[PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 14 49 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -1 44 02 -J EM

PAUL H. E VANS, Pet it io ne r - App el le e Cro ss App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts - App el la nt s Cro ss App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 3, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS, an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 1 of 42Co nf

id en t tha t h e kne w whatth e fu tu re wo ul d b rin g, o ne of S ha ke sp eare ’s ch arac te rs bo as te d t ha t “ [t]he re ar e m an y ev en ts in th e wom

b o f ti m e whi ch wil l b e de li ve red .” W il li am

Sh ak es pe are, Othe ll o, ActI, Scen e 3 , li ne s 4 12 –1 3. Onth e
subjec t o f lo wer co urts pre di ct in g t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt i s g oi ng to ov erru le on e of it s o wn d eci si on s, h owe ve r, Ju dg e Han d c au ti on edag ai ns t “ em br ac[i ng ] th e
ex hi la rat in g o pp ortu ni ty of an ti ci pa ti ng a do ctrin e whi chm ay be in th e wom

b o f ti m e, bu t wh os e b irth i s d is ta nt .” Sp ect orMo to r Serv . v. Wals h, 1 39 F.2d80 9, 82 3 (2 d C ir. 1 94 3) (Han d, J ., di ss en ti ng ). The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e Han d’s
warn in g acle ar co m

m an d b y rep eat ed ly ins tru ct in g l owe r co urts th atwhen on e o f it s earli er d eci si on s wi th di rectap pl ic at io n t o acas e ap pe ars to res t o n re as on s reject edin a m or e rec en t l in e o f de ci si on s, we m us t fo ll ow t he di rect ly app li cab le de ci si on an d l eav e to th e h ig h C ou rt t he pre ro ga ti ve of o ve rru li ng it s o wn de ci si on s. As wil l b eco m e ap pa ren t, tho se in st ru ct io ns are d is po si ti ve of t he St at e’s ap pe al fro m

th e g ran t o f habe as co rp us rel ie f in th is cas e.

I. Thi s i s a m

ur de r fo r hi re ca se in whi ch Pau l Ev an s co ntract edwith P au l Pfei ffer ’s wife t o k il l h er h us ba ndin return fo r a cam co rd er, a s te reo , andso m e o f th e in su ran ce m on ey . Evan s v . Sta te , 80 8 S o. 2 d 9 2, 9 5– 98 (Fl a. 20 01 ). Evan s pe rfo rm edhi s p artof t he co nt ractby m ur de rin g P fei fferwith t hr ee s ho ts fro m a 2 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 2 of 42.38 cal ib er p is to l— on e b ul le t t o h is sp in e an d t wo b ul le ts to hi s h ead . Id. at97
.

Eva ns was i nd ic te d a ndco nv ic te d o n o ne co un t o f fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r. As is th e p ract ic e inFlo rid a, th e in di ct m en t d idno t ch arg e a s en te nc in g s ta ge ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce. The re was , ho wev er, n o e vi de nc e th atEvan s h adan y
m ot iv e fo r m

ur de rin g t he vi ct im

ex cep t fo r pe cu ni ary ga in in th e fo rm of t he
co m pe ns at io n t ha t the vi ct im ’s wife h adag reedto gi ve hi m in return fo r ki ll in g h er hu sb an d. Se e id . at 9 5– 98 . Andth e fac t t ha t a m ur de r was co m

m it te d fo r pe cu ni ary ga in is a st atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce tha t m ak es th e d efen da nt el ig ib le fora de ath s en te nc e in Flo rid a. See F la . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(f) ( 19 90 ). Afte r th e jury con vi ct edEvan s o f fi rs t d eg ree m ur de r, as ch arg ed , th e tr ia l
co urt co nduc te d asep arat e se nt en ce p ro ceed in g i n fr on t o f th e jury. Dur in g t ha t pr oc eed in g t he jury he ardev id en ce o f m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . The co urt in st ru ct edth e jury tha t i t was to ren de r “ anadvi so ry sen te nc e b as edup on [it s] de te rm in at io n a s t o wh ethe r su ffi ci en t ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ex is t t o ju st ify th e im po si ti on of the de ath p en al ty andwhet he r su ffi ci en t m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces ex is t t o o ut weig h a ny agg rav at in g c irc um st an ces fou ndto ex is t.” Alt ho ug h F lo rid a la w pro vi de d ato ta l o f el ev enag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces at t he ti m e Eva ns m

ur de redPfei ffer , se e id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (a)– (k ), th e co urt d eci de d t ha t

3 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 3 of 42th e ev id en ce wo ul d s up po rt f in di ng on ly two o f th em . The co urt i ns tru ct edth e 1 jury thatth e o nl y

ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces itco ul d c on si de r were wh ethe r Eva ns ha d c omm it te d t he m

ur de r fo r pe cuni ary ga in , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (f), an d wh ethe r he ha d c omm it te d t he m

ur de r “ in a co ldan d c al cu la te d a ndpre m ed it at edm an ne r wit ho utan y

pre te ns e o f m or al or l eg al jus ti fic at io n,” id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (i)
. The
co urt al so in st ru ct edth e jury tha t:

If y oufin d t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces do no t ju st ify the de ath p en al ty, y ou r ad vi so ry sen te nc e sh ou ldbe on e o f li fe im pr is on m en t wi th ou t p os si bi li ty of pa ro le fortwen ty-fiv e y ears . Sh ou ldy oufin d s uf

fic ie ntag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces do ex is t, itwil l the n b e y ou r du ty to d et erm in e whe th er m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces ex is t tha t o ut weig h the ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces .

. . . . Each ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce m us t b e es tabl is he d b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t b efo re i t m ay be co ns id eredby y ouinarri vi ng at y ou r de ci si on . If on e o r m or e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces are es tabl is he d, you s ho ul d c on si de r al l t he ev id en ce t en di ng to est ab li sh on e o r m or e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces an d g iv e th atev id en ce s uc h weig htas youfeel itsh ou ldrece iv e in reac hi ng y ou r co nc lu si on as t o th e se nt en ce tha t s ho ul d b e im po se d.
Florida law cur rently provides a total of

six teen a g gravating c ircumstance s. See F la. 1 Stat. § 921.141(5)(a )–(p) (2010). Unde r F lorida law a criminal statute applies a s of the date the offe nse wa s committed, see B erna rd v. State, 571 So. 2d 560, 561 (5th DCA 1990), so in this opinion, we cite to the F lorida dea th penalty statute that was in ef

fec t at the time Evans committed the murder on Ma rch 24, 1991, se e F la. Stat. § 921.141 (1990), eve n though the statute has since been a

mended in some a spects. (B eca use the post-1991 a

mendments do not aff ect a ny of the c halleng ed provisions in this case, it does not matter which ver sion of the statute applies.) 4

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 4 of 42(Em

ph as is ad de d.) Abo utm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , th e co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury:

“ Am on g t he m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces y oum ay co ns id er, i f es tabl is he d b y th e
ev id en ce, are ag e o f th e Defen dantat t he ti m e o f th e cri m e, an y ot he r as pe ctof t he Defen da nt ’s cha ract er, rec or d, o r ba ck gr ou ndth atwou ldm it ig at e ag ai ns t t he im po si ti on of the de ath p en al ty.” T he co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t wh il e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces ha d t o b e es tabl is he d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t i n o rd er fo r th e jury to co ns id er the m , m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces di d n otrequi re the same lev el of pr oo f. It t ol d t he jury th at : “ If y ouare re as on ab ly con vi nc edth ata m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce ex is ts , y oum ay co ns id er i t as est ab li sh ed .” The jury returne d ave rd ic t re co m m en di ng by a vo te of n in e to th ree t ha t Eva ns be sen te nc edto de ath. Th e p ract ic e in Flo rid a is for th e advi so ry

ve rd ic t
no t t o s pe ci fy

whi ch ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces th e jury foundan d t hi s v erd ic t fo ll owe d t ha t p ract ic e. It d idno t i nd ic at e whe th er the jury ha d fo un d t he pe cu ni ary ga in ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce o r th e co ld , cal cu la te d a ndpre m ed it at ed ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce, o r bo th . W e d o kno w, ho wev er, tha t t he jury ha d t o ha ve fou ndon e o r bo th of t ho se ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces or i t wo ul d n otha ve returne d t he ve rd ic t tha t i t d id . See Fran ci s v . Fran kl in , 47 1 U.S. 3 07 , 32 4 n .9, 10 5 S .Ct. 1 96 5, 1 97 6 n .9 (1 98 5) (“ [W] e adhe re t o t he cru ci al ass um pt io n
un de rlyin g o urco ns ti tu ti on al syste m of t ria l b y

jury th atjuro rs care fu ll y fol lo w 5 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 5 of 42in st ru ct io ns .”); see als o Un it edSta te s v . Lop ez, 6 49 F.3d12 22 , 12 37 (11 th Cir
.

20 11 ) (“ W e p res um e th atjuri es fol lo w th e in stru ct io ns gi ve n t o the m .”); Uni te d St at es v. To wns en d, 6 30 F.3d10 03 , 10 13 –1 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 1) (sa m e). Afte r th e jury reco m

m en de d ade ath s en te nc e, th e tr ia l co urt h el d aSp en cer he ari ng , at wh ic h t he Sta te pre se nt edforth e co urt’s co ns id erat io n l et te rs fro m th e 2 vi ct im ’s fathe r an d m ot he r. The co urt al so he ardfro m Evan s’ m ot he r an d fr om Eva ns hi m se lf. Th e co urt en te redanord er fi nd in g t ha t b ot h o f th e st atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces th atitha d p erm it te d t he jury to co ns id er d idex is t: (1) Eva ns co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r fo r pe cu ni ary ga in , and(2) he co m m it te d t he m

ur de r

“ in a co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edm an ne r wit ho utany pre te ns e o f le ga l o r
m or al jus ti fic at io n.” Evan s, 8 08 So . 2dat 9 9. Th e co urt fo un d o ne st atut ory
m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce, wh ic h was Evan s’ age at t he ti m e h e co m m it te d t he
m ur de r (1 9) , andele ve n n on st atut ory m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . Id. Aft er de te rm in in g t ha t the two ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ou twei gh edth e m it ig at in g
See Spence r v. State, 615 So. 2d 688, 691 (Fla . 1993) (r equiringtrial judg es, af ter 2 rec eivingthe jury ’s advisory verdic t, to “hold a hea

ringto: a) g ive the def

endant, his counse l, and the State, an oppor

tunity to be hea rd; b) af ford, if a ppropriate , both the State and the de fenda nt an opportunity

to present a dditional evidence ; c) a llow both sides to comment on or rebut information in any

prese ntenceor medica l report; and d) aff ord the de fenda

nt an opportunity

to be hea rd in person” ).

6 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 6 of 42ci rcu m st an ces , th e co urt s en te nc edEvan s t o d eat h, as th e jury hadreco m m en de d. Id . at 9 5. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edEvan s’ con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e o n di rectap pe al . Id. The Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on fora writ of cert io rari . Evan s v . Flo rid a, 53 7 U.S. 9 51 , 12 3 S .Ct. 4 16 (20 02 ). Seek in g p os tc on vi ct io n re li ef i n s ta te co urt, Ev an s fi le d am ot io n u nd er Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 1, as se rti ng si x c la im s fo r rel ie f, in cl ud in g fo r th e fi rs t t im e a cl ai m

th atFlo rid a’s cap it al sen te nc in g s ta tu te , Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 , vi ol at es th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, as in te rp ret edin Rin g v . Arizo na , 53 6 U.S. 58 4, 1 22 S.Ct . 24 28 (20 02 ), an d Ap pr en di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S .Ct. 23 48 (20 00 ). The st at e co ll at eral co urt g ran te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on th ree o f 3
Those six claims wer e (1) ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel duringthe guilt st ag e (ba sed 3 on six sub-claims) a

nd the State’s withholding e x culpatory and impeac hment evidenc e in violation of Br ady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct . 1194 (1963); (2) ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel duringthe sentenc e stag e (ba sed on two sub-c laims); (3) inef fec tive assistancefor f

ailing to object to sever al jurors a nd failingto object to a limitation on backstriking; ( 4) cumulative err or; (5) de nial of due pr ocess by rules prohibitingjuror intervie ws to uncover constitutional err or; and (6) that the sentenc e violates Ringv. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct . 2428 (2002), and Appr endi v. New

J erse y , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.C t. 2348 (2000). Eva ns v. State, 995 So. 2d 933, 939–40 (F la. 2008). On the six th claim, Evans argued to the state c ollatera l court that the c apital sentenc ing proce dures in F la. Stat. § 921.141 violated his Si x th Amendment right under Ringto have a unanimous jury

deter mine his guilt on all eleme nts of capital f irst degree murder. He madethe same a rgument based on A

pprendi, but the state c ollatera l court found that he had alr eady raised that claim on direc t appea l and that it was “both without merit and pr ocedur ally barr ed.” D oc. 12-35 at 70. In Evans’ f

eder al habe as petition, he did not pursue that “ unanimity” cla im. Instead, he asse rted that F lorida’s de ath pena lty proce dures violated Ringbeca use “the y do not allow the jury to rea ch a ve rdict with respe ct to an ag gravating f act that is an e lement of the a g gravated crime punishable by

death.”Doc. 1 at 176 (quotation marks and a lteration omitted). Evans pointed out that “Florida law only require s the judg e to consider the re commendation of a 7 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 7 of 42hi s o th er cl ai m s an d h eardtes ti m on y fro m Evan s’ tri al co un se l, al ib i wi tn es se s,
m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts , andfam il y m em be rs . The co urt d en ie d Ev an s’ Rul e 3 .85 1
m ot io n a ndhi s m ot io n fo r a reh eari ng . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e de ni al of Rul e 3 .85 1 re li ef an d d en ie d Ev an s’ pet it io n t o i t fo r a wri t o f habe as
co rp us . Evans v. St at e, 99 5 S o. 2 d 9 33 , 95 4 (F la . 20 08 ). It al so de ni edhi s m ot io n fo r reh eari ng . Eva ns th enfil eda 17 6- pa ge pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us in fed eral di st ric t co urt, ra is in g 1 7 c la im s fo r rel ie f. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h ab eas rel ie f on 16 of Ev an s’ cla im s b utgra nt edhi m rel ie f fro m

hi s d eat h s en te nc e o n h is
se ve nt een th cla im , rul in g t ha t Fl or id a’s cap it al sen te nc in g s ta tu te vi ol at es th e Si xt h

majority of the jury .” I d. (quotation marks omitted). Eva ns also argued that his sentenc e wa s unconstitutional because “the a g gravating c ircumstance s were not alleg ed in the indictment.” I d. at 177. In its order on the State’ s motion t o alter or amend the judgment grantinghabea s relief , the district court distinguishe d Evans’ Ringclaim from the una nimity claim he ha d made on direc t appea l and to the state c ollatera l court, explaining that those we re “ two separ ate a nd distinct claims” and that the Ringdecision “doe s not decide this issue or e ven addr ess the nee d for una nimity .” Doc . 27 at 16. The six i neff

ective a ssistance at the guilt phase subclaims wer e: (1) f ailing to objec t to an individual juror’s par

ticipation in trial; (2) failingto timely reque st a hea

ringunder Richa

rdson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) ; (3) fa iling to object to inflammatory and pre judicial comments elicited by

the State; (4) f

ailing to objec t to improper bolsteringof witness cr edibility ; (5) fa iling to object duringthe State’s closingargument reg ardingmutually exclusive factua l theories of prosec ution; and (6) fa iling to pre sent evidenc e. I d. at 939 n.8. The two ine ffe ctive assistanc e at the sentenc e stag e subcla ims were: ( 1) fa iling to pre sent mitigation; and (2) failingto object to serious misstatements of the law , including that the jury ’s role w as mere ly advisory and that Evans had the burden of

proof to esta

blish that mi tigation outweighe d ag gravation. I d. at 939 n.9. 8

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 8 of 42Am en dm en t as in te rp ret edin Rin g v . Arizo na , 53 6 U.S. 5 84 , 12 2 S .Ct. 2 42 8

(2 00 2) . The St at e fi le d am ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d, co nt en di ng th atth e d is tri ct
co urt h aderre d i n t ha t p artof i ts rul in g; th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n. Eva ns als o fi le d am ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d,
reas se rti ng it s re

jecti on of Ev an s’ cla im s t ha t (1 ) hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a publ ic tri al was v io la te d; (2) hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e dur in g t he gu il t s ta ge of th e tr ia l; an d (3 ) hi s Ei gh th an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts were v io la te d be cau se th e tr ia l co urt d idno t re qu ire th e St at e to sp eci fy it s the ory

of t he pr os ecu ti on . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Ev an s a c ert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on two of h is cl ai m s: (1) th athi s ri gh ts were v io la te d b y clo su re o f th e co urtro om du rin g v oi r di re; an d (2 ) th athi s co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y fai li ng to cal l Mi nd y McC orm ic k t o t es ti fy
. The Sta te ap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f habe as rel ie f on Evan s’ Rin g c la im , andEvan s cr os s- ap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of r el ie f on th e two cla im s o n wh ic h the di st ric t co urt h adgra nt eda cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . Eva ns ask edth is Co urt t o e xp an d t he cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y , andwe di d bu t o nl y in so far a s i t co nc ern edhi s cl ai m th atco un se l was in effe ct iv e atth e g ui lt ph as e fo r fai li ng to cal l al ib i an d i m pe ach m en t wi tn es se s. We will tak e up t he is su e 9 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 9 of 42in th e St at e’s ap pe al be fo re m ov in g t o Ev an s’ cro ss -ap pe al
. II. The Sta te ap pe al s t he pa rt o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t t ha t g ran te d Ev an s habe as rel ie f fro m

hi s d eath s en te nc e o n t he th eo ry th atap pl ic at io n o f th e jury
se nt en ci ng pro vi si on s o f th e Fl or id a st atut e v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts , as in te rp ret edin Rin g v . Arizo na , 53 6 U.S. 5 84 , 12 2 S .Ct. 2 42 8 (2 00 2) . Flo rid a’s pr oc edur es co m

pl y with t he Six th Am en dm en t an d R in g, ac co rd in g t o t he Sta te , be cau se a jud ge m ay

sen te nc e a d efen da ntto de ath o nl y aft er co ns id eri ng an d gi vi ng “ gr eatweig ht ” to a jury’ s ad vi so ry sen te nc e. See, e.g ., Aul t v . Sta te , 53 So
. 3d17 5, 2 00 (Fl a. 20 10 ) (“ [T]he co urt m us t i nd ep en de nt ly con si de r th e ag gr av at in g
an d m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces an d re ach it s d eci si on on th e ap pr op ria te pe na lt y , gi vi ng gre atweig htto th e jury's advi so ry sen te nc e.” (ci ti ng Tedd er v . Sta te , 32 2 S o. 2d90 8 (F la . 19 75 ))). An d ajury can no t ad vi se in fav orof d eat h u nl es s i t fi nd s be y on d areas on ab le do ub t atlea ston e st atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce. See , e.g ., Aul t, 5 3 S o. 3 d a t 2 05 . Evan s, o n t he ot he r ha nd , con te nd s t ha t t he di st ric t
co urt g otitrig htbe cau se un de r Fl or id a’s se nt en ci ng pro cedur e a jud ge an d n otth e jury actu al ly find s t he fact s n eces sa ry to est ab li shanag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce, whi chm ak es th e d efen da ntde ath e li gi bl e. Thre e li ne s o f Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s ar e rel ev an t t o o urde ci si on in th is
10 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 10 of 42cas e. The fi rs t l in e o f de ci si on s s pe ci fic al ly uph ol ds th e ad vi so ry jury ve rd ic t an d jud ic ia l s en te nc in g c om

po ne ntof F lo rid a’s cap it al pu ni sh m en t s ta tu te . The s eco nd li ne in vo lv es th e unc on st itut io na li ty of Ariz on a’s fo rm er capi ta l s en te nc in g pr oc edur es un de r whi ch a jud ge , witho utany inpu t fr om

th e jury, foundth e fac ts
ne ces sa ry to au th or iz e a d eat h s en te nc e. The t hi rdan d d eci si ve li ne of d eci si on s in st ru ct s u s t o fo ll ow d ire ct ly app li cab le Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s u nt il th atCo urt it se lf e xp li ci tl y

ov erru le s t he m . A. W e b eg in with t he li ne of d eci si on s uph ol di ng Flo rid a’s al lo cat io n o f
se nt en ci ng fun ct io ns be twee n t he jury an d ju dg e incap it al cas es . Und er Fl or id a la w, afte r a jury con vi ct s a d efen da ntof acap it al fel on y , th e tr ia l co urt m us t
co nduc t a s ep arat e se nt en ce p ro ceed in g b efo re the jury. Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (1 ) (1 99 0) . The jury m

us t the n “ ren de r anadvi so ry sen te nc e to th e co urt, b as edup on [th e jury’ s d et erm in at io n o f] the fol lo win g m at te rs : (a ) [w]hethe r su ffi ci en t [s ta tu to ry ] ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ex is t . . . ; (b ) [w]hethe r su ffi ci en t m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces ex is t wh ic h o ut weig h t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces . . . ; an d (c ) [b ]asedonth es e co ns id erat io ns , whet he r th e d efen da ntsh ou ldbe sen te nc edto li fe im pr is on m en t o r de ath.” Id. § 92 1.1 41 (2 )(a) –( c). Afte r th e jury rend ers it s advi so ry sen te nc e: 11 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 11 of 42[T]he co urt, af te r wei gh in g t he ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces , sh al l en te r a s en te nc e o f li fe i m pr is on m en t o r de ath, bu t i f th e co urt i m

po se s a s en te nc e o f de ath, i t s ha ll setforth in writ in g i ts fin di ng s upo n wh ic h t he sen te nc e o f de ath i s b as edas t o th e fac ts : (a) Th atsu ffi ci en t [s ta tu to ry ] ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ex is t . . . , and (b ) Tha t the re ar e in su ffi ci en t m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces to ou twei gh th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces . Id . § 9 21 .14 1( 3) (a)– (b ). The co urt’s fi nd in gs m us t s pe ci fy

th e st atut ory ag gr av at in g a ndan y

mit ig at in g c irc um st an ces th atdo ex is t. See , e.g., Oy ol a v . St at e, — So . 3d— , No. SC 10 -2 28 5, 2 01 2 WL 41 25 81 6, at*1 2 (F la . Sep t. 2 0, 20 12 ) (“ [A] sen te nc in g o rd er m us t ex pr es sl y

co ns id er ea ch pro po se d m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce, d et erm in e if th e ci rcu m st an ce ex is ts , and , if the cir cu m st an ce d oe s
ex is t, wh atweig htto all oc at e it . For [ th e Fl or id a Supr em e] Court t o s us ta in a tr ia l
co urt’s fi na l d eci si on in it s s en te nc in g o rd er, co m pe te nt , subs tant ia l ev id en ce o f
reco rdm us t s up po rt t he tri al co urt’s wei gh in g p ro ces s. Mo reo ve r, th e tr ia l co urt’s
se nt en ci ng ord er m

us t re fle ct‘ reas on edjud gm en t’ by th e tr ia l co urt as itweig he d th e ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces .”) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . In m ak in g t he
se nt en ce d et erm in at io n, the tri al co urt m us t g iv e “ gr eatweig ht ” to th e jury’ s advi so ry sen te nc e. Tedd er v . Sta te , 32 2 S o. 2 d 9 08 , 91 0 (F la . 19 75 ); s ee al so Ro ss v. St at e, 38 6 S o. 2 d 1 19 1, 1 19 7 (F la . 19 80 ); LeDu c v . Sta te , 36 5 S o. 2 d 1 49 , 15 1
12 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 12 of 42(Fl a. 19 78 ).

InPro ffi ttv. Fl or id a, 42 8 U.S. 2 42 , 96 S.Ct . 29 60 (19 76 ), th e Supr em e Co urt up he ldFlo rid a’s jud ge -b as edde ath s en te nc in g p ro cedur e u nd er the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Inreac hi ng th atco nc lu si on , th e Co urt s ta te d: Thi s C ou rt h as po in te d o utth atjury se nt en ci ng in a cap it al cas e can pe rfo rm anim po rta ntso ci et al fun ct io n, b utitha s n ev er s ug ge st edth at jury sen te nc in g i s co ns ti tu ti on al ly requ ire d. An d i t wo ul d app ear tha t jud ic ia l s en te nc in g s ho ul d l ead , if an yth in g, t o e ve n g reat er co ns is te nc y

in th e im po si ti on at t he tri al co urt l ev el of c ap it al pu ni sh m en t, s in ce a tria l ju dg e is m or e ex pe rie nc edin sen te nc in g tha n a jury, andth eref

or e is be tt er ab le to im

po se sen te nc es si m il ar t o t ho se im po se d i n a na lo go us cas es . The Flo rid a cap it al -s en te nc in g p ro cedur es th us see k t o a ss ur e th atth e d eat h p en al ty w il l n otbe im po se d i n a n a rb itrary or cap ric io us m an ne r. Mo reo ve r, to th e ex te ntth atan y ris k t o t he co nt rary exi st s, i t is min im iz edby Flo rid a’s ap pe ll at e rev ie w system , un de r whi ch th e ev id en ce o f th e ag gr av at in g a ndmit ig at in g c irc um st an ces is rev ie wed an d re weig he d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a to de te rm in e in de pe nd en tl y

whet he r th e im

po si ti on of the ul ti m at e p en al ty is warra nt ed . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a . . . has no t h es it at edto va cat e a d eat h s en te nc e whe n i t h as de te rm in edth atth e se nt en ce sh ou ldno t h av e b een im

po se d. . . . Und er Fl or id a’s cap it al -s en te nc in g p ro cedur es , insu m , tri al jud ge s ar e g iv ensp eci fic an d d et ai le d g ui da nc e to ass is t the m in de ci di ng whet he r to im

po se a de ath p en al ty or im pr is on m en t fo r li fe. Mo reo ve r, th ei r de ci si on s ar e rev ie wedto en su re tha t t he y are co ns is te ntwith o th er s en te nc es im po se d i n s im il ar ci rcu m st an ces . Id . at 2 52 –5 3, 9 6 S .Ct. at26 66 –6 7 (p lu ral it y op in io n) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d)
. 13

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 13 of 42The Supr em e Co urt re tu rn edto Flo rid a’s de ath s en te nc in g p ro cedur es in

Sp azi an o v . Flo rid a, 46 8 U.S. 4 47 , 10 4 S .Ct. 3 15 4 (1 98 4) . In tha t ca se th e de fen da ntco nt en de d t he tri al jud ge ha d v io la te d t he Six th Am en dm en t b y
se nt en ci ng hi m

to de ath e ve n t ho ug h t he jury ha d re co m m en de d ali fe s en te nc e. Id
. at45 7, 1 04 S.Ct . at 3 16 0. Re jecti ng th atco nt en ti on , th e Co urt re as on edth at“ [t]he factth ata cap it al sen te nc in g i s l ik e a tria l i n t he res pe ct s s ig ni fic an t t o t he Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e . . . do es no t m ean th atitis li ke a tr ia l i n re sp ect s s ig ni fic an t t o the Si xt h Am en dm en t’s g ua ran te e o f a jury tri al .” Id . at 4 59 , 10 4 S .Ct. at31 61 . The Co urt co nt in ue d: The re i s n o . . . da ng er [o f anerro ne ou sl y im po se d d eat h p en al ty] in vo lv edin de nyin g ade fen da nta jury tria l o n t he sen te nc in g i ss ue of li fe o r de ath. Th e se nt en cer, wh ethe r jud ge or ju ry , has a co ns ti tu ti on al ob li ga ti on to ev al ua te th e u ni qu e ci rcu m st an ces of t he in di vi du al de fen da ntan d t he sen te nc er’s d eci si onforli fe i s fi na l. Mo re i m po rta nt , des pi te it s u ni qu e as pe ct s, a c ap it al sen te nc in g pr oc eed in g i nv ol ve s t he same fun da m en ta l i ss ue in vo lv edin an y ot he r se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g— a d et erm in at io n o f th e ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t t o b e im

po se d o n a n i nd iv idua l. The Six th Am en dm en t ne ve r ha s b een th ou gh t t o g ua ran te e a ri gh t t o ajury de te rm in at io n o f th atis su e. Id . (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. The Co urt re ev al ua te d F lo rid a’s jud ge -b as edde ath s en te nc in g p ro cedur e fi ve y ears lat er i n Hi ldwin v. Fl or id a, 49 0 U.S. 6 38 , 10 9 S .Ct. 2 05 5 (1 98 9) (pe r cu ria m),
an d o nc e ag ai n h el d t ha t tho se pro cedur es co m pl y with t he Six thAm en dm en t. The
14 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 14 of 42de fen da ntin Hil dwi n c on te nd edth atFlo rid a’s pr oc edur es vi ol at edth e Si xt h

Am en dm en t b ecau se th ey “pe rm it [] the im

po si ti onof d eat h wi th ou t a s pe ci fic fin di ng by the jury th atsu ffi ci en t ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ex is t t o qua li fy th e de fen da ntforcap it al pu ni sh m en t.” Id . at 6 39 , 10 9 S .Ct. at20 56 . The Co urt di sa gr eed , ho ld in g t ha t “ th e Si xth Am en dm en t d oe s n otrequi re tha t the sp eci fic fin di ng s au th or iz in g the im po si ti on of t he sen te nc e o f de ath b e m ad e b y th e jury.” Id . at 6 40 –4 1, 1 09 S.Ct . at 2 05 7. Th atde ci si on is di rect ly on p oi ntag ai ns t Ev an s’
co nt en ti on an d t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng in th is cas e. Whi le th e Hil dwi n d eci si on is th e Supr em e Co urt’s l as t wo rdin a Fl or id a cap it al cas e o n t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t ha t s ta te ’s dea thsen te nc in g p ro cedur es , th e Co urt d idsp eakfav or ab ly agai n abo utth os e p ro cedur es in a de ci si on in vo lv in g Alab am a’s cap it al pu ni sh m en t s ta tu te . Harris v. Al ab am a, 51 3 U.S. 5 04 , 50 8– 09 , 51 5, 1 15 S.Ct . 10 31 , 10 34 , 10 37 (19 95 ). Alab am a’s se nt en ci ng pro cedur es , li ke Fl or id a’s, pr ov id e fo r anadvi so ry jury se nt en ci ng ve rd ic t. Se e id . at 5 08 , 11 5 S .Ct. at10 34 . A dif

fere nc e is th at , un li ke Flo rid a, Alab am a al lo ws a ju dg e to im po se a de ath s en te nc e wit ho utgi vi ng a jury’ s ad vi so ry ve rd ic t re co m

m en di ng li fe “ gr eat weig ht .” Inco m

pa rin g t he two pro cedur es , th e Co urt s ai d: Inva rio us op in io ns on th e Fl or id a st atut e we h av e sp ok enfav or ab ly of th e d efer en ce tha t a ju dg e m us t ac co rdth e jury verd ic t u nd er Fl or id a la w. Whi le reject in g a n e x p os t fa ct o c ha ll en ge in Dob be rt v . Flo rid a, 43 2 U.S.
15 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 15 of 4228 2, 2 94 , 97 S.Ct . 22 90 , 22 98 (19 77 ), we no te d t he “ cru ci al pro te ct io n”

pr ov id edby the st an da rdof Ted de r v. St at e. Inth e sa m e fas hi on , in di sm is si ng Sp azi an o’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he Tedd er s ta nd ardwas wro ng ly ap pl ie d b y

th e lo wer co urts in hi s ca se , we st at ed :

“ Thi s C ou rt a lre ady

ha s re co gn iz edth e si gn ifi can t s afeg ua rdth e Ted de r st an dardaffo rd s a c ap it al de fen da ntin Flo rid a. W e are sat is fie d t ha t t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t ak es th atst an da rdser io us ly andha s n othe si ta te d t o rev ers e a tria l co urt i f itde ro ga te s t he jury’ s ro le .” Id . at 5 10 –1 1, 1 15 S.Ct . at 1 03 5 (s om e ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . The Co urt wen t o n i n t he Harri s ca se to up ho ldth e Alaba m a st atut e an y way , bu t i ts op in io n m ak es cle ar tha t Fl or id a’s Ted de r st an da rdad ds a m eas ur e o f pr ot ect io n t o t he jury’ s ro le in
se nt en ci ng . Ju stth ree years a go th e Co urt re it erat edth atpo in t, s ta ti ng : “ In Fl or id a, th e se nt en ci ng jud ge m ak es th e d et erm in at io n a s t o t he ex is te nc e an d weig htof a gg rav at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces an d t he pu ni sh m en t, Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 3) , bu t h e m

us t g iv e th e jury verd ic t o f li fe o r de ath ‘gre atweig ht .’ ” Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 55 8 U.S. 3 0, — , 13 0 S .Ct. 4 47 , 45 3 (2 00 9)
. The Supr em e Co urt’s co nf id en ce i n the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s s tri ng en t ap pl ic at io n o f th e Ted de r st an da rdha s n otbe enm is pl aced . The St at e rep res en ts to
us th atth e la stti m e th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm eda tr ia l ju dg e’s de ci si on to
se nt en ce t o d eat h ade fen da ntforwho m th e jury hadno t re co m

m en de d ade ath
se nt en ce was eig ht een y ears ag o. Ap pe ll an t/ Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee’s Re pl y Br. at14 n.4 ;

16 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 16 of 42se e Wash in gt on v. St at e, 65 3 S o. 2 d 3 62 (Fl a. 19 94 ). Evan s d oe s n otdi sp ut e th at 4 fact
. B. W e n ex t turn t o t he li ne of d eci si on s as se ss in g the co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Ariz on a’s fo rm er d eath s en te nc in g p ro cedur es . An Ari zo nast atut e p ro vi de d t ha t, aft er a d efen da ntwas c on vi ct edof f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r, th e tr ia l ju dg e wou ld

“ co nduc t a s ep arat e se nt en ci ng he ari ng to de te rm in e th e ex is te nc e o r no ne xi st en ce of [st atut ory ] ci rcu m st an ces . . . fo r th e p ur po se of d et erm in in g t he sen te nc e to be im po se d.” Ariz. Re v. St at . Ann . § 1 3- 70 3( C) (WestSupp . 20 01 ). The s ta tu te sp eci fie d tha t “ [t]he he ari ng sh al l b e co nduc te d b efo re the co urt al on e” an d t ha t

In makingthat statement, the State distinguishe s, with some justi fication, between c ases 4 in which the jury

did not recommend a

death se ntence at all (pure override ca ses) a nd one multipl e-vic tim case in which the jury rec ommended a de ath sentenc e for some but not all of the murders the defe ndant had be en convic ted of c ommitt ing ( a mix ed over ride c ase) . Four

teen year s ag o the Florida Supreme Court did af firm an ove rride in a

mix ed over

ride c ase involving unique circ umstances. See Z akrzewski v. State, 717 So. 2d 488 (F la. 1998). The defe ndant murdere d his wife, his seven- year -old son, and his five- year -old daughter. I d. at 490–91. He hacke d the two childre n to death with a mac hete. I d. The jury rec ommended a de ath sentenc e for the mur der of

the wife and son but a life se ntence for the mur der of the daughter. I d. at 491. The trial judg e over

rode the life re commendation re g ardingthe murder of the da ughter, imposing on the def endant thre e dea

th sentence s instead of only the two that the jury

rec ommended. I d. The F lorida Supreme Court f ound that “we are cer

tain that by

murderinghis children with a mache te, [the defenda

nt] cause d his children to suffe r an unthinkable horror .” I d. at 492. And in aff irming the override of the lifesentenc e re commendation for the murder

of the little g irl, it also conclude d that the fa cts war rantinga death sentence for he r murder wer e eve n more c ompelling than those supportingthe death sentence s for the murde r of he r mother a nd older brothe r. I d. at 494. So far a s the parties ha ve informe d us and we can te ll, the Z akrzewski ca se is the last one in which the F lorida Supreme Court a ffirme d an over ride of a jury ’s life sente nce r ecommendation in any capital c ase. 17 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 17 of 42“ [t]he co urt al on e sh al l m ak e al l fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns requi red .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) . After the sen te nc e h eari ng , th e jud ge wou ldfin d t he ex is te nc e o r
no ne xi st en ce o f st atut ory “ ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ” an d any “m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces .” A dea th sen te nc e co ul d b e im po se d o nl y

if t he jud ge fou ndat l eas t
on e st atut ory

ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce an d fo un d t ha t “ th ere [ were] no m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces su ffi ci en tl y subs ta nt ia l t o c al l fo r le ni en cy .” Id . § 1 3- 70 3( F). So , th e Ari zo nast atut e was li ke Flo rid a’s in th atno de ath s en te nc e co ul d b e im po se d u nl es s t he tri al jud ge fou ndth atth e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces est ab li sh edan ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce o r ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fy in g the de ath p en al ty. The st atut es were d iff

eren t, h owe ve r, be cau se un de r th e Ari zo nast atut e th e jury pla y ed
no pa rt a t al l i n s en te nc in g a nddi d n otco ns tra in in an y way th e jud ge ’s sen te nc in g
au th or it y . The Supr em e Co urt fi rs t co ns id eredth e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Ari zo na ’s jud ge on ly deat h s en te nc in g p ro cedur e in W al to n v . Arizo na , 49 7 U.S. 6 39 , 11 0 S .Ct. 30 47 (19 90 ). The d efen da ntco nt en de d t ha t Ari zo na ’s pro cedur e v io la te d t he Six th Am en dm en t, an d h e so ug hta br oa d ru li ng th atth e Co ns ti tu ti on requi res th ata jury,
no t a ju dg e, m ak e th e fi nd in gs of f actun de rlyin g t he de ath s en te nc in g d eci si on . Id. at64 7, 1 10 S.Ct . at 3 05 4. Th e Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t ha t co nt en ti onan d uph el d Ariz on a’s pr oc edur e, no ti ng th atin Hil dwi n i t h adup he ldFlo rid a’s si m il ar jud ge 18 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 18 of 42ba se d d eat h s en te nc in g p ro cedur e. Id . at 6 47 –4 9, 1 10 S.Ct . at 3 05 4– 55 . The Co urt

rei te rat edin W al to n t ha t the Six th Am en dm en t d oe s n otrequi re a s ta te to “pe rm it
on ly a j ury

to de te rm in e th e ex is te nc e o f . . . circu m st an ces ” th atau th or iz e a d eat h
se nt en ce. Id . at 6 49 , 11 0 S .Ct. at30 55
. Teny ears lat er the Co urt i ss ue d i ts de ci si on in App ren di v. New J ers ey , 53 0 U.S. 46 6, 1 20 S.Ct . 23 48 (20 00 ), whi ch he ldth ata jury m us t fi ndbe y on d a 5
reas on ab le do ub t an y

factth atin crea se s a d efen da nt ’s st atut or il y au th or iz ed pu ni sh m en t, s ee i d. at48 2– 84 , 12 0 S .Ct. at23 59 . In l ig htof t he App ren di de ci si on , th e Co urt re vi si te d t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Ari zo na ’s jud ge -o nl y

de ath s en te nc in g pr oc edur e in Rin g v . Arizo na , 53 6 U.S. 5 84 , 12 2 S .Ct. 2 42 8 (2 00 2) . The Co urt de ci de d t ha t the Ariz on a p ro cedur e v io la te d t he Six th Am en dm en t b ecau se it
au th or iz eda de ath s en te nc e o nl y if t he jud ge , no t t he jury, fou ndat l eas t o ne
In Appre ndi, the defe ndant had be en convic ted in state cour t of, amongother thing s, 5 second- degree possession of a fir ear m, which ca

rried a statutory maxi mum penalty

of 10 year s in prison. 530 U.S. at 469–70, 120 S.Ct . at 2352. The se ntencingjudge found by a prepondera

nce of the e vidence that rac ial bias had motivated the de fenda nt’s crime, which incre ased the statutory maxi mum for the crime to 20 y ear s. I d. at 470–71, 120 S.Ct. at 2352. The judge sentenc ed the de fenda

nt to 12 y ear s in prison, two y ear s above the maxi mum sentence the defe ndant could have rec eived without the ra cial bias e nhance ment. I d. at 471, 120 S.Ct. at 2352. The Supreme Court held in Apprendi that the de fenda nt’s enhanc ed sente nce violate d his Six th Amendment right to “a jury deter mination that [ he] is guilty of eve ry element of

the crime with which he is cha

rg ed, bey ond a re asonable doubt.” I d. at 477, 120 S.Ct. at 2356. The Court explained that the Six th Amendment does not per mit a defe ndant to be “e x pose[d] . . . to a penalty exceeding

the maxim um he would re ceive if punished ac cordingto the fac ts refle cted in the jury verdic t alone.” I d. at 483, 120 S.Ct. at 2359. 19 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 19 of 42st atut ory

ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce. Id . at 6 09 , 12 2 S .Ct. at24 43 . The Ri ng op in io n e xp la in edth atApp ren di ha d h el d t ha t “ [i]f a St at e m ak es anin crea se in a de fen da nt ’s aut ho riz edpu ni sh m en t co nt in ge nton th e fi nd in g o f a fac t, tha t fact—n o m at te r ho w th e St at e labe ls it—m us t b e fo un d b y

a jury bey on d a
reas on ab le do ub t.” Id . at 6 02 , 12 2 S .Ct. at24 39 . The Co urt re as on edth at

“ [c]api ta l d efen da nt s, n o l es s t ha n n on cap it al de fen da nt s, . . . are en ti tl edto a jury de te rm in at io n o f an y

facton whi ch th e le gi sl atur e co nd it io ns anin crea se in th ei r
m ax im um pu ni sh m en t.” Id . at 5 89 , 12 2 S .Ct. at24 32 . The Ri ng Co urt re co gn iz ed th atit s d eci si on in W al to n a ndit s d eci si on in App ren di were “ irr eco nc il ab le ,” id . at 60 9, 1 22 S.Ct . at 2 44 3, an d i t “ ov erru le [d ] W al to n t o t he ex te ntth atitall ows a
se nt en ci ng jud ge , si tt in g wi th ou t a ju ry , to fin d a n a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ce
ne ces sa ry forim po si ti on of t he de ath p en al ty.” Id.

C. Bec au se Rin g c on cl ud edth atun de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t “ [c]api ta l de fen da nt s, n o l es s t ha n n on cap it al de fen da nt s, . . . are en ti tl edto a jury de te rm in at io n o f an y

facton whi ch th e le gi sl atur e co nd it io ns anin crea se in th ei r
m ax im um pu ni sh m en t,” 5 36 U.S. at 5 89 , 12 0 S .Ct. at24 32 , Evan s co nt en ds —an d th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d—th athi s d eat h s en te nc e is un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se th e tri al jud ge in hi s ca se , no t the jury, ul ti m at el y fou ndth e fac ts th atauth or iz edth e 20 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 20 of 42de ath p en al ty. See Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 3) (a) (r equi rin g the tri al jud ge to fin d t ha t

“ su ffi ci en t [s ta tu to ry ] ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ” ex is t). Th e St at e co un te rs th at Eva ns ’ de ath s en te nc e d oe s n otco nf li ctwith t he Rin g d eci si on be cau se th e tr ia l jud ge sen te nc edEvan s t o d eat h o nl y aft er co ns id eri ng an d a gr eei ng with t he jury’ s advi so ry de ath s en te nc e, whi ch it se lf f ou ndth e ex is te nc e o f anag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce o r ci rcu m st an ces su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt ade ath s en te nc e. The ju ry ’s
ve rd ic t n eces sa ril y

co nt ai ne d s uc h fi nd in gs be cau se th e jury was in st ru ct edth atit
co ul d n otreco m

m en d ade ath s en te nc e unl es s i t fo un d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t th aton e o r m or e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ex is te d a ndals o fo un d a fte r
co ns id eri ng th e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces th atth e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces were
su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt ade ath s en te nc e. See Fran ci s, 4 71 U.S. at 3 24 n.9 , 10 5 S .Ct. at19 76 n.9 ; Lo pe z, 64 9 F .3dat 1 23 8; Town se nd , 63 0 F .3dat 1 01 4. The Sta te is co rrec t tha t i ts de ath s en te nc in g p ro cedur es do pro vi de jury inpu t ab ou t the ex is te nc e o f ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces th atwas l ack in g i n t he Ariz on a p ro cedur es th e Co urt s tru ckdo wn i n R in g. Itis no t ju stth ata Fl or id a jury
ren de rs anadvi so ry

ve rd ic t ad dr es si ng th e ex is te nc e o f ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces , se e Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 2) (a), b utals o t ha t t he sen te nc in g ju dg e m us t g iv e th e jury’ s s en te nc in g v erd ic t “ gr eatweig ht ,” se e, e.g ., Tedd er, 3 22 So . 2dat 9 10 ; s ee al so supr a p p. 10 , 12 –1 3, 1 6– 17 & n .4 (d is cu ss in g app li cat io n o f Fl or id a’s Ted de r 21 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 21 of 42st an da rd ). The Supr em e Co urt h as no t d eci de d wh ethe r th e ro le th ata Fl or id a jury

pl ay s i n t he de ath- el ig ib il it y de te rm in at io n i s d iff

eren t en ou gh fro m

th e ab se nc e o f
an y rol e, whi ch was i nv ol ve d i n R in g, fo r th e Fl or id a p ro cedur es to be di st in gu is habl e. Init s Walt on op in io n, t he Co urt d idm ak e th es e st at em en ts ab ou t the Flo rid a
an d Ari zo nade ath s en te nc in g p ro cedur es in th e co ur se of uph ol di ng th e Ari zo na pr oc edur es : It i s t ru e th atin Flo rid a th e jury reco m m en ds a se nt en ce, b utitdo es no t m ak e sp eci fic factua l fi nd in gs with re ga rdto th e ex is te nc e o f m it ig at in g o r ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces an d i ts reco m m en da ti on is no t b in di ng on th e tr ia l ju dg e. A Flo rid a tr ia l co urt n o m or e h as th e as si st an ce o f a jury’ s fi nd in gs of f actwith re sp ectto sen te nc in g i ss ue s th ando es a tr ia l ju dg e in Ariz on a. 49 7 U.S. at64 8, 1 10 S.Ct . at 3 05 4. Ni ne y ears lat er, h owe ve r, th e Supr em e Co urt
reco gn iz edth atth ere i s a d iff eren ce i n the jury’ s ro le in th e two set s o f pr oc edur es , whi chm ay

be co ns ti tu ti on al ly sig ni fic an t. See Jo ne s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 26 U.S. 22 7, 2 50 –5 1, 1 19 S.Ct . 12 15 , 12 27 –2 8 (1 99 9) . In J on es , whi ch in te rp ret edth e pe na lty pro vi si on s o f th e fed eral carjack in g s ta tu te , 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 9, the Co urt di sc us se d fa vo rab ly its Hil dwi n d eci si on an d p oi nt edou t t ha t Fl or id a juri es do pl ay anim po rta ntrol e in th e cap it al sen te nc in g p ro ces s: “ In[Fl or id a], a j ury
m a[k es ] a se nt en ci ng reco m m en da ti on of d eat h, t hu s n eces sa ril y en ga gi ng in th e

22 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 22 of 42fact fin di ng requi redforim po si ti on of ahi gh er s en te nc e, th atis , th e d et erm in at io n th atat l eas t o ne ag gr av at in g fa ct orha d b een pro ve d.” Jo ne s, 5 26 U.S. at 2 50 –5 1, 11 9 S .Ct. at12 28
. Thre e y ears lat er ca m e th e Ri ng de ci si on , whi ch ov erru le d Walt on . In the
co ur se of d oi ng th at , th e Supr em e Co urt h adth is to say in R in g abo utth e Fl or id a pr oc edur es an d t he Hil dwi n d eci si on , whi ch ha d p ro vi de d s om e o f th e supp ort fo r th e rea so ni ng in th e Walto n c as e: InW al to n v . Arizo na , 49 7 U.S. 6 39 , 11 0 S .Ct. 3 04 7, 1 11 L.Ed.2d51 1 (1 99 0) , we up he ldAriz on a’s sc he m e ag ai ns t a c ha rg e th atitvi ol at ed th e Si xth Am en dm en t. The Co urt h adpre vi ou sl y de ni eda Si xt h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to Flo rid a’s cap it al sen te nc in g s y st em , inwhi ch th e jury reco m

m en ds a se nt en ce b utm ak es no ex pl ic itfin di ng s o n ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ; we s o ru le d, Walt on no te d, o n t he gro un d th at“ th e Si xt h Am en dm en t d oe s n otrequi re tha t t he sp eci fic fin di ng s au th or iz in g t he im

po si ti on of t he sen te nc e o f de ath b e m ad e b y th e jury.” Id., at 6 48 , 11 0 S .Ct. 3 04 7 (quo ti ng Hil dwi n v . Flo rid a, 49 0 U.S. 63 8, 6 40 –6 41 , 10 9 S .Ct. 2 05 5, 1 04 L.Ed.2d72 8 (1 98 9) (pe r cu ria m)). W al to n fo un d u na va il in g t he att em pt s b y th e de fen da nt -p et it io ne r in th atcas e to di st in gu is h F lo rid a’s cap it al se nt en ci ng syste m

fro m Ariz on a’s. In n ei th er St at e, acc or di ng to W al to n, wer e th e ag gr av at in g fa ct or s “ el em en ts of t he off en se ”; in bo th Sta te s, the y

ran ke d a s “ se nt en ci ng co ns id erat io ns ” g ui di ng th e ch oi ce b etweenli fe an d d eat h. 4 97 U.S., at 6 48 , 11 0 S .Ct. 3 04 7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Ri ng , 53 6 U.S. at59 8, 1 22 S.Ct . at 2 43 7. Th atpa ss ag e m ay be readto im

pl y a retreatfro m

th e rea so ni ng be hi ndth e Hil dwi n d eci si on , bu t n owh ere i n i ts Rin g op in io n d idth e Co urt s ay th atitwas o ve rru li ng Hil dwi n.

23 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 23 of 42Andth ere a re i nd ic at io ns in Rin g tha t t he Co urt d idno t m ean to ov erru le

ev enim pl ic it ly its Hil dwi n d eci si on . As th ey co nc ern th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh ts
reco gn iz edin App ren di , th e Co urt i n R in g d iv id edin to th ree c at eg or ie s t he 38 st at es with c ap it al sen te nc in g p ro cedur es at t ha t t im e. One c at eg ory co ns is te d o f th e 2 9 s ta te s wh ic h “ ge ne ral ly comm itsen te nc in g d eci si on s t o ju rie s,” R in g, 5 36 U.S. at 6 08 n.6 , 12 2 S .Ct. at24 42 n.6 , andforth atreas on have no App ren di pr ob le m . The s eco ndcat eg ory co ns is te d o f th e fi ve Sta te s (Ar iz on a an d fo ur ot he rs ) th at“ co m

m itbo thcap it al sen te nc in g fa ct fin di ng an d t he ul ti m at e
se nt en ci ng de ci si on en ti rel y to jud ge s,” i d., an d fo r th atreas on run afo ul of t he App ren di de ci si on . The Co urt’s thi rdcat eg ory co ns is te d o f fo urst at es , in cl ud in g Fl or id a, th atha d “ hybri d s y st em s, i n wh ic h t he jury ren de rs anadvi so ry ve rd ic t b ut th e jud ge m ak es th e u lt im at e se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns .” Id
. By pl aci ng Flo rid a’s se nt en ci ng pro cedur es in a “ hybri d” cat eg ory sep arat e fro m th e jury-on ly categ ory

of s en te nc in g p ro cedur es th atare cl earl y pe rm is si bl e,
an d s ep arat e fro m

th e jud ge -o nl y

cat eg ory of s en te nc in g p ro cedur es th atare im pe rm is si bl e u nd er Ri ng , th e Co urt i nd ic at edth atit s d eci si on in th e Ri ng cas e
m ig htno t b e in co ns is te ntwith i ts earl ie r Hil dwi n d eci si on ; i t i nd ic at edth atth e qu es ti on of wh ethe r Hil dwi n s ho ul d b e o ve rru le d was lef t fo r an ot he r da y . Oth erwi se , th ere was no po in t i n s ep arat in g o ut , as t he Co urt d id , th e h y br id
24 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 24 of 42syste m . If th e Co urt h adin te nd edto rul e in Rin g t ha t jury -o nl y sen te nc in g was requi redin cap it al cas es , th ere wo ul d b e o nl y two cat eg or ie s tha t m at te red : tho se in whi chth e jury sen te nc edan d t ho se in whi ch th e jud ge di d; hybri d s y st em s wo ul d
no t b e a s ep arat e cat eg ory . See Br ic e v . Sta te , 81 5 A.2 d 3 14 , 31 8– 19 (Del . 20 03 ) 6 (“ The Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d es ig na te d Del aware ’s cap it al sen te nc in g
sc he m e as a “ hybri d s y st em ,” Ri ng , 53 6 U.S. at60 8 n .6, 1 22 S.Ct . at 2 44 2 n .6, an d th us di st in gu is he d o ursyste m fro m Ariz on a’s.”). The m os t t ha t ca n b e sa idfor Eva ns ’ po si ti on is th atwhi le Rin g d idno t ex pl ic it ly ove rru le Hil dwi n, i ts reas on in g arg uabl y co nf li ct s wi th th e Hil dwi n d eci si on , anditarg uabl y was i m pl ic it ly
ov erru le d. Th atis no t en ou gh forEvan s t o p rev ai l i n t he di stric t co urt o r in th is Co urt. D. Hav in g s etou t the li ne of d eci si on s uph ol di ng th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of

The c losing pa

ragraph of

the Ring opinion states: “A ccor dingly , we ove rrule Walton to 6 the extent that it allows a sentencingjudge , sitti ngwithout a jury , to find an ag gravating circ umstance ne cessa

ry for imposition of the death pe nalty .” I d. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443 (empha sis added). B ut the important qualifier “ sitti ngwithout a jury” is not defined outside the context of the case befor e the Court, which w as one in whic h the jury had no role at all, not even an advisory

one, in sentenc ing. A s the openingpara graph of the Ring opinion states: “I n Arizona, followinga jury adjudication of a

defe ndant’s guilt of first-degree murder, the trial judge , sitti ngalone, de termines the pr esenc e or a bsence of the a g gravating f actor s require d by Arizona law for

imposit ion of the death penalty .” I d. at 588, 122 S.Ct. at 2432 (emphasis added) ; see a lso Cohens v. Virg inia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399, 5 L .Ed. 257 (1821) ( “It is a max im not to be disreg arde d, that g ener al expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in conne ction with the ca se in which those e x pressions ar e used.” ). 25

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 25 of 42Fl or id a’s advi so ry jury ve rd ic t s y st em , andth e li ne of d eci si on s ca st in g d oubton th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of t ha t s y st em , we tu rnno w to th e th irdan d d eci si ve li ne of de ci si on s i n t he se cir cu m st an ces . The Supr em e Co urt h as no t al way s b eenco ns is te ntin it s d eci si on s o r in it s in st ru ct io ns to lo wer co urts . There are, h owe ve r, so m e th in gs th e Co urt h as be en pe rfec tl y co ns is te ntab ou t, an d o ne of t he m is th at“ itis [th at ] Co urt’s p rero ga ti ve al on e to ov erru le on e o f it s p rece de nt s.” Un it edSta te s v . Hatt er, 5 32 U.S. 55 7, 56 7, 1 21 S.Ct . 17 82 , 17 90 (20 01 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt ha s t ol d u s m an y

ti m es “ th at , ‘ if apre ced en t o f [the Supr em e] Cou rt h as di rect ap pl ic at io n i n acas e, y etap pe ars to res t o n re as on s re jecte d i n s om e o th er l in e o f de ci si on s, the Co urt o f App eal s s ho ul d fo ll ow t he cas e whi ch di rect ly con tro ls , le av in g t o [t he Supr em e] Cou rt, t he pre ro ga ti ve of o ve rru li ng it s o wn d eci si on s.’” Je ffer so n C nt y . v. Ack er, 2 10 F.3d13 17 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (al te rat io n o m it te d) (quo ti ng Ro dr ig ue z d e Qui jas v . She ars on /Am . Exp ., Inc ., 49 0 U.S. 4 77 , 48 4, 1 09 S.Ct . 19 17 , 19 21 –2 2 (1 98 9) ). Even if aSupr em e Co urt d eci si on lo ok s d eadto us ,

“ th e Supr em e Co urt h as in si st edon res erv in g t o i ts el f th e ta skof b ury in g i ts own de ci si on s.” Id . at 1 32 0. We m us t n ot , to bo rro w Ju dg e Han d’s fe li ci to us word s,

“ em br ace t he ex hi la rat in g o pp ortu ni ty of an ti ci pa ti ng ” th e o ve rru li ng of aSupr em e Co urt d eci si on . W al sh , 13 9 F .2dat 8 23 (Han d, J ., di ss en ti ng ).
26 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 26 of 42The hi gh Co urt co ul d n otha ve be encle arerab ou t t hi s t ha n i t h as be en . The

Co urt h as to ldus , ov er an d o ve r ag ai n, t o fo ll ow an y of i ts de ci si on s t ha t d ire ct ly ap pl ie s i n acas e, ev enif t he reas on in g o f th atde ci si on ap pe ars to ha ve be en reject edin lat er d eci si on s an d l eav e to th atCo urt “ th e p rero ga ti ve of o ve rru li ng it s
own de ci si on s.” Ten etv. Do e, 54 4 U.S. 1 , 10 –1 1, 1 25 S.Ct . 12 30 , 12 37 (20 05 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ; ac co rdHatt er, 5 32 U.S. at 5 67 , 12 1 S .Ct. at17 90 (o ve rru li ng on e o f it s ea rli er d eci si on s b utno ti ng with app ro va l t ha t t he co urt o f ap pe al s h adno t d on e so be cau se , whi le do ub t h adbe encas t o n t ha t ea rli er d eci si on th e Supr em e Co urt h adno t ex pr es sl y ov erru le d i t); Hoh n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 24 U.S. 23 6, 2 52 –5 3, 1 18 S.Ct . 19 69 , 19 78 (19 98 ) (“ Ourde ci si on s re m ai n b in di ng pr eced en t u nt il we se e fi t t o re co ns id er the m , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r subs eque nt
cas es ha ve rai se d d oubt s ab ou t the ir c on ti nu edvi ta li ty.”); St at e Oil Co . v. Kh an , 52 2 U.S. 3 , 20 , 11 8 S .Ct. 2 75 , 28 4 (1 99 7) (“ Des pi te whatCh ie f Ju dg e Po sn er ap tl y de sc rib edas Al br ech t’s i nf irmiti es , andit s i nc reas in gl y wob bl y , m ot h- eat en fo un da ti on s, the re re m ai ns th e que st io n wh ethe r Alb rech t d es erv es co nt in ui ng
res pe ctun de r th e d oc tri ne of s ta re d eci si s. Th e Co urt o f App eal s was co rrec t i n ap pl y in g t ha t p rin ci pl e d es pi te di sa gr eem en t wi thAlb rech t, fo r itis th is Co urt’s pr ero ga ti ve alo ne to ov erru le on e o f it s p rece de nt s.” ( al te rat io n a ndcit at io n
om it te d) ).
27

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 27 of 42A go odex am pl e o f ho w ser io us th e Supr em e Co urt i s ab ou t i ts supr em e pr ero ga ti ve rul e is Ago st in i v . Fel to n, 5 21 U.S. 20 3, 1 17 S.Ct . 19 97 (19 97 ). Inth at
cas e th e lo wer co urts ha d re fu se d t o v acat e anin jun ct io n t ha t was ba se d o n t he Supr em e Co urt’s ea rli er d eci si on in Agu il ar v . Fel to n, 4 73 U.S. 40 2, 1 05 S.Ct
. 32 32 (19 85 ), ev enth ou gh Agu il ar s im pl y co ul d “ no t b e sq ua redwith” so m e o f th e Co urt’s i nt erv en in g d eci si on s, wh ic h h adbro ug htab ou t “ a si gn ifi can t ch an ge in ” th e ap pl ic ab le co ns ti tu ti on al law. Ag os ti ni , 52 1 U.S. at20 8– 09 , 23 5– 36 , 11 7 S .Ct. at20 03 , 20 16 . In Ag os ti ni th e Co urt p ro no un cedth atit s Ag ui la r de ci si on was
ov erru le d i n re le va ntpa rt, a ndin st ru ct edth e lo wer co urts in th e cas e b efo re i t t o
va cat e th e o rd er tha t h adbe enba se d o n t he Agu il ar d eci si on . Id. at23 9– 40 , 11 7 S.Ct . at 2 01 8– 19 . The i m po rta ntpa rt o f th e Ago st in i d eci si on for pre se ntpu rp os es is no t t ha t the Supr em e Co urt ex pl ic it ly ove rru le d Ag ui la r bu t t ha t t he Co urt
ex pr es sl y st at edth atth e lo wer co urts ha d b een co rrec t t o fo ll ow Ag ui la r, ev enif i t ha d b een im

pl ic it ly ove rru le d b y

in te rv en in g d eci si on s, an d t o l eav e th e supr em e pr ero ga ti ve of o ve rru li ng th atde ci si onto th e o ne an d o nl y Co urt wi th th e au th or it y to do so . This is whatth e Supr em e Co urt s ai d abo utth at : W e d o n otackno wled ge , andwe do no t h ol d, t ha t o th er co urts sh ou ld co nc lu de ou r m or e rec en t ca se s h av e, by im pl ic at io n, o ve rru le d a n earl ie r pr eced en t. We reaffi rm th atif apre ced en t o f th is Co urt h as di rectap pl ic at io n i n acas e, y etap pe ars to res t o n re as on s re jecte d i n so m e o th er l in e o f de ci si on s, the Co urt o f App eal s s ho ul d fo ll ow t he
28 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 28 of 42cas e whi ch di rect ly con tro ls , lea vi ng to th is Co urt t he pre ro ga ti ve of

ov erru li ng it s o wn d eci si on s. Id . at 2 37 , 11 7 S .Ct. at20 17 (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Andth atis tru e ev enwher e th e ear li er Supr em e Co urt d eci si on th atdi rect ly app li es “ can no t b e squa redwith” th e Co urt’s l at er jur is prud en ce i n t he areath atha s “ si gn ifi can tl y ch an ge [d ]” the law. Id . at 5 21 U.S. at 2 08 –0 9, 2 35 –3 6, 1 17 S.Ct . at 2 00 3, 2 01 6. It is tru e ev enif t he earl ie r de ci si on ha s “ in firm it ie s” an d “ in crea si ng ly w ob bl y , m ot h- eat enfou nd at io ns .” Khan , 52 2 U.S. at20 , 11 8 S .Ct. at28 4. Lik e th e lo wer co urts in Ago st in i an d i n Kh an , we hav e al way s b een care fu l to ob ey th e supr em e p rero ga ti ve rul e an d n otus ur p t he Supr em e Co urt’s au th or it y to de ci de whet he r it s d eci si on s s ho ul d b e co ns id eredov erru le d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Gre er, 4 40 F.3d12 67 , 12 75 –7 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ The pro bl em with l owe r
co urts ba si ng de ci si on s o n p red ic ti on s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt wi ll ov erturn o ne of it s o wn d eci si on s i s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt h as rep eat ed ly tol d u s n otto do it . W e ta ke th atadm on it io n s eri ou sl y .”) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ; J effe rs on Cn ty., 21 0 F .3dat 13 20 ; Br is en ti ne v. St on e & Webs te r Eng ’g Co rp ., 11 7 F .3d51 9, 5 25 (11 th Cir
. 19 97 ) (“ It m ay

be th atth e Supr em e Co urt h as cu t Al ex an de r [v . Gardne r-Den ve r Co ., 41 5 U.S. 3 6, 9 4 S .Ct. 1 01 1 (1 97 4) ,] ba ckso far tha t i t wi ll no t s urvi ve . Perh ap s, b utwe are n otco nv in cedwe are au th or iz edto si ng th e d irg e o f

29 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 29 of 42Alex an de r. W e wil l l eav e th atto th e Supr em e Co urt . . . .”); En g’g C on tra ct or s

Ass ’n of S . Fla . Inc . v. Me tro . Dade Cn ty., 12 2 F .3d89 5, 9 08 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ [W] e are no t atli be rty to d is reg ardbi nd in g c as e la w th atis so clo se ly on p oi nt
an d h as be enon ly w eak en ed , rathe r th andi rect ly ove rru le d, b y th e Supr em e Co urt.”)
. The pro bl em

with Ev an s’ arg um en t t ha t Ri ng , whi ch he ldth atAriz on a’s jud ge -o nl y

cap it al sen te nc in g p ro cedur e v io la te d t he Six th Am en dm en t, co nt ro ls th is cas e is th e Hil dwi n d eci si on in whi ch th e Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t ha t s am e
co nt en ti on . See Hil dwi n, 4 90 U.S. at 6 40 –4 1, 1 09 S.Ct . at 2 05 7 (c on si de rin g t he pr oc edur es pre sc rib edby Fla. St at . § 9 21 .14 1 (S up p. 1 98 8) an d h ol di ng th at“ th e Si xt h Am en dm en t d oe s n otrequi re tha t t he sp eci fic fin di ng s au th or iz in g t he im po si ti on of the sen te nc e o f de ath b e m ad e b y th e jury.”). Hildwin is di rect ly on po in t, an d i t i s b in di ng on us , un le ss an d u nt il th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ic it ly
ov erru le s i t. Alt ho ug h t he Co urt i n R in g o ve rru le d Walt on , itdi d n otov erru le Hil dwi n. 7
Members of

the Florida Supreme Court have re cognized that Ri ngdid not overrule 7 Hildwin. See B ottoson v. Moore, 833 So. 2d 693, 704 n.16 (Fla. 2002) (Anstea d, J ., concur ring ) (“[T]he Court [ in Ring] overruled Walton, but did not specifica lly rec ede f rom or over

rule Hildwin or any

of the Court’s pre vious opinions approving of Florida ’s ca

pital sentencing sy stem.”); Kingv. Moore, 831 So. 2d 143, 155 (F la. 2002) (Pariente, J., concurring ) (“ [T] he Supreme Court [in R ing] did not directly addre ss Spazi ano and H ildwin and thus, of course , this Court is bound by

that prec edent to the e x tent those ca ses g overn the issues prese nted to us.”); Bottoson v. Moore, 824 So. 2d 115, 124 (F la. 2002) (Wells, J ., dissenting) (“The Supreme Court 30 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 30 of 42It i s t ru e th ata pr in ci pl edarg um en t ca n b e m ad e th atth e Supr em e Co urt’s

st at em en t i n Hi ld win th at“ th e Si xt h Am en dm en t d oe s n otrequi re tha t t he sp eci fic fin di ng s au th or iz in g the im po si ti on of t he sen te nc e o f de ath b e m ad e b y th e jury,” 49 0 U.S. at64 0– 41 , 10 9 S .Ct. at20 57 , con fli ct s wi th th e Co urt’s re as on in g i n R in g th at“ [c]api ta l d efen da nt s, n o l es s t ha n n on cap it al de fen da nt s, . . . are en ti tl edto a jury dete rm in at io n o f an y facton whi ch th e le gi sl atur e co nd it io ns anin crea se in th ei r m ax im

um pu ni sh m en t,” R in g, 5 36 U.S. at 5 89 , 12 0 S .Ct. at24 32
. The m os t 8 th atcanbe sai d, h owe ve r, is th atth is is a si tu at io n wh ere “ a p rece de ntof [ th e Supr em e] Cou rt h as di rectap pl ic at io n i n acas e, y etap pe ars to res t o n re as on s reject edin so m e o th er l in e o f de ci si on s.” R od rig ue z d e Qui jas, 4 90 U.S. at 4 84 , 10 9 S .Ct. at19 21 –2 2. An d, t o re it erat e iton e la stti m e, th e Supr em e Co urt h as to ld
us ex act ly wha t we ar e to do inth is si tu at io n: we m us t fo ll ow the de ci si on th at di rect ly con tro ls , un le ss an d u nt il th e Supr em e Co urt m ak es itno n- co nt ro ll in g b y in Ring over

ruled ne ither Hildwin nor multiple decisions in which the Supreme Court rejec ted the ver y same c onstitut ional challeng es to Florida ’s ca pital sentencing

statute . . . .”); Kingv. Moore, 824 So. 2d 127, 130 (F la. 2002) (Wells, J ., dissenting) (“The Supreme Court in Ring overr uled neither

Hildwin nor multipl e dec isions in which the Supreme Court reje cted the ve ry same c onstitut ional challeng es to Florida ’s ca pital sentencingstatute made nowby King .”). A principled a

rgument can a lso be made that the result in Hildwin is not i nconsistent 8 with the result in Ring. And that is especially true in ca ses like this one wher e no rational jury could have found the de fenda nt guilty beyond a re asonable doubt of the murder with which he was c harg ed without implicitl y findingthat at least one of the statutory ag gravating circ umstances e x isted. There was no e vidence prese nted, and ther e could have bee n no rational infere nce f

rom any of the e vidence that was pre sented, that Eva ns committed the murder but did not do it for pecunia

ry g ain. 31 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 31 of 42ov erru li ng it . Id., 1 09 S.Ct . at 1 92 1– 22 . W e u nd ers ta ndth atin st ru ct io n, we h av e

al way s t ak enitser io us ly, an d we f ol lo w ithe re. The di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s du e to be rev ers edin so far a s i t g ran te d fe de ral habe as rel ie f to Evan s o n R in g gr ou nd s. 9 III. Inhi s cr os s- ap pe al , Evan s co nt en ds th athi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a publ ic tri al was v io la te d wh enth e co urt p art ia ll y clo se d the vo ir d ire pro ceed in gs be cau se of the li m it edsea ti ng th atwas a va il ab le in a sm al l h eari ng roo m . That
ro om was u se d fo r in di vi du al vo ir d ire of t ho se juro rs who ha d g iv enan swe rs in di cat in g tha t m or e sp eci fic qu es ti on in g o f th em in fro ntof t he ot he r juro rs m ig ht le adto a m is tri al , li ke th e o ne th atha d o ccu rredwhen th e cas e was las t t rie d. The 1 0 is su e was rai se d a ndreject edon ap pe al to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Eva ns v.
Our de novo decision on the merits of the Hildwin/Ri ngissue makes it unnec essar y for 9 us to decide a

number of othe r issues re lating to this claim, including : 1) whethe r the c laim is proce durally

barr ed bec ause Eva

ns did not raise it in the state trial cour t and on direc t appea l; 2) whether the Florida Supreme Court’s r ejec tion of the claim in the state c ollatera l proce edingis subject to defe renc e under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); 3) whether any Ring e rror

in this case would have be en har

mless in light of the e vidence establishing that if Evans committed the murder he must have done it for

pecunia ry g ain; and 4) whether

any of the four

previously

listed issues have been w aived by

the State. There had bee n two mistrials in this case be fore the third trial, which is the one 1 0 involved in these proc eeding s. “The f irst trial ended in a

mistrial when the jury

could not agree upon a ver dict. Evans’ se cond trial e nded in a mistrial due to pre judicial information re g arding the first trial disseminated by a juror during voir

dire que stioning.” Eva

ns, 808 So. 2d at 105 n.9.

32 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 32 of 42St at e, 80 8 S o. 2 d 9 2, 1 05 (Fl a. 20 01 ). The d is tri ctco urt ca refu ll y co ns id ered Eva ns ’ arg um en ts an d re

jecte d t he m , con cl ud in g t ha t t he de ci si onof t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt o n t hi s i ss ue was n otco nt rary to o r anun 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ); Doc . 21 at 6 1– 69
. W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s re as on in g a ndres ol ut io n o f th is is su e b ut ad d t hr ee p oi nt s ab ou t the na tu re o f th e d efer en ce due th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on un de r § 2 25 4( d) . Firs t, Ev an s’ bes t ar gu m en ts on th is is su e rel y on Pres le y v. Geo rg ia , 55 8 U.S. 2 09 , 13 0 S .Ct. 7 21 (20 10 ), bu t t ha t Supr em e Co urt de ci si on was i ss ue d m or e th anni ne y ears aft er the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d eci de d th is is su e in th is cas e. It i s h ornb oo k AEDPA la w th atth e o nl y Supr em e Co urt de ci si on s ag ai ns t wh ic h ast at e co urt d eci si on is to be m eas ur edare t ho se on th e bo ok s atth e ti m e th e st at e co urt d eci si on was i ss ue d. Gree ne v. Fi sh er, — U.S. — , 13 2 S .Ct. 3 8, 4 5 (2 01 1) (a Supr em e Co urt d eci si on is su edth ree m on th s af te r th e la stst at e co urt d eci si on onth e m eri ts of afed eral co ns ti tu ti on al is su e can no t b e
co ns id eredin de te rm in in g c le arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law fo r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) pu rp os es ); C ul le n v . Pin ho ls te r, 13 1 S .Ct. 1 38 8, 1 39 9 (2 01 1) (“ St at e-co urt de ci si on s ar e m eas ur edag ai ns t [t he Supr em e] Court’s p rece de nt s as of t he ti m e th e st at e co urt re nd ers it s d eci si on .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Lo cky er v . Andrad e, 33 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 33 of 4253 8 U.S. 6 3, 7 1– 72 , 12 3 S .Ct. 1 16 6, 1 17 2 (2 00 3) (expl ai ni ng th at“ cl earl y

es tabl is he d F ed eral law u nd er § 22 54 (d )(1 )” i s m eas ur ed“ atth e ti m e th e st at e co urt
ren de rs it s d eci si on ”) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Seco nd , Evan s al so rel ie s o n s om e d eci si on s o f th is Co urt t o s up po rt h is po si ti onon th is is su e. Bu t a f ed eral co urt o f ap pe al s d eci si on fav or ab le to a habe as pe ti ti on er ca nn otcle arl y

est ab li sh th ata st at e co urt d eci si on of afed eral
co ns ti tu ti on al is su e is co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law
un de r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). See Pa rk er v . Mat th ews , 13 2 S .Ct. 2 14 8, 2 15 5 (2 01 2) (“ The Si xt h C irc ui t al so erre d b y co ns ul ti ng it s o wn p rece de nt s, ra th er tha n t ho se of t hi s Co urt, i n a ss es si ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e Ken tu cky Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on . . . . As we ex pl ai ne d i n c orrect in g a n i de nt ic al erro r by the Six th Cir cu ittwo Term s ag o, ci rcu itpre ced en t d oe s n otco ns ti tu te ‘ cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). It t he refo re ca nn ot fo rm th e b as is for

habe as rel ie f un de r AEDPA.”) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Carey v. Mu sl ad in , 54 9 U.S. 7 0, 7 7, 1 27 S.Ct . 64 9, 6 54 (20 06 ) (“ Giv enth e la ck of h ol di ng s fro m th is Co urt re ga rd in g t he po te nt ia ll y pre jud ic ia l ef

fectof s pe ct at or s’ cou rtr oo m
co nduc t o f th e k in d i nv ol ve d h ere, i t ca nn otbe sai d t ha t t he st at e co urt
un reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edFed eral law.”) (qu ot at io n m ark s an d al te rat io ns om it te d) ; Do m br ows ki v. Mi ng o, 5 43 F.3d12 70 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 08 )

34 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 34 of 42(“ W e h av e h el d t ha t the ‘ cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw’ requi rem en t o f § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) do es
no t i nc lu de th e la w of the lo wer fed eral co urts .”); Hawki ns v. Al ab am a, 31 8 F .3d 13 02 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Ourin qu iry int o wh atis cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral la w forAEDPA pu rp os es m us t fo cu s o n t he de ci si on s o f th e Supr em e Co urt. Cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law i s n otth e cas e la w of the lo wer fed eral co urts , in cl ud in g t hi s C ou rt.” ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Pu tm anv. Head , 26 8 F .3d12 23 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (s am e). 1 1 Thi rd , th e o bs ta cl es th ata habe as pe ti ti on er fa ces un de r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) are daun ti ng . Bob by v. Dix on , — U.S. —, 1 32 S.Ct . 26 , 27 (20 11 ) (“ Und er the Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct , a st at e p ris on er s eek in g awritof habe as co rp us fro m

a fed eral co urt m

us t s ho w th atth e st at e co urt’s ru li ng on th e cl ai m be in g p res en te d i n fe de ral co urt was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n tha t t he re was
anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il ity fo r fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.”) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; Cu ll env. Pi nh ol st er,
On the other

hand, our de cisions that areunfavor able to a ha beas pe titioner can de feat 1 1 his claim under § 2254( d)(1) . I f we have r ejec ted a mate rially identical cla im in a published opinion, that means it is the law of the c ircuit that the cla im has no merit, and if the c laim has no merit a state c ourt’s re

jection of it ca

nnot be “c ontrary

to, or involv[ e] an unrea sonable application of, c lear ly

established F ederal law, a s determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 1). Other

wise, wewould not have r ejec ted the cla im ourselves. This Court sitti ngen banc or the Supreme Court c an, of c ourse, ove rrule our decisions but until that happens we a re bound to follow our own published dec isions to t he extent that they are inconsistent with a habea s petitioner’s cla im that a contra ry position i s “cle arly

established F eder al law” within the meaningof § 2254(d) (1). 35

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 35 of 4213 1 S .Ct. 1 38 8, 1 41 1 (2 01 1) (“ W e h av e sa idti m e an d a ga in th atanun reas on ab le

ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law i s d iff eren t fr om

anin co rrec t ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral la w.”) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Sc hr iro v. Lan dr ig an , 55 0 U.S. 4 65 , 47 3– 74 , 12 7 S.Ct . 19 33 , 19 39 –4 0 (2 00 7) (“ The qu es ti on un de r AEDPA is no t wh ethe r a fed eral
co urt b el ie ve s t he st at e co urt's de te rm in at io n was in co rrec t b utwhet he r th at de te rm in at io n was un reas on ab le —a s ub st an ti al ly hig he r th res ho ld .”); Harri ng to n v . Ri ch te r, — U.S. —, 1 31 S.Ct . 77 0, 7 85 –8 6 (2 01 1) (“ A st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n th ata cl ai m

lac ks m eri t p recl ud es fed eral habe as rel ie f so lo ng as f ai rm in de d ju ris ts
co ul d d is ag ree o n t he co rrec tn es s o f th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s
om it te d) ; Hi ll v. Hu m

ph rey, 66 2 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (“ Und er AEDPA, our rev ie w of afin al st at e h ab eas de ci si on is gre at ly ci rcu m sc rib edan d i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l t o t he st at e co urts .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s
om it te d) ; J oh ns on v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 3 F .3d90 7, 9 10 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ St at edth e o th er way, on ly if th ere i s n o p os si bi li ty fairm in de d ju ris ts co ul d di sa gr ee tha t the st at e co urt’s d eci si on co nf li ct s wi th th e Supr em e Co urt’s pr eced en ts m ay

rel ie f be gra nt ed .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d)
. Eva ns ’ cl os ur e cl ai m

do es no t cl ear t he se hi gh hu rd le s.

IV. Eva ns ’ fin al co nt en ti on is th athi s co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f
36 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 36 of 42co un se l b y

fai li ng to cal l s ev enpo te nt ia l wi tn es se s atth e g ui ltst ag e o f th e tr ia l. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t hi s cl ai m

onpe rfo rm an ce g ro un ds witho ut
reac hi ng th e p reju di ce i ss ue . Evan s, 9 95 So . 2dat 9 43 –4 5. Th atco urt ex pl ai ne d i n de ta il why no t ca ll in g e achof t he po te nt ia l wi tn es se s d idno t am ou ntto
co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t p erfo rm an ce u nd er St ric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S.Ct . 20 52 (19 84 ). Id. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d re li ef o n t hi s cl ai m , 1 2
The F lorida Supreme Court c oncluded that Eva ns’ counse l made a strateg ic dec ision on 1 2 this point , and it explained: In sum, counsel clea

rly made a n informed de cision about not prese nting a ny witnesses duringthe guilt phase, which is exactly what he told the judg e at the guilt phase: “Afte r a year -and- a-ha lf of consultation, followed by the last few minutes here, w e’r e g oing to r est. . . .” B eca use the trial c ourt’s finding s are supported by

competent substantial evide nce a nd counsel’s de cision not to present these witnesse s was re asonable , we a ffirm the tria l court’s de nial. Be cause counsel’s f

ailure to pre sent these witnesse s was not def icient, we do not a ddress the pre judice prongof Strickland. Evans, 995 So. 2d at 945 (footnote omitted). The court a lso noted: Counsel also testified that he did not believe that any of these w itnesses, who had cre dibilit y

or other pr oblems associate d with their testimony , was wor th giving up the “sa ndwich,” i.e ., losing the oppor tunity to give two closingarguments at the guilt phase. See Va

n Poyck v. State, 694 So. 2d 686, 697 (F la. 1997) (c oncluding that there wer e tac tical re asons for limiting the pr esentation of evidenc e that might indicate a nother pe rson was the trig g erma n, such as losingthe opportunity to give two closingarguments at the guilt phase); ac cord Ree d, 875 So. 2d at 430. The L eg islature has since enac ted sec tion 918.19, Florida Statutes (2007), which provides that the State sha ll have openingand re buttal closing a rguments. In addition, this C ourt amende d Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.250 and adopted F lorida Rule of Criminal Procedur e 3.381, conf irming tha

t the State is entitled to openingand re buttal closing a rguments even if the defe nse pre sents no evidenc e at tria l. In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedur e-F inal Arguments, 957 So. 2d 1164, 1166-67 (Fla . 2007). Howe ver, when Eva ns was prose cuted in 1999, the de fensewas pe rmitted to have both the 37 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 37 of 42co nc lu di ng th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re jecti on of t he cla im

on pe rfo rm an ce gr ou nd s as to si x o f th e se ve n wi tn es se s was no t co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law u nd er § 22 54 (d )(1 ). Doc. 2 1 a t 1 7– 21 . Its co nc lu si on is
co rrec t. As we ha ve expl ai ne d:

Eve n wi th ou t the de fere nc e due un de r § 2 25 4, the Str ic kl an d v
. W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S.Ct . 20 52 (19 84 ), st an da rdfor jud gi ng th e p erfo rm an ce o f co un se l “ is a m os t d efer en ti al on e.” Harri ng to n, —

U.S. at —, 1 31 S.Ct . at 7 88 . Whe n c om bi ne d wi th th e ex tralayer of d efer en ce tha t § 22 54 pro vi de s, the res ul t i s d oubl e de fere nc e an d the qu es ti on be co m es whet he r “ th ere i s an y reas on ab le arg um en t tha t co un se l s at is fie d S tri ck la nd ’s def eren ti al st an da rd .” Id ., 13 1 S .Ct. at78 8. Do ub le de fere nc e is do ub ly diff ic ul t fo r a p et it io ne r to ov erco m e, an d i t wi ll be a rare cas e in whi chanin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m th atwas d en ie d o n t he m eri ts in st at e co urt is fou ndto m eri t re li ef i n afed eral habe as pro ceed in g. Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 10 –1 1. We agre e wit h t he di st ric t co urt t ha t t hi s i s n oton e of th os e rar e cas es . Inad di ti on to th e rea so ns th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt g av e fo r it s d eci si on
an d t he reas on s t he di st ric t co urt g av e fo r fi nd in g t ha t d eci si on to be reas on ab le as to si x o f th e p ot en ti al witne ss es , we addth e p oi ntth at“ [w]hic h wi tn es se s, i f an y , to cal l, an d wh ento cal l the m , is th e ep it om e o f a s tra te gi c d eci si on , anditis on e th at
openingand re buttal closing a rguments if it presented no e vidence ; thus, counsel’s decision to take this into consideration was rea sonable a t that time. I d. at n.16. 38

Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 38 of 42we wil l s el do m , if ev er, s eco ndgu es s.” Water s v . Tho m as , 46 F.3d15 06 , 15 12

(1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) (enbanc ); a cco rdCo okv. Warde n, 6 77 F.3d11 33 , 11 37 (11 th Cir
. 20 12 ); Al le n v . Sec’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 7 59 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). As t o o ne of t he sev enpo te nt ia l wi tn es se s, h owe ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d th atit“ ag ree[ d] with t he ul ti m at e co nc lu si on of the st at e supr em e co urt b ut di sa gr ee[d ] wit h t he rat io na le forho w itco nc lu de s t ha t M r. Evan s was pro vi de d effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l.” Do c. 21 at 2 3– 24 . App lying whatap pe ars to be de no vo rev ie w, th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h ad
erre d i n d eci di ng th atEvan s h adno t m etth e p erfo rm an ce p ro ng of t he Str ic kl an d te stas t o t ria l co un se l n otpre se nt in g t he tes ti m on y of M in dy McCo rm ic k, b utth e di st ric t co urt d en ie d re li ef an yway on th e p reju di ce p ro ng as t o t ha t wi tn es s. Id . at 26
. If, as itap pe ars , th e d is tri ctco urt re vi ewedth e p artof t he in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m in vo lv in g p ot en ti al witne ss McC orm ic k wi th ou t an y de fere nc e to th e st at e co urt d eci si on , iterre d. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d eci de d th atEvan s h adfai le d t o e st ab li sh pe rfo rm an ce d efi ci en cy un de r Stric kl an d a s t o a ll of th e p ot en ti al witne ss es , in cl ud in g M cCo rm ic k, an d i ts de ci si onwas e nt it le d t o fu ll AEDPA defe ren ce u nd er § 22 54 (d )(1 ). The que st io n i s n otho w th e d is tri ct
co urt o r th is Co urt wo ul d ru le if p res en te d wi th th e is su e fo r th e fi rs t t im e an d n ot 39 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 39 of 42whe th er we thi nkth e st at e co urt d eci si on is co rrec t, b utwhet he r it s d eci si on is

co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Bo bb y , 13 2 S .Ct. at27 ; Cu ll en , 13 1 S .Ct. at14 10 –1 1; Sch rir o, 5 50 U.S. at 4 73 –7 4, 12 7 S .Ct. at19 39 –4 0. We nee d n otde ci de th at , ho wev er, b ecau se we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t, fo r th e rea so ns itst at ed , Evan s h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t h e
was pre jud ic edby his co un se l’s fa il ur e to cal l M cCo rm ic k a s a wi tn es s. One of Ev an s’ arg um en ts is th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s o f th e p reju di ce is su e as to po te nt ia l wi tn es s M cCo rm ic k was fla wedbe cau se th e co urt d idno t
co ns id er an y

pre jud ic e Eva ns su ffer edfro m th e fai lu re t o c al l s ix othe r po te nt ia l wit ne ss es . The p reju di ce i nqui ry , he i ns is ts , m us t b e a cu m

ul at iv e o ne . It i s Ev an s’ arg um en t, n otth e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s, tha t i s fl awed . Whi le th e p reju di ce in qu iry sh ou ldbe a cu m

ul at iv e o ne as t o t he effe ctof a ll of t he fai lu res of c ou ns el th atm eetth e p erfo rm an ce d efi ci en cy requi rem en t, o nl y

th e eff ectof c ou ns el ’s act io ns or i na ct io ns th atdo m eetth atde fic ie nc y requi rem en t ar e co ns id eredin de te rm in in g p reju di ce. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 92 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 67 (“ [A]ny de fic ie nc ie s i n c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce m us t b e p reju di ci al to th e d efen se in ord er t o
co ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce u nd er the Co ns ti tu ti on ”); id . at 6 94 , 10 4 S .Ct. at 20 68 (“ The de fen dantm

us t s ho w th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor
co 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 40 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 40 of 42di ffer en t.”) (em ph as is ad de d) . Becau se Evan s h as fai le d t o s ho w any defi ci en cy in
co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce b as edon no t ca ll in g any of th e o th er s ix witne ss es , th ere i s
no de fic ie nc y

to accu m ul at e in ord er t o e st ab li sh pre jud ic e. Cf. Mo rri s v . Sec’y , Dep ’t of Co rr., 67 7 F .3d11 17 , 11 32 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (“ [N]one of M orris ’s in di vi du al cla im s o f erro r orpre jud ic e h av e an y

m eri t, an d t he refo re we h av e
no th in g t o a ccu m

ul at e.”). We reject Ev an s’ cum ul at iv e p reju di ce ar gu m en t. W e al so rejectEvan s’ arg um en t t ha t “ th e fo cu s o f a co urt’s p reju di ce i nqui ry
m us t b e to try to fi nda co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, b y en ga gi ng with the ev id en ce an d sp ecu la ti ng as t o i ts cu m

ul at iv e eff

ect .” App el le e/ Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t’s Re pl y Br. at 13 . Our ro le is no t t o t ry

an d fi nda way

to setasi de st at e co urt ju dg m en ts . The Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edus th at“ a co urt m us t i ndul ge a st ro ng pre su m pt io n th atco un se l’s co nduc t fa ll s wi th in th e wid e ran ge of r eas on ab le pro fes si on al
as si st an ce; th atis , th e d efen da ntm us t o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n t ha t, u nd er the ci rcu m st an ces , th e ch al le ng edact io n m ig htbe co ns id eredso un d tria l s tra te gy.” Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 65 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Andit ha s i ns tru ct edus th at“ [a]tt orne y erro rs co m e in anin fin it e v ari ety an d a re as li ke ly to be ut te rly harm le ss in a parti cu la r cas e as th ey are t o b e p reju di ci al ,” id . at 6 93 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 67 . Andth at“ a co urt m ak in g t he pre jud ic e in qu iry m

us t as k i f th e de fen da ntha s m etth e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth e d eci si on reac he d wo ul d
41 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 41 of 42reas on ab ly lik el y ha ve be endi ffer en t ab se ntth e err or s,” i d. at69 6, 1 04 S.Ct . at 20 69 . Ins te adof t ry in g t o fi nderro rs , “ [w]e beg in with t he pre m is e th atun de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e ch al le ng edact io ns mig htbe co ns id eredso un d t ria l s tra te gy.” Cu ll en , 13 1 S .Ct. at14 04 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Andif t he re
were erro rs th atam ou nt edto de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, t o e st ab li sh pre jud ic e “ [t]he li ke li ho odof adi ffer en t re su ltm us t b e subs ta nt ia l, n otjus t co nc ei vabl e.” Harri ng to n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 7 92 . The p res um pt io n ru ns ag ai ns t the de fen da nt , th e bu rd enis on hi m , andsp ecu la ti on ab ou t t he m eri ts of c ou ns el ’s tri al st rat eg y is no t
en ou gh to carry

th atbu rd en . V. The di stric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s af firm edin so far a s i t d en ie d re li ef as to Eva ns ’ co nv ic ti onbu t re ve rs edin so far as itgra nt edrel ie f as to hi s s en te nc e. AFFIRMED in pa rt and REVERSED in pa rt.

42 Case: 11-14498 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 42 of 42