2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-12-2010 

# Pete r Kare nb aue r v

. J eff rey B e ard P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1770

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P e t e r K ar e nb aue r v

. J eff r ey Be ar d " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 766. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/766NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1770 P E T E R M IC H A E L K A R E N B A U E R , A ppel l ant v. JE F F R E Y B E A R D , S e c re tar y , P e n n sy lv a n ia D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s; L O U I S FO L I N O , Super i nt endent , St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atG r eene

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i v. N o. 2- 05- cv- 01586) H onor abl e D avi d S. C er cone, D i s tr i ctJ udge

A r gued J une 23, 2010 B E FO R E : SM I T H , FI SH E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2010)

__________ L i s a B . Fr eel and ( ar gued) O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 1001 L i bertyA venue 1500 L i bertyC ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant2

J ames P. B arker( ar gued) J enni ferA . B uck O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al of Penns y l vani a A ppeal s & L egal Ser vi ces S tr aw b erryS q u are 16th Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17120 A t t orney s forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge, I . I NT RO DUC T I ON T hi s m att ercomes on be for e the C our ton Pet erM i chae l K ar enbaue r ’ s appea l fr om a D i s tr i ctC our tor derent er ed on February25, 2009, deny i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, a pr ovi s i on of the A nt i t err or i s m and E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ). T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt w ro te its ow n opi ni on, i tal s o adopt ed a r eportand r ecomm endat i on of a magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm endi ng thati tdenythe pet i t i on. K ar enbaue rv. K l em, N o. 2: 05- cv- 1586, 2009 WL 4 7 3 8 6 0 , a t* 1 ( W. D. P a . F e b . 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 ) . I n a n o r d e re n t e r e d o n J u l y1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , we g r a n t e d Ka r e n b a u e r ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra c e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i tyl i mi t e d t o h i s c l a i ms th a t (1 ) th e sta te tria l co u rt v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w h e n it d id n o t co n d u c t a hear i ng on w hetherhe w as compet entt o s t and tr i al ; and ( 2) hi s tr i al couns el pr ovi dedW e not e thatthe vi ct i m ’ s name has been s pel l ed as “Lacy ” and “ L ace y ” atdi ffe r ent 1 p lac e s in d o c u m e n ts in th is c a se . W e u se th e f o rm “ L a c y ” a s th e p a rties h a v e in th e ir bri efs. 3 u n c o n stitu tio n a llyin e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b yn o t re q u e stin g a h e a rin g o n th e iss u e o f h is compet encyt o s t and tr i al . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatK ar enbaue ri s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef o n eith er o f th ese claim s, w e w il l aff irm the o rde r de n y ing K are n b au er’s p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . I I . BA CK GR OUND T he fa ct s of thi s cas e ar e r eci t ed i n gr eatdet ai l i n the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d in th e D istric t C o u rt’s o p in io n a n d o rd e r. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d is c u s s o n ly th o s e f

a c ts p e rt in e n t to th e is s u e s c o n ta in e d in th e c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. P o lice a rre ste d K a re n b a u e r in 1 9 9 5 f o r th e k ill in g o f

L a c yJo h n so n , th e e ig h t-y e a r-o ld 1 daught erof hi s gi r l fr i end, N i t a J ohns on, fol l ow i ng w hi ch the C om m onw eal th char ged h i m w i th h e rf

i r s td e g r e e m u r d e ri n th e C o u r to f C o m m o n P l e a s o f

L a w r e n c e C o u n ty, Penns y l vani a. T hough K ar enbaue rconfe s s ed t o the homi ci de, he mai nt ai ned thathe c o u ld n o t b e g u iltyo f

f irst d e g re e m u rd e r b e c a u se h is d im in ish e d m e n tal c a p a c ity re n d e re d h im u n a b le to f o rm th e s p e c if

ic in te n t to k ill.

A . M edi cal E val uat i ons of K ar enbaue r S e v e ra l m e n ta l h e a lth p ro f e s s io n a ls e v a lu a te d K a re n b a u e r i n a d v a n c e o f th e tr ia l.I n a s w orn D ecl ar at i on and A ffi davi tdat ed Sept ember6, 1999, D r . Scot ts t at ed, i nt er 2 al i a, thati tw as hi s under s t andi ng atthe t i m e thathe w as depos ed thathi s depos i t i on t e s t i m o n y “ w o u l d r e l a t e t o th e g u i l t - s t a g e i s s u e s o n l y, i . e . , th r e s h o l d c o m p e t e n c y, di m i ni s hed capaci ty , i ns ani tyorpos s i bl e gui l tybutm ent al l yi l l pl ea, ” butthati f he ha d b e e n q u e stio n e d a b o u t m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s f o r p e n a ltyp h a se p u rp o se s, h e “ w o u ld have t es t i fi ed thatM r . K ar enbaue rw as underthe i nfl uence of extr eme m ent al and emot i onal di s turbance s atthe t i m e of the off ens e, and hi s abi l i tyt o conform hi s conduct to th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f

th e la w w [ a s ] d im in is h e d .” A p p ., V o l. I I, a t 1 2 .

4 P sy ch o log istD r. A lbert S co ttev alua ted K are n b au er o n A p ri l 1 an d M ay2 1 , 1 9 9 6 . D r. Scot tdi agnos ed K ar enbaue rw i th a var i etyof ai l m ent s i ncl udi ng depr es s i on, s ubs t ance d ep en d en cy , b o rde rl ine p erso n ali tyd isord er, an d an ti so cial pe rson ali tyd isord er. D r. S c o tt’s u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n , h o w e v e r, w a s th a t alth o u g h K a re n b a u e r w a s “ d e f in itely m ent al l yi l l , ” he w as compet entt o s t and tr i al and di d nothave a defe ns e t o the murde r c h a r g e b a s e d o n d i m i n i s h e d c a p a c i ty. A p p . , V o l . I I , a t1 0 . W i th r e s p e c tt o c o m p e t e n c y, D r. S c o tt co n c lu d e d “ [ i]t w a s q u ite o b v io u s th a t [ K a re n b a u e r] u n d e rsto o d a n d w a s a b le to part i ci pat e i n hi s defe ns e. ” I d. at8; s ee a l s o i d. at78 ( s t at i ng thatK ar enbaue r“w as cert ai nl ycapa bl e of pa r t i ci pat i ng i n hi s ow n defe ns e”) ; and i d. at85 ( s t at i ng that K ar enbaue rw as compet ent ) . D r . Scot t ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e cont ai ned i n a Ps y chol ogi cal R eportdat ed J une 8, 1996, and i n depos i t i on t es t i m onygi ven on J ul y22, 1996. 2 Psy chi atr i s tD r . R obertW ett s t ei n al s o eval uat ed K ar enbaue rdur i ng thi s per i od and found h im n o t t o h av e a d ef

en se to firstd eg ree m u rde r ba sed o n d im inishe d ca p ac ity . D r. W e ttstein d id n o t o p in e o n K a re n b a u e r’s c o m p e ten c yto sta n d trial. Fol l ow i ng the Scottand W ett s t ei n eval uat i ons , anotherps y chi atr i s t , D r . L aw s on5

B erns t ei n, eval uat ed K ar enbaue ron J ul y23, 1996. D r . B erns t ei n i s s ued a r eports t at i ng thatK ar enbaue rw as m oder at el ym ent al l yr et ar ded, s uffe r ed s ever e phy s i cal and s exual abus e as a chi l d, s us t ai ned numer ous head i nj ur i es i n hi s y outh, had di m i ni s hed neur ops y chol ogi cal funct i oni ng as a r es ul tof chr oni c s ubs t ance abus e, and s uffe r ed fr om d e p re ss io n a n d p o st-tra u m a tic s tre ss d iso rd e r. B a se d o n th e se d iag n o se s, D r. B e rn ste in concl uded thatK ar enbaue r“s uffe r ed fr om a s i gni fi cantand chr oni c di m i ni s hed cogni t i ve capa ci tyt o pr emedi t at e and de l i ber at e i n r egar ds t o the form at i on of s peci fi c cr i m i nal i ntentdu ri ng the ti m e peri od i n q uest i on . ” Id. at19 . D r. B ernst ei n d i d n ot address w hetherK ar enbaue rw as compet entt o s t and tr i al . A tthe tr i al the pr os ecut i on chal l enged D r . B erns t ei n’ s concl us i ons w i th t es t i m onyfr om D r . C hr i s t i ne M art one, a s t aff ps y chi atr i s tatthe Penns y l vani a St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atPi t t s bur gh, w ho concl uded thatK ar enbaue r ’ s m ent al r et ar dat i on w as m i l d notm oder at e, and thatdur i ng th e re lev a n t ti m e p e rio d h e w a s a b le to f o rm th e sp e c if

ic in ten t to k ill . B . K ar enbaue r ’ s B ehavi orD ur i ng the Tri al C our tPr ocee di ngs K ar enbaue r ’ s m ent al condi t i on and hi s behavi orw hi l e i n cus t odyw er e di s cus s ed at var i ous poi nt s thr oughoutthe tr i al courtpr ocee di ngs . A det ect i ve w ho t es t i fi ed forthe p rose cu ti o n at tri al st ated that d u ri n g a re ce ss in a p re-tr ial p roc ee d ing sh e o v erh ea rd K a re n b a u e r, w h o w a s in a p riv a te r o o m a b o u t f if tee n f e e t aw a yf

ro m h e r, sh o u tin g “ I d id i t , I don’ tknow w hyI di d i t , nobodycan t el l m e w hyI di d i t . . . . T heys houl d j us ts hootA s w e have i ndi cat ed, D r . B erns t ei n m ade hi s eval uat i on on J ul y23, 1996. 3 6 m e. ” C om m on w eal th v . K arenbau er, 71 5 A . 2d 10 86 , 10 90 (Pa. 19 98 ). T he w i tness d e sc rib e d K a re n b a u e r a s c ry in g a n d u p se t. O n J ul y15, 1996, befor e the comm ence m entof voi rdi r e, the tr i al courtj udge as ked R andal l H etr i ck, K ar enbaue r ’ s tr i al couns el , w hetherK ar enbaue r ’ s compet ency w as an i s s ue i n l i ghtof the ment al heal th eval uat i ons thathad bee n conduct ed atthat p o in t, i .e., the S c o tt an d W e ttstein e v a lu a tio n s. A f ter c o u n se l re sp o n d e d th a t itw a s n o t, 3 the j udge as ked K ar enbaue rw hetherhe under s t ood w hattheyw er e t al ki ng aboutw hen theyr efe rr ed t o compet ency . K ar enbaue rr es ponded i n the af fi r m at i ve. T he j udge then expl ai ned: C om pet encyand i ns ani tyar e tw o di ffe r entthi ngs . O ne ca n be both, and one ca n be one a nd notthe other . I ’ m conce rned abouty ourunder s t andi ng w h a t’s g o in g o n , b u t y o u d o n ’t h a v e a n ym e n tal illn e ss th a t w o u ld a d v e rse ly aff ecty ourabi l i tyt o know w hat ’ s goi ng on and under s t and and make in tellig e n t d e c isio n s. A ll righ t. A pp. , V ol . I I , at21- 22. A ft eran off - the- r ecor d di s cus s i on, couns el forboth s i des s t at ed thattheyw er e r eadyt o pr ocee d t o t r i al and begi n voi rdi r e. J urys el ect i on cont i nued uneve nt ful l yunt i l M onday , J ul y22, 1996, w hen H etr i ck r eques t ed a s i debarconfe r ence and i nform ed the tr i al courtj udge and oppos i ng couns el th a t: I tcame t o m yatt ent i on thi s w eeke nd thatM r . K ar enbaue rt ook a r azor bl ade t o hi m s el f and c arved up both of hi s arm s r eal good. H e di d not re q u ire a n ytyp e o f

h o sp italiz a tio n , b u t h e ’s b e e n in th e m e d c e ll all7

w e e k e n d , an d th e y ’v e b e e n c h e c k in g h im e v e ry1 5 m in u tes . I talk e d to h im on Satur day . I bel i eve thathe’ s okay , butm yconce rn i s thatm aybe s om ebodys houl d m eetw i th hi m br i efl yt o puts om ethi ng on the r ecor d that a t th is p o in t h e ’s c o m p e ten t. I d. at2. H etr i ck cont i nued, not i ng thathe had t al ked t o K ar enbaue raft erthe i nci dentfor abouttw o hour s , and thatdur i ng the fi r s thal f hourK ar enbaue rw as “veryagi t at ed, not m aki ng a w hol e l otof s ens e, ” butthathe eve ntual l ycal m ed dow n and di dn’ ts eem any d if f e re n t th a n h e h a d p re v io u s ly. Id . T h e ju d g e th e n sta ted h e c o u ld q u e stio n K a re n b a u e r w ith re sp e c t to h is c o m p e ten c yto sta n d trial, b u t re q u e ste d th a t H e trick sp e a k w ith K a re n b a u e r f irst to g e t a s ens e of K ar enbaue r ’ s condi t i on. A ft erconfe rr i ng w i th K ar enbaue r , H etr i ck s t at ed: H e a p p e a rs to b e o k a yth is m o rn in g . H e ’s b a sic a llyto ld m e th a t h e ’s u p se t, he does n’ tknow i f he c an go forw ar d w i th thi s . I don’ tknow anybas i s for w h yh e’s sa y ing that. O ther tha n that, h e a p p ea rs t o u n d erstan d w h at’s goi ng on. . . . H e s ay s he’ s ups etand does n’ tknow i f he c an go thr ough w i th t hi s , butI expl ai ned t o hi m a l i t t l e bi t , ortr i ed t o expl ai n t o hi m , w hat I ’ d m eantbycompet encyand he s ai d he under s t ands w hat ’ s goi ng on and h e th in k s h e c a n a ss ist in th e c a se a t th is p o in t. I d. at4. H etr i ck al s o not ed thatthe j ai l w her e K ar enbaue rw as bei ng hous ed had moved K ar enbaue rfr om the med cel l back i nt o hi s r egul arcel l . A ft erboth H etr i ck and the pr os ecut i on expr es s ed thei rbel i ef thatK ar enbaue rw as compet entt o s t and tr i al , the j udge concl uded the s i debarconfe r ence and pr ocee ded w i th j urys el ect i on. A tthe tr i al i t s el f, K ar enbaue ract ed i n a w ayhe cl ai m s w as notr at i onal and re v e a led h is in a b ili tyto u n d e rsta n d th e n a tu re o f th e p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st h im a n d a ss ist in h is o w n d e f

e n se . In d e c id in g w h e th e r o r n o t to tes tifyo n h is o w n b e h a lf d u rin g th e g u ilt8

phas e of the tr i al , K ar enbaue rs oughtthe advi ce of N i t a J ohns on, m otherof the vi ct i m and K ar enbaue r ’ s gi r l fr i end atthe t i m e of the ki l l i ng. J ohns on t es t i fi ed forboth the pr os ecut i on and K ar enbaue r , and al though s he di r ect l yi m pl i cat ed K ar enbaue ri n the m ur derof herdaught erL acy , s he al s o des cr i bed the pos i t i ve r el at i ons hi p thatK ar enbaue r h a d w ith L a c ya n d e x p re ss e d th e d if f icu ltysh e h a d b e liev in g th a t K a re n b a u e r w a s c a p a b le o f c o m m itt in g th e m u rd e r. T h u s, it is f a ir to sa yth a t h e r te stim o n yw a s h e lp f u l to b o th s i des of the ca s e. D ur i ng the pena l typhas e of the pr ocee di ngs , as partof K ar enbaue r ’ s pr es ent at i on of m i t i gat i ng evi dence , hi s m other , D ar l a M cB r i de, t es t i fi ed aboutthe abus e that K a re n b a u e r’s ste p f

a th e r h a d in f

licte d o n th e f

a m ilyw h e n K a re n b a u e r w a s a c h ild . W h ile des cr i bi ng one part i cul ari nci dentof abus e, M cB r i de bec ame em ot i onal and bega n cry i ng, atw hi ch poi ntK ar enbaue ri nt errupt ed the pr ocee di ngs t o demand t hatthe tr i al j udge t ake heroff the s t and. T he C our tt ook a r ece s s , and af t erK ar enbaue rand M cB r i de r egai ned th e ir c o m p o su re s, M c B rid e re su m e d h e r te stim o n yw ith o u t in c id e n t.

C . P roc ed u ral H ist o ry T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d K a re n b a u e r o f f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r a n d s e n te n c e d h im to d e a th . O n di r ectappea l , the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a af fi rm ed the convi ct i on and sen tenc e a n d the S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n it ed S tat es d en ied K are n b au er’s p eti ti o n fo r a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. K a re n b a u e r, 7 1 5 A .2 d 1 0 8 6 , ce rt. d e n ied , 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 2 1 , 1 1 9 S .C t.9

1258 ( 1999) . K ar enbaue rthen s oughtcol l at er al r el i ef f r om the Penns y l vani a court s under the Penns y l vani a Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. §§ 9541- 9 5 4 6 ( W e s t2 0 1 0 ) , c h a l l e n g i n g b o th h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d h i s s e n t e n c e . W h i l e P CRA pr ocee di ngs w er e pendi ng, the Supr eme C ourtof the U ni t ed St at es deci ded A t ki ns v. V irg in ia, h o ld in g th a t th e e x e c u tio n o f a m e n tallyre tar d e d p e rso n v io late d th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t’s p ro h ib iti o n o n c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. 53 6 U .S . 3 0 4 , 1 2 2 S .C t. 2242 ( 2002) . K ar enbaue rther eaf t erfi l ed a pe t i t i on forr es ent enci ng i n the tr i al courtas expert s forboth s i des had t es t i fi ed attr i al thatK ar enbaue rw as m ent al l yr et ar ded. T he C o u rt g ra n te d th e p e titio n a n d re s e n te n c e d K a re n b a u e r t o lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. F o llo w in g th e re se n ten c in g , K a re n b a u e r c o n tin u e d to c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n in the PC R A pr ocee di ngs , ar gui ng, i nt eral i a, thatthe tr i al courts houl d have c onduct ed a com petencyheari ng and that hi s tri al cou nsel had been i neff ect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o reque st thati tconducts uch a he ar i ng. T he C our tdeni ed K ar enbaue rr el i ef a nd on appea l the Super i orC our taff

i r m ed and the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a deni ed hi s pet i t i on for all o w an ce o f a n ap p ea l. S ee C o m m o n w ea lth v . K are n b au er, 86 3 A . 2 d 1 2 2 6 (P a. S u p er. C t . 2004) ( t abl e) , perm . app. deni ed, 875 A . 2d 1073 ( Pa. 2005) ( t abl e) . K ar enbaue r ther eaf t ert i m el yfi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a.

I I I . J U R I S D I C T I O N A N D S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W10

T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254 and upon ouri s s uance of a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyw e obt ai ned j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. I nas m uch as the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notconductan evi dent i aryhear i ng ourr evi ew of i t s or deri s pl enary . H ol l and v. H orn, 519 F. 3d 107, 111 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . U nderthe AE DP A: A n a p p lica tio n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . . . sh a ll n o t b e g ra n ted w ith resp ec t t o an yclaim that w as a d jud icated o n the m erit s in S tat e c o u rt p roc ee d ing s u n less the a d jud icati o n o f th e c lai m -- ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as d eterm ined b ythe S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n it ed S tat es; o r (2 ) re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d). M o reo v er, i n co n side ri n g the a p p li ca ti o n a f ed era l hab ea s co u rt m us taff or d a pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s t o the s t at e court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , w hi ch the p e titio n e r b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f re b u ttin g b yc le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 ).

I V. DI S CU S S I ON W e gr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyt o deci de w hetherK ar enbaue ri s ent i t l ed to h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief

o n h is c laim s th a t th e trial c o u rt v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts underthe Four t eenth A m endmentbynotconduct i ng a compet encyhear i ng and hi s tr i alT he Supr eme C our tdi d notaddr es s the compet encyi s s ue on the di r ectappea l and thus 4 w e i nferthatK ar enbaue rdi d notr ai s e i tatthatt i m e. 11 couns el deni ed hi m eff

ect i ve as s i s t ance underthe Si xth A m endmentbynotr eques t i ng a c o m p e ten c yh e a rin g . B e c a u se th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt w a s th e h ig h e st s tate co u rtto ad d ress K are n b au er’s co m p eten cyclaim s o n the m erit s, w e re v iew that co u rt ’s d i s p o s i t i o n o f

th o s e c l a i ms u n d e rth e AE DP A. 4

A . D ue P rocess A s t at e cr i m i nal defe ndanthas a r i ghtunderthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t n o t to b e tried w h ile m e n tallyin c o m p e ten t. D ro p e v . M iss o u ri, 420 U . S. 162, 171- 73, 95 S. C t . 896, 903- 05 ( 1975) ; Pat e v. R obi ns on, 383 U . S. 375, 385, 8 6 S .C t. 83 6 , 8 4 2 (1 9 6 6 ). A d e f e n d a n t is c o m p e ten t if h e is a b le “ to c o n su lt w ith h is l aw y erw i th a r eas onabl e degr ee of r at i onal under s t andi ng” and pos s es s es “a r at i onal as w el l as factual unde rs t and i ng of the proceed i ng s agai nsthim . ” D uskyv. U nit ed S t at es, 3 6 2 U .S . 4 0 2 , 4 0 2 , 8 0 S .C t. 7 8 8 , 7 8 9 (1 9 6 0 ). K ar enbaue rar gues thathe w as i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al and thathi s m edi cal r ecor ds , att empt ed s ui ci de, and err at i c beha vi orthr oughoutthe tr i al courtpr ocee di ngs d e m o n stra ted h is in c o m p e ten c y . H e c o n ten d s th is e v id e n c e g a v e th e trial c o u rt re a so n to doubthi s compet encyand thatcons equent l ythe tr i al courtcons t i tut i onal l yw as r equi r ed t o hol d a hea r i ng t o as cert ai n i f he w as compet ent . K ar enbaue rcont ends i n hi s habea sK ar enbaue rconce des thatthe fa ct s of D r ope ar e di s t i ngui s habl e fr om thos e i n the 5 p re se n t ca se . A c c o rd in g ly , h e d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt’s r e jec tio n o f

h is compet encycl ai m w as “contr aryt o” D r ope. See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ; R epl ybr . for A ppel l antat5 n. 2. 12 co rpu s p eti ti o n that b yfin d ing that h e w as n o t entit led to that h ea ri n g , the S u p erior C o u rt unr eas onabl yappl i ed D r ope and unr eas onabl ydet erm i ned the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the avai l abl e evi dence . 5 I n D r ope the Supr eme C our thel d thata tr i al courtm us tconducta compet ency h e a ri n g if

it h a s s u f

f ic ie n t in d ic ia to b e lie v e th a t a d e f e n d a n t is in c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l. “[E] vi dence of a de fenda nt ’ s i r r at i onal behavi or , hi s demeanorattr i al , and anypr i or m edi cal opi ni on on compet ence t o s t and tr i al ar e al l r el evanti n det erm i ni ng w hether f u r th e ri n q u i r yi s r e q u i r e d , b u t[ ] e v e n o n e o f th e s e f a c t o r s s t a n d i n g a l o n e ma y , i n s o me ci r cumst ance s , be s uffi ci ent . ” D r ope, 420 U . S. at180, 95 S. C t . at908. T he C our tfound i n D r ope thatthe def

endantJ ames Edw ar d D r ope had e xhi bi t ed s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of in c o m p e te n c yto re q u ir e th e tr ia l c o u rt to c o n d u c t f u rt h e r i n q u ir yb e c a u s e , in te r a lia , a p sy c h iatric e v a lu a tio n o f D ro p e ra ise d q u e stio n s a b o u t h is c o m p e ten c y , D ro p e tried to k ill hi m s el f dur i ng the tr i al , and ther e w as evi dence thatD r ope att acke d hi s w i fe pr i ort o the tr ia l. I d . a t 1 7 8 -8 0 , 9 5 S .C t. a t 9 0 7 -0 8 . I tw as of part i cul ars i gni fi canc e t o the Supr eme C our tthatD r ope had a t t empt ed s ui ci de dur i ng the tr i al bys hoot i ng hi m s el f i n the s t om ach, caus i ng hi m t o be hos pi t al i zed a n d “ a b se n t f

o r a c ru c ial p o rtio n o f

h is tria l,” a n d th a t D ro p e ’s w if e , w h o w a s th e v ictim13

of hi s cr i m e, t es t i fi ed thats he had notw ant ed t o pr es s the pr os ecut i on butchange d her m i nd aft erD r ope tr i ed t o choke a nd ki l l herthe Sundayeveni ng pr i ort o the tr i al . I d. at 179- 81, 95 S. C t . at907- 08. W i th r es pectt o the s ui ci de att empt and D r ope’ s r es ul t ant a b se n c e f

ro m trial, th e C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t th e a b se n c e a f f e c ted its d u e p ro c e ss a n a ly sis in tw o w ay s: fi r s t , i tw as due t o an ac tw hi ch s ugges t s a r athers ubs t ant i al degr ee of m ent al i ns t abi l i tycont empora neous w i th the tr i al ; s econd, as a r es ul tof p e tit io n e r’s a b se n c e th e trial ju d g e a n d d e f e n se c o u n se l w e re n o lo n g e r a b le t o obs erve hi m i n t he cont extof the tr i al and t o gauge f r om hi s demeanor w hetherhe w as abl e t o cooper at e w i th hi s att orneyand t o under s t and the n a tu re a n d o b

je c t o f th e p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im . I d. at181, 95 S. C t . at908 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he C our tfur thernot ed that D r ope’ s w i fe’ s t es t i m onycas ts ubs t ant i al doubton D r ope’ s compet encybeca us e the a lleg e d a ttac k “ h a rd lyc o u ld b e re g a rd e d a s ra tio n a l co n d u c t” g iv e n th a t D ro p e ’s “ f a te depende d i n l ar ge meas ur e on the i ndul gence of hi s w i fe, w ho had hes i t at ed about p re s s in g th e p ro s e c u tio n .” Id . a t 1 7 9 , 9 5 S .C t. a t 9 0 7 . T he r ecor d and pr ocee di ngs befor e the tr i al courti n D r ope w as farm or e s ugges t i ve o f in c o m p e ten c yth a n th a t b e f o re th e trial c o u rt in K a re n b a u e r’s c a se . T o sta rt w ith in D ro p e , u n lik e in th is c a se , the d e f e n se a tto rn e ya f

ter th e su icid e a ttem p t so u g h t a cont i nuance of the tr i al , an appl i cat i on thatcoul d have putthe tr i al courton not i ce of t he n e e d f o r a c o m p e ten c yh e a rin g . Id . at 1 7 5 -7 7 , 9 5 S .C t. at 9 0 5 -0 6 . M o re o v e r, th e o n ly e v a lu a tin g e x p e rt to a d d re ss th e iss u e f o u n d K a re n b a u e r c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial; K a re n b a u e r’s c o n d u c t th ro u g h o u t th e trial c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s, w h ile p e rh a p s e rra tic, d idW e not e thatD r . B erns t ei n, w ho exami ned K ar enbaue rs ever al day s aft erthe s uppos ed 6 su icid e a ttem p t, m a d e n o m e n tio n o f th e in c id e n t in h is e x a m in a tio n re p o rt, b u t d id sta te thatdur i ng the exa m i nat i on, K ar enbaue r“deni ed curr ents ui ci dal orhom i ci dal i deat i on. ” A pp. , V ol I I , at17. 14 notr evea l an i nabi l i tyt o under s t and w hatw as ats t ake i n thos e pr ocee di ngs ; and K ar enbaue r ’ s s el f- m ut i l at i on, even i f cons i der ed a ge nui ne s ui ci de att empt , di d not 6 pr eventthe def

ens e couns el orthe tr i al j udge fr om obs ervi ng K ar enbaue ri n the cont extof the tr i al t o ens ur e he w as capa bl e of c ooper at i ng w i th hi s att orneyand under s t andi ng t he n a tu re o f th e p ro c e e d in g s. W e re c o g n ize th a t H e trick a f ter th e su icid e a ttem p t b u t p rio r to the tr i al t ol d t he tr i al j udge thatK ar enbaue rs ai d he di d notknow thathe coul d “go f o rw a rd w ith th is” a n d d id n o t “k n o w if h e c a n g o th ro u g h w ith th is,” m e a n in g th e trial, buts uch a r el uct ance t o pr ocee d w as har dl ys urpr i s i ng beca us e he w as , aft eral l , fac i ng th e d e a th p e n a l ty. O ver al l i ti s cl earthatthe fa ct s befor e the tr i al courti n thi s cas e di d notpr ovi de s u f f ic ie n t in d ic ia c a u s e to b e lie v e K a re n b a u e r w a s in c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l. S e e , e .g ., J erm yn v. H orn, 266 F. 3d 257, 298 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( no compet encyhear i ng r equi r ed “w her e ther e w er e no medi cal opi ni ons on compet encys ubm i t t ed t o the tr i al court , no s i gns fr om tr i al couns el thatthe def endant ’ s compet ence w as i n doubti n hi s vi ew , and the defe ndant ’ s behavi or , w hi l e s tr ange, w as nots uffi ci ent l yi ndi cat i ve of a n i ndi vi dual w ho w a s in c a p a b le o f

u n d e rsta n d in g th e n a tu re o f th e p ro c e e d in g s, c o m m u n ica tin g w ith couns el oras s i s t i ng i n hi s defe ns e”) . A ccor di ngl y , the Super i orC our tr eas onabl yappl i ed15

D ro p e a n d re a so n a b lyd e ter m in e d th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e a v a ilab le e v id e n c e w h e n it h e ld th a t th e trial c o u rt w a s n o t re q u ire d to in q u ire f u rth e r in to K a re n b a u e r’s c o m p e ten c yto sta n d trial.

B . I neff

ect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ouns el A p e rso n a c c u se d o f

a c rim e in f

e d e ra l o r sta te c o u rt h a s a rig h t u n d e r th e S ix th A mend mentt o the e ff

e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ou ns e l . Str i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ng t on , 46 6 U. S. 668, 685- 86, 104 S. C t . 2052, 2063 ( 1984) . A cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance i s governed b yth e tw o -p ro n g te s t s e t f o rt h b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n . “U nderSt r i ckl and, a habe as pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that : ( 1) couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f e ll b e lo w a n o b

jec tiv e sta n d a rd o f

re a so n a b len e ss ; an d (2 ) th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s err or , the r es ul tw oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” R ai neyv. V arner , 603 F. 3d 189, 197 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and, 466 U . S. at687, 104 S. C t . at 2 0 5 2 ). K a re n b a u e r a rg u e s th a t h e w a s d e n ied e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l b e c a u se h is tr i al couns el fai l ed t o s eek a hear i ng on hi s compet encyfr om the tr i al court . K ar enbaue r ar gues thatthe Super i orC our tbyr ej ect i ng thi s cl ai m unr eas onabl yappl i ed Str i ckl and and u n re a s o n a b ly d e te rm in e d th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e a v a ila b le e v id e n c e . C ouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o r eques ta compet encyhear i ng w oul d gi ve r i s e t o an i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e c laim if

th e re w e re “ su f

f icie n t in d icia o f

in c o m p e ten c e to g iv e o b jec tiv e ly re a so n a b le c o u n se l re a so n to d o u b t th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o m p e ten c y , an d th e re is a re a so n a b le16

pr obabi l i tythatthe def

endantw oul d have be en found i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al had the i s s ue bee n r ai s ed and f

ul l ycons i der ed. ” Tay l orv. H orn, 504 F. 3d 416, 438 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng J erm yn, 266 F. 3d at283) . K ar enbaue r ’ s cl ai m fai l s on the fi r s tpr ong of S tr icklan d b ec au se H etri ck ’s de cisi o n n o t t o req u est fu rth er inq u iryinto K are n b au er’s compet encyw as obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the ci r cumst ance s . “A s w i th the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on nott o convene a compet encyhear i ng, ther e w er e i ns uffi ci enti ndi ci a of inco m p eten ce to d ee m co u n sel’s de cisi o n u n rea so n ab le. ” S ee id. at4 3 8 -39 . M o reo v er, K ar enbaue rhas fai l ed t o s how pr ej udi ce unde rSt r i ckl and’ s s econd pr ong beca us e he cannotdemonstr at e a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythathe w oul d have be en found i ncompet ent i f onl yhi s att orneyhad as ked fora hea r i ng. See i d. at439. A ccor di ngl y , the Super i or C our tr eas onabl yappl i ed Str i ckl and and r eas onabl ydet erm i ned the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the avai l abl e evi dence w hen i tdeni ed K ar enbaue r ’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m on thi s i s s ue.

V. CO NC L US I ON Forthe r eas ons s etfor th above, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our tor derent er ed on F e b ru a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , d e n y in g K a re n b a u e r’s p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2254.