

, bu t we rev ie w un de rlyin g fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r.” Ort iz v. Uni te d St at es , 66 4

F.3 d 11 51

, 11 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng U n i t e d S t at es v. Her na nd ez , 43 6 F.3 d 85 1,

85 5 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ); Uni te d S ta te s v. Du ke , 50 F.3d 57 1, 5 76 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5) ).

On ap pe al

, N e l s o n as se rts th at hi s tri al co un se l ren de red co ns ti tu ti on al ly

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l by: (1 ) fai li ng to co nd uc t an ad eq ua te m it ig at io n

in ve st ig at io n, in cl ud in g fai li ng to m ov e fo r a co nt in ua nc e to co m pl et e on e; (2 ) fai li ng

to co nd uc t an ad eq ua te in ve st ig at io n of Nels on ’s m en ta l he al th ; (3 ) ad vi si ng or

in st ru ct in g Nels on to d ecl in e to su bm it to a m en ta l he al th ex am in at io n by a

go ve rn m en t ex am in er; an d (4 ) ad vi si ng Nels on to pl ead gu il ty.

-7

-Nels on ’s cl ai m th at hi s tri al co un se l was “ so de fect iv e as to req ui re rev ers al of

[h is ]

. . . de at h se nt en ce ha s two co m po ne nt s.” St ri ckl an d v. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S.

66 8, 68 7 (1 98 4)

. “ Fi rs t, [Nel so n] m us t sh ow th at [h is ] co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was
de fic ie nt .” Id

. To sa ti sf

y th is req ui rem en t, Nels on m us t sh ow th at hi s “ co un se l m ad e

erro rs so se rio us th at co un se l was no t fu nc t i o n i n g as th e ‘cou ns el ’ gu aran te ed
[Nel so n] by the Six th Am en dm en t.” Id

.

“ Seco nd

, [Nel so n] m

us t sh o w th at th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed th e
de fen se

. Thi s req ui res sh owi ng th at [h i s ] c o un se l’s erro rs were so se rio us as to

de pr iv e [Nel so n] of a fai r tri al

, a tri al who se res ul t is rel ia bl e.” Id

. To pr ov e pr ejud ic e,
Nels on “ m

us t sh ow th at th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th a t

, bu t fo r co un se l’s

un pr of es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di f f e ren t. A

reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y is a pr ob ab il it y s u f f ic ie nt to un de rm in e co nf id en ce in th e

ou tc om e.” Id

. a t 6 9 4

. Bec au se Nels on ch al le ng es hi s de at h se nt en ce, th e rel ev an t

“ qu es ti on is whe th er th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il i t y t h at

, ab se nt th e erro rs , th e

fact fin de r

. . . wou ld ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e b al an ce o f ag gr av at in g a nd m it ig at in g
ci rcu m st an ces di d no t warra nt de at h.” Id

. at 69 5. “ To as se ss th at pr ob ab il it y, w e

co ns id er ‘the to ta li ty of th e av ai la bl e m it ig at io n ev id en ce— bo th th at ad du ced at tri al

,

an d th e ev id en ce ad du ced in th e ha be as pr oc eed in g’—an d ‘reweig [h ] it a g a in st th e

ev id en ce in ag gr av at io n.’” Por te r v. McCo ll um , 55 8 U.S. 30

, 41 (2 00 9) (p er cu ria m )
( a l t e r a t i on in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng W il li ams v. Ta

yl or , 52 9 U.S. 36 2, 39 7– 98 (2 00 0) )

. Thi s “ st an da rd ap pl ie s— an d wi ll ne ces sa ril y req ui re a co ur t t o ‘sp ecu la te ’ as to th e

effe ct of th e ne w ev id en ce— reg ard le ss of ho w m uc h or ho w li tt le m it ig at io n ev id en ce

w a s pr es en te d du rin g th e in it ia l pe na lt y ph as e.” Se ar s v. Upt on , 56 1 U.S. 94 5

, 9 5 6
(2 01 0) (pe r cu ria m ). Su ch st an da rd “ is th e pr op er pr ejud ic e st an da rd for ev al ua ti ng

a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e rep res en ta ti on in th e co nt ex t of a pe na lt y ph as e m it ig at io n

in ve st ig at io n.” Id

.

If Nels on can no t “ m ak e[] bo th sh owi ng s [o f de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce an d

pr ejud ic e], it can no t be sa id th at [h is ]

. . . de at h se nt en ce res ul te d fro m a br eak do wn

-8

-in th e ad ve rs ary pr oc es s th at ren de r s t h e res ul t un rel ia bl e.” St ri ckl an d

, 46 6 U.S. at

68 7. Bu t “ a co ur t ne ed no t de te rm in e whe t h er co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt

be fo re ex am in in g th e pr ejud ic e su ffer ed by th e de fen da nt as a res ul t of th e a l l eg ed

de fic ie nc ie s.

. . . If it is eas ie r to di sp os e of an in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m on th e gr ou nd of

la ck of s uf

fic ie nt pre

jud ic e, . . . tha t co ur se sh ou ld be fol lo wed .” Id

. at 6 97

.

A. Prej ud ic e Res ul ti ng

Fro m Ina de qu at e Mit ig at io n a nd Men ta l Hea lt h

In ves ti ga ti on an d L ac k o

f Men ta l Hea lt h Exa min at io n

Fo r pu rp os es of th is op in io n, we wil l be gi n by ex am in in g S t r i c k la nd ’s

pr ejud ic e pr on g, “ ev al ua t[i ng ] th e to ta li ty of th e av ai la bl e m it ig at io n ev id en ce

. . . in

rewei gh in g it ag ai ns t th e ev id en ce in ag gr av at io n.” W il li ams , 5 29 U.S. at 39 7– 98
(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Nels on arg ue s t h a t ha d th e jury he ard th e m it ig at io n ev id en ce

pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ex is ts th at at le as t on e juro r wou ld ha ve st ru ck a di ffer en t b al an ce.

1. To ta li ty of

Mit ig at io n Evi de nc e

a. Bra in Dama ge

Dur in g th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Nels on cal le d se ve ral ex p e r t wit ne ss es to

te st ify reg ard in g hi s br ai n da m ag e. Rec or ds ad du ced at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng sh ow
Nels on was ru sh ed to a s p e c i a l ch il dr en ’s ho sp it al aft er hi s bi rth be cau se he ha d

su ffer ed a br ai n bl eed

, st op pe d br eat hi ng , an d su ffer ed fro m se ve re ox y ge n
de pr iv at io n, le ad in g to la st in g effe ct s on hi s fro nt al l o b e

— t h e pa rt of th e br ai n ke y

to reg ul at in g b eh av io r an d i m pu ls e co nt ro l. Dr. Car ol y n C rawfo rd , a ne on at ol og is t,

an al y zed Nels on ’s bi rth reco rd s. Sh e te st ifi ed th at Nels on ’s m ot he r rece iv ed al m os t

no pr en at al care pr io r to Nels on ’s bi rth

. In ad di ti on , sh e te st ifi ed th at Nels on was bo rn

pr em at ur el y an d su ffer ed se ve ral co m pl ic at io ns aft er hi s bi rth

, r es ul ti ng in hi s
ho sp it al iz at io n. Dr. Crawf or d su m m ari zed th e m

y ria d pr ob le m s, whi ch were
d o cu m en te d in Nels on ’s bi rth reco rd s, in cl ud in g hi s co m pr om is ed ne ur ol og ic a l

de ve lo pm en t. Bu t sh e te st ifi ed th at in fo rm at io n a nd st ud ie s o n a reas of b rai n i nju ry

an d br ai n da m ag e were no t av a i l a b l e in 20 01 —s he co ul d te st ify in te rm s of ris k

-9

-fact or s, bu t sh e co ul d no t ha ve of fere d th is sa m e te st im on y (i.e

., th e li ng eri ng effe ct s

of pr en at al an d ne on at al in su lt s) ba se d up on he r rev ie w of th e reco rd s ba ck in 20 01

.

Dr. Ru be n Gur

, Ph .D., a ne ur op sycho lo gi st wit h a sp eci al it y in br ai n im ag in g

an d be ha vi or , co nd uc te d a ne ur oi m ag in g st ud y of Nels on ’s br ai n. He te st ifi ed at th e

ev id en ti ary he ari ng th at MRI an d PET ne ur oi m ag in g co nf irmed th at se ve ral area s of

Nels on ’s br ai n suf

fe re d sig ni fic an t da m ag e, in cl ud in g th e fro nt al lo be s, th e am y gd al a,

th e hi pp oc am

pu s, an d th e b as al ga ng li a. Acco rd in g t o Dr. Gu r, whe n th es e area s of

th e br ai n are da m ag ed

, an in di vi du al is no t ab le to ef f e c t i ve ly en ga ge in rat io na l
pl an ni ng , m ai nt ai n im

pu ls e co nt ro l (es pe ci al ly se xu al im pu ls es ), an d in hi bi t ris ky or
ab erra nt th ou gh ts an d b eh av io rs . Dr. Gur o pi ne d t ha t th e st ru ct ur al da m ag e th at th e

MRI de te ct ed in th e fro nt al reg io ns of Nels on ’s br ai n “ wou ld in di cat e d i mi n i s h e d

ex ecu ti ve fu nc ti on s su ch as ab st ract io n an d men t a l fle xi bi li ty, pl an ni ng , m or al
jud gm en t, an d em ot io na l reg ul at io n, m od erat in g li m bi c aro us al an d im

pu ls e co nt ro l.”
App el la nt ’s App

. at 14 6. Lik ewis e, Dr. Gur op in ed th at th e ab no rm al act iv it y de te ct ed

in th e am y gd al a, fro n ta l lo be s, an d co rte x wou ld di m in is h im pu ls e co nt ro l. He al so

no te d th at “ ab no rm al it ie s in ba sa l ga ng li a co ul d fu rth er im pa ir rat io na l pe rfo rm an ce

un de r st res s be cau se th ey su pp ly th e ne ur ot ran sm it te r do pa m in e, whi ch is ne ces sa ry

fo r in ta ct fro nt al lo be fu nc ti on in g. The res ul ti ng be ha vi or of so m eo ne wit h su ch br ai n
da m ag e wou ld be di so rg an iz ed

, erra ti c an d fai li ng to ad jus t to si tu at io na l de m an ds .”

Id

. Des pi te th es e ab no rm al it ie s, Dr. Gur reco gn iz ed th at “ su ch in di vi du al s do res po nd

well to st ru ct ur ed en vi ro nm en ts

, whe re the co m pl ex it y of th e su rro un di ng an d nee d

fo r de ci si on -m ak in g i s re du ced .” Id

. at 1 46 –4 7.

Als o at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Dr. Mi ch ael Gelb or t, Ph .D., te st ifi ed

co nc ern in g hi s ne ur op sycho lo gi cal ev al ua ti on of Nels on

. In hi s rep or t, Dr. Gelb or t

no te d th at Nels on ’s tes ti ng res ul ts in di cat ed “ fro nt al lo be di st ur ba nc e/ dysfu nc ti on ”

wh i c h “h a s an effe ct on hi s ev eryday th in ki ng an d reas on in g cap aci ti es ” an d

m an ife st s as “ im

pa ire d reas on in g an d le arn in g/ m em or y ab il it ie s.” Id

. at 18 0. Dr.

Gelb or t ex pl ai ne d th at da m ag e in t h e se area s of th e br ai n affe ct s an in di vi du al ’s

-1 0-a b i l i t y to ex erci se jud gm en t an d co nt ro l on e’s im pu ls es

. Acco rd in g to Dr. Gelb or t

,

“ [T]he way be ha vi or un fo ld s is th at y ou can ha ve im pu ls iv e be ha vi or th at ta ke s ti m e

an d dev el op s sl owl y whe re the re’s ple nt y of ti m e to sa y , no , I sh ou ld n’t do th is

, bu t

it ’s st il l an im

pu ls iv e be ha vi or ev en th o u g h it ha pp en s ov er ti m e sl owl y .” Tr. of

Evi de nt ia ry Hr’g, Vol

. II, at 41 3, Nel so n v. Uni te d S t a t e s , No. 4: 04 -cv -0 80 05 -FJ G
(W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 15

, 20 14 ), ECF No. 26 1. Dr. Gelb or t op in ed th at Nels on ’s be ha vi or
du rin g th e of

fen se was co ns is te nt wit h fro nt al lo be dysfu nc ti on an d sh owe d ab no rm al

di si nh ib it io n a nd im

pu ls iv it y in st ead of p la nn in g.

Dr. Xav ie r Am ad or , Ph .D., a cl in ic al an d fo ren si c psy ch olo gi st

, te st ifi ed du rin g

th e ev id en ti ary he a r i n g th at

, in hi s op in io n, Nels on su ffer ed fro m fro nt al lo be

d ys f u n c ti on an d th at Nels on ’s m en ta l he al th was al so im pa ire d by a co gn it iv e
di so rd er (n ot ot he rwis e sp eci fie d)

, po st -tr au m at ic st res s di so rd er, ps y ch ot ic di so rd er (n ot ot h e r w i s e sp eci fie d)

, an d a pe rs on al it y di so rd er th at wou ld im pa ir hi s

fu nc ti on in g. Dr. Am ad or al so fo un d th at Nels on sh owe d si gn s of pa ran oi d th in ki ng

. Dr. Am ad or te st ifi ed th at he rev ie w e d an affi da vi t pr ep ared by Dr. Nata li e Nov ik

Bro wn, Ph .D., a fet al al co ho l sp ect ru m sp eci al is t, who op in ed th at Nels on “ m a y or

m ay no t be fet al al co ho l [aff ect ed ] bu t cert ai nl y ha d si gn s of ne ur ol og ic al im pa irment

th at m ay be rel at ed to fet al al co ho l synd ro m e.” Id

. at 43 1. He op in ed th at Nels on was

se ve rel y m en ta ll y il l an d in a di ss oc ia ti ve st at e at th e ti m e of th e of fen se , m ean in g he

was un ab le to ap pr eci at e th e na tu re an d qu al it y or w r o n g f u ln es s of hi s act s or

co nf or m hi s co nd uc t to th e req ui rem en t s o f t h e la w. He co nc lu de d th at Nels on

co m m it te d th e of

fen se un de r th e in flu en ce of se ve re m en ta l di st ur ba nc es th at affe ct ed

hi s pe rcep ti on s, ju d g men t, im pu ls es , an d ab il it y to co nf or m hi s co nd uc t to th e

req ui rem en ts of t he law.

D r

. D an Mar te ll

, a fo ren si c ne ur op sycho lo gi st

, who st ud ie s th e br ai n a n d

be ha vi or , a nd pa rti cu la rly t he eff ect s of br ai n da m ag e on hu m an be ha vi or , t es ti fie d

as a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. He ev al ua te d Nels on on

-1 1-Sep te m

be r 9– 10

, 20 10

, fo r ni ne

- an d- a-h al f ho ur s. He id en ti fie d Nels on as ha vi ng 3

“ br ai n da m ag e, br ai n d ys fu nc ti on , [an d] ne ur ol og ic al im pa irments .” Tr. of

Evi de nt ia ry

Hr’g, Vol

. IV, at 6 57

, Nel so n v . Uni te d S ta te s , No. 4 :0 4- cv -0 80 05 -FJ G
( W .D. Mo

. Apr

. 17

, 20 14 ), ECF No. 26 3. Dr. Mar te ll ack no wled ge d th at th i s

fin di ng —an d th e id en ti cal fin di ng s of th e ot he r ex pe rts —ar e “ ev id en ce of

m it ig at io n.” Id

. at 6 58

.

b. Nel so n’ s Hi st or y a nd Ch ar ac te ri st ic s

At tri al

, se ve ral in di vi du al s te st ifi ed ab ou t Nels on ’s ch arac te ris ti cs an d

up br in gi ng

. Nan cy Nels on (“ Nan cy ”), Nels o n ’s m ot he r, te st ifi ed th at Nels on was
di ag no se d wit h dysle xi a an d was a po or st ud en t, freq ue nt ly ha d fig ht s an d be ha vi or al

pr ob le m s in sc ho ol , a nd ha d a be d -wet ti ng pr ob le m well in to hi s te en y ears . Na nc y
al so te st ifi ed th at two of he r ch il dr en were sc hi zo ph ren ic

. Sh e ad m it te d th at sh e was

an al co ho li c an d th at be cau se sh e ha d to wor k lo ng ho ur s to su pp or t he r ch il dr en , sh e

was freq ue nt ly away fro m ho m e, req ui ri n g t he bo y s to care fo r th em se lv es

. Thi s

res ul te d i n t he bo y s o fte n g et ti ng in to tro ub le at s ch oo l an d i n t he co m m un it y

.

Mar y Sm it h, Nan cy’s si st er an d Nels on ’s au nt

, te st ifi ed ab ou t Nels on ’s

di sa dv an ta ge d an d di ffi cu lt ch il dh oo d. So to o di d Geo rg an na Ro m ero , Nan cy ’s si st er

an d Nels on ’s au nt

, who de sc rib ed th e p o o r li vi ng co nd it io ns of Nan cy ’s ho m e in

Tex as an d fu rth er de sc rib ed ho w th e ho us e sm el le d of ur in e. Iren e W oo d te st ifi ed th at

sh e h e l p ed Nan cy an d he r fiv e bo y s ge t a ho m e, cl ot hi ng an d pe rs on al it em s whe n

th ey m ov ed to Tex as . S he reco un t e d th e po or co nd it io ns of Nels on ’s u pb rin gi ng in

Tex as

.

Two of Nels on ’s b ro th ers te st ifi ed a bo ut Nels on ’s c hi ld ho od . S te ve n Nels on (“ St ev en ”), Nels on ’s you ng es t b r o t h e r , te st ifi ed th at he is em pl oyed as an en gi ne er

Dr. Mar te ll pr ev io us ly at te m pt ed to ev al ua te Nels on in th e fal l of 20 01 at th e 3

go ve rn m en t’s re qu es t, b ut Nels on refu se d t o b e ev al ua te d.

-1 2-a n d ha s a su cces sf ul care er. Afte r hi gh sc ho ol

, St ev en at te nd ed DeVry In st it ut e i n

Kan sa s Ci ty, whe re he ha d a 3.9 gr ad e po in t av erag e. He reco un te d hi s di sa dv an ta ge d

ch il dh oo d in Te x a s an d ho w hi s m ot he r Nan cy ne gl ect ed hi m an d hi s br ot he rs

. He

co rro bo rat ed te st im on y of Nels on ’s be d- wett in g pr ob le m , ho w hi s m ot he r was ne ve r
ho m e an d was ei th er wor ki ng or dr in ki ng , an d ho w he an d hi s br ot he rs ha d t o ta ke

care of t he m se lv es m os t o f th e ti m e.

Ken ne th Nels on (“ Ken ne th ”), Nel so n’s t win br ot he r who su ffer ed no tra um a

at bi rth

, te st ifi ed he is a sa te ll it e co m m un ic at io ns m ai nt en an ce op erat or an d in st al le r

in th e U.S. Arm

y

. He ch arac te riz ed hi s care er as su cces sf ul

. He gr ad ua te d fro m sc ho ol

wit h a 3.6 9 gr ad e po in t av erag e. He te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s fam il y ’s di s a d v an ta ge d an d

im po ve ris he d ch il dh oo d, te ll in g th e jury th at hi s m ot he r se rio us ly ne gl ect ed hi m an d

hi s br ot he rs

. He st at ed th at hi s m ot he r was ne ve r aro un d an d was al way s at th e ba r

wor ki ng or dr in ki ng al co ho l. He al so de sc rib ed an ab us iv e bo y fri en d of his m ot he r.

Acco rd in g to Ken ne th

, he an d Nels on wo u l d f r e q u en tl y bu rg la riz e an d st eal fro m
ho m es whe n th ey li ve d in Te xa s. Bu t Ken ne th st rai gh te ne d hi s li fe ou t whe n he

m ov ed ba ck to Mi ss ou ri an d li ve d wit h hi s au nt an d un cl e, whe re he be cam e in vo lv ed

in hi gh sc ho ol fo ot ba ll

, wor ke d at a gr oc ery st or e as a st oc ke r, an d di d well in sc ho ol

.

Gen e Tho m

ps on was t he Nels on fam il y ’s l an dl or d wh en th ey li ve d i n Tex as

. He te st ifi ed th at th ey li ve d in S e c ti on 8 ho us in g an d de sc rib ed th e po or , un ke m pt

co nd it io ns of th ei r ho m e. Tho m ps on st at ed th at whe n th e Nels on fam il y le ft th e ren ta l

pr op ert y , it was i n e xt rem el y po or co nd it io n.

Mi ch ael Grif

fit h, a fo rm er ne ig hb or of th e Nels on fam il y in Tex as , test ifi ed th at

Nan cy was ne ve r ho m e an d th e bo y s were fr e q u e n t ly le ft al on e to fen d fo r

th em se lv es

. Grif

fit h st at ed th at he di d li tt le th in gs to try to ai d th e Nels on fam il y , su ch

as pl um bi ng re p a i r s at no ch arg e. He te st ifi ed th at th e ho m e was al way s m es sy an d

un cl ean

. He al so te st ifi ed th at Nels on ’s br ot he rs m ad e fu n of hi m be cau se of hi s be dwett in g p ro bl em

.

-1 3-Rh on da Mo nr oe ( “Rho nd a”), a fo rm er ba bysit te r fo r th e Nels on ch il dr en in

Tex as , te st ifi ed th at whe n Nan cy wou ld go to wor k, sh e wou ld br in g th e ch il dr en to

Rh on da ’s ho m e. Rh on da te st ifi ed Nels on ha d a b e d- wett in g pr ob le m an d th at

Rh on da ’s hu sb an d wou ld pu ni sh Nels on by sp an ki n g hi m wit h a be lt

. Rh on da ’s

hu sb an d was an al co ho li c an d was ve ry ab us iv e to ward s Nels on an d hi s br ot he rs ; th ey

were ve ry sc ared of hi m

. W he n Rh on da ’s hu sb an d was ho m e, th e Nels on bo y s were

r eq ui red to st ay in on e ro om of Rh on da ’s ho m e. If th ey le ft th e ro om , Rh on d a ’s

h us ba nd wou ld sp an k th e bo y s wit h a be lt

. Rh on da ’s da ug ht er, Je nn ife r Mo nr o e (“ Je nn ife r”), te st ifi ed th at th e Nels on bo y s were al way s req ui red to st ay in on e ro om
whe n he r m ot he r was ba bysit ti ng th em . Acco rd in g t o J en ni fer, h er s te pf at he r, Bi ll y

Ree se , was al way s sp an ki ng th em wit h a be lt

. Sh e te st ifi ed th at th e Nels on bo y s were

ex tre m el y afra id of h er s te pf

at he r.

Ell en Cru ts in ge r, a fo rm er te ach er to se ve ral of th e Ne l s o n bo y s in Tex as ,
te st ifi ed th at Nels on was in a sp eci al ed uc at io n c la ss an d s tru gg le d wh il e in sc ho ol

. Sh e r e c a ll ed Nels on he lp in g a cri pp le d gi rl in a whe el ch ai r whi le in el em en ta ry

sc ho ol

. Nels on wou ld pu sh th e gi rl aro un d th e sc ho ol gr ou nd s in he r whe el ch ai r, an d

th e two de ve lo pe d a fri en ds hi p. Cru ts in ge r te st ifi ed th at Nan cy ne ve r at te nd ed th e

“ m eet th e te ach er” n ig ht s at th e sc ho ol

.

Hom er Dear, Nels on ’s fo rm er sc ho ol pr i n c i p a l an d a fo rm er Tex as St at e Rep r e se nt at iv e, te st ifi ed th at he kn ew th e Nels on fam il y du rin g th e ti m e th ey li ve d

in Tex as an d th at he was th e bo y s’ pr in ci pa l at th e el em en ta ry sc ho ol

. Dear be li ev ed

th e b oys were p hysic al ly an d m en ta ll y ab us ed . He des cri be d t he Nels on fam il y as a

ve ry po or fam il y an d al so de sc rib ed ho w he ha d tri ed to he lp th em

. He te st ifi ed ab ou t

th e bo y s’ po or hygi en e an d ho w he wou ld req ui re th e bo y s to ta ke sh owe rs an d wou ld
gi ve th em cl ot hi ng at th e sc ho ol

. Acco rd in g to Dear, he bou gh t clo th es fo r th e bo y s

at a st or e on at le as t on e oc cas io n. He al so vi si te d th e Nels on ho m e an d de sc rib ed th e
ho us e as un cl ean

.

-1 4-Dav id Cu nn in gh am , Nels on ’s em pl oyer, de sc rib ed Nels on as a pl eas an t

em pl oyee an d a go od wor ke r. He ch arac te riz ed Nels on as rel ia bl e an d co ns ci en ti ou s
whe n wo rk in g fo r hi s b as em en t wat erp ro of in g b us in es s.

At tri al

, Nels on cal le d ex pe rt de fen se wit ne ss Dr. Mar k Cu nn in gh am to te st ify

on hi s be ha lf. Dr. Cu nn in gh am is a cl in ic al an d fo ren si c ps y ch ol og is t who freq ue nt ly

te st ifi es as a m it ig at io n an d se nt en ci ng ex pe rt in cap it al cas es in th e Uni te d St at es

. He

te st ifi ed ab ou t t h e effe ct of ch il dh oo d ab us e an d ne gl ect on Nels on ’s c ha ract er an d

de ve lo pm en t. Dr. Cu nn in gh am ex pl ai ne d ho w th e sq ua li d co nd it io ns an d ab us iv e an d

vi ol en t na tu re of Nels on ’s ch il dh oo d affe ct ed th e fo rm at io n o f Nels on ’s ch arac te r.

Acco rd in g t o Dr. Cu nn in gh am , Nels on wou ld be co m e le ss vi ol en t as he ag ed

.

c. Nel so n’ s Fa th er an d Fa mil

y Bac kg ro un d

At t ria l, Nan cy te st ifi ed in de ta il ab ou t Ken ne th Mo rs e, Nels on ’s vi ol en t an d

ab us iv e fat he r. Sh e to ld th e jury th at Mo rs e freq ue nt ly be at he r an d was ab us iv e to he r
bo y s, too

. Sh e reco un te d fo r th e jury in de ta il ho w Mo rs e, on on e oc cas io n, tie d her

up an d sh oc ke d he r wit h an el ect ric al co rd

. In ad di ti on , Mo rs e wou ld lo ck he r in

cl os et s in th ei r ho m e. On an ot he r oc cas io n, Nan cy te st ifi ed t h at whe n sh e was

pr eg na nt wit h he r so n Pau l, Mo rs e th rew he r to th e gr ou nd an d be at an d st om pe d on
he r so se ve rel y t h a t s he ha d to ha ve he r sp le en rem ov ed

. Nan cy m ov ed wit h he r
ch il dr en , in cl ud in g Nels on , to Cal ifo rn ia an d Texas to fle e Ken ne th

. Sm it h te st ifi ed

th at Mo rs e reg ul arl y be at Nan cy an d th at h e w o u l d a ls o lo ck he r up in th ei r ho m e.

Sm it h he lp ed Nan cy es cap e Mo rs e w h e n t h ey m ov ed to Cal ifo rn ia an d Tex as

. Ro m ero te st ifi ed th at Mo rs e be at an d to rtu red Nan cy

. Sh e reco un te d ho w Mo rs e tri ed

to ele ct ro cu te Nanc y

.

D u r i n g tri al

, Mo rs e fla tl y de ni ed al m os t ev ery al le ga ti on m ad e ab ou t h i s freq ue nt an d se ve re be at in gs of Nels on an d h is m ot he r Nan cy . But m ed ic al reco rd s
ad du ced at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng co nf irmed th at Nan cy di d un de rg o a sp le ne ct om y

in Octo be r 19 75 whi le sh e was pre gn an t wi th Pau l.

-1 5-Evi de nc e at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng al so di sc lo se d Mo rs e’s ba ck gr ou nd

. Mo rs e

was on e of 14 si bl in gs bo rn in to se ve re po ve rty. His “ si bl i n g s d e sc rib ed hi m as

. . . ‘unb al an ced [,’] ‘alway s st ran ge [,’] an d al way s in tro ub le as a ch il d.” App el la nt ’s
App . a t 61 . He su ffer ed fro m “ ‘fits ,’ du rin g whi ch he wou ld pu ll hi s ha ir, an d b an g

hi s he ad on th e wall s, th e flo or or ro ck s. He wou ld bi te an d pi nc h hi m se lf un ti l he

bl ed .” Id

. He “ at e as pi rin li ke it was can dy” a nd at e ch ic ke n fece s. Id

. at 62 . At ag e

te n, he at ta ck ed hi s se ve n- y ear- ol d br ot h e r w i t h a n ax an d cu t of f hi s to e. He was

cru el to ward an im al s an d be cam e in crea si ng ly vi ol en t wit h ag e. At ag e 17

, he rap ed

a 13 -y ear- ol d gi rl. A y ear la te r, he at te m pt ed to rap e a se ve n- y ear- ol d gi rl. Num ero us

f am il y m em

be rs ack no wled ge d th at Mo rs e di sp la y ed sym pt om s of sc hi zo ph ren ia

, in cl ud in g act in g de lu si on al an d pa ran oi d. In ad di ti on to Mo rs e, ot he r fam il y m em be rs

on Mo rs e’s si de of th e fam il y a l s o e x h i b it ed si gn s of m en ta l il ln es s, in cl ud in g

ep is od es of de lu si on s, de pr es si on , sc hi zo p h r e ni a, ps y ch os is

, an d pa ran oi a. On on e

oc cas io n, Mo rs e’s br ot he r Fred was fo un d in th e woo ds wit h a gu n, cl ai m in g to ha ve

se en an d he ard th ei r de ad br ot he r Ch arl ie

, an d was ta k en in to cu st od y an d

ho sp it al iz ed

. Mo rs e’s br ot he r, Mi la s, an d hi s si st ers , Be t h an d Eve lyn, su ffer fro m
de pr es si on an d ot he r m en ta l he al th pr ob le m s. Mo rs e al so ha s at le as t on e ne ph ew an d

th ree n ie ces th at ha ve be en di ag no se d wi th m en ta l i ll ne ss es . Mil as als o re cei ve d a n

18 -y ear se nt en ce fo r rap in g hi s fo ur -y ear- ol d gr eat -g ran dd au gh te r. Mo rs e’s ne ph ew,

Mi la s Jr

., is al le ge d to ha ve rap ed al l th ree of h i s o w n ch il dr en

. Mo rs e’s ne ph ew,
Ch es te r, rap ed hi s 1 3- y ear- ol d d au gh te r.

Ji ll Mi ll er, MSS W

, te st ifi ed at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. S h e st at ed th at sh e

pr ep ared Nels on ’s so ci al hi st or y an d di sc ov ered a m ul ti ge ne rat io na l hi st or y of m en ta l

il ln es s, a hi st or y of al co ho li sm , su bs ta nc e ab us e on bo th si de s of th e fam il y , do m es ti c
ab us e on bo th si de s of th e fam il y , as well as in ap pr op ria te se xu al be ha vi or an d

cri m in al se xu al m is co nd uc t. Sh e al so di sc ov ered th at th ere was se ve re po ve rty on th e

Mo rs e si de of t h e f

a m il y

. Mi ll er te st ifi ed th at sh e was ab le to ga th er ad di ti on al

m ed ic al reco rd s on N an cy , whi ch sh owe d th e ab us e th at Nan cy su ffer ed an d th e

m ed ic al reco rd s fo r on e o f Nel so n’s b ro th ers , who su ffer ed fro m sch iz op hr en ia

.

-1 6-Dr. Lesl ie Leb owi tz

, Ph .D., a cl in ic al ps y ch ol og is t wit h pa rti cu la r ex pe rti se in

th e effe ct s of co m

pl ex tra um a on ps y ch ol og ic al de ve lo pm en t an d be ha vi or , te st ifi ed

at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng reg ar d i n g th e su st ai ne d ab us e an d ne gl ect in fli ct ed on
Nels on an d ho w it im

pa ct ed hi m

. Sh e te st ifi ed th at Nels on ’s fam il y tre e was “ rid dl ed

wit h m ajor ps y ch op at ho lo gy, su bs ta nc e ab us e, an d pa tt ern s of in te rp ers on al vi ol en ce

an d ne gl ect .” Tr. o f Evi de nt ia ry Hr’g, V o l . I II, at 53 0, Nel so n v. Uni te d St at es , No

. 4: 04 -cv -0 80 05 -FJ G (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 16

, 20 14 ), ECF No. 26 2. Sh e st at ed th at Nels on

w as bo rn to a m ot he r who was ba tt ered an d un pr ep ared to pa ren t hi m ; sh e al s o

te st ifi ed th at hi s m ot he r se ve rel y ne gl ect ed hi m , fai le d to pr ot ect hi m fro m ab us e, an d

la t e r be at an d em ot io na ll y ab us ed hi m

. Dr. Leb owi tz te st ifi ed th at Nels on

“ ex pe rie nc ed th e m os t se ve re ki nd of tra um a, whi ch is ch ro ni c, se ve re de ve lo pm en ta l

tra um a.” Id

. at 53 5. Acco rd in g to Dr. Leb owi tz

, as a res ul t of th e “ on s l au gh t of

ho rri fy in g li fe ex pe rie nc es ” in fli ct ed up on Nels on , i d

. at 53 9, “ ev ery si ng le

de ve lo pi ng syste m in hi s s el f, hi s em ot io na l syste m , hi s co gn it iv e syste m , hi s
bi ol og ic al sys t e m, hi s cap aci ty to at ta ch

, al l of th os e fu nd am en ta l syste m s [were ]

un de r co nt in uo us an d rel en tl es s as sa ul t fro m th e vi ol en ce,” id

. at 53 8. Sh e ex pl ai ne d:

The pr ob le m wit h Mr. Nels on ’s li fe is th at it was a co nt in uo us , rel en tl es s ba rrag e of tra um a an d ne gl ect

, an d th e ub iq ui ty o f wha t ha pp en ed , t he

va rie ty of wha t ha pp en ed

, th e ut te r la ck of res cu e or pr ot ect io n an d th e

a m ou nt of ti m e, th e sl ou gh of de ve lo pm en t ov er whi ch th e s e

ex pe rie nc es ha pp en ed crea te a ki nd of to xi c lo ad th at is qu al it at iv el y

un li ke ot he r th in gs

.

Id

. at 54 6– 47

. Dr. Leb owi tz op in ed th is tra um a oc cu rred “ du rin g th e pe rio d of li fe in

whi ch hi s br ai n [was ] un de r th e m os t rap id pe rio d of de ve lo pm en t in whi ch [h e was ]

gr owi ng m o r e n e u r o c o n ne ct io ns th an [h e was ] lo si ng .” Id

. at 53 8. As a res ul t, sh e

te st if i e d

, N e ls on su ffer ed da m ag e to th e pa rts of th e br ai n an d hi s ps y ch ol og ic al

de ve lo pm en t t ha t ar e in vo lv ed in in hi bi ti ng im pu ls es an d re gu la ti ng be ha vi or

.

-1 7-d. In ca rc er at io n Hi st or y a nd His to ry of

Phys ic al an d S exu al

Abu se

Dur in g tri al

, th e jury he ard te s ti m on y reg ard in g Nels on ’s ti m e at th e

Co m m un it y Co rrec ti on s of Am eri ca (CCA) fed eral ho ld in g faci li ty in Leav en wor th

, Kan sa s. Mel vi n Lis te r, a CCA gu ard

, te st ifi ed th at he wor ke d in th e se gr eg at io n area

of CCA whe n Nels on was ho us ed th ere. Lis te r te st ifi ed th at in m at es fr eq ue nt ly

th reat en ed an d ha ras se d Nels on

. Lieu te na nt Bru ce Ro be rts

, an ot he r CCA em pl oyee,

te st ifi ed th at in m at es freq ue nt ly ve rb al ly ha ras se d Nels on

. Dur in g th e 25 m on th s th at

N e l s o n w a s ho us ed at CCA, he ne ve r tri ed to es cap e. Ro be rts ne ve r co ns id ere d

Nels on a th reat

.

CCA of fic ia ls

, as a pa rt of a ro ut in e pr act ic e in whi ch al l ph on e co nv ers at io ns

of in m at es are reco rd ed

, reco rd ed a co nv ers at io n be twee n Nels on an d hi s gi rlf rie nd

, Kerri Dil lo n. At tri al

, th e de fen se pl ay e d t ha t co nv ers at io n fo r th e jury. In th e

co nv ers at io n, Dil lo n an d Nels on di sc us se d, am on g ot he r th in gs , Dil lo n’s rece nt

pr eg na nc y by Nels on

. Nels on ap pe ars to ex pr es s rem or se fo r Bu tl er’s m ur de r, te ll in g

Dil lo n of hi s in te nt t o t e l l la w en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s of hi s in vo lv em en t in th e
cri m e. Nels on st at es , “ I’m jus t go nn a do th e rig ht t h i n g f o r o nc e in m

y li fe.” Tr. of

Ju ry Tria l, Vol

. VIII, at 86 1, Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , No. 4: 99 -cr- 00 30 3- FJ G (W. D.

Mo . Nov . 26 , 20 01 ), ECF No. 4 66 (qu ot in g Def .’ s Ex . 11 3 a t 1 6)

.

The ev id en ti ary he ari ng di sc lo se d th at Nels on was ph y si cal l y an d se xu al ly

as sa ul te d whi le in carc erat ed as a y ou th an d en ga ge d in se lf- ha rm , in cl ud in g m ul ti pl e

su ic id e at te m

pt s. The ev id en ce sh owe d th at Nels on was se nt to th e Te x a s Y o u th

Co m m is si on (TYC) at ag e 14 . Wh i le th ere, Nels on wit ne ss ed ot he r res id en ts be in g

se x u a l l y as sa ul te d an d was ph y si cal ly as sa ul te d se ve ral ti m es

. His m ed ic al reco rd s
do cu m en t br

ui si ng an d swe ll in g on hi s face an d aro un d hi s le ft ey e an d in juri es to hi s

no se , up pe r ch es t, an d th e ba ck of hi s he ad

. He req ue st ed th at st aff p u t hi m in

is ol at io n an d se pa rat e h i m f r o m th e ot he r res id en ts

. St aff freq ue nt ly ha d to pl ace
Nels on in res tra in ts whi le in is ol at io n to pr ev en t hi m fro m in juri ng hi m se lf bec au se

of hi s at te m

pt s to sl as h hi s wris ts us in g a Co ke can , t h e t e e t h f r o m a co m

b, an d hi s

-1 8-o wn fin ge rn ai ls

. Upo n hi s rel eas e fro m TYC aft er fo ur m on th s, Nels on ’s faci al

in juri es were st il l vi s i b l e

. Afte r le av in g TYC, Nels on m ov ed be twee n hi s m ot he r’s

ho m e an d ot he r juv en il e in st it ut io ns . Hi s m ot he r al so se nt hi m to hi s fat he r ’s ho m e

in Kan sa s Ci ty, whe re Mo rs e wou ld freq ue nt ly ab us e d r u gs an d cu ss at an d be at

Nels on ’s el de rly gr an dm ot he r. One da y , Nels on wen t to th e tra in y ard s an d at te m pt ed

to ki ll hi m se lf by jum

pi ng in fr o n t o f a mov in g tra in

, bu t a rai lro ad de te ct iv e

in te rv en ed

. Afte r Nels on ret ur ne d to hi s m ot he r in Tex as , Nels on was on ce ag ai n in

an d ou t of juv en il e de te nt io n, in cl ud in g Bo on ev il le

. Med ic al reco rd s fro m this faci li ty

sh ow th at Nels on su st ai ne d in juri es to hi s he ad an d face ; he was al so se xu al ly

as sa ul te d.

Evi de nc e ad du ced at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng al so sh owe d th at Nels on was

se xu al ly vi ct im iz ed whi le in hi s m ot he r’s care

. W he n Nels on was se ve n or ei gh t y ears
ol d, on e of hi s m ot he r’s bo y fri en ds m ol es te d hi m . An d, wh il e Nels on was li vi ng in

an ap art m en t com

pl ex in Cal ifo rn ia , an o ld er m an an al ly pe ne tra te d hi m an d forc ed

hi m to pe rfo rm

ora l s ex

.

2. To ta li ty of

Agg ra va ti ng

Evid en ce

a. Off en se of Co nv ic ti on

At tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d 3 0 w i t ne ss es ov er a two -d ay pe rio d. W e

ha ve al read y reco u nt ed th e eg reg io us fact s rev eal ed th ro ug h th es e wit ne ss es ’

te st im on y in th e ba ck gr ou nd se ct io n of th i s o p i n i on

. Se e su pr a Part I. W e reco un t

so m e of th is te st im on y in m or e de ta il he re to cl ari fy it s us e as ag gr av at in g ev id en ce.

Ja m es Sh an no n Ro bi ns on te st ifi ed th at on Sep te m be r 29

, 19 99

, he an d Nels on

sp en t th e da y wor ki ng to ge th er on a job si te whe re Nels on rev eal ed to Ro bi ns on th at

he wan te d to ki dn ap a fem al e an d th en ta ke he r to a rem ot e lo cat io n whe re he co ul d

to rtu re, rap e, el ect ro cu te

, an d th e n k i l l a nd bu ry he r. Nels on br ag ge d he was go in g
ba ck to th e pe ni te nt ia ry an y way , an d he “ wan te d to go fo r so m et hi ng bi g.” Tr. of Ju ry

-1 9-Tria l, Vol

. III, at 96

, Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , No. 4: 99 -cr- 00 30 3- FJ G (W. D. Mo

. Nov

. 19 , 20 01 ), ECF No. 4 61

.

On Octo be r 2, 19 99 —t en da y s be fo re Pam el a was ki dn ap pe d— Nels on , in th e

m id dl e of th e ni gh t, he ld a kn ife to th e th r o a t of Mi ch an ne Mat ts on , a m ed ic al

st ud en t, an d at te m

pt ed to dr ag he r ki ck in g an d st ru gg li ng fro m he r ap art m en t pa rk in g
lo t to hi s whi te Fo rd pi ck up

. Mat ts on te s t ifi ed th at Nels on “ to ld [h er] no t to sa y

an y th in g o r he wou ld cu t [h er] th ro at . And he sai d t ha t s ev eral ti m es , th at he wou ld

ki ll [h er] if [s he ] sa id an y th in g.” Id

. at 11 2. Nels on ha nd cu ffed Mat ts on ’s le ft wris t.

Acco rd in g to Mat ts on , he th en pu sh ed he r to ward th e pa rk in g lo t wit h th e kn ife to he r

th ro at

. Nels on to ld Mat ts on “ he was go in g to ki ll [h er] if [s he ] sa id an y th in g, to ke ep

qu ie t, y ou f* ** in g b* ** h, I’ll ki ll y ou if y ou sa y an y th in g.” Id

. at 11 3– 14 . M at ts on

st at ed th at Nels on cal le d he r “ a f’ing b* * * h” “ [t]wo or th ree ti m es .” Id

. at 11 4.

Mat ts on ev en tu al ly pu sh ed away fro m Nels on an d pu ll ed th e kn ife do wn f ro m he r

th ro at an d y el le d fo r he lp

, bu t Nels on ’s gl ov ed ha nd s were ov er he r m ou th

. Mat ts on
dr op pe d to he r kn ees , a nd Nels on st art ed dr ag gi ng Mat ts on by the ha nd cu ffs ou t t o

th e pa rk in g lo t whi le cu rs in g at he r. “ He ke pt c a ll in g [h er] a f* ** in g b* ** h an d
[s ay in g] th at he was go in g to ki ll [he r].” Id

. at 1 15 . Mat ts on th en dro pp ed li m pl y to

th e pa ve m en t, ro ll ed away fro m hi m , an d co nt in ue d y el li ng

. Nels on rip pe d Mat ts on ’s

pu rs e of f he r sh ou ld er an d ran to hi s tru ck

, bu t he ke pt lo ok in g ba ck at he r sa y in g, “ If

y ou lo ok at m e, b* ** h, I’l l ki ll y ou

. Don ’t lo ok at m e. Bet te r ru n, b* ** h, I’ll ki ll

y ou .” Id

. at 1 16 . Mat ts on tes ti fie d Nel so n s ai d t ha t ab ou t fi ve ti m es

.

A r ou nd 4: 00 p.m ., on Tue sd ay , Octo be r 12

, 19 99 —t he da y th at Pame l a w a s

ki dn ap pe d—

Nels on to ld an acq ua in ta nc e “ th at he kn ows whe re a 14 -y ear- ol d gi rl is

, th at rig ht no w is th e ti m e to ge t he r, ta ke he r, ki ll he r, rap e he r.” Tr. of Ju ry Tria l, Vol

. I V

, a t 14 9. Nels on was “ hyper” an d “ an xi ou s.” Id

. A li tt le ov er an ho ur la te r i n

Kan sa s Ci ty, K a n s a s, te n- y ear- ol d Pam el a le ft he r ho m e on he r ro ll er sk at es to go

on e-an d- a-h al f bl oc ks to th e lo cal ga s st at io n to bu y so m e co ok ie s an d so da

. Her 11

-

y ear- ol d s is te r Pen ny was p la y in g o n t he fro nt po rch an d s aw he r si st er l eav e.

-2 0-P e nn y te st ifi ed th at be fo re Pam el a ret ur ne d ho m e, a whi te Fo rd pi ck up h a d

pa rk e d a l o n g t h e st reet wit h th e dr iv er’s do or le ft ajar. Pen ny sa w Pam el a sk at in g

to ward ho m e, th e sa m e way sh e ha d s k a te d to ward th e co nv en ie nc e st or e. Pam el a
sk at ed to ward th e p ic ku p t ru ck ; wh en sh e ap pr oa ch ed th e tr uc k, Pe nn y te st ifi ed ha t

Nels on “ cam e u p fr om

ou t t he tru ck an d g rab be d h er and th rew her in th e tru ck an d

sl am m ed th e do or an d dr ov e by.” Id

. at 17 6. Pen ny be ga n sc r eam in g. Heari ng he r

sc ream s, her teen ag e si st er Case y Eato n cam e ou t o f th e h ou se an d lo ok ed to whe re

Pen ny was po in ti ng an d sa w a whi te pi ck up tru ck pu ll in g away. As Nels on dr ov e pa st

th e sc ream in g gi rls

, he “ fli pp ed [th em ] of f.” Id

. at 17 7. The gi rls ’ sc ream in g an d th e

ti res ’ sq ue al in g at tra ct ed th e at te nt io n of Pau l W il t who was s i t t in g in hi s tru ck

vi si ti ng a fri en d ne arb y

. W il t ga ve ch as e, bu t e v e n tu al ly lo st si gh t of th e tru ck

. He

was ab le to ge t i ts li cen se tag nu m be r—1 77 -CE2

.

Bet ween 6: 30 an d 7: 30 p.m

. th at sa m e ev en in g, Carl an d Sh irl ey Co nd ra dr ov e

to th ei r c h u r c h

, Grai n Vall ey Ch ris ti an Ch ur ch in Grai n Vall ey , Mi ss ou ri. The

Co nd ras sa w a whi te Fo rd pi ck up tru ck wit h th e li c e n s e p l a t e nu m be r 17 7- CE2

pa rk ed be hi nd th e ch ur ch

. The tru ck was un lo ck ed an d em pt y

. The Co nd ras di d no t

reco gn iz e th e tru ck as be lo ng in g to an y m em be r of th e co ng reg at io n an d be li ev ed it s

pr es en ce to be su sp ic io us

. The y tri ed to fin d a po li ce of fic er, bu t fo un d no ne an d wen t

ho m e. Late r th at ni gh t, aft er se ei ng th e 10 :0 0 p.m

. ne ws of Pam el a’s ab du ct io n whi ch

in cl ud ed a de sc rip ti on of t he tru ck , th ey im m ed ia te ly call ed th e p ol ic e.

So m et im e aro un d 8: 00 p.m

. or th erea f t e r t h a t ev en in g, Nels on dr ov e to hi s

m ot he r Nan cy ’s h ou se in Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i. Nel so n a nd hi s m ot he r th en dr ov e

to th e Oas is Bar, whi ch w as a bl oc k an d a ha lf away fro m Pam el a’s ho m e. Nan cy
dr an k, whi le Nels on pl ay ed a vi de o ga m e. Afte r th ey le ft th e ba r, th ey st op pe d at th e

ga s st at io n whe re Pam el a ha d bo ug ht he r co ok ie s an d so da

. Nels on pu rch as ed a so da

a n d c i g a ret te s. Nels on an d Nan cy were at hi s gi rlf rie nd ’s ho us e whe n th e ne w s
br oa dc as t Pam el a’s a b d u c t io n. Nels on sh owe d no an xi et y , rem or se , gr ie f, or ot he r

reac ti on . Nels on an d Nan cy th en ret ur ne d t o Nan cy ’s ho us e.

-2 1-At 11 :0 0 p.m ., Pat ti Grif fit h, Nancy’ s nex t-d oo r ne ig hb or , sa w Nels on on th e

pa ss en ge r si de of th e whi te pi ck up tru ck wip in g th e da sh bo ard an d un de rn eat h area s
whi le pe rio di cal ly gl an ci ng up an d do wn th e st reet

. Late r th at ni gh t, a no is e awak en ed

Grif fit h. Sh e lo ok ed ou t th e win do w an d no ti ced th at th e pi ck up tru ck was go ne , an d

Nels on was p aci ng aro un d i n h is y ard

.

Aro un d 2: 00 a.m

. on th e m o r n i ng of W ed ne sd ay , Octo be r 13

, 19 99

, Nels on
cal le d for a cab

. The di sp at ch er who to ok th e cal l re cal le d Nel so n b ei ng “ real co ol ”

an d “ co ol as a cu cu m

be r”; Nels on ev en to ld th e d is pa tc he r a jok e. Id

. at 2 27

.

Aro un d 9: 00 a.m

. th at m or ni n g , a whi te Fo rd pi ck up tru ck wit h th e li cen se

nu m be r 17 7 -CE2 was fo un d ab an do ne d te n bl oc ks fro m Nels on ’s res id en ce. The

tru ck ap pe ared to ha ve be en rece nt ly cl ean ed ; it was le ft un lo ck ed wit h th e ke y s lying

o n th e flo or bo ard

. The m an hu nt fo r Nels on an d th e se arch fo r Pam el a c o n t i n u e d

th ro ug ho ut W ed ne sd ay

.

On Thu rs da y , O c t o b e r 14

, 19 99

, Lau rie Torr ez, a ci vi li an em pl oyee of th e

Kan sa s Ci ty, Kan sa s Po li ce Dep art m en t, sp ot te d Nels on un de r th e 18 th St reet Bri dg e

an d cal le d th e po li ce. Nels on ha d in jure d hi s le g whi le at te m pt in g to lo w e r h i m se lf

fro m th e br id ge

. He was un ab le to es cap e an d su bm it te d to c a p tu re. Befo re a
he li co pt er arri ve d to ex tra ct hi m fro m th e area , a la rg e cro wd of watc he rs as se m bl ed

. A m em be r of th e cro wd y el le d ou t, “ W ha t ab ou t th e gi rl? ” Id

. at 26 8. Nels on lo ok ed

at th e ar r e s t i n g o f

f i c er an d sa id

, “ I kn ow whe re sh e’s at

, bu t I’m no t sa y in g rig ht

no w.” Id

. at 26 9. La t e r t h a n da y , a co m pl ai nt was fil ed ag ai ns t Nels on fo r th e

ki dn ap pi ng of P am el a. Pam el a rem ai ne d m is si ng

.

On Fri da y , Octo be r 15

, 19 99

, la w en fo rcem en t pe rs on ne l who were se arch in g

th e woo ds an d fie ld s eas t of th e c h u r c h fir st di sc ov ered Pam el a’s whi te sp or ts br a.
The y th en di sc ov ered he r un de rp an ts

. Her nu de

, li fel es s bo dy was fo un d bu rie d un de r

a p il e o f br us h. A wir e li ga tu re was wrap pe d a ro un d h er t hr oa t.

-2 2-Aut op sy res ul ts rev eal ed nu m ero u s s c r ap es an d ab ras io ns an d bl un t fo rce

tra um a to Pam el a’s m ou th an d he ad

. Her hym en ha d be en to rn ne ar th e ti m e of de at h.

Red ne ss an d irr it at io n pr es en t in he r ge ni ta l area was co ns is te nt wit h se xu al as sa ul t.

The cau se of d eat h was st ran gu la ti on

.

Pam el a’s un de rp an ts were su bm it te d to th e Fed era l Bu reau of In ve st ig at io n (FBI ) fo r DNA an al y si s. The FBI’s DNA an al y si s rev eal ed th e pr es en ce of se m en in

th e cro tc h a rea o f Pam el a’s un de rp an ts . W he n c om pa red to Nels on ’s bl oo d s am pl e,

te st res ul ts co nc lu si ve ly sh owe d th at he was th e so ur ce of th e DNA in t h e s e men

st ai n.

In m at es ho us ed wit h Nels on al so te st ifi ed ab ou t di sc u s s io ns th ey ha d wit h

Nels on . Inm at e Edwa rd Fraz ie r te st ifi ed th at he an d Nel so n

go t in to a co nv ers at io n ab ou t

. . . b ui ld in g a cel l an d [ N e l s o n ] sa id th e cel ls wou ld

. . . ha ve no th in g in it be si de s co tt on

. He sa id th at he wou ld

watc h hi s vi ct im li ke se ve n da y s a week an d th en at s o me p o i nt he

wou ld ki dn ap th em , pu t th em in th at ro om

. I as ke d hi m wha t d i d th e

ro o m co ns is t of

. He sa id th ere wou ld be co tt on on th e flo or

. The y

wou ld n’t ha ve a be d. The y wou ld n’t ha ve a sh owe r. The on ly th in g th ey

wou ld ha ve is a co m

m od e an d th ey wou ld ge t th ei r to il et pa pe r fro m th e

ou ts id e o f it

.

Tr. o f J u r y Tria l, Vol

. VI, at 50 3, Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , No. 4: 99 -cr- 00 30 3- FJ G
(W. D. Mo. No v. 2 0, 2 00 1) , ECF No. 4 64

.

Acco rd in g to Fraz ie r, Nels on to ld hi m he was go in g t o a bd uc t “ [m ]ost ly”

wom en , id

. , an d th at he pl an ne d on bi nd in g th em do wn an d “ [d ]o wha t he wan te d to

do wit h th em ,” id

. at 50 4. Thi s in cl ud ed ha vi ng se x w it h th em . He to ld Fraz ie r th at

“ he kn ew ho w to ge t b el ts an d h ow t o t ie a pe rs on do wn t o wh ere h e co ul d a ct ua ll y

pu t th em in di ffer en t po si ti on s whe re he co ul d ha ve se x wit h th em , an d he de sc rib ed

-2 3-it in de ta il .” Id

. He al so to ld Fraz ie r th at aft er h e w a s “don e wit h th em ,” he wou ld

“ [k ]ill th em .” Id

. W hi le he di d no t te ll Fraz ie r pr eci se ly ho w he wou ld ki ll hi s vi ct im s,
he di d t el l Fr azi er “ th at on ce he d id ki ll th em , th at he wou ld [di sp os e o f th e b od ie s]

th e o ld -fas hi on ed way ,” whi ch was “ th e ri ve r be d.” Id

.

In m at e St ev en Bai le y te st ifi ed th at h i s c e l l was ne xt do or to Nels on ’s cel l.

Abo ut 2: 00 or 3: 00 a.m

. in Mar ch of 20 00

, B a i l e y he ard a vo ic e co m in g fro m
Nels on ’s ce l l, whi ch he reco gn iz ed as Nels on ’s. He “ he ard hi gh -p it ch ed [,] lo wvo lu m e type sc ream s th at so un de d li ke a li tt le gi rl” a n d “cr i e s f or m om m y .” Tr. of

Ju ry Tria l, Vol

. V, at 36 1, Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , No. 4: 99 -cr- 00 30 3- FJ G (W. D. Mo

. Nov

. 20

, 20 01 ), ECF No. 46 3. The se so un ds were rep eat ed a co up le of ti m es du rin g

a fiv e-t o- te n m in ut e pe rio d. In May of 2 00 0, Ba il ey

was a wak e rea di ng aro un d 3 or

4 a .m . i n th e m or ni ng whe n he he ard so un ds co m in g fro m Nels on ’s cel l. He “ he ard

a se rie s of sh or t hi gh -p it ch ed sc ream s th at were ag ai n lo w in vo lu m e. Heard cri es fo r

m om m y

. Help m e. Don ’t hu rt m e. Don ’t ki ll m e.” Id

. at 36 2. He reco gn iz ed th e vo ic e

as Nels on ’s. The ne xt da y , th e sa m e so un ds oc cu rred

, la st in g ten to fif te en m in ut es

. Thi s ti m e, Bai le y co nf

ro nt ed N e l s on , sa y in g, “ How co ul d y ou do th at to th at li tt le
gi rl[ ? ]” Id

. at 3 63 . Nels on rep li ed , “ You wou ld n’t b el ie ve it .” Id

.

b. Vict im Imp ac t an d N

el so n’ s Ad dr es s t o t he Co ur t

In ad di ti on to th e e v id en ce of gu il t, th e jury al so he ard ev id en ce ab ou t th e

un iq ue ne ss of Pam el a an d th e im pa ct h e r d e at h ha d on th e li ve s of he r fam il y

m em be rs

.

W he n of fere d th e op po rtunity to ad dr es s th e co ur t, Nels on , sh owi ng no rem or se

f o r w h a t he ha d do ne , bl is te red th e di st ric t co ur t an d th e vi ct im ’s fam il y wi t h a

pr of an it y lad en ti rad e.

-2 4-c. Esca pe Att emp ts an d Pr io r C

ri min al His to ry

W hi le in cu s t o d y on th is of fen se at CCA, Nels on ta lk ed ab ou t es cap in g,

un rav el ed a se ct io n of th e pr is on fen ci ng , an d fas hi on ed two wor ka bl e ha nd cu ff ke y s.
Nels on t h r e a t e n ed to m ace hi s st at e pr ob at io n of fic er. And

, whi le at CCA, in an

un pr ov ok ed ass au lt , he b eat a co rrec ti on al off ic er an d t hr eat en ed to ki ll y et an ot he r

co rrec ti on al off

ic er.

Th e jury al so le arn ed of Nels on ’s th ree pr io r Mi ss ou ri st at e co nv ic ti on s fo r

st eal in g a nd a co nv ic ti on for att em pt ed esc ap e fro m

cu st od y

.

d. Dr. Ma rt el l’s Tes ti mon y a t t he Evid en ti ar

y Hea ri ng

Dr. Mar te l l

, th e go ve rn m en t’s ex pe rt wit ne ss , te st ifi ed at th e ev id en ti ary
he ari ng th at “ de sp it e [Nel so n’s] le ve l of b r a i n im pa irment th at ’s ap pa ren t on th e

te st in g and ex am in at io n,” lo ok in g at Nels on ’s be ha vi or in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng

th e cri m e, Dr. Mar te ll fo un d no im pu ls iv it y

. Tr. of Evi de nt ia ry Hr’g, Vol

. IV, at 64 9.

Dr. Mar te ll s t a t e d t h a t Nels on tri ed to carr y ou t hi s fan ta sy on an ot he r vi ct im

, an d

whe n th at di d no t wor k, he se le ct ed an ot he r m or e y ou th fu l, m or e eas il y co nt ro l le d

vi ct im

. Acco rd in g to Dr. Mar te ll

, Nels on la id in wait

, hi d hi m se lf, br ou gh t el ect ric al

co rd s to bi nd th e vi ct im

, ki dn ap pe d he r, a n d t oo k of f at a hi gh rat e of sp eed in a

m an ne r th at pe op le wou l d no t be ab le to se e hi m or id en ti fy hi m

. He al so to ok th e
vi ct im to a se cl ud ed area an d bo u n d h e r u p s o sh e co ul d no t ge t away. Dr. Mar te ll

op in ed th at Nels on ’s act io ns showed pl an ni ng as op po se d to im pu ls iv e act in g ou t. Fo r

th o se reas on s, Dr. Mar te ll di d no t be li ev e th at Nels on ’s br ai n da m ag e pl ay ed a
si gn ifi can t ro le in hi m co m m it ti ng th is cri m e. Dr. Mar te ll al so te st ifi ed th at he di d no t

be li ev e th at N e l s o n m et th e st an da rd s wit h reg ard to no t un de rs ta nd in g th e

wro ng fu ln es s of

hi s b eh av io r. He sp eci fic al ly not ed th at Nels on at te m pt ed to av oi d

be in g s een an d a tt em

pt ed to ge t ri d o f in cri m in at in g evi de nc e. Dr. Mart el l t es ti fie d,

“ If y ou di dn ’t kn ow it was wro ng , th ere’s no reas on to ge t rid of th e tru ck

, to wip e it

do wn fo r ev id en ce, to try an d rem ov e fib ers fro m th e cri m e sc en e th at co ul d id en ti fy

hi m .” Id

. at 65 0. Dr. Mar te ll te st ifi ed th at he ha d rev ie wed th e rep or ts of Dr. Dan ie l

-2 5-Fo st er, Dr. Gelb or t, Dr. Bro wn, Dr. Am ad or , Dr. Crawf or d, Dr. Leb owi tz

, Dr. Gur

, 4

Dr. M i l l e r , an d Dr. Ro ge r Jo ne s. Dr. Mar te ll te st ifi ed th at no ne of th es e rep or ts 5

ch an ge d h is op in io ns reg ard in g Nel so n.

3. Rewei gh in g o f t he Evid

en ce

W e ha ve no w rewei gh ed th e to ta li ty of the av ai la ble m itiga ti on ev id en ce— bo th

th at of fere d at tri al an d th at of

fere d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng —ag ai ns t th e ev id en ce

in ag gr av at io n to de te rm in e whe th er a reasonab le pr oba bil ity ex is ts th at Nels on wou ld

ha ve rece iv ed a di ffer en t se nt en ce. Se e Por te r , 55 8 U.S. at 41

. W e co nc lu de th at th e

res ul t wou ld ha ve be en th e sa m e. Thi s is no t a cas e in whi ch th e “ [t]he jud ge an d jury

at [Nel so n’s] or ig in al se nt en ci ng he ard al m os t no th in g th at wou ld hu m an iz e [Nel so n]

or al lo w th em to accu rat el y ga ug e hi s m or al cu lp ab il it y .” Se e id

. (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e jud ge an d jury “ le arn ed ab ou t [th e pe ti ti o n e r ’s ] tu rb ul en t rel at io ns hi p wit h [h is
gi rlf rie nd ], hi s cr im es , and alm os t no th in g el se ”). Nor is th is a cas e whe re t he “ jury

he ard on ly on e si gn ifi can t m it ig at in g fact or ” be fo re im po si ng th e de at h pe na lt y

. Se e

W ig gi ns v. Smi th , 5 39 U.S. 5 10 , 5 37 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( “W ig gi ns ’ se nt en ci ng jury h eard on ly

on e si gn ifi can t m it ig at in g fact or —t ha t W ig gi ns ha d no pr ior co nvi ct ion s. H ad th e jury

be en ab le to pl ace pet it io ne r’s ex cru ci at in g li fe his to ry on th e m it ig at in g si de of th e

sc al e, th ere is a re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at at le as t on e juro r wou ld ha ve st ru ck a
di ffer en t ba la nc e.” (ci t a ti on om it te d) ). In st ead

, du rin g th e pe na lt y ph as e, th e jury

he ard su bs ta nt ia l m it ig at in g ev id en ce th at (1 ) Nels on was a po or st ud en t who su ffer ed

fro m dysle xi a; (2 ) Nels on freq ue nt ly fo ug ht an d ha d be ha vi or al pr ob le m s in sc ho ol ; (3 ) Nels on ha d a be d- wett in g pr ob le m well in to hi s teen y ears , whi ch he was te as ed

fo r; (4 ) hi s m ot he r was an al co ho li c; (5 ) Nels on ’s m ot he r was freq ue nt ly away fro m

Dr. Fo st er is th e fo ren si c ps y ch ol og is t th at th e de fen se hi red t o e v a l u at e 4

Nels on ’s m en ta l he al th

. The di st ric t co ur t ul ti m at e l y d is al lo wed Dr. Fo st er’s

te st im on y du rin g t he pe na lt y

ph as e. Se e Nel

so n II I , 97 F. Sup p. 3 d a t 1 15 1.

Dr. Mar te ll rev ie wed a de rm at ol og ic al rep or t pr ep ared by Dr. Jo ne s d a te d 5

Ja nu ary 10

, 20 12

, in whi ch Dr. Jo ne s ex am in ed Nels on an d fo un d hi s sk in no rm al

.

-2 6-th e ho m e, res ul ti ng in th e bo y s cari ng fo r th em se lv es an d ge tt in g i n t o tro ub le ; (6 )

Nels on an d hi s si bl in gs li ve d in po or co nd it io ns in a ho m e th at sm el le d of ur in e; (7 )

two of Nels on ’s si bl in gs ha ve sc hi zo ph ren ia ; (8 ) Nels on ’s ba bysit te r’s hu sb an d was

an al c o h o l i c an d ab us iv e to ward Nels on , pa rti cu la rly be cau se of hi s be d- wett in g

pr ob le m ; (9 ) Nels on s h o w e d ki nd ne ss to a cri pp le d gi rl in a whe el ch ai r whi le in

el em en ta ry sc ho ol ; (10 ) Nels on was ph y si cal ly an d m en ta ll y ab us ed as a ch il d; (1 1)

Nels on ha d po or hygi en e as a ch il d; (1 2) N e l so n was a pl eas an t, rel ia bl e, an d go od

wor ke r; (1 3) th e sq ua li d co n d i t io ns an d ab us iv e en vi ro nm en t th at Nels on li ve d in

affe ct ed th e fo rm at io n of Nels on ’s ch arac te r; (1 4) Nel s o n ’s f at he r was vi ol en t an d

ab us iv e to hi s m ot he r an d to Nels on , in cl ud in g us in g el ect ric sh oc k to ab us e hi s

m ot he r on on e o ccas io n; (15 ) in m at es freq ue nt ly th reat en ed an d har as se d Nels on at
CCA; an d (1 6) Nels on ex pr es se d he wan te d to do th e rig ht th in g in a reco rd ed ph on e
cal l at th e CCA.

Hav in g rewei gh ed th e ev id en ce, in cl ud in g th e ad di ti on al m it ig at in g ev id en ce

pr es en te d in th e po st -co nv ic ti ng pr oc eed in g, we co nc lu de th at th ere is no reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y

of a di ffer en t o ut co m e.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Nels on ’s in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce cl ai m s fo r (1 ) fai li ng to co nd uc t an a d e q u a te m it ig at io n in ve st ig at io n,

in cl ud in g fai li ng to m ov e fo r a co nt in ua nc e to co m pl et e on e; (2 ) fai li ng to co nd uc t

an ad eq ua te in ve st ig at io n of Nels on ’s m en ta l he al th ; an d (3 ) ad vi si ng or in st ru ct in g
Nels on to de cl in e to su bm it to a m en ta l he al th ex am in at io n by a go ve rn m en t ex am in er
be cau se we co nc lu de th at no pre jud ic e res ul te d.

B. Gui lt y Ple a
Afte r w e gr an te d Nels on ’s pe ti ti on fo r pa ne l reh eari ng , we su bs eq ue nt ly

gr an te d Nels on ’s m ot io n to m od ify th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y an d ex pa nd ed it to

in cl ud e th e cl ai m th at Nels on ’s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead

gu il ty.

-2 7-Pri or to tri al

, Nels on ’s co un se l ad vi se d hi m th at th ere was no vi ab le de fen se to

th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m an d co un se le d hi m to en te r a gu il ty pl ea, pr oc eed to tri al on ly

on th e se nt en ci ng ph as e of hi s cap it al tri al

, an d arg ue t ha t hi s pl ea es ta bl is he d an

acce pt a n c e of res po ns ib il it y fo r pu rp os es of pu ni sh m en t. Nels on arg ue s th at th e
ad vi ce on whi ch th is pl ea was ba se d was erro ne ou s be cau se he di d ha ve a de fen se to

th e cap it al ch arg es —h e co ul d ha ve pr es en te d an affi rm at iv e de fen se of in sa ni ty un de r

18 U.S.C. § 17

. Acco rd in g to Nels on , he co ul d ha ve pr es en te d ev id en ce th at he was

su ffer in g fro m a s e v e r e m en ta l di se as e or de fect at th e ti m e of th e of fen se

. Nels on

arg ue s t ha t cou ns el ’s ad vi ce t o p le ad gu il ty w as no t an in fo rm ed st rat eg ic de ci si on ;

in st ead

, it wa s mad e in a va cu um wit ho ut th e be ne fit of an in ve st ig at io n in to hi s

m en ta l he al th

. Had he be en pr op erl y ad vi se d of th e av ai la bi li ty of th e de fen se , Nels on

arg ue s he wou ld ha ve no t en te red a p l e a bu t wou ld ha ve av ai le d hi m se lf of th e

ap pl ic ab le de fen se an d g on e to tri al

.

In res po ns e, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at we sh ou ld di sm is s Nels on ’s cl ai m of

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce ba se d on co un se l ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead gu il ty whe re he ha d an

in sa ni ty de fen se be cau se th is is su e was no t on e of th e is su es on whi ch we rem an de d

fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , no r do es it rel at e ba ck to is su es rai se d in Nels on ’s or ig in al

ti m el y -fi le d § 22 55 m ot io n. The go ve rn m en t as se rts th at be cau se th is ne w cl ai m do es

no t rel at e ba ck to Nels o n ’s or ig in al

, ti m el y -fi le d § 22 55 m ot io n, it is no t pr op erl y

r a i s e d i n th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s § 22 55 or de r th at

de ni ed rel ie f on ot he r gr o u n d s

. Th eref or e, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s, th e is su e

co ns ti tu te s a se co nd or su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n th at can no t be co ns id ered un ti l th is

co ur t gr an ts pe rm is si on in acco rd an ce wit h th e req ui rem en ts un de r 28 U.S.C.
§ 2 25 5( h)

.

“ The rel at io n ba ck of an am en dm en t is go ve rn ed by Ru le 15 (c) a n d pr es en ts

a qu es ti on of l aw whi ch th is Co ur t rev ie ws de no vo .” Rob in so n v. Cl ip se , 6 02 F.3 d

60 5, 60 7 (4 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ An am en dm en t to a pl ead in g rel at es ba ck to th e da te of th e

or ig in al pl ead in g whe n . . . the am en dm en t as se rts a cl ai m or d efen se th at aro se ou t

-2 8-of th e co nd uc t, tra ns act io n, or oc cu rren ce se t ou t— or at te m pt ed to be se t ou t— in th e

or ig in al pl ead in g . . . .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (c)( 1) (B).

To ari se ou t of th e sa m e co nd uc t, tra ns act io n, or oc cu rren ce, th e cl ai m s

m us t b e ti ed to a co m

m on co re o f op erat iv e fac ts . An am en de d m ot io n

m ay rai se ne w le g a l t h e o r i e s on ly if th e ne w cl ai m s rel at e ba ck to th e

or ig in al m ot io n by ari si ng ou t of th e sa m e se t of f a ct s as th e or ig in al
cl ai m s. The fact s al le ge d m us t be sp eci fic en ou gh t o p u t t he op po si ng
pa rty on no ti ce of th e fact ua l bas is fo r th e cl ai m

. Thu s, it is no t en ou gh
th at bo th an ori gi na l m ot io n and an am en de d m ot io n all eg e in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l d u rin g a tri al

. The al le ga ti on s of in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce m

us t be of th e sa m e ti m e an d type as th os e in th e or ig in al

m ot io n, s uc h t ha t t he y

ari se fro m

th e sa m e co re s et of o pe rat iv e fac ts

.

Dod d v . Uni te d S ta te s , 61 4 F .3d 51 2, 5 15 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (cl ean ed up ).

In Nels on ’s or ig in al

, ti m el y -fi le d § 225 5 m ot io n, th e on ly cl ai m th at he m ad e
wit h reg ard to de fen se co un se l’s al le ge d in effe c t i v e n es s as to hi s gu il ty pl ea is as

fo ll ows :

(1 8) Defen se co un se l ad vi se d an d co nv in ced Mo va nt to pl ead gu il ty to

co un t on e of th e in di ct m en t in ex ch an ge fo r th e Gov ern m en t di sm is si ng

co un t two of th e in di ct m en t an d l e t t i n g th e de fen se arg ue th at Mo va nt ha d acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s act io ns , a co nt en ti on th at was

un an im ou sl y reject ed by th e jury[.] To reac h t hi s ag reem en t, Mo va nt

was req ui red to waiv e an y po st -co nv ic t i on ch al le ng e as to th e gu il ty pl ea. Thi s is an un en fo rcea bl e co nd it io n an d tri al co un se l were pl aced
in a co nf

li ct e d p o s it io n whe n th ey ad vi se d Mo va nt to acce pt th e

co nd it io ns of th e of

fer whi le os te ns ib ly av oi di ng po st -co nv ic ti on rev ie w of th e reas on ab le ne ss of th at ad vi ce as it pe rta in ed to Mo va nt ’s de ci si on
to en te r a g ui lt y

pl ea.

-2 9-M o t

. Bro ug ht Pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 to Vacat e th e Co nv ic ti on & Sen te nc e

Im po se d at 11 –1 2, Nel

so n v. Uni te d St at es , No. 4: 04 -cv -0 80 05 -FJ G (W. D. Mo

. Nov

. 6, 2 00 5) , ECF No. 2 5.

W e co nc lu de th at Nels on ’s cl ai m th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r
ad vi si n g h i m t o p l e ad gu il ty is no t of th e sa m e “ ti m e an d type” as th e in effe ct iv eas si st an ce cl ai m s in hi s or ig in al pe ti ti on

. In hi s or ig in al § 22 55 m ot io n, th e is su e was
whe th er th e pl ea a g r e e m en t waiv er of po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pl aced tri al co un se l in

a po si ti on of co nf

li ct be cau se su ch rel ie f m ig ht en ta il al le ga ti on s an d p ro of of th ei r

in effe ct iv en es s. Nels on di d no t sp eci fic al ly rai se whe th er defe ns e co un se l pro vi de d

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of cou ns el in ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead gu il ty on th e ba si s th at he

di d no t ha ve a de fen se to th e ca p i t a l c h a r ge s. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Nels on ’s

o rig in al § 22 55 m ot io n on al l is su es wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary h eari ng . On ap pe al , we

gr an t e d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on si x is su es an d rem an de d fo r an ev id en ti ary
he ari ng to ad dr es s th os e is su e s

. S e e N el so n II

, 29 7 F. App ’x at 56 7. Nels on
ack no wled ge s th at ou r “ rem an d di d no t en co m pa ss [h is ] cl ai m th at tri al co un se l was

in effe ct iv e fo r ad vi si ng hi m to pl ead gu il ty.” Appe ll an t’s Br . at 1 25 . W e, th eref or e,
ho ld th at Nels on ’s cla im

do es no t re la te ba ck to hi s o rig in al § 2 25 5 m ot io n.

III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f § 2 25 5 re li ef t o Nel so n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3 0-