FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 4 , 201 0 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 11 90 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 68 1- CV-WS-C JASON O. W ILLIAMS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us RICHAR D F. ALLEN, Co m m is si on er, Alaba m a Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 4 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es .W ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Ja so n Ori c Will ia m s, an Alab am a d eat h ro w in m at e, ap pe al s fr om th e di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us (“pe ti ti on ”), fi le d pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

(“ COA”) o n t he so le is su e o f whe th er Will ia m s’ cou ns el ren de red in effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y : (1 ) pr es en ti ng anin va li d d efen se un de r Alaba m a la w; (2 ) fai li ng to su ffi ci en tl y

arg ue a vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n d efen se to ne ga te in te ntto m ur de r; and(3) fai li ng to ob ject t o ju ry

in st ru ct io ns . After r ev ie w of t he reco rd an d wi th th e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f W il li am s’ pet it io n. I. BACKG ROUND A. The C ri mes W il li am s was ad op te d b y hi s au ntan d u nc le at i nf

an cy . His aun t an d u nc le di d n otdi sc lo se to W il li am s t ha t the y were n othi s b io lo gi cal pa ren ts . W il li am s gr ew up inpo ve rty, perfo rm edpo or ly acade m ic al ly, an d fe lthe was s nubb edby hi s fa m il y

an d p eers . Whe n Wil li am s turne d s ev en te eny ears ol d, h e at te m pt edto ob ta in id en ti fic at io n d oc um en ts so th athe co ul d wo rk . Duri ng th is pro ces s, W il li am s l earn edth athe was a do pt ed . This ne ws d ev as ta te d Wil li am s, an d h e

2be ga n e xp eri m en ti ng with a lc oh ol an d dru gs su chas LSD, cr ack , m ari juan a, ecs ta cy , andpre sc rip ti onm ed ic at io ns . In19 90 , W il li am s m arri edSan dr a Ell zey. W il li am s an d El lz ey rem ai ne d m arri edforab ou t t enm on th s, d iv or ci ng in19 91 . On a few o ccas io ns , W il li am s sl ap pe d El lz ey

inth e fac e, pu ll edhe r ha ir, andbro ke he r gl as se s. Will ia m s, ho wev er, co nt in ue d t o l iv e wit h El lz ey aft er the y

were d iv or ced . In J anua ry 19 92 , Ell zey dis co ve redne ed le s fo r dr ug us e in he r ho m e, an d l earn edth atW il li am s h ad be entak in g h er tran qu il iz ers . Ellze y th enask edW il li am s t o l eav e. Whe n El lz ey

for cedW il li am s t o m ov e o ut , Geral d a ndCla ra (“ Cl ai r”) Para vi ci ni , who ha d kno wn Will ia m s fo r ab ou t ei gh t years, al lo wedW il li am s t o m ov e in to th ei r ho m e wit h the m an d C la ir’s m in orso n, J effe ry Carr . W il li am s res id edinth e Par av ic in i h om e fo r ap pr ox im at el y two week s. Sh ortl y aft er m ov in g i n wi thth e Par av ic in is , Ellz ey an d Wil li am s ag reedto re-u ni te an d m ov e in to ge th er. On F eb ru ary 14 , 19 92 , th ey arra ng eda da te . The co up le wentto a cl ub an d h ada few drin ks . Afterwa rd s, the y bo ug htsan dwi ch es ata de li . By

11 :0 0 p .m ., Ellz ey

was re ady

to return h om e. Howev er, Will ia m s was no t, an d h e as ke d El lz ey to dro p h im

off at a no th er cl ub . Ellz ey

advi se d W il li am s t o c al l h er wh enhe was re ady to lea ve th e cl ub so th atsh e co ul d g iv e hi m a ri de ho m e. At the club, Will ia m s p ur ch as edLSD, andpre sc rip ti on dru gs , 3an d h e dran k alar ge am ou ntof l iquo r. The rec or d i s cl ear tha t Will ia m s i ng es te d 1 drug s an d a lc oh ol th ro ug ho utth e n ig ht . Rath er tha n c al l El lz ey to pi ckhi m

up as th ey ha d a gr eed , W il li am s m etwith s om e fri en ds , andth ey dro ve to a drug -h ou se to sm ok e cra ckco cai ne to ge th er al l n ig ht . Early th e n ex t m orni ng , W il li am s’ fri en d dro pp edhi m

off at aco rn er s to re. W il li am s t he n wal ke d abo uta ha lf- m il e ba ckto th e Par av ic in is ’ tra il er h om e. On Fe brua ry

15 , at ap pr ox im at el y

6: 00 a.m ., W il li am s arriv edat t he Para vi ci ni s’ ho m e, an d h e kno ck ed , eit he r on Jef fery’ s wi nd ow o r on th e si de of th e tr ai le r th atco rres po nd edwith J effe ry ’s roo m . Jeff ery le t h im

inan d a sk edhi m ab ou t h is pl an s fo r th e d ay . W il li am s t ol d J effe ry th athe ha d a“ si de job ” to do . Je ffery th ou gh t tha t Will ia m s s eem edno rm al an d d idno t ap pe ar t o b e dru nk be cau se he was n ei th er t il ti ng hi s h eadno r sl urrin g h is sp eech . W il li am s t he n cal le d El lz ey

ona co rd le ss tel ep ho ne . Ellz ey was ups etwith Wil li am s b ecau se sh e ha d wan te d h im

to return t o h er h ou se an d b ecau se th ey ha d p la nn edforhe r to co m e an d p ic k h im

up fro m th e b ar. Ell zey, who ha d o bs erv edW il li am s in eb ria te d m an y

ti m es inth e p as t, d idno t b el ie ve th atW il li am s was in to xi cat ed . Acc ordingto Wi lliams’ statement to law enf orce ment officia ls on Febr uary 16, 1992, 1 the day afte r the murde rs, he ha d a fe w drinks with Ellz ey and then dr ank liquor all night at the club. While at the club, he bought two round, yellow pills from someone name d Teddy . He did not know whether

the pills were e cstac y

or L SD, but believed that they wer e L SD. On Fe bruar

y 15, he believe s that he took the pills between 3:00 a nd 5:00 a.m. 4Je ffery watc he d Wil li am s p aci ng whi le he tal ke d t o El lz ey . W hi le st il l o n th e p ho ne with El lz ey , W il li am s wal ke d i nt o t he Paravi ci ni s’ bed ro om , wher e Cl ai r was inbe d, an d re tri ev eda .22 -cal ib er au to m at ic rif le . Whi le st il l o n t he ph on e wit h El lz ey , W il li am s s ho t J effe ry inth e fac e an d i n t he ha nd . Whe n Geral d c am e to Jef

fery’ s ai d, Will ia m s s ho t Ger al d i n t he ba se of t he lef t n eckan d in th e upp er l eftch es t ar ea. J effe ry ranto a ne ig hb or ’s ho us e to ge t h el p. Gera ld al so ranou t o f th e h om e. Cl ai r cam e o utof t he be dr oo m when sh e h eardth e se co ndgu ns ho t. Sh e sa w Je ffery run ni ng away

an d Ger al d i n t he y ard . Her hu sb an d t ol d h er t o g ethe lp . Cl ai r ran to Geor ge Evan s’ ho us e n ex t d oo r. She th enranba ckto he r hu sb an d, who fel l b y

th e ro ad . Eva ns fol lo wedCla ir, h ol di ng a sh ot gu n. He l oo ke d t o h is rig htan d s aw W il li am s s tand in g i n t he do orway of t he tra il er, wit h n o m or e th an10 0 fe etof op engro un d b etweenth em , with t he rif le inhi s h an d. Eva ns bro ug htup hi s sh ot gu n a ndaim edat Wil li am s, warn in g Wil li am s n otto sh oo t. Will ia m s duc ke d ba ckin to th e tr ai le r, an d Ev an s ra n b ackto hi s t rai le r. Mean whi le , Ellz ey rem ai ne d o n t he tel ep ho ne . She he ardtwo crac ki ng , po pp in g n oi se s. When W il li am s p ic ke d t he ph on e b ackup ag ai n, s he st art edto say his na m e. W il li am s dr op pe d t he ph on e wit ho utsayin g a nyth in g. 5Cl ai r fo un d t ha t s he co ul d n otge t Ger al d t o s ta nd . She wentba ckin to th e

tra il er t o fi ndso m ethi ng to st op Geral d’s b le ed in g a ndfor he r carke y s. Th ere, s he fo un d Wil li am s, wh o wai ve d t he rif le at h er an d t ol d h er t o g etba ckan d l eav e h im al on e, orels e h e in te nd edto ki ll he r. Cla ir r ep li edth atGeral d was hurt. Sh e as ke d Wil li am s t o p le as e h el p h er wi th hi m . W il li am s t he n s tru ckhe r in th e fac e with t he rif

le , bre ak in g h er jaw. He lef t wi th th e ri fle an d h er p ur se , whi ch co nt ai ne d h er cr ed itcard s, a c he ckbo ok , andov er $ 50 0 c as h. Mea nwh il e, Bu fo rdBil le de au a was dri vi ng a truc k p as t the Para vi ci ni s’ tra il er. He sa w Jef

fery andGeral d ru n o utof t he tra il er. He th ensaw Wil li am s fo ll ow the m , ho ld in g alar ge bl ackpu rs e. Whe n Wil li am s t oo k ash otat Ger al d, Bi ll ed eau a st op pe d h is tru ck . W il li am s the n app ro ach edBil le de au a, te ll in g h im th athe ne ed edth e truc k b ecau se he ha d a n e m erg en cy . Bil le de au a n ot edth at W il li am s l oo ke d a s t ho ug h h e h adbe entak in g d op e. Bil le de au a g otou t o f th e tru ckwith h is ke y s an d b eg anto run in to th e woo ds . W il li am s t he n b eg an sh oo ti ng at B il le de au a, who av oi de d b ei ng sh ot . Unabl e to fle e in Bil le de au a’s truc k wi th ou t the ke y s, Will ia m s turne d a nd walk ed10 0 yards up th e ro adto th e h om e o f Lin daan d F red di e Bar be r. W il li am s was barel y

acqua in te d wi th th e Bar

be rs , hav in g o nl y

pl ay edba sk etba ll with t he ir so ns , Bradan d B ry an , at the ir c hu rch on a co up le of o ccas io ns . W il li am s 6at te m

pt edto en te r th e Bar

be rs ’ ho m e. Lin daan swe redth e fro ntdo or . W il li am s in fli ct edgu ns ho t wo un ds to he r he ad . W il li am s t he n wen t i nt o t he ki tc he n a nd al so sh otFred di e in th e h ead . Next , W il li am s s ho t the ir s on , Bry an , who was as le ep inhi s b ed . It was lat er d is co ve redth atBry anha d m ul ti pl e g un sh otwou nd s, atlea sttwo of wh ic h wer e fo un d i n h is he ad . Each v ic ti m was s ho t atclo se ran ge . Bradwas a sl eep inth e b ackbe dr oo m . He awok e to th e so un d o f gu ns ho ts an d s cream in g. Br adgo t up a ndop en edhi s d oo r. W il li am s t he n p ro ceed eddo wn th e h al l t o B rad ’s roo m . Bradclo se d a ndlo ck edhi s d oo r, bu t Will ia m s k ic ke d i t in . Whe n B radgrabb edth e b arre l o f th e g un , W il li am s s ho t h im inth e le ft h an d. The two st ru gg le d, b utBradm an ag edto esc ap e th ro ug h t he ba ck do or , andran th ro ug h t he woo ds to hi s s is te r’s ho us e. W il li am s t oo k the Barb ers ’ ke y s an d t oo k t he ir v an . On th e aft ern oo n o f Feb ru ary 16 , he r each edth e Mi ss is si pp i-Lo ui si an a b or de r an d c al le d El lz ey , who advi se d h im

to su rren de r. Whe n Wil li am s was ap pr eh en de d, h e to ldth e la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cers th athe ha d t hr own th e ri fle off anun kn own bri dg e in to th e wate r. He ha d a ls o d is po se d o f Fred di e Bar be r’s wall et , aft er t ak in g a ll th e m on ey itco nt ai ne d. Will ia m s s pe ntth e m on ey he st ol e fro m

th e Bar be rs an d C la ir Para vi ci ni on crac k c oc ai ne aft er l eav in g t he cri m e sc en e.

7B. The Tr ia l an d Exp er t Test imo ny

On Ap ril 12 , 19 92 , W il li am s was in di ct edon two co un ts of c ap it al m ur de r. 2 Dur in g t he tri al on Nov em be r 10 , 19 92 , W il li am s t es ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t rem em be r al l the ev en ts of F eb ru ary 14 an d 1 5, 1 99 2. Will iam s t es ti fie d t ha t h e ha d afew b eers with El lz ey , andth endra nka “pr et ty goo d b it ” o f be er af te r sh e dr op pe d h im

off at a no th er cl ub . At th e cl ub , he p ur ch as edth ree h it s o f LSD fo r se ve n d ol la rs ($7 ) eac h fr om so m eo ne he di d n otkn ow an d re m em be redtak in g two of the m . W il li am s t es ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t re m em be r ki ll in g a nyon e. He on ly reca ll s t ha t h e wen t i nt o t he ba th ro om , andth athe be ga n t o fe el ve ry sca red . He sa idth athe saw t he wall s m ov e, an d h e sa w a lar ge r-tha n- li fe ap pa rit io n wal ki ng to ward s h im

th atm ad e h im

fearforhi s l ife . Reg ard in g t he da y of t he ki ll in gs , W il li am s fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t h e b eg anfli pp in g o utev enbe fo re h e cal le d El lz ey , an d t ha t h e tr ie d t o d is gu is e h is dru g u se fro m he r to ke ep he r fro m

ge tt in g a ng ry with h im . He tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t re m em be r an yth in g t ha t o ccu rredbe twee n th e ti m e th athe di al edhe r nu m be r an d wh enhe fou ndhi m se lf driv in g ava n i n Mi ss is si pp i a d ay

lat er. Howe ve r, W il li am s d idno t m en ti on see in g t he ap pa rit io n to th e Mi ss is si pp i o r Alaba m a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cers with wh om he sp ok e o n

Wil liams was also cha

rg ed with and c onvicted of attempted murder on the lives of 2 Clair Paravic ini and Br ad B arbe r. 8Feb ru ary 16 . W il li am s d idtel l the off ic ers th athe di d n otrem em be r ki ll in g an y on e th e n ig htbe fo re. W il li am s s ai d t ha t h e rem em be redsee in g b lo odon hi s pa nt s an d t hr owi ng th e ri fle inth e wat er n ear t he bri dg e. Dr. Claud e L. Bro wn, a p sychi atris t, m etwith Wil li am s i n Au gu st19 92 . At tri al , Dr. Bro wn t es ti fie d fo r th e d efen se . His t es ti m on y was b as edon hi s m eet in gs with Wil li am s. He d ia gn os edW il li am s wi th bo rd erl in e p ers on al it y di so rd er (“ BPD”) , whi chhe tes ti fie d i s a m en ta l d is or de r ch arac te riz edby inn er em pt in es s, di ss at is fact io n, an d i m

pu ls iv e act io ns un de rta ke n i n a n e ffo rt t o fe el be tt er, s uc h a s su ic id e at te m

pt s. Per so ns with B PD ha ve li m it ed , bu t i nt en se , flu ctua ti ng rel at io ns hi ps . He tes ti fie d t ha t i nd iv idua ls with B PD can be th ro wn i nt o p sycho ti c be ha vi orby inc reas es inan xi ety fro m an y so ur ce. Dr. Bro wn t es ti fie d t ha t W il li am s’ BPD da te d t o h is ch il dh oo d a ndwas u nr el at edto hi s u se of d ru gs be fo re th e m ur de rs . Dr. Bro wn al so tes ti fie d t ha t LSD i s, p er wei gh t, the m os t p sycho ge ni c dru g in th e wor ld . He tes ti fie d t ha t LSD caus es fri gh te ni ng di st orti on s an d d et ach m en t fro m real it y —i .e., ps y ch os is . Furt he rm or e, us in g a lc oh ol an d c oc ai ne with LSD ex ag ge rat es th es e res po ns es . Dr. Brown op in edth atW il li am s was ps y ch ot ic at t he ti m e o f th e k il li ng s. He fu rth er o pi ne d tha t Will iam s was su ffer in g fr om a m en ta l di se as e o r de fectth atren de redhi m un ab le to ap pr eci at e th e n atur e an d qua li ty or 9wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts . He op in edth atth is de st ru ct iv e p sycho si s re su lt edfro m a co m bi na ti on of h is pre ex is ti ng pe rs on al it y st ru ctur e act edup on by the he av y ov erl oa d o f drug s t ha t h e h adbe entak in g a ll ni gh t. Las tl y , he o pi ne d t ha t W il li am s’ BPD in an d o f it se lf p ro babl y di d n ottri gg er h is co nduc t an d tha t, h ad W il li am s b een so be r, th e m ur de rs pro babl y

wou ldno t h av e o ccu rred . Dr. Harry McC laren , a ps y ch ol og is t, t es ti fie d fo r th e St at e. He als o di ag no se d Wil li am s wi th BPD, as well as wi th an ti -s oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd er an d subs ta nc e ab us e. Dr. McCl arentes ti fie d t ha t, g iv enW il li am s’ acco un t o f hi s dru g an d a lc oh ol in ge st io n, h e was ve ry in to xi cat edat the ti m e o f th e k il li ng s. He te st ifi edth atps y ch os is res ul ti ng fro m LSD canlas t fr om

eig htto twel ve ho ur s an d th atW il li am s’ am

ne si a was pro babl y

ch em ic al ly induc ed . He als o t es ti fie d t ha t whe n s om e in di vi du al s ar e h ig hl y in to xi cat edfro m

ha ll uc in og en ic dru gs , th ey m ay di sp la y so m e sym

pt om s o f ps y ch os is . Dr. McC larentes ti fie d t o m eet in g Wil li am s i n Au gu stan d S ep te m be r 19 92 . Dur in g t ho se ses si on s, Will ia m s re co un te d t he ev en ts of t he ni gh t b efo re the ki ll in gs . Dr. McCl aren tes ti fie d t ha t Will ia m s t ol d h im th athe ha d afew drin ks with El lz ey . After s he dro pp edhi m off at t he club, h e b ou gh t thr ee h it s o f LSD. He al so in ge st eda lo ng , pu rp le tab le t, an d dran k wh is ke y ov er the co ur se of the ev en in g. He al so to ldDr. McCl aren th athe wentto a ho us e o n Di xo n’s Co rn er 10whe re, i n t wo trip s, h e b ou gh t cr ack . He rem em be redarg ui ng with El lz ey on th e 3 ph on e an d t ha t h e th enbe ga n t o fl ip ou t an d fe el fri gh te ne d. He cl ai m edth athe he ardso m eo ne ho ll er h is nam e an d fe ltli ke ev eryone was a ga in sthi m . He to ld Dr. McC la renth athe th ou gh t the on ly w ay ou t was to sh oo t h is way ou t. Will ia m s cl ai m edag ai n t ha t h e h adno othe r m em or ie s b efo re h e fo un d h im se lf d riv in g t he va n i n M is si ss ip pi . Dr. McCl aren tes ti fie d t ha t wh enso m eo ne ha s t ak enLSD, he orsh e m ay

see di st orti on s o f th in gs th atare the re. Inco nt ras t t o Dr. Br own , Dr. McCl arenop in edth at , bec au se W il li am s de li be rat el y

sh oteach vi ct im

twi ce i n o r ne ar the he ad , W il li am s was ab le to ap pr eci at e th e wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts . Dr. McCl aren furth er o pi ne d t ha t, b ecau se W il li am s h adno si gn ifi can t p sychi atric hi st ory ot he r th anatt em

pt edsu ic id e, he kn ew th e wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts . Dr. McCl aren tes ti fie d t ha t s in ce the dru gs an d al co ho l ex acerba te d Wil li am s’ BPD, witho utth e in to xi cat io n, Will iam s p ro babl y wou ldno t h av e k il le d Ger al d P arav ic in i o r Lin da , Fred di e, an d B ry anBarb er.

At trial, other witnesse s testified that they thought Williams had taken drug s. Greg ory 3 Rockwell testified that he worke d the door at the club. He sa w Will iams arrive at around 11:30 p.m. and leave around 1:00 a .m. Wi lliams returned w ithin an hour appe aring disheveled, sweating pr ofusely , jumping, and da ncingaround. Rockw ell thought that Williams appeare d as though he wer e trippingon L SD. Kelso Stewart testified that Wi lliams asked him if he knew wher e some L SD or cra ck coc aine c ould be locate d. Stewart lef t the bar be tween 3:00 a .m. and 4:00 a.m., and whe n he re turned, he found Will iams disheveled, swe aty , and hy per. 11On No ve m be r 11 , 19 92 , th e jury retu rn eda gu il ty verd ic t o n o ne co un t o f in te nt io na l m

ur de r du rin g t he co ur se of arob be ry forth e d eat hs of F red di e Bar be r an d Li nd a Bar

be r pu rs uantto Co de of Al ab am a § 13 A-5 -4 0( a)(2 ). The jury als o 4 returne d agu il ty verd ic t fo r th e cap it al off en se of i nt en ti on al m

ur de r fo r th e d eaths of Geral d P arav ic in i, Fre dd ie Barb er, Lin daBarb er, an d B ry anBarb er p ur su an t t o Co de of Al ab am a § 13 A-5 -4 0( a)(1 0) . The jury reco m m en de d, b y

a 10 –2 vo te , 5 th ata de ath s en te nc e b e im po se d fo r th e m

ur de r co nv ic ti on s. OnDecem be r 1, 19 92 , th e St at e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edW il li am s t o apu ni sh m en t o f de ath. C. Dir ect an d C ol la te ra l Ap

pe al s On Au gu st23 , 19 96 , th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm ed W il li am s’ con vi ct io ns an d d eat h s en te nc e. On Oct ob er 3 , 19 97 , th e Supr em e 6 Co urt o f Alaba m a aff

irmed th e d eci si on of t he Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al

The Ala bama Code state s that “[m] urder by the def endant during a

robber y in the first 4 degree or an a

ttempt thereof” is a ca

pital offense . Ala. Code § 13A- 5-40(a )(2) . The Ala bama Code state s that “[m] urder wher ein two or more persons a re murde red by 5 the def endant by one ac t or pursuant to one sc heme or courseof conduc t” is a ca pital offense . Ala. Code § 13A- 5-40(a )(10) . W illiams v. State , 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). 6 12App eal s. On J un e 1 5, 1 99 8, the U.S. Sup rem e Co urt d en ie d Wil li am s’ pet it io n 7 fo r a wri t o f certi or ari . 8 In19 99 , W il li am s fi le d ast at e h ab eas pe ti ti on(“ Ru le 32 pe ti ti on ”) i n S ta te co urt as se rti ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s p ur su an t t o Al ab am a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 2. On Au gu st17 , 20 00 , th e tr ia l co urt h el d a n e vi de nt ia ry 9 he ari ng . On Oct ob er 9 , 20 01 , th e tr ia l co urt d en ie d Wil li am s’ Rul e 3 2 p et it io n. On No ve m

be r 14 , 20 03 , th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f W il li am s’ Rul e 3 2 p et it io n. On Ma y 14 , 20 04 , th e St at e co urt 1 0 de ni edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a reh eari ng . On Oct ob er 1 , 20 04 , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Wil li am s’ pet it io n fo r a wri t o f certi or ari . W il li am s t he n t im el y

fil eda pe ti ti on forwritof f ed eral habe as co rp us inth e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. OnApri l 1 1, 2 00 7, the di stric t co urt d en ie d h is fed eral habe as Ex parte W

illiams , 710 So. 2d 1350 (Ala. 1997). 7 W illiams v. Alabama , 524 U.S. 929, 118 S. C t. 2325 (1998). 8 Rule 32.1 expl icates the scope of permissible claims. Post-conviction, a def endant may 9 bringthe followingchalleng es: (a) the constitution of the United States or of the State of Alabama require s a newtrial, (b) the court wa s without jurisdi ction to rende r judg ment or to impose sentence , (c) the sentenc e imposed excee ds the maxi mum authorized by law or is otherwise not a

uthorized by

law, (d) the petitioner is beingheld in custody afte r the pe titioner’s sentenc e has e x pired, or ( e) ne wly discovere d materia l fac ts ex ist which require that the conviction or sente nce be vaca ted by the cour t. W illiams v. State , No. CR–01–0463 (Ala. Crim. App. Nov. 14, 2003), mem. op. 1 0 13co rp us pe ti ti on , andon Apri l 2 8, 2 00 8, the di st ric t co urt i ss ue d aCOA res tri ct in g

is su es on ap pe al to de te rm in e: “ (1 ) whe th er tria l co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e in pr es en ti ng anin va li d i ns an it y de fen se ; (2 ) whe th er tria l co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to pre se nta ch al le ng e to in te ntba se d o n i nt ox ic at io n; (3) whet he r th e jury ch arg es un co ns ti tu ti on al ly shi fte d t o h im th e b ur de n o f pr oo f on in te nt , and whe th er co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ch al le ng e th em on th atba si s.” Doc . 49 . II . STANDARDS OF REVIE W W il li am s fi le d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti onaft er 1 99 6. Th eref or e, rev ie w of W il li am s’ § 2 25 4 p et it io n fa ll s wi th inth e sc op e o f th e Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”). Pur su an t t o AEDPA, we em pl oy a 1 1

“ hi gh ly defer en ti al st an da rdforrev ie win g S ta te co urt ju dg m en ts .” McNa ir v. Ca mpb el l , 41 6 F .3d12 91 , 12 97 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . Onl y

wher e th e St at e co urt h as ad jud ic at edth e m eri ts of Wil li am s’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s d o we app ly A EDPA’ s d efer en ti al st an da rdof r ev ie w. La nd v. All en , 57 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 15 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m).

Pub. L . No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). 1 1 14Giv enth e co nf in es of AEDPA, we p erm itrel ie f to a pe ti ti on er h el d i n s ta te cu st od y on ly whe re the Sta te co urt’s d eci si onwas “ ‘(1) co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edan un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2) . . . was ba se d o n an u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt pr oc eed in g.’” Ca mpb el l , 41 6 F .3dat 1 29 7 (quo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 )– (2 )).

“ The di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs un de rlyin g t he cla im are re vi ewedfor cl ear e rro r, whi le m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfactare re vi ewed de no vo . ” Ca mpb el l , 41 6 a t 1 29 7 (c it at io n o m it te d) . “ It i s t he pe ti ti on er’s b ur de n t o e st ab li sh hi s ri gh t t o h ab eas rel ie f[,] andhe m us t p ro ve all fact s n eces sa ry to sh ow a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Bla nk en sh ip v. Hal l , 54 2 F .3d12 53 , 12 70 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ [A] dete rm in at io n o f a fac tu al is su e m ad e b y a St at e co urt s ha ll be pre su m edto be co rrec t. The [pe ti ti on er h as ] th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th e p res um

pt io n o f co rrec tn es s b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) . “ Thu s, [o ]ur rev ie w of fi nd in gs of f actby the [S]tat e co urt i s ev en m or e d efer en ti al th anun de r a cl earl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ardof r ev ie w.” W oo d v . All en , 54 2 F .3d12 81 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .

15W e rev ie w de no vo in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s, wh ic h p res en t

m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact . Bla nk en sh ip , 54 2 F .3dat 1 27 0. “ W e rev ie w de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o r de ni al of ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on .” Ca mpb el l , 41 6 F.3 d a t 1 29 7 (c it at io n o m it te d) . “ W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on ab ou t wh ethe r th e [S]tat e co urt ac te d c on tra ry to cle arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law, o r un reas on ab ly app li edfed eral law, o r m ad e anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f fac t.” Smi th v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr ., 57 2 F .3d13 27 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Hal l v. Hea d , 31 0 F .3d68 3, 6 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 )). II I. DI SCUSSI ON A. Stri ck

la nd Gov erns Cla im s o

f In effe ct

iv e As si st an ce InStri ckl an d vW

as hi ng to n , th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt es tabl is he d th e fed eral law g ov ern in g t he ev al ua ti on of a ll in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s. 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) ; se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). “ The Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el in cl ud es th e ri gh t t o ef fe ct iv e ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, s in ce the purp os e o f th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el m or e g en eral ly is t o e ns ur e a fai r tri al .” Bla nk

en sh ip , 54 2 F .3dat 1 27 2 (e m ph as is inori gi na l) ( ci ti ng Stri cklan d, 46 6 U.S. at68 6, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 63 –6 4) . A pet it io ne r’s cl ai m th atth e as si st an ce ren de redby his co un se l i s “ so de fect iv e as to requi re re ve rs al of a. . . de ath se nt en ce h as two co m

po ne nt s.” Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 64 .

16To es tabl is h a n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, “ [a] pet it io ne r m us t s ho w th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , an d t ha t the de fic ie nc y

pre jud ic edth e d efen se .” W

ig gi ns v. Smi th , 53 9 U.S. 5 10 , 52 1, 1 23 S. Ct. 2 52 7, 2 53 5 (2 00 3) (ci ti ng Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S. Ct. at 20 64 ). To es tabl is h t ha t co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , “ a p et it io ne r m us t sh ow tha t co un se l’s re pr es en ta ti on fel l b el ow an ob jecti ve st an da rdof reas on ab le ne ss .” Jo hn so n v . Ala ba ma , 25 6 F .3d11 56 , 11 76 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The U.S. Supr em e Co urt h as “ em ph as iz ed th at[t]he pro pe r m eas ur e o f atto rn ey pe rfo rm an ce re m ai ns si m pl y reas on ab le ne ss un de r pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s.” W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 1, 1 23 S. Ct. at 25 35 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . To es tabl is h p reju di ce, the pe ti ti on er i s re qu ire d t o p ro ve “ th atth ere i s a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b eendi ffer en t.” Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 . Thatis , “ a p et it io ne r m us t s ho w on ly a reaso nabl e p ro babi li ty tha t the ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t; he ‘ ne edno t s ho w th atco un se l’s d efi ci en t co nduc t m or e li ke ly tha n n otalt eredth e o ut co m e in th e cas e.’” Bro wn le e v. Hal ey, 30 6 F .3d10 43 , 10 59 –6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (qu ot in g Stri ckl an d, 46 6 U.S. at 1769 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 ). “ Whe n e va lu at in g t hi s p ro babi li ty, ‘a cou rt h eari ng an

in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m

m us t co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce b efo re the jud ge or jury.’ ” Bro wn le e , 30 6 F .3dat 1 06 0 (quo ti ng Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at69 5, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 06 9) . “ The pe ti ti on er b ears th e b ur de n o f po of on th e p erfo rm an ce p ro ng as well as t he pre

jud ic e p ro ng of a Stri ckl an d cl ai m , andbo th pro ng s m us t b e pr ov edto pre va il .” Jo hn so n, 25 6 F .3dat 1 17 6 (c it at io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . “ Co urts m

us t ‘in du lg e [the ] st ro ng pre su m pt io n’ th atco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was reas on ab le an d t ha t co un se l ‘m ad e al l s ig ni fic an t d eci si on s i n t he ex erci se of r eas on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.’” Ch an dl er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F.3 d 1 30 5, 1 31 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (enba nc ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 9– 90 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 –6 6) . Whe n a ss es si ng W il li am s’ cla im th atco un se l wer e in effe ct iv e, itis im po rta ntto ke ep inm in d t ha t “ [i]n a dd it io n t o t he de fere nc e to co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce m an da te d b y Stri cklan d , th e AEDPA add s an ot he r lay er o f de fere nc e—t hi s o ne to a [S]tat e co urt’s d eci si on—wh enwe are co ns id eri ng whe th er t o g ran t fe de ral habe as rel ie f fro m a [S]tat e co urt’s d eci si on .” Ruthe rf or d v. Cr os by , 38 5 F .3d13 00 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . Thu s, W il li am s n oton ly has to sat is fy th e el em en ts of the Stri cklan d st an dard , bu t h e m us t al so sh ow tha t the Sta te “ co urt ap pl ie d Stri ckl an d to th e fac ts of h is cas e in 18an ob

je ct iv el y u nr ea so na bl e man ne r .” Bla nk en sh ip , 54 2 F .3dat 1 27 1 (e m ph as is in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g Ruthe rf or d , 38 5 F .3dat 1 30 9) . Inli gh t o f th es e p rin ci pl es , we wil l co ns id er ea chof Wil li am s’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l ch al le ng es . W il li am s’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l arg um en t i s t hr ee-f

ol d. He co m

pl ai ns th atco un se l wer e in effe ct iv e b ecau se co un se l: (1) pre se nt edanin va li d d efen se un de r Alaba m a la w; (2 ) fai le d t o pr op erl y arg ue a vo lunt ary in to xi cat io n d efen se to ne ga te anin te ntto m ur de r; a nd (3 ) fai le d t o o bjec t t o ju ry in st ru ct io ns . W il li am s t he refo re as se rts th atth e St at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li ed Stri ckl an d. B . Cou ns el

Did Not Ine ffec ti vel y Prese nt An I ns an it y Defen se 1. Ala ba ma La w o n In sa ni tyan d Vo lu nt ar y In to xi ca ti on Alab am a law pro vi de s t ha t i ns an it y is anaffi rm at iv e d efen se th atth e de fen da ntm

us t p ro ve by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 1( a), (c). Th e aff

irmativ e d efen se of i ns an it y requi res pro of

th at“ atth e ti m e o f th e co m m is si on of the act s co ns ti tu ti ng th e o ffen se , th e d efen da nt , as ares ul t o f se ve re m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect , was u nabl e to ap pr eci at e th e n atur e an d qua li ty or wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts .” Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 1( a) . Thu s, i n o rd er t o e st ab li sh th e affi rm at iv e d efen se of i ns an it y , th e d efen dantm us t es tabl is h t ha t h e su ffer edfro m a m en ta l d is eas e. 19On the ot he r ha nd , vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n i s n otanaffi rm at iv e d efen se to

cap it al m ur de r in Alab am a. Evi de nc e th ata de fen da ntwas v ol un ta ril y in to xi cat ed is , ho wev er, ad m is si bl e “ whe ne ve r itis rel ev an t t o n eg at e anele m en t o f th e of fen se ch arg ed ,” su chas i nt en t t o m ur de r. Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 2( a). Im po rta nt ly, itm us t b e em ph as iz edth at“ [i]nt ox ic at io n in it se lf do es no t co ns ti tu te m en ta l di se as e o r de fectwithi n t he m ean in g o f Sec ti on 13 -3 A-1 .” Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 2( d) (em ph as is ad de d) . Purs ua ntto Alab am a la w, “ [t]he de gr ee o f in to xi cat io n requi redto est ab li sh th ata de fen da ntwas i nc ap ab le of f orm in g a n i nt en t t o k il l i s a de gr ee so extre me as t o re nd er i t i m po ss ib le forth e d efen da ntto form th e in te ntto ki ll .” Flo wer

s v. Sta te , 92 2 S o. 2 d 9 38 , 95 5 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 05 ) (em ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . In s ho rt, t he lev el of i nt ox ic at io n ne ed edto ne ga te in te ntm us t ri se “ to th e le ve l o f st atut ory in sa ni ty.” W

ar e v. St at e , 58 4 S o. 2 d 9 39 , 94 6 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 91 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . 2. Def ic ie nt Perf orman ce W il li am s ar gu es th athi s co un se l p erfo rm edde fic ie nt ly becau se th ere was no le ga l o r fac tu al ba si s fo r hi s at to rn ey to ass ertanin sa ni ty defen se ba se d o n a m en ta l d is eas e. W il li am s as se rts th atth e fac ts of h is cas e o nl y supp orte d a vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n d efen se forpu rp os es of n eg at in g i nt en t, an d t ha t h is co un se l 20sh ou ldno t h av e co nf la te d t he requi rem en ts of a ss ert in g avo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n de fen se with a n i ns an ity

de fen se . W il li am s ar gu es th atth e rec or d i s d ev oi d o f an y ex pe rt t es ti m on y

fro m a ps y ch ia tri stth atwou ldsupp ort a p laus ib le cla im of in sa ni ty und er Al ab am a la w. He th eref or e co nt en ds th athi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d u nr eas on ab le by pro fes si on al st an da rd s b ecau se an in sa ni ty defen se ba se d o n i nt ox ic at io n was pre cl ud edby A laba m a la w. W e fi nd no m eri t t o t hi s ar gu m en t. To o ve rco m e th e st ro ng pre su m pt io n “ in fav orof c om

pe te nc e, W il li am s m us t b ear t he he av y

bu rd en“ th atno co m

pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e ta ke n t he act io n tha t h is co un se l d idtak e.” Hal ib ur to n v . Sec ’y, Dep ’t o f Co rr ., 34 2 F .3d 12 33 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . W e h av e sa idbe fo re tha t “ [c]ou ns el m us t b e p erm it te d t o wee d o utso m e arg um en ts to st res s ot he rs an d a dv oc at e eff

ect iv el y .” Gas ki n v . Sec ’y, Dep ’t o f Co rr . , 49 4 F .3d99 7, 10 03 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Altho ug h Wil li am s ar gu es th atco un se l o nl y m en ti on edth e d efen se of v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n o nc e, “ ab an do ni ng on e d efen se infav orof a no th er tha t co un se l reas on ab ly perce iv es to be m or e m eri to rio us is no t d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce.” Hou se l v. Hea d , 23 8 F .3d12 89 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . Rev ie w of th e rec or d s ho ws tha t the de fen se of i ns an it y ba se d o n am en ta l d is eas e was a 21so un d s tra te gy em pl oyed b y W il li am s’ cou ns el , whi chwe are n otin cl in edto se co nd -g ue ss . Se e Str ic klan d , 46 6 U.S. at68 9, 1 04 , S. Ct. at20 65 . The rec or d il lu st rat es sev eral reas on s wh y a reas on ab le de fen se co un se l wo ul d p ur su e an in sa ni ty defen se ba se d o n am en ta l d is eas e, ex cl us iv e o f vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n. Fi rs t, co nt rary to Will ia m s’ su gg es ti on , th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atth ere was so m e le ga l an d fa ctua l b as is forco un se l t o p ur su e th e in sani ty defen se . Two ex pe rt wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t ha t Will ia m s s uf fere d fr om

a “ m en ta l d is eas e.” Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 36 3– 64 , 51 6. Attri al , Dr. Bro wn, a p sychi atris t, p res en te d e vi de nc e reg ard in g Wil li am s’ m en ta l s ta te . Dr. Brown op in edth atW il li am s was “ craz y at th e ti m e” o f th e k il li ng s, “ craz y fro m a co m bi na ti on of h is pre ex is ti ng pe rs on al it y st ru ctur e act edup on by the he av y ov erl oa d o f drug s” th atW il li am s h adbe en ta ki ng all ni gh t l on g. Vo l. II, P– 1 a t R- 36 3. Dr. Bro wn al so tes ti fie d t ha t o n t he m orni ng of F eb ru ary 15 , W il li am s s uf fere d a“ m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect ” cal le d BPD. Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 36 3– 36 4. Al th ou gh Dr. Bro wn ex pl ai ne d tha t the pe ti ti on er’s i nt ox ic at io n d idex acerba te hi s B PD, si m pl y di sc us si ng in to xi cat io n do es no t u nd erm in e th e fac t tha t co un se l ap pr op ria te ly pres en te d e vi de nc e th at W il li am s s uf

fere d fr om

a m en ta l d is eas e. Dr. McC laren , a ps y ch ol og is t wh o m etwith Wil li am s o n t hr ee d iff eren t oc cas io ns , als o t es ti fie d abo utW il li am s’ m en ta l s ta te . Dr. McCl aren tes ti fie d t ha t 22in Sep te m

be r 19 92 , W il li am s h adtwo pre vi ou s s ui ci de att em pt s. After 1 2 co ns ul ta ti on with Wil li am s, Dr. Mc Cl aren op in edth atW il li am s s uf fere d fr om

a

“ m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect ” cal le d B PD an d an ant i-s oc ia l d is or de r co up le d wi th se ve ral subs ta nc e ab us e d ia gn os es . Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 51 6. Be cau se bo th expe rt witne ss es di ag no se d Wil li am s wi th a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect , itwas n ot un reas on ab le forco un se l t o o ffera de fen se ba se d o n i ns an it y . Seco nd , th e rec or d c on ta in s co nt rad ic to ry tes ti m on y

fro m witne ss es co m m en ti ng onwhet he r th ey be li ev edW il li am s ap pe aredto be in eb ria te d o r hi gh on dru gs du rin g t he ki ll in gs . On Ma y 18 , 19 92 , San dr a Ell zey test ifi edto a gr an d jury in M ob il e Co un ty tha t wh ensh e sp ok e to W il li am s o n t he ph on e jus t b efo re th e k il li ng s, Will ia m s s ou nd edno rm al , hi s s pe ech was n otsl urred , andhe was so ft- sp ok enan d c al m . Ellz ey tes ti fie d t ha t s he ha d b eenwith Wil li am s l on g en ou ghto kn ow wh enhe was h ig h o r whe n h e h adbe endri nk in g. Acco rd in g t o he r, W il li am s s ou nd edas i f he was s ob er. At tria l, Ell zey test ifi edth atW il li am s was “ ve ry

cal m an d h e was qu ie t[, a nd ] [h ]e j us t ap pe aredto be no rm al ” as th ey sp ok e o n t he tel ep ho ne th e dur in g t he ki ll in gs . Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 46 6. Ell zey’ s

In May 1990, Wil liams shot him self in the che st. In Fe bruar y 1991, he attempted 1 2 suicide by

intentionally

overdosingon coca ine.

23te st im on y

to th e g ran d ju ry

an d a t the tri al un de rm in es th e arg um en t tha t Will ia m s was in to xi cat edto th e d eg ree o f in sa ni ty. Add it io na ll y , Cla ir t es ti fie d t ha t o n t he m orni ng W il li am s k il le d h er hu sb an d Ger al d, Will ia m s d idno t ap pe ar t o b e und er the in flu en ce o f an y dru gs , an d t ha t “ he act edno rm al .” Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 24 4– 45 . This ev id en ce s ug ge st s t ha t on th e m orni ng of t he sh oo ti ng s, Will ia m s m ay no t h av e b een so in to xi cat edth atit was “ im po ss ib le ” fo r hi m

to form anin te ntto ki ll . Thu s, co un se l’s d eci si on to of fer t he in sa ni ty defen se in de pe nd en t o f in to xi cat io n was no t o nl y so un d, b utth is st rat eg y was t o Wil li am s’ ben efi t. The refo re, i t was reas on ab le forde fen se co un se l t o p ur su e a l eg al th eo ry of i ns an it y

ba se d o n am en ta l d is eas e, in de pe nd en t of in to xi cat io n. Thi rd , cou ns el ’s strat eg y

was s ou ndbe cau se W il li am s d idno t co ns is te nt ly rep ort fa ct s s ug ge st in g t ha t h is in to xi cat io n was so ex ces si ve th atitam ou nt edto in sa ni ty. Forex am

pl e, W il li am s re cal ls th aton th e m orni ng aft er the sh oo ti ng s, hi s cl ot he s wer e co ve redinbl oo d. Aft er Will ia m s was tak enin to cu st od y by law en fo rcem en t, h e d idno t m en ti onth athe was s care d, o r th athe th ou gh t h e was sh oo ti ng at an app ari ti on he be li ev edch as edhi m . Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 50 2. In hi s st at em en t t o t he po li ce, Will ia m s s im pl y says th athe di d n otrem em be r sh oo ti ng an y on e. The fi rs t t im e Will ia m s m en ti on edth athe th ou gh t an ap pa rit io n was 24co m in g a fte r hi m , andth atth e o nl y op ti on was t o s ho othi s way ou t, was aft er h e was ev al ua te d b y

Dr. McCl aren inAug us t an d S ep te m be r 19 92 . Vol . II, P– 1 a t R51 1. A jury m ay

ha ve co ns id eredth es e in co ns is te nc ie s as da m ag in g t o Wil li am s’ in to xi cat io n d efen se . Furthe rm or e, W il li am s t es ti fie d t ha t h e was ha ll uc in at in g whi le he sp ok e wit h El lz ey on th e p ho ne . He furt he r te st ifi edth atth e wal ls were m ov in g. Vo l. II, P– 1 a t R- 49 3. Ho wev er, o n the ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs , W il li am s di d n otm en ti on any

of t he se ha ll uc in at io ns to he r as he sh otJef fery andki ll ed Geral d. Inli gh t o f th is ev id en ce, we ca nn otsay tha t “ no co m pe te ntco un se l wo ul d ha ve tak enth e act io n t ha t h is co un se l d idtak e.” Se e Hal ib ur to n , 34 2 F .3dat 1 24 3 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . W il li am s h as no t p ro ffer edan y ev id en ce to sh ow o th erwi se . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t b ecau se th e jury m us t co ns id er i nt en t as anele m en t o f cap it al m ur de r, th e jury is fr ee t o a ccep t o r reject th e truthf ul ne ss of Wil li am s’ ass ert io n t ha t h e was so in to xi cat edth athe di d n ot ha ve in te ntto m

ur de r . See Ju st o v . Stat e , 56 8 S o. 2 d 3 12 , 31 4 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 90 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwhen th e d efen se of vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n i s ra is ed , th e jury can re ject the tru th fu ln es s o f th e de fen da nt ’s ass ert io n t ha t h e to okdru gs ). Co un se l’s p res en ta ti onof a n i ns an it y de fen se ba se d o n am en ta l d is eas e d idno t d etractor we ak enth e in fere nc e th at 25W il li am s was on dru gs . As ex pl ai ne d i n Stri ckl an d , cou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce i s

en ti tl edto a hi gh lev el of d efer en ce. 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 . W il li am s h as no t o ffer edev id en ce wh ic h wo ul d app ro pr ia te ly ove rco m e th e st ro ng pr es um pt io n t ha t co un se l’s as si st an ce was co m pe te nt . W il li am s’ tri al att orne y ’s pre se nt at io n o f anin sa ni ty defen se as am en ta l di se as e o r de fectpu rs uantto Alab am a la w was n otun reas on ab le . W e ag ree wi th th e St at e co urt, wh ic h d eci de d t ha t co un se l’s el ect io n t o p res en t the in sa ni ty de fen se was aso un d s tra te gi c d eci si on , andth atco un se l wer e n otin effe ct iv e. W il li ams v. Stat e o

f Alab ama , No. CR– 01 –0 46 3 (Al a. Cri m . App . Nov . 14 , 20 03 ), m em . op . at 1 7. Will ia m s h as fai le d t o s at is fy th e fi rs t p ro ng of t he Stri ckl an d te st , th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce i n a ss ert in g t he affi rm at iv e d efen se of i ns an it y fel l be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss . 3. Prej udic e Eve n i f co un se l wer e d efi ci en t, Will ia m s i s u nabl e to sat is fy th e p reju di ce pr on g o f Stri ckl an d . After t he rev ie win g c ou ns el ’s in sa ni ty stra te gy, W il li am s h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t, b utfor co un se l’s p ro fes si on al erro rs th e o ut co m e o f th e pr oc eed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. The reco rdco nt ai ns tes ti m on y fro m witne ss es who cal le d i nt o que st io n t he de gr ee o f in to xi cat io n Wil li am s ex pe rie nc ed . Giv enth e co nt rad ic to ry acco un ts reg ard in g t he de gr ee o f W il li am s’ 26in to xi cat io n, i t i s u nl ik el y th atth es e in co ns is te nc ie s wo ul d h av e ch an ge d t he ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in gs . Accor di ng ly, we fi ndth atth e St at e co urt’s de te rm in at io n was a reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stri ckl an d. C. The V olunt ar y In to xi ca tion Defens e wa s No t I m pr op erlyAr

gu ed W il li am s ar gu es th atco un se l wer e d efi ci en t i n p res en ti ng a pr op er v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n d efen se durin g t he gu il t/ in no cen ce p ha se . In s up po rt o f th is co nt en ti on , W il li am s ar gu es th atco un se l d idno t tho ro ug hl y in ve st ig at e an d pr es en t an ad di ti on al ex pe rt wi tn es s s uc h a s a p sycho ph arm aco lo gi st . W il li am s ex pl ai ns th ata ps y ch op ha rm aco lo gi stwou ldhave tes ti fie d abo utth e eff ect s LSD, al co ho l, an d c oc ai ne ha ve on th e b rai n. He s pe cu la te s t ha t thi s ad di ti on al te st im on y wou ldha ve ne ga te d t he in te ntrequi redfora cap it al m ur de r of fen se . He th eref or e arg ue s t ha t, b utforth e d efi ci en cy of d efen se co un se l, h e wou ldno t h av e be eneli gi bl e fo r th e d eath p en al ty. W e fi ndno m eri t t o t hi s ar gu m en t. Co un se l h as a co ns ti tu ti on al , in de pe nd en t dut y to in ve st ig at e an d p rep are a de fen se st rat eg y

pri orto tri al . Hou se v. Balkco m , 72 5 F .2d60 8, 6 18 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ); se e a ls o Fugat e v. Hea d , 26 1 F .3d12 06 , 12 21 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Howev er, th is du ty doe s n otne ces sa ril y requi re co un se l t o i nv es ti ga te each an d e ve ry ev id en ti ary le ad . Har ris v. Dugg er , 87 4 F .2d75 6, 7 63 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Yet, the de ci si on to res tri ctor l im itanin ve st ig at io n “ m us t fl ow fr om

anin fo rm ed 27jud gm en t.” Id . “ ‘[S] tra te gi c ch oi ces m ad e aft er l es s tha n c om pl et e in ve st ig at io n are r eas on ab le pre ci se ly to the ex te ntth atreas on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en ts supp ort the li m it at io ns on in ve st ig at io n.’” W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 1, 1 23 S. Ct. at 25 35 (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Stri cklan d, 46 6 U.S. at 6 90 –9 1, 1 04 S. Ct. at 20 66 ). Thatis , cou ns el ha s a dut y to m ak e a “ reas on ab le de ci si on th atm ak es pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io ns un ne ces sa ry .” Id . “ ‘In an y in effe ct iv en es s ca se , a pa rti cu la r de ci si on no t t o i nv es ti ga te m us t b e d ire ct ly ass es se d fo r rea so nabl en es s in all th e ci rcu m st an ces , app lying a he av y m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to co un se l’s jud gm en ts .’ ” Id. at52 1– 22 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 35 (qu ot in g Stri cklan d, 46 6 U.S. at 69 0– 91 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 ). The refo re, “ [i]n a ss es si ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f anatt orne y ’s in ve st ig at io n, . . . a cou rt m

us t co ns id er n oton ly the qu an tu m of e vi de nc e al read y

kn own to co un se l, b utals o wh ethe r th e kno wn ev id en ce wo ul d l eada reas on ab le att orne y to in ve st ig at e fu rth er.” Id . at 5 27 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 38 . As we ex pl ai ne d i n Ch an dl er ,

“ [i]nv es ti ga ti on (ev ena no ne xh au st iv e, pr el im in ary in ve st ig at io n) is no t re qu ire d fo r co un se l re as on ab ly to d ecl in e to in ve st ig at e a l in e o f de fen se th or ou gh ly.” 218 F.3 d a t 1 31 8 (c it in g Stri cklan d, 46 6 F .3dat 6 90 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 ). In Gra ys on v. Th omp so n , th e p et it io ne r adva nc edanarg um en t s ub st an ti al ly si mil ar t o t he on e Will ia m s m ak es inth is cas e. 25 7 F .3d11 94 , 12 18 –1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2820 01 ). Gray so n a rg ue d t ha t h is tri al lawyer was i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to de ve lo p

an d p res en t ad di ti on al ev id en ce re ga rd in g h is ch ro ni c al co ho li sm an d i nt ox ic at io n atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se to ne ga te th e in te ntrequi redfor a cap it al m

ur de r of fen se . Inres po ns e to th is arg um en t, we ad vi se d t ha t “ [a]ltho ug h [P ]etit io ne r’s cl ai m is th athi s tria l co un se l s ho ul d h av e d on e so m ethi ng m or e, we fi rs t l oo k a t wh atth e la wy er d idinfact .” Id. (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Ch an dl er , 21 8 F .3dat 13 20 ). “ ‘O urco urt’s p ro pe r in qu iry is l im it edto whet he r th [e] cou rs e o f act io n [fo ll owe d b y

de fen se co un se l] mig htha ve be ena reas on ab le on e.’” Id. (al te rat io n in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g Ch an dl er , 21 8 F .3dat 1 31 9) . 1. Def ic ie nt Perf orman ce W e m us t fi rs t ex am in e wha t co un se l d idinfact . At tri al , def en se co un se l’s th eo ry was, i n p art , th atW il li am s l ack edth e sp eci fic in te ntto be gu il ty of cap it al m ur de r. At tr ia l, n ei th er the de fen se no r th e St at e o ffer eda m ot iv e fo r W il li am s’ vi ol en t cr im es , othe r th ana drug -in du cedps y ch os is . The rec or d s ho ws co un se l pr es en te d e vi de nc e th atW il li am s was in to xi cat edan d h adco ns um edlar ge am ou nt s o f drug s. Co un se l p utW il li am s o n the st an d t o t es ti fy ab ou t the lar ge am ou nt s o f drug s an d a lc oh ol he co ns um edth e n ig htbe fo re, an d t he m orni ng of, th e k il li ng s. Co un se l em ph as iz edW il li am s’ rep eat edpurch as e o f LSD orecs ta sy, pr es cri pt io n dru gs , andalc oh ol . Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 29 9– 30 1. Co un se l al so read 29al ou d i n c ou rt J oh n F un de rb ur g’s s ta te m en t t o t he po li ce tha t re po rte d t ha t wh en

he was wi th W il li am s the ni gh t b efo re an d i nt o t he m orni ng of t he ki ll in gs , W il li am s b ou gh t an d c on su m edLSD, or d op e. Vol . II, P– 1 a t R- 31 3. Co ns is te nt with h is in to xi cat io n c la im s, Will ia m s co nt in ua ll y tes ti fie d t ha t h e co ul d n ot rem em be r th e sp eci fic s o f th e cri m es ot he r th anco ns um in g dru gs . Add it io na ll y , on di rectex am in at io n, Dr. Br own tes ti fie d t ha t the co m bi na ti on of d ru gs an d B PD ren de redW il li am s s o i nt ox ic at edan d p sycho ti c th athe was unabl e to ap pr eci at e th e wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts . This tes ti m on y sp eak s t o the st at e o f m in d Wil li am s ha d o n t he m orni ng of t he ki ll in gs . Bas edon th es e ex am pl es , itis cle ar tha t co un se l ad equa te ly em

ph as iz edth atW il li am s en ga ge d i n e xc es si ve alc oh ol an d drug co ns um

pt io n p rio r to th e cri m es , andW il li am s h as no t d em on strat edth at co un se l n eed edto arg ue furth er. Pres en ta ti on of t hi s ev id en ce s up po rts W il li am s’ co nt en ti on th athe di d n otpo ss es s t he requi si te in te ntto ki ll . Accor di ng ly, co un se l’s p res en ta ti on di d n otfal l b el ow the ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss st an da rdof pr of es si on al pe rfo rm an ce. Des pi te th es e eff

orts , W il li am s ar gu es th atif h is co un se l h aden li st ed te st im on y fro m a ps y ch op ha rm aco lo gi st , su chtes ti m on y wou ldha ve bo ls te redhi s vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n d efen se an d p ro vi de d acle arerde m on st rat io n o f hi s arg um en t t o t he jury. W il li am s m ad e a s im il ar ar gu m en t dur in g h is Ru le 32 po st 30co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng , bu t the Sta te co urt fo un d i t u np ers ua si ve .

W il li ams v. Ala ba ma , CR-0 1- 04 63 (Ala . Cri m . App . Nov . 14 , 20 03 ), m em . op . at 19 . Cou ns el pl acedDr. Bro wn o n t he st an d t o t es ti fy to th e ef fe ct s th atth e co m bi na ti on of LSD, cr ack , andalc oh ol wou ldha ve ha d o n Wil li am s’ be ha vi or , whi chis rel ev an t i nf

orm at io n fo r th e d efen se . W il li am s o nl y ass um es th ata ps y ch op ha rm aco lo gi stco ul d fi ll inad di ti on al tes ti m on y wher e Dr. Bro wn’s was al le ge dl y in su ffi ci en t. Thu s, Will ia m s h as no t d em on st rat edwhatki ndan d h ow m uc h i nv es ti ga ti on a reas on ab le lawyer wou ldhave m ad e und er the cir cu m st an ces in th is cas e. Se e Hor

sl ey v. Alab ama , 45 F.3d14 86 , 14 95 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Mo reo ve r, W il li am s d idno t ca ll hi s t ria l co un se l t o t es ti fy at t he Ru le 32 po st -co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Thu s, we h av e n o e vi de nc e as to whet he r tri al co un se l i nv es ti ga te d a dd it io na l ex pe rts , or wh y tri al co un se l ch os e n otto off er ad di ti on al ex pe rts . “ An am bi gu ou s o r si le ntreco rdis no t s uf fic ie ntto di sp ro ve th e st ro ng an d c on ti nu in g p res um pt io n o f co un se l’s co m

pe te nc y . There fo re, wh ere th e rec or d i s i nc om

pl et e o r un cl ear abo ut[co un se l]’ s ac ti on s, we wi ll pre su m e th at he di d wh athe sh ou ldhave do ne , andth athe ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.” Ch an dl er , 21 8 F .3dat 1 31 4 n .15 (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (ci ta ti onan d qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Becau se W il li am s h as off eredno ev id en ce t o s up po rt a 31co nc lu si on th attri al co un se l fa il edto co nduc t an in ve st ig at io n i nt o a dd it io na l

ex pe rts , we pre su m e Will iam s’ tri al co un se l ex erci se d re as on ab le , pro fes si on al jud gm en t. 2. Prej udic e Alt ern at iv el y , eve n i f W il li am s h adde m on strat edco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , th e p erfo rm an ce was no t p reju di ci al . In anatt em ptto est ab li sh pr ejud ic e, W il li am s re it erat es th ata su ffi ci en t v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n d efen se wou ldha ve ne ga te d t he ele m en t o f in te ntwhi ch , intu rn , wou ldha ve tak enth e de ath p en al ty off o f th e tabl e. W e are no t p ers ua de d b y th is arg um en t. Pu rs uantto Stri ckl an d , to est ab li sh pre jud ic e, th e d efen da ntm

us t s ho w “ th at th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at69 4, 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 ; Lyn d v . Terry , 47 0 F .3d13 08 , 13 15 –1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . That is , bu t fo r co un se l’s erro rs , itis reas on ab ly pro babl e th attes ti m on y fro m a ps y ch op ha rm aco lo gi stwou ldha ve affec te d t he sen te nc e ev en tu al ly im po se d. Und er thi s s ta nd ard , W il li am s h as no t s ho wn a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t pr es en ti ng a st ro ng er v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n d efen se wou ldha ve res ul te d i n ali fe se nt en ce ra th er tha n t he de ath p en al ty.

32Dr. McC larentes ti fie d t ha t Will iam s’ act io ns du rin g t he ki ll in gs wou ldno t

ne ga te anin te ntto co m

m itcap it al m

ur de r. In t hi s re sp ect , Dr. McCl aren off ered th e m os t co m

pe ll in g o pi ni on refu ti ng W il li am s’ sp ecu la ti onth atvo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n was th e stro ng es t the ory . Giv enhi s t es ti m on y , th e jury m ay ha ve reco m m en de d t he de ath p en al ty regar dl es s o f whe th er a p sycho ph arm aco lo gi stha d te st ifi ed . For e xa m

pl e, Dr. McC la rentes ti fie d t ha t, b ecau se th e v ic ti m s s us ta in ed , no t o ne , bu t m

ul ti pl e g un sh otwou nd s t o the he ad , th ro ator upp er ch es t ar ea, W il li am s’ act io ns were p ur po se fu l. Vo l II , Tab P– 1 a t R- 51 9– 20 . Dr. McCl aren fu rth er o pi ne d t ha t the cri m es were

anon go in g s eri es of e ve nt s s tarti ng at o ne ho m e an d t ak in g with h im fro m on e h om e a p ur se or m on ey , att em pt in g t o co m m an de er a ca r; n otbe in g s uc ces sf ul inth at , con ti nu in g on to an ot he r ho m e whi ch[he ] in va de d. Ag ai n, the vi ct im s atth atho m e were k il le d i n t he m an ne r I d es cri be d [a s] bei ng sh otinth e h eadtwi ce. The n [f orW il li am s] to tak e th e k ey s, to be ab le to ge t i nt o acar, t o driv e away, to fle e th e sc en e. The se th in gs su gg es t t o m e th at desp it e b ei ng in to xi ca te d th atJas on W il li am s kne w whathe was d oi ng at t he ti m e. Vol II, Tab P– 1 a t R- 52 0 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Giv enDr. McCl aren ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g Wil li am s’ act io ns , andth e m an ne r in whi chth e k il li ng s t ran sp ire d, we ca nn otsay tha t h e h as “ m etth e b ur de n of sh owi ng th atth e d eci si on reac he d [b y th e jury] wou ldreas on ab ly lik el y ha ve be endi ffer en t ab se ntth e err or s.” Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at69 6, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 69 . 33Fu rth erm or e, th e rec or d i s re pl et e wit h e vi de nc e th atth e jury cou ldha ve fou nd

th atW il li am s’ act io ns were d el ib erat e an d p ur po se fu l, ra th er tha n fi nd in g i n fa vo r of hi s v ol un ta ry

in to xi cat io n d efen se . It i s al so un li ke ly tha t t es ti m on y fro m a ps y ch op ha rm aco lo gi stwou ldha ve ch an ge d t he ou tc om e o f th is cas e. To thi s ex te nt , we fin d t ha t the Sta te co urt m ad e a rea so nabl e ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law, an d t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o e rro r in it s d eci si on . D. The Jur

y In st ru ct io ns Last ly, W il li am s co nt en ds th atco un se l re nd eredde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he jury in st ru ct io ns . He als o a rg ue s tha t the jury in st ru ct io ns on in sa ni ty andvo lunt ary in to xi cat io n wer e co nf us in g andco ntrad ic to ry . App el la ntBr. 5 7. We dec li ne to en te rta in th e m eri ts of t he lat te r arg um en t, as ou r rev ie w is res tri ct edto th e is su es sp eci fie d i n t he cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . McClai n v . Hal l , 55 2 F .3d12 45 , 12 54 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Mur ra y v. Uni te d St at es , 14 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (pe r curia m)); New la nd v. Hal l , 52 7 F .3d11 62 , 11 66 n.4 (11 thCir . 20 08 ); se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(3 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e COA m

us t s pe ci fic al ly ind ic at e th e is su es forrev ie w). The d is tri ctco urt’s or de r gr an ti ng th e COA was li m it edto th e sp eci fic is su e o f “ whe th er the jury in st ru ct io ns un co ns ti tu ti on al ly shi fte d t o h im th e b ur de n o f pr oo f on in te nt .” Doc. 49 at 1 . W e th eref

or e fi ndth at , to th e ex te ntth atW il li am s ar gu es co un se l wer e 34in effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o c on fu si ng or c on tra di ct ory jury in st ru ct io ns , he ha s n otrai se d aco gn iz ab le cla im withi n t he sco pe of the li m it edrev ie w sp eci fie d in th e COA. 1 3 W il li am s co nt en ds th atco un se l wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he fo ll owi ng jury in st ru ct io ns th athe cla im s, wh enreadto ge th er as a who le , un co ns ti tu ti on al ly shi fte d t he bu rd enof p ro vi ng in te ntdu rin g t he gu il t p ha se : (1 ) th atev ery pe rs onov er the ag e o f fo urte enis pre su m edto ha ve su ffi ci en t m en ta l cap aci ty to ap pr eci at e certa in ki nd s o f co nduc t ar e cri m in al act s; (2) th atW il li am s ha d t he bu rd enof p ro vi ng in sa ni ty by cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e; an d (3 ) th at vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n c an no t n eg at e in te ntun le ss itam ou nt s t o i ns an ity . App el la ntBr. 5 6– 57 , 60 . 1. AEDPA Defer en ce f

or Stat e Hab ea s C

ou rt As an in it ia l m at te r, a que st io n p res en te d i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erred whe n i t af

fo rd edno AEDPA defe ren ce t o t he Sta te co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f

We also decline to c onsider the merits of this claim because it is notcer tain that 1 3 Wil liams clearly

prese nted this arg

ument to the district court as a specific , enumer ated c laim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. See J ones v. Campbe ll, 436 F.3d 1285, 1304 ( 11th Cir. 2006). The a rgument that the jury

instructions were confusingwas mentioned w ithin the statement of the ca se, but it was not argued or me ntioned ag ain in the amende d habea s petition. Doc. 11 at 18, 65–66. Additionally , the district court’s order on the petition made no rulingon this iss ue. “A s a g ener al rule, w e will not addre ss issues or arguments on appea l that were not fairly prese nted to the district court.” Jones, 436 F.3d a t 1304. (citing Depre e v. Thomas , 946 F.2d 784, 793 ( 11th Cir. 1991)). 35W il li am s’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m on th e is su e o f whe th er the jury in st ru ct io ns sh ift edth e b ur de n t o p ro ve in te nt . To rei te rat e, AEDPA affo rd s a hi gh lev el of d efer en ce wh enth e St at e co urt ad jud ic at es a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im on th e m eri ts . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Ther efo re, i f th e St at e co urt ad jud ic at ed th e m eri ts of Wil li am s’ cla im th atth e jury ins tru ct io ns un co ns ti tu ti on al ly shi fte d th e b ur de n t o p ro ve in te nt , th e St at e co urt i s en ti tl edto de fere nc e whe re p rin ci pl es of fed eral law ar e n otvi ol at ed . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt re vi ewedth is cla im de no vo . Afte r rev ie w, we fin d t ha t the di st ric t erro ne ou sl y rev ie wedW il li am s’ bu rd en -s hi fti ng po rti on of h is cla im un de r ade no vo st an da rd . Doc. 2 1 a t 3 4– 35 . The di st ric t co urt p res en te d aco nc is e rea so n fo r ap pl y in g t he de no vo st an da rd , ex pl ai ni ng th atth e “ St at e co urt was un aware th ata co ns ti tu ti on al , bu rd en -s hi fti ng cl ai m ha d a ls o b eenass ert ed .” Se e id. at 3 4. Ho wev er, we are rel uc ta ntto ag ree. The reco rdin di cat es th atth e St at e co urt was aware o f W il li am s’ cha ll en ge to th e jury ins tru ct io ns , whi chhe all eg edsh ift edth e b ur de n o f pr ov in g i nt en t t o hi m . In h is Ru le 32 pe ti ti onas a m en de d, Will ia m s ra is edth e cl ai m th atco un se l were i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to ob ject t o ju ry

in st ru ct io ns th atsh ift edth e b ur de n t o pr ov e th athe ha d t he requi si te m en ta l s ta te of i nt en t t o k il l. Vo l. VIII , Tab P– 13 , at17 –1 9. In supp ort o f hi s R ul e 3 2 a m en de d p et it io n, Will ia m s al so fil eda po st 36he ari ng bri ef wi th th e St at e co urt. Vo l. XI, Tab P– 36 at R –3 46 . As th e d is tri ct co urt n ot es , W il li am s ar gu edth ata jury charg e in vo ki ng th e p res um pt io n o f in te nt m ay un co ns ti tu ti on al ly shi ft t he bu rd enof p ro of to th e d efen da nt . Vol. XI, Tab P– 36 at R –3 68 . W il li am s’ arg um en t, h owe ve r, co nf la te s t he requi rem en ts of as se rti ng th e aff

irmativ e d efen se of i ns an it y , th e d efen se of v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n, th e p res um

pt io n o f sa ni ty, an d the bu rd enth e St at e m us t carry inord er t o p ro ve in te ntto co m

m itcap it al m

ur de r, in to on e b ur de n, wh ic h h e sa y s s hi fte d t o h im in anun co ns ti tu ti on al m an ne r. Vol . XI, Tab P– 36 at R –3 46 . Alb ei t co nf

us in g, thi s arg um en t was be fo re the Sta te co urt. Bec au se bo th th e Ru le 32 pe ti ti on an d t he po st -co nv ic ti on he ari ng bri ef p res en t thi s ar gu m en t, we ar e unabl e to ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the Sta te was u na ware o f th e b ur de n- sh ift in g a rg um en t. The qu es ti on no w bec om es whethe r th e St at e co urt’s d eci si on on W il li am s’ Ru le 32 pe ti ti on reg ard in g t he bu rd ento pro ve in te ntco ns ti tu te d a n a dju di cat io n on th e m eri ts . After re vi ewin g t he Sta te co urt’s o rd er o f th e Ru le 32 pe ti ti on , th e reco rdin di cat es th atth e St at e co urt d idinfactad jud ic at e o n t he m eri ts W il li am s’ bu rd en -s hi fti ng cla im .

“ A dec is io n t ha t d oe s n otres t o n p ro cedur al gro un ds alo ne is an ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts , reg ard le ss of t he form inwhi chitis ex pr es se d.” Bla nk en sh ip , 54 2 F .3dat 1 27 1 n .4 (c it at io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . 37Fu rth erm or e, § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) requi res on ly an ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts inSta te co urt p ro ceed in gs . W

ri gh t v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 27 8 F .3d12 45 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ The ch ie f res po ns ib il it y of ju dg es is to de ci de th e cas e b efo re the m . They m ay , or m ay

no t, at te m

ptto ex pl ai n t he de ci si on inanop in io n.” Id. at 1 25 5. Th at is , “ [t]he st atut ory

lan gu ag e fo cu se s o n t he res ul t, n otonth e rea so ni ng th atledto th e res ul t.” Id . Thu s, a St at e co urt i s n otrequi redto li stanen ti re ra ti on al e as to why it re jects th e m eri ts of acla im pro pe rly befo re i t. Se e id. Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rd , we fin d t ha t the Sta te co urt ad jud ic at edth e m eri ts of Wil li am s’ cla im th atco un se l wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o cert ai n ju ry

in stru ct io ns th atsh ift edth e b ur de n t o p ro ve in te nt . In i ts Octo be r 2, 20 09 ord er, the Sta te co urt m ad e th e fo ll owi ng st at em en t re ga rd in g t he Ru le 32 pe ti ti on : The Co urt h as rev ie wedth e ev id en ce co nt ai ne d i n the reco rdof t he or ig in al pro ceed in gs , th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the Ru le 32 ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e p le ad in gs an d a rg um en ts of c ou ns el forth e St at e an d Pet it io ne r, an d h as rev ie wedth e rel ev an t l aw. Thi s C ou rt f in ds th at W il li am s’ tri al co un se l d idno t p ro vi de in effe ct iv e as si st an ce dur in g W il li am s’ gu il t p ha se tri al . Vol . VIII, Tab P– 17 at 2 2. Th is st at em en t co ns ti tu te s an ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts . Havi ng alr eady

m etth e requi rem en ts of a dju di cat io n u nd er § 22 54 (d )(1 ), th e St at e co urt en ga ge d i n a na lysis an d e xp la in edth atth e d efen da ntha d t he

38co ns is te nt“bu rd enof p ro vi ng in sa ni ty.” V ol . VIII, Tab P– 17 at 2 8. Th e St at e

co urt al so cla rif

ie d Wil li am s’ m is read in g o f th e la w, andex pl ai ne d tha t v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n i s a d efen se th atth e d efen da ntals o h adth e b ur de n t o “ pr ov e dur in g a tri al .” Vol . VIII, Tab P– 17 at 2 8. The Sta te co urt re as on edth atjury in st ru ct io ns th atno te co rrec t s ta te m en ts of l aw are n oterro ne ou s. Vo l. VIII , Tab P– 17 at 2 8. The Sta te co urt the n c on cl ud edth at“ tri al co un se l wer e n otin effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o s uc h i ns tru ct io ns .” Vol . VIII, P– 17 at 2 8. In de ed , we readth es e st at em en ts to m eanth atth e St at e co urt ad jud ic at edth e m eri t o f W il li am s’ ch al le ng e to th e jury ins tru ct io ns ; i t p ro pe rly det erm in edth atth e ch arg e d idno t in ap pr op ria te ly shi ft t he bu rd en s b etweenth e p art ie s. 1 4

The State c ourt explained its determination by clarifying the differ ence s betwee n the 1 4 burden pla ced on the defe ndant when a ssertingaff irmative def

enses, a nd the State’s burde n to prove the requisite mental state of intent. In the jury instructions section, the State cour t made the followingclarifications:

The [c]ourt conclude

s that insanity

is an aff irmative def

ense that must be pleade d and prove d by the def endant to the r easona

ble satisfac tion of the jury , and that the bur den of proving insa nity rema ins on the defe ndant throughout a trial. Ala. Code. § 13A -3- 1(c) ; Dunaway v. State , 746 So. 2d 1021, 1030 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998). Intox ication, likewise, is an a ffirma tive defe nse that the defe ndant must prove duringa trial. Roy, 680 So. 2d at 941. J ury instructions that note the above corr ect state ments of law a re not errone ous and Will iams’ trial counse l were not ineffe ctive for failingto object to such instructions. Vol. VI I I , P–17 at 27–28 (emphasis adde d). 39Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d a de no vo rev ie w, and sh ou ldha ve affo rd edAEDPA defe ren ce t o t he Sta te co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f W il li am s’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m with re ga rdto th e jury in st ru ct io ns . Howev er, thi s erro r is ha rm le ss be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y ap pl ie d t he pri nc ip le s o f Stri ckl an d , anditfou ndth atth e co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was no t i ne ffec ti ve . Se e Bla nk en sh ip , 54 2 F .3dat 1 27 2 (a ffi rm in g t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a fed eral habe as pe ti ti on aft er the di st ric t co urt “ erro ne ou sl y affo rd edno AEDPA defe ren ce t o t he st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f Bl an ke ns hi p’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m ”). W it h t he pro pe r pr in ci pl es of d efer en ce in pl ace, we n ex t d et erm in e whe th er the Sta te co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law i s co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law. 2. Def ic ie nt Perf orman ce a. Th e In stru ct io ns on Int en t t o C ommi t Ca pi ta l Mu rder

Did No t S hi ft th e Bur de n of Pro vi ng Int en t On the is su e o f whe th er the jury in st ru ct io ns rel ie ve d t he pro se cu ti on ’s bu rd enof p ro vi ng in te ntto co m m itcap it al m

ur de r, we fin d tha t the jury in st ru ct io ns di d n otsh iftth is ev id en ti ary requi rem en t t o Wil li am s. Th eref or e, th e pe rfo rm an ce was no t d efi ci en t fo r co un se l’s fa il ur e to ob ject. Co nt rary to W il li am s’ ass ert io n, the reco rdsh ows th atth e tr ia l co urt ex pl ic it ly charg edth e jury

40with t he fol lo win g i ns tru ct io ns ab ou t the Sta te ’s res po ns ib il it y , or b ur de n, t o p ro ve

in te nt : Inord er t o p ro ve th e el em en ts of t he cap it al off en se th e St at e m us t p ro ve th e in te nt io na l m ur de r by the de fen da nt of Lin daBarb er an d F red di e Bar be r . . . . [I]t m

us t b e pr ov edth atdurin g t he co ur se of tha t ro bb ery th e d efen da nt in te nt io na ll y

m ur de redFred di e Bar

be r an d Li nd a Bar

be r. . . . So i t i s re qu ire d t ha t the Sta te pro ve th atth e d efen da nt sh otLin daBarb er an d F red di e Bar be r wit h agun, tha t i n so do in g h e k il le d t he m , andth atinso do in g h e act edwith th e in te ntto cau se th ei r de ath. . . . [T] he Sta te [ha s] th e bu rd enof p ro vi ng all of t he ele m en ts of t he se off en se s be y on d areas on ab le do ub t Vol . II, Tab P –1 at R -5 88 –9 0. W it h re ga rdto th e d eat hs of Ge ral d a ndBry an , th e tr ia l co urt ch arg edth e pr os ecu ti on with t he bu rd ento pro ve th atW il li am s i nt en de d t o c au se th ei r de aths . Vol . II, Tab P –1 at R -5 93 –9 4. We agre e wit h the di st ric t co urt tha t Will iam s’ co nt en ti on th atth e St at e d idno t h av e to pro ve th e requi si te m en ta l s ta te is m eri tl es s. Th e jury ins tru ct io ns ex pl ic it ly ass ig ne d t he bu rd enof p ro vi ng in te ntas anele m en t o f th e cri m e fo r cap it al m ur de r to th e St at e. W e fi ndno erro r wit h t hi s ch arg e, an d t he Sta te co m m it te d n o u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law wh en itco nc lu de d t ha t co un se l wer e n otin effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he se in st ru ct io ns . b. Th e In stru ct io ns on th e Presu mpt io n a nd Ins an it y 41W il li am s al so tak es is su e wit h t he fol lo win g i ns tru ct io ns on th e

pr es um pt io n: By law ev ery pe rs on ov er the ag e o f fo urte enis pre su m ed to be res po ns ib le forhi s o r he r act s. Th atis to say tha t ev ery pe rs on ov er tha t ag e is pre su m edto ha ve su ffi ci en t m en ta l capa ci ty to ap pr eci at e th atcert ai n t y pe s o f co nduc t are c riminal or a re ac ts whi chare ag ai ns t the law. Thus th is pre su m

pt io n i s a f

actinth e cas e whi chm

us t b e co ns id eredby the jury al on g wi th ot he r ev id en ce. In ap pl y in g the se pro po si ti on s you m us t co ns id er al l the ev id en ce i n d et erm in in g t he qu es ti on of i ns an it y at t he ti m e o f th e co m

m is si on of t he all eg edcri m es . In m ak in g y ou r de te rm in at io n youm ay rejectan y

or a ll ex pe rt te st im on y ev enth ou gh itis witho utco nf li ct . Vol . III, Tab P– 1 a t R- 60 3– 04 . The rel ev an t i ns tru ct io ns on in sa ni ty are fol lo ws:

It i s anaffi rm at iv e d efen se to a pr os ecu ti on forany cri m e th atat t he ti m e o f th e co m mis si on of t he act s co ns ti tu ti ng th e o ffen se th e d efen da ntas ares ul t o f se ve re m en ta l di se as e o r de fectwas u nabl e to ap pr eci at e th e n atur e an d qu al it y or wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts . Men ta l d is eas e o r de fectdo es no t o th erwi se co ns ti tu te a de fen se . Sev ere m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectdo es no t i nc lu de anab no rm al ity m an ife st edon ly by

rep eat edcri m in al or o th erwi se an ti so ci al co nduc t. The de fen dantha s t he bu rd enof pr ov in g the de fen se of i ns an it y by clearan d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce. Vol . III, Tab P– 1 a t R- 60 2– 03 . W il li am s ar gu es th atth es e in st ru ct io ns su gg es te d t o t he jury th atbe cau se he is ov er the ag e o f fo urte en , itsh ou ldpre su m edth athe in te nd edto co m m itcap it al

42m

ur de r. W il li am s fu rth er ar gu es th atbe cau se th e jury ins tru ct io ns als o re qu ire d hi m to sh ow b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th athe is in sa ne , th e d efen se of in sa ni ty acts as areb ut ta l t o t he pre su m pt io n o f in te nt . He th eref or e, arg ue s t ha t th e p res um

pt io n u nc on st itut io na ll y

sh ift edth e b ur de n t o p ro ve in te ntto hi m . After rev ie w of t he se in st ru ct io ns , we fin d t hi s ar gu m en t u np ers ua si ve . W il li am s ci te s t o Sa nd

stro m v. Mon ta na as an e xa m pl e o f a p ro sc rib ed pr es um pt io n. Se e 44 2 U.S. 5 10 , 52 1, 9 9 S . Ct. 2 45 0, 2 45 8. In Sa nd stro m , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a d efen da nt ’s st at e o f m in d o r in te ntth atis anele m en t o f a cri m e “ can no t b e ta ke n fr om th e tr ie r of

factth ro ug h re li an ce o n aleg al pr es um pt io n o f wro ng fu l i nt en t.” 4 42 U.S. at 5 22 , 99 S. Ct. at24 58 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Uni te d Sta tes Gyp su m Co. , 43 8 U.S. 4 22 , 98 S. Ct. (1 97 8) ) (em ph as is om it te d) . A j ury

in st ru ct io n wh ic h c reat es a bu rd en -s hi fti ng pre su m pt io n o r a

“ co nc lu si ve pre su m

pt io n” is un co ns ti tu ti on al . Id. at 5 23 –2 4, 9 9 S . Ct. at24 59 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Furthe r, anin st ru ct io n m us t n otrel ie ve th e g ov ern m en t o f it s bu rd enof p ro vi ng each an d e ve ry ele m en t o f th e cri m e. Id. at52 3 (c it at io n om it te d) ; ac co rd

Parker v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 33 1 F .3d76 4, 7 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ [I]t is a co m

m onpl ace o f cri m in al law tha t a c on vi ct io n v io la te s due pr oc es s i f th e jury didno t h av e to fin d t he ele m en ts ne ces sary fora gu il ty verd ic t be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.”) ; In re Win sh ip , 39 7 U.S. 3 58 , 36 4, 9 0 S . Ct 1 06 8, 4310 73 (19 70 ) (h ol di ng th atdu e p ro ces s re qu ire s “pr oo f be y on d areas on ab le do ub t

of ev ery factne ces sa ry

to co ns ti tu te th e cri m e wit h wh ic h h e is ch arg ed ”). Afte r rev ie win g t he ch al le ng edpre su m pt io n, we fi ndth atth e p rin ci pl es setforth in Sa nd stro m were n otvi ol at edfortwo reas on s. Fi rs t, i n Sa nd

stro m , th e Supr em e Co urt re jecte d “ co nc lu si ve pre su m pt io ns ” th atrel ie ve d t he Sta te of i ts burd ento pro ve in te nt . 44 2 U.S. at52 3– 24 , 99 S. Ct. at24 59 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . In thi s ca se , ho wev er, Will iam s’ arg um en t i s m is pl aced . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the ch al le ng edpre su m pt io n in vo ke s a p res um

pt io n o f sa ni ty, an d n ota pr es um pt io n o f in te ntas Wil li am s su gg es ts . The u lt im at e d eci si on on th e is su e o f in te ntwas l eftto th e tr ie r of fact al on e, an d t he tri al co urt’s s im pl e m en ti on of t he pre su m pt io n o f sani ty (no t i nt en t) di d n otin va de th e jury’ s fa ct -fi nd in g fu nc ti on . Se e Sa nd stro m 44 2 U.S. at52 3, 9 9 S. Ct . at 2 45 9. In de ed , th e in st ru ct io n t ha t a p ers on is pre su m edto po ss es s su ffi ci en t m en ta l capa ci ty to ap pr eci at e th athi s co nduc t i s wro ng fu l i s a pr es um pt io n o f sa ni ty. Se e Vol . III, Tab P– 1 a t R- 60 3– 04 . Alab am a la w has lo ng reco gn iz edth e p res um

pt io n o f sa ni ty, an d we a gr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t W il li am s h as fai le d t o s ho w th atth e p res um pt io n o f sani ty is u nc on st itut io na l. 1 5 The U.S. Supreme Court sa id that a State may “plac e the bur den of pe rsuasion on a 1 5 defe ndant to prove insanity as the a pplicable law

define s it, whether by

a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e or to some more convincingdegree .” Clark v. Arizona , 548 U.S. 735, 739, 126 S. C t. 44Seco nd , we rejectW il li am s’ con te nt io n tha t the pre su m pt io n o f sa ni ty shi fts th e b ur de n t o p ro ve in te ntto hi m . He argu es th atwhenreadto ge th er, as se rti ng an affi rm at iv e d efen se of i ns an it y act s as a reb ut ta l t o t he pre su m pt io n o f sa ni ty be cau se he ha s t o p ro ve th athe is in sa ne by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. W il li am s as se rts th atif we e xa m in e th e jury ins tru ct io ns inth is m an ne r, th e ch arg e vi ol at es pri nc ip le s o f Sa nd stro m . W il li am s’ arg um en t i s n oton ly extran eo us , bu t al so itis a m is un de rs ta nd in g o f Alaba m a la w, andwe fin d i t g ro un dl es s. In Arch ie v. Stat e , Alab am a su m m ari zedit s p rin ci pl es on th e is su e o f sa ni ty as th e fo ll owi ng :

1. [b ]y st atut e, th ere i s a p res um pt io n o f sa ni ty ext en di ng to all pe rs on s o ve r th e ag e o f 14 . 2. Th e d efen se of i ns an it y is anaffi rm at iv e d efen se . The bu rd enof p ro vi ng th is de fen se res ts up onth e d efen da ntan d ne ve r sh ift s t o the Sta te . 3. Th e b ur de n upo n t he de fen da ntis to est ab li shth e is su e o f le ga l i ns an ity

by [clea r an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e] andto th e reas on ab le sat is fact io n o f th e jury.

2709, 2714 (2006). Ea ch state ha s the “a uthority to define its pre sumption of sanity (or c apac ity or re sponsibili ty) by

choosingan insanity

definition . . . and plac ing the burden of persua sion on defe ndants claimingincapa city as an e x cuse” from customar y criminal re sponsibili ty . See id. at 771, 126 S. Ct . at 2732. In Clark, the U.S. Supreme Court substantially left insanity

rules open to the states. Id. 4587 5 S o. 2 d 3 36 , 34 1 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 03 ) (al te rat io ns inori gi na l) ( ci ta ti onan d

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Afterrev ie w of t he jury in st ru ct io ns an d i n l ig htof 1 6 Alab am a la w, we fin d t ha t the pre su m pt io n o f sa ni ty doe s n otsh iftth e b ur de n o f pr ov in g i nt en t t o Wil li am s, n ordo we fin d t ha t as se rti ng th e aff irmativ e d efen se of in sa ni ty acts as areb ut ta l t o t he pre su m pt io n o f sa ni ty. Rathe r, Alab am a la w al lo ws the de fen da ntto pro ve , by cl ear andco nv in ci ng ev id en ce, tha t h e was in cap ab le of f

ormin g t he requi si te in te ntto co m m itcap it al m

ur de r. Thi s i s an op po rtu ni ty for the de fen da ntto ex pl ai n wh y an d h ow a m en ta l d is eas e co ul d ren de r hi m

un ab le to ap pr eci at e th e n atur e an d qua li ty or wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts ev enth ou gh hi s ac ti on s m ay ap pe ar t o b e d el ib erat e an d p ur po se fu l. Se e Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 1( a). In de ed , th e b ur de n t o p ro ve th is by clearan d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce i s o n t he de fen da nt . Howev er, wh enass ert in g the affi rm at iv e d efen se , th e b ur de n re m ai ns on th e St at e to pro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t Will ia m s in te nd edto co m

m itcap it al m

ur de r. The t wo b ur de ns are n otm utua ll y ex cl us iv e, an d b ot h p art ie s h av e to carry th ei r bu rd enirr es pe ct iv e o f th e o th er. Bec au se we fin d t ha t n ei th er the pre su m pt io n o f sa ni ty north e aff irmativ e d efen se of i ns an it y sh ift edth e b ur de n t o p ro ve in te nt , cou ns el were n otin effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t

See also Knight v. State , 907 So. 2d 470, 479–80 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (e xplaining 1 6 that Ala. Code § 13A- 3-1 provides that insanity is an “a ffirmative defe nse which the defe ndant must prove by

clea r and c onvincingevidenc e”) . 46to th es e in stru ct io ns . Accor di ng ly, th e St at e co urt d idno t ap pl y Stri cklan d in a

m an ne r th atwas c on tra ry to , or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law. c. Th e In stru ct io ns on Vol un ta ryInt ox ic at io n W il li am s ar gu es th atco un se l wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he in st ru ct io n t ha t v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n c an no t n eg at e in te ntun le ss itam ou nt s t o in sa ni ty. App el lantBr. 5 6– 57 . W il li am s ar gu es th atbe cau se th e d efen se of vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n re qu ire s s uc h ahi gh de gr ee o f in to xi cat io n, the jury in st ru ct io ns ul ti m at el y

requi redth athe pro ve th athe is in sa ne inord er t o n eg at e in te nt . There fo re, Will ia m s ar gu es th atbe cau se ass ert in g t he de fen se of v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n re qu ire s a s ho win g t ha t h e is in sa ne , th e d efen se act s as a m ech an is m th atrequi res hi m

to reb utth e p res um

pt io n o f sani ty. He arg ue s tha t thi s amoun ts to anun co ns ti tu ti on al bu rd en -s hi ft. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew of th e jury ins tru ct io ns on vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n a ndin sa ni ty, we fi ndno m eri t t o Wil li am s’ con te nt io n. The refo re, co un se l wer e n otde fic ie ntforfai li ng to ob ject. Co nc ern in g c ou ns el ’s arg um en t o n v ol un tary in to xi cat io n, the tri al jud ge st at ed : Thi s co nt en ti on is sep arat e fro m th e d efen dant ’s pl ea tha t h e is no t g ui lt y by reaso n o f a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect . In the — the si tu at io n c on cern in g v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n d eal s wi th th e co nt en ti on th atth e d efen da ntco ul d n otform anin te ntto co m m itm ur de r oranin te ntto en ga ge ina co ur se of c on du cton

47acco un t o f hi s al le ge d v ol un ta ry in to xi cat io n. Th is di

ff er s fro m th e d efen se of n otgu il ty by reas on of m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect. . . . To ex pa ndon th atso m ewh at , I ch arg e y outh atin sa ni ty is a co m pl et e d efen se to a cri m e. Vol un tary in to xi cat io n i s n ota de fen se , bu t m ay

inex tre m e cas es ne ga te th e requi si te in te ntto co m m ita sp eci fic cri m e an d t he refo re re du ce the gra de of t he of fen se . Vol . II, Tab P –1 at R -5 95 –9 6 (e m ph as is ad de d) . The tria l co urt wen t o n t o e xp la in th at“ [t]he de gr ee o f in to xi cat io n n eces sary to ne ga te sp eci fic in te nt [,] an d t hu s reduc e th e ch arg e m

us t am ou ntto in sa ni ty.” V ol . II, Tab P –1 at R –5 97 . The tria l co urt fu rth er em

ph as iz edth at“ in to xi cat io n m us t b e so ex ces si ve as t o p aral y ze the m en ta l fa ci li ti es an d re nd er the accu se d i nc ap ab le of f orm in g o r en te rta in in g t he requi redin te nt .” Vol . II, Tab P –1 at R –5 99 . W e ag ree wi th th e St at e co urt tha t the jury in stru ct io ns were n otim pr op er be cau se th ey

are a c orrectst at em en t o f Alabam a la w. Alth ou gh W il li am s as ks us to readall of t he bu rd en s t og ethe r in anam al ga m at edm anne r, th e jury ins tru ct io ns do no t tran sl at e to a sh iftof t he bu rd ento pro ve in te nt . As m en ti on edbe fo re, the bu rd ento pro ve in te ntforcap it al m ur de r res ts with t he Sta te an d d oe s n otch an ge th ro ug ho utth e co ur se of the tri al . As th e St at e co urt ri gh tl y co nc lu de d, i ns an it y

is anaffi rm at iv e d efen se th atm us t b e p ro ve n b y

th e d efen da nt . Vol . VIII, Tab P– 1, at27 –2 8; se e Ala. Co de § 1 3A- 3- 1( c). In de ed , ass ert in g ade fen se su chas vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n i s an op po rtu ni ty for the de fen da ntto co un te r th e 48pr os ecu ti on ’s cas e th athe in te nd edto co m m itth e cri m e o f m

ur de r. The d efen se of vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n i s t he refo re, av ai labl e to th e d efen da ntto ne ga te in te ntan d do es no t ac t as a reb ut ta l t o t he pre su m pt io n o f sa ni ty. The d efen se crea te s a fav or ab le cir cu m st an ce fo r th e d efen da ntto ex pl ai n t o t he jud ge an d ju ry th athi s vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n, wh ethe r th ro ug h dru gs or a lc oh ol , bec am e so gre atth atit ren de redhi m

m en ta ll y in cap ab le to form

anin te ntto co m

mitm ur de r. Thu s, l ik e th e aff irmativ e d efen se of i ns an it y , vo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n d oe s n otsh iftth e bu rd ento pro ve in te ntfro m th e St at e to th e d efen da nt , as Will ia m s’ con fla te d arg um en t s ug ge st s. Th e St at e co urt the refo re, co rrec tl y fou ndth atco un se l wer e no t i ne ffec ti ve . Affor di ng de fere nc e to th e St at e o n t hi s i ss ue , we fin d n o c on tra ry orun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law. IV. CONCLUSI ON The di stric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g Wil li am s’ fed eral habe as co rp us rel ie f as to hi s cl ai m

th athi s co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce. Fo r th e reas on s s ta te d abo ve , W il li am s h as no t p ro ve d tha t co un se l p erfo rm edinan ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le m an ne r ba se d o n p ro fes si on al st an dard s, an d t ha t h e su ffer edpre

jud ic e. W il li am s h as als o fa il edto sh ow the Sta te co urt’s d eci si on is co nt rary to, o r res ul te d i n a n unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh ed

49fed eral law i n Stri ckl an d . W e th eref or e, affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s habe as pe ti ti on . AFFIRMED .

50