FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T Sept ember 13 , 201 2 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 14 25 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 12 9- CV-CDL

ROBERT WAY

NE HOLSEY , Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us WARDEN, Georg iaDiag no st ic Pri so n, Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Inth e ear ly m orni ng ho ur s o f Decem be r 17 , 19 95 , Rob ertW ay ne Hol se yro bb eda co nv en ie nc e st or e in Mi ll ed ge vi ll e, Geo rg ia , andfle d. Mi nu te s l at er h is

car was st op pe d b y

Bal dwi n C ou nt y

Depu ty Sheri ff Will Ro bi ns on . The d ep ut y , who was t wen ty-si x years o ld , app ro ach edth e v eh ic le . Hol se y sh othi m de ad
. Fo urte enm on th s l at er, i n F eb ru ary of 19 97 , a jury co nv ic te d Ho ls ey of m al ic e m ur de r an d a rm edrob be ry . The jury fix edhi s s en te nc e atde ath o n t he m al ic e m ur de r co nv ic ti on , andth e co urt i m po se d t ha t s en te nc e. He ha s b een on Geor gi a’s de ath ro w forth e p as t fi fte eny ears . Dur in g t ho se fif

te eny ears , Hol se y

ha s ex haus te d h is st at e co urt d ire ct ap pe al an d s ta te po st co nv ic ti on ch al le ng es . See Ho ls ey v. St at e, 52 4 S .E.2d47 3 (Ga. 1 99 9) (di rectap pe al ) [Ho ls ey I]; Hol se y

v. Sc ho fie ld , No. 2 00 0- V-6 04 , Sup
. Ct . of B ut ts Cn ty. (Ma y

9, 2 00 6) (Fi na l Ord er o n Am en de d P et it io n fo r Writof Hab eas Co rp us ) [Ho ls ey

II]; Sch of

ie ldv. Ho ls ey , 64 2 S .E.2d56 (Ga. 20 07 ) (co ll at eral ap pe al ) [Ho ls ey III]. Hols ey ’s con vi ct io ns an d d eat h s en te nc e were affi rm edon di rectap pe al . Hol se y I, 52 4 S .E.2dat 4 80 . In the st at e p os tc on vi ct io n pr oc eed in gs , th e tr ia l co urt v acat edHol se y ’s dea th sen te nc e, co nc lu di ng th athi s tri al lawyers h adren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e o f Hol se y ’s tri al in reg ardto pre se nt at io n o f m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce ab ou t hi s l im it edin te ll ig en ce an d h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Ho ls ey II, No. 2 00 0- V-6 04 , at 8 2– 84 . The Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iarev ers ed , ho wev er, h ol di ng th at 2Hol se y

ha d n otsh own th athe was p reju di cedby his tri al lawyers’ all eg edfai lu res . Hol se y III, 6 42 S.E.2dat 6 0– 62
. InNov em

be r 20 07 , Hol se y

fil eda 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t ha t p et it io n o n J ul y 2, 2 00 9. Ho ls ey

v. Hall , No. 3 :0 7- cv -1 29 (CDL) (M .D. Ga. Ju ly 2, 20 09 ) [h erei na fte r Hol se y IV]. Hol se y m ov edfor

a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d o n two is su es : (1 ) Whe th er re as on ab le juri st s co ul d d is ag ree t ha t the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on , whi ch rev ers edth e g ran t o f se nt en ci ng rel ie f as to [Hol se y ’s] in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m , was b as edon un reas on ab le de te rm in at io ns of fact , and/o r on anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law, an d/ or was i n c on tra ve nt io n o f cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law; [an d] (2 ) [Whethe r] the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s af firm an ce o f Geo rg ia ’s un ique reas on ab le do ub t s tand ardform en ta l ret ard at io n c la im s co nt rav en es an d/ orun reas on ab ly app li es es tabl is he d U.S. Supr em e Co urt p rece de ntpro hi bi ti ng th e ex ecu ti onof m en ta ll y

ret ard edoff

en de rs an d m an da ti ng fed eral Due Pro ces s co ns tra in ts on st at e b ur de ns of p ro of m ean t t o pr ot ectfun da m en ta l fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. (Qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d.) Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he COA on th os e is su es , we res ol ve d t he
se co ndis su e in an ot he r cas e. InHil l v . Hum ph rey, 66 2 F .3d13 35 , 13 60 –6 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ), we he ldth atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s d eci si on affi rm in g 3th e st at e’s reas on ab le do ub t s ta nd ardform en ta l re tard at io n c la im s d idno t

co nt rav en e cl earl y

est ab li sh edSupr em e Co urt p rece de nt . Our Hi ll de ci si on di sp os es of t he sec on d C OA qu es ti on . This op in io n a dd res se s the fir ston e. I. THE T RIAL On J anua ry

8, 1 99 6, a Geo rg iagra ndjury in di ct edHol se y form al ic e m ur de r, fel on y

m ur de r, an d a rm edrob be ry . Fou r da y s l at er the Sta te fil eda no ti ce of it s i nt en t t o s eekth e d eat h p en al ty. The t ria l co urt ap po in te d An dr ew Pri nc e as le adco un se l t o re pr es en t Ho ls ey at t ria l, an d B ren daTram m el serve d a s Pr in ce’s
co -co un se l. A. The Gu il t Ph as e The gu il t p ha se of Ho ls ey ’s tri al be gan o n F eb ru ary 1, 1 99 7. As th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaha s re co un te d, the Sta te at t he gu il t p ha se pro ve d t he fo ll owi ng : Ro be rt Wayne Hol se y

rob be d aJetFo odSto re i n M il le dg ev il le with a ha nd gu n s ho rtl y

be fo re 1 :3 0 a .m . on Decem be r 17 , 19 95 . Hol se y rece iv edm on ey

fro m bo th th e cas h re gi st er an d t he lo tt ery m ach in e aft er t el li ng th e st or e cl erk , “ Bi tc h, I wan t you t o g iv e m e al l your m on ey .” Hol se y ’s vo ic e was reco rd edonth e st or e’s su rv ei ll an ce vi de ot ap e an d was id en ti fie d a t tria l b y Hol se y ’s gi rlf

rie nd . Hol se y fle d t he co nv en ie nc e st or e in a redFo rdPro be au to m ob il e h e h ad bo rro wedfro m

hi s s is te r’s gi rlf

rie ndearl ie r th atni gh t. The redPro be was st op pe d a t the Ro y al Inn Mo te l ap pr ox im at el y fou r m in ut es lat er by Depu ty W il li am

EdwardRo bi ns on , IV. Depu ty Rob in so n m ad e a rad io cal l i de nt ifyin g t he redPro be ’s li cen se pl at e num be r an d t he n 4ap pr oa ch edth e au to m ob il e h ol di ng a fl as hl ig ht . Depu ty Rob in so n

rece iv edtwo bu ll etwound s, o ne to hi s ri gh t arm an d o ne to th e b ack of th e ri gh t s id e o f hi s h ead . Depu ty Rob in so n m an ag edto fir e se ve ral sh ot s b efo re s us ta in in g t he fat al he adwou nd
. Afte r th e sh oo ti ng , ano th er d ep ut y sp ot te d t he Pro be an d turne d hi s p atro l v eh ic le aro un d t o g iv e ch as e, bu t the Pro be sp edaway an d es cap ed . W it ne ss es ob se rv edth e Pro be tra ve li ng at ahi gh rat e o f sp eedth ro ug h aredli gh t an d i nt o l an es of o nc om in g t raff ic . One witne ss who kn ew Hol se y tes ti fie d tha t s he saw h im alo ne inth e Pro be as i t p as se d b y

at t he redli gh t. Hav in g t hu s far ev ad edcap tu re, Ho ls ey cal le d h is gi rlf

rie nd , Mary Jac ks on , andask edhe r to pi ckhi m up at h is si st er’s h ou se . He sp eci fic al ly dire ct edJac ks on to co m e in he r bl ue Jee p C he ro ke e ve hi cl e rat he r th anin he r bu rg un dy-col or edau to m ob il e. Whe n Ja ck so n a rri ve d a t Ho ls ey ’s si st er’s h ou se , Hol se y cal le d t o J ack so n fro m be hi nda fen ce o n ahi ll . Hol se y ha d c ha ng edclo th es si nc e h e le ft J ack so n’s h ou se sev eral ho ur s ea rli er. Ja ck so n re fu se d Ho ls ey ’s reque stto tak e h im

to hi s m ot he r’s ho us e so he co ul d m on it ora po li ce sc an ne r, bu t J ack so n d idag ree t o h is reque stto dri ve hi m pa stth e m ot el wher e th e m

ur de r ha d o ccu rredan d t he n b ackto hi s s is te r’s ho us e b y way of b ackroa ds . W

he n b ackat h is si st er’s h ou se , Hol se y di rect edJac ks on to pa rkhe r Je ep Ch ero ke e b eh in d the Pro be to co nc eal it s l ic en se pl at e. As Ho ls ey an d J ack so n s atinth e p ark ed Je ep Ch ero ke e, a p ol ic e o ffi cer s po tt edth e Pro be an d v eri fie d tha t i ts li cen se pl at e num

be r m at ch edth e li cen se pl at e num be r in th e v ic ti m ’s rad io cal l. Ho ls ey

ex it edth e Je ep Ch ero ke e, refu se d t he off ic er’s co m m an d t o p uthi s h an ds up , lo ok edaro un d a s t ho ug h s earc hi ng for anesc ap e ro ut e, an d t he n u lt im at el y su rren de red
. Law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers di sc ov ered , hi dd enne ar Ho ls ey ’s si st er’s h ou se , clo th in g t ha t m at ch edth e cl ot hi ng worn by the arm ed ro bb ery pe rp etrat oran d aha t b el on gi ng to Jac ks on ’s so n. Th e m ur de r weap on was c on ceal edne arb y an d was lat er fo un d b y

a ci vi li an . Hol se y ’s ten ni s s ho es were t ak enfro m hi m aft er h is arre st , andex pe rt te st im on y sh owe d tha t o ne of t he sh oe s h adbl oo d o n i t wi thDNA co ns is te ntwith t he vi ct im ’s bl oo d. Ho ls ey ga ve st ro ng ph y si cal res is ta nc e an d s crea m edlo ud ly whe n o ffi cers in it ia ll y att em pt edto co nduc t a g un sh otres idue tes t o n h is ha nd . A trace m et al de te ct io n 5te stof Ho ls ey ’s han d was adm in is te redlat er an d re nd ereda res ul t

co ns is te ntwith Ho ls ey ’s hav in g h el d t he m ur de r weap on , whi chwas m et al with wo od engri ps . A bu ll etreco ve redfro m th e Pro be was m at ch edwith Dep ut y

Ro bi ns on ’s servi ce weapo n. Th e b ul le t retrie ve d fr om

Depu ty Rob in so n’s h eaddu rin g h is au to ps y was m at ch edwith ahand gu n b el on gi ng to Hol se y ’s gi rlf rie nd , Mary Ja ck so n. J ack so n t es ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey adm it te d t o h er af

te r th e m ur de r th athe ha d t ak enth e h an dg un . Hol se y III, 6 42 S.E.2dat 5 9. On Fe brua ry

11 , 19 97 , th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t fi nd in g Ho ls ey gu il ty of
m al ic e m ur de r, fel on y

m ur de r, an d a rm edrob be ry , altho ug h “ [t]he fel on y m ur de r co nv ic ti on was v acat edby ope rat io n o f la w.” Id. at47 5 n .1. The sen te nc in g ph as e o f Hol se y ’s tri al be ga n t he ne xtda y . B. The S en te nc in g P ha se At the st artof t he sen te nc in g p ha se , th e jury learn edab ou t Ho ls ey ’s cri m in al reco rdforth e fi rs t t im e. The S ta te in tro du cedhi s 1 98 3 g ui lt y pl ea co nv ic ti on forarm edrob be ry with s eri ou s b od il y

in jury. Fo r th atcri m e, th e st at e tri al co urt h adsen te nc edHol se y to be “ co nf

in edat l ab or

fortwen ty y ears ,” with fif te eny ears to be serve d i n p ris on . The St at e cal le d S co ttMah er t o t es ti fy ab ou t fact s und erl y in g t he co nv ic ti on . Mah er t es ti fie d t ha t h e was work in g a s a n ig ht cl erkat aMi ll ed ge vi ll e co nv en ie nc e st or e o n J ul y 8, 1 98 3. Ho ls ey , who was ei gh te eny ears ol d a t the ti m e, en te redth e st or e, hi t M ah er i n t he face with abri ck , 6an d e m

pt ie d t he st or e’s cas h re gi st er. Afte r Mah er’s t es ti m on y , th e St at e 1 in tro du cedev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey was p aro le d i n J ul y

19 90 aft er s erv in g s ev en y ears of t ha t s en te nc e an d p la cedon pro ba ti on forth e rem ai nd er o f hi s s en te nc e. The Sta te ne xtin tro du cedHol se y ’s 19 92 gu il ty ple a co nv ic ti on s fo r two
co un ts of a gg rav at edass au ltan d o ne co un t o f po ss es si on of afir earm by a
co nv ic te d fe lo n. Ba se d o n t ho se co nv ic ti on s, the st at e tr ia l co urt h adrev ok edhi s pr ob at io n fo r th e 1 98 3 a rm edrob be ry co nv ic ti on an d o rd eredhi m to serve th e rem ai ni ng term

of t ha t s en te nc e in pri so n. The co urt h adals o s en te nc edHol se y to fiv e y ears pro ba ti onforth e th ree 1 99 2 c on vi ct io ns , to run co ns ecu ti ve ly w it h t he
rem ai nd er o f th e se nt en ce fo r th e 1 98 3 c on vi ct io n. The jury he ardall ab ou t tha t at th e se nt en ci ng ph as e o f Hol se y ’s cap it al m ur de r tr ia l. The jury al so he ardm or e d et ai ls co nc ern in g t he cri m e le ad in g t o Ho ls ey ’s th ree c on vi ct io ns in 19 92 for ag gr av at edass au ltan d fe lo n i n p os se ss io n. Ken ne th Si m m on s t es ti fie d tha t, wh il e h e was at t he So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e in Mi ll ed ge vi ll e on Feb ru ary 22 , 19 92 , Hol se y att ack edhi m

fro m be hi ndan d s tabb edhi m

fou r ti m es with akn ife . As a res ul t o f Hol se y ’s att ack , Sim m on s was kn oc ke d o utan d
su ffer eda pu nc tu redlu ng . Sco tt y Simm on s, wh o i s Ken ne thSim m on s’ firs t

The State a lso called two Milledg eville law e nforc ement off icer s, whose testimony 1 corr oborate d Maher ’s. 7co us in , tes ti fie d t ha t h e was at t he So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e whe n Ho ls ey att ack ed Ken ne th Simm on s. Aft er the att ack , Sco tty Sim m on s d eci de d t o “ go ge t” Hol se y an d d o h im

so m e h arm , bu t Ho ls ey

fir eda ri fle at h im

sev enor e ig htti m es . The 2 St at e res te d. Hol se y ’s att orne y s, Pr in ce an d Tra m m el , th enpre se nt edev id en ce o f
m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . Tram m el be ga n b y

pl ay in g fo r th e jury the vi de ot ap ed de po si ti on of t he own er o f th e So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e. His na m e is Cli ffo rd Hol se y , alt ho ug h h e is no t re la te d t o p et it io ne r Ro be rt Wayne Hol se y . (We will refe r to th is witne ss as “ Cl iff or d” to av oi d c on fu si on .) The fi rs t thi ng th atCli ffo rd te st ifi edab ou t was th e n ig htHol se y st ab be d Ken ne th Simm on s. He s ai d t ha t Ken ne th an d S co tty

Simm on s h adgo ne to th e So ul Mas te r’s Loung e th atni gh t t o at ta ck Hol se y . He als o t ol d t he jury th at , altho ug h h e d idno t s ee the st ab bi ng , Hol se y ha d a ct edinsel f-d efen se . Tramm el als o que st io ne d C li ffo rdab ou t Ho ls ey ’s chi ld ho od . Cli ffo rd te st ifi edth atHol se y

gre w up in Cli ffo rd ’s nei gh bo r ho od , so he ha d kno wn Ho ls ey si nc e Hol se y

was asm al l ch il d. Tramm el ask edCli ffo rd“ to tel l the jury wha t [h e

The State a lso called B ertha Simm ons and Cathey

Be ll to corroborate the testimony of 2 Kenne th and Scotty

Simm ons. Be rtha Simmons testi fied that she sa w Holsey stab Kenne th Simm ons at the Soul Master’s L oung e, and B ell testified that she a lso saw Holsey stab Kenne th Simm ons and that she sa

w Holsey fire a rifle at Scotty

Simm ons. 8kn ew] abo ut[Hol se y ] an d t he cir cu m st an ces of h is ho m e li fe” g ro win g up.

Cl iff or d re sp on de d: W el l, I thi nk[Hol se y ] cam e up t he be stth athe co ul d. I thi nk he was n eg le ct edfro m

hi s m ot he r. She , y oukn ow, k in daof li ke —ca m e up k in d o f li ke ch il d abu se . Andsh e jus t d id n’t s ee ab ou t th em , y oukn ow, k in d o f wal ke d a ll ov er the m a li tt le bi t, an d d on e ev erythi ng . [Ho ls ey ] an d [h is si bl in gs ] were re al ly notcare d fo r an d— I do n’t kno w. ButI be li ev e [Ho ls ey ] m ig htha ve lef t h om e th aton e ti m e b ecau se th ei r m othe r was real ly tou gh onth em . I th in k s he was ou t k in d o f li ke co urti ng aro un d ali tt le bi t . . . . Cl iff or d a ls o t ol d t he jury th atHol se y gre w up witho uthi s d ad , who ha d
m ov edto Detr oi t af

te r be in g s ho t an d p aral y zed , andth athe ha d h eardHol se y ha d a b ed -wetti ng pro bl em

un ti l h e was ab ou t twelv e y ears ol d. Cl iff or d e xp la in edto th e jury tha t Ho ls ey an d h is si bl in gs dre ss edas “ [b ]est th ey co ul d b y li vi ng in th e p ro

jects ” an d tha t the ir h ou se was “ ro ug h” an d i nf es te d with c oc kr oa ch es . Tramm el ask edCli ffo rd , “ Didy ouev er s ee [Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r] pu t h er arm s ar ou ndhe r ch il dr enan d t el l the m th atsh e lo ve d t he m ? ” He
an swe red , “

Nev er d on e th at .” Cl iff

or d t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adhe ardHol se y ’s m ot he r adm itth atsh e wou ldcu rs e at , “ sc ol d[ ,]
. . . an d b eat ” h er ch il dr en . He to ldth e jury thatHol se y ’s m ot he r th reat en edhe r ch il dr enan d o fte n l eftth em ho m e al on e be cau se sh e co ok edat n ig htforth e So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e. Cl iff or d e xp la in edth at de sp it e h is ba d l ife whi le a ch il d, Ho ls ey was n ota “ba d p ers on ” b utin st eadwas 9“ qu ie t an d k ep t a s m il e o n h is face .”

Tramm el ask edCli ffo rdab ou t An ge laHol se y , who was Ho ls ey ’s sec on dol de stsi st er. Cl iff

or d s ai d t ha t An ge laha d s pe ntti m e in“ sp eci al edwhen sh e was sm al l.” Acc or di ng to Cli ffo rd , “ [s ]he d idha ve pro bl em s.” Afte r th e jury watch edCli ffo rd ’s vi de ot ap edde po si ti on , Prin ce an d Tramm el cal le d e ig htm or e wit ne ss es to tes ti fy li ve : Del or es Co ok , Bel in da Hawki ns , Fred a Webb , Ferrl an do Jo ne s, Ot is Pas ch al , San dr a Ken dr ic k, Re gi na Ree ve s, an d Dem etra Ho ls ey . The jury he ardfir stfro m

Delo res Co ok , who was a co okat the Bal dwi n C ou nt y Jai l wh ere Ho ls ey

was i nc arce rat edaft er h is 19 92
co nv ic ti on s. Sh e te st ifi edth atHol se y ha d wo rk edinth e k it ch enas a“ tru st ee” gi vi ng “ ou t trays to th e o th er i nm at es .” Acco rd in g t o h er, Ho ls ey was “ co urte ou s”
an d “ res pe ct fu l” an d d idno t caus e an y tro ub le
. The jury th enhe ardfro m Bel in daHawki ns , a fri en d o f Hol se y ’s. Hawki ns te st ifi edth atsh e an d Ho ls ey wentto ge th er t o t he So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e o n Feb ru ary 22 , 19 92
. Acco rd in g t o Hawk in s, Ho ls ey to ldhe r la te r th atKenn eth Si m m on s h adhi t h im

in th e h eadwith abri ck

an d t he n t hr ee m enatt ack edhi m . Sh e in si st edto th e jury tha t Ho ls ey “ di dn ’t st artno fig ht ” th atni gh t. Fred a Webb , a jail er fo r th e Ja sp er Co un ty Jail , was the ne xtwitne ss . Sh e te st ifi edth atsh e kne w Hol se y as a n i nm at e atth e Ja sp er Co un ty Jail wher e h e h ad

10be enawai ti ng tri al on th e m al ic e m ur de r, fel on y

m ur de r, an d a rm edrob be ry ch arg es . She de sc rib edHol se y as “ a rea l co urte ou s[ ,]
. . . m od el in m at e[].” W eb b al so tes ti fie d t ha t s he di d n otbe li ev e th athe “ sh ou ldge t the ele ctric ch ai r” o r th at he wou ldbe a da ng er t o o th ers inpri so n. Afte r W eb b t es ti fie d, Pr in ce ca ll edth ree o f Hol se y ’s form er co worke rs fro m th e Mi ll ed ge vi ll e Pi zza Hu t. The fir stwas Fe rrl an do Jo ne s, the res taur an t’s
as si st an t m an ag er. He te st ifi edth atHol se y was n ota vi ol en t p ers on , th athe go t al on g wi th th e res taur an t’s o th er em pl oyees, an d tha t h e d idwhathe was t ol d t o do . Otis Pas ch al , th e res taur an t’s m an ag er, t es ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey “ was a ve ry

go od
em pl oyee,” was “ de pe nd ab le ,” di d wh athe was t ol d, an d g otalo ng well with ot he rs . He al so to ldth e jury tha t Ho ls ey was “ th e qui ettype” an d t ha t h e n ev er sa w any vio le ntten de nc ie s i n Ho ls ey . The las t fo rm er Pi zza Hu t co worke r to te st ify was San dr a Ken dr ic k, o ne of Ho ls ey ’s supe rv is or s atth e res taur an t. Sh e te st ifi edth atHol se y

was ago odem

pl oyee. She als o t ol d t he jury th atsh e was at th e So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e whe n Ho ls ey st ab be d Ken ne th Simm on s i n 1 99 2 a nd th atSimm on s h adst art edth e fi gh t b y hi tt in g Ho ls ey

“be si de th e h ead .” Pri nc e n ex t ca ll edHol se y ’s ol de stsi st er, Reg in a Ree ve s, t o t es ti fy
. 3
When Reeves testified at Holsey ’s trial in 1997 her la st name wa s still Holsey . She 3 marrie d afte r the trial, taking her husba

nd’s name, a

nd she there afte r testified a g ain in 2003 duringthe postconviction proce eding s. For c onsistency , we will re fer to her a s “Reeve s” 11Ree ve s i s a f orm er m ari ne , a fo rm er Ba ld win Co un ty dep ut y sh eri ff, an d aDepu ty Uni te d S ta te s M ars ha l. Pri nc e b eg anth e ex am in at io n b y ask in g R eev es ab ou t the fig htwhenhe r br ot he r st ab be d Ken ne th Simm on s. Re ev es sai d t ha t s he di d n ot witne ss th e fi gh t b utth atdu rin g i t h er b ro th er h adsu ffer edhe adin juri es requi rin g st it ch es . Pri nc e as ke d h er ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s in carc erat io n a t the Bal dwi n C ou nt y Ja il , whi ch be ga n i n 1 99 2. Acco rd in g t o R eev es , th ro ug h g oo d b eh av io r Hol se y ha d e arn ed“ tru st ee s ta tu s,” wh ic h g av e h im m or e fre ed om

withi n t he jail th an no nt ru st ee i nm at es . Ja il off ic ia ls en tru st edHol se y

with m is cel la ne ou s t as ks at t he jail an d a ll owe d h im

to dri ve a truc k. Ree ve s al so tes ti fie d abo utHol se y ’s chi ld ho od
. Sh e to ldth e jury tha t Hol se y is a m id dl e ch il d. He h as two ol de r si st ers , Reev es an d An ge la , andtwo y ou ng er o ne s, Dem etra an d Li sa . Reev es , Ang el a, an d Ho ls ey ha ve th e sa m e fathe r, bu t h e is no t the fathe r of Dem etra an d Li sa . Hol se y ’s fathe r was sh otan d pa ral y zedtwo m on th s b efo re Ho ls ey was b orn. Th e fam il y

m ov edto Detr oi t af

te r Hol se y was b orn s o t ha t h is fathe r “ co ul d g etbe tt er m ed ic al att en ti on .” Whi le th ey li ve d i n Det ro it , Hol se y ’s si st er Dem etra was bo rn , andaft er fi ve y ears in Detr oi t, Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r an d h er ch il dr enm ov edba ckto Mi ll ed ge vi ll e, le av in g Hol se y ’s fathe r be hi nd . Accor di ng to Reev es , Hol se y ne ve r “ real ly kne w [hi s throughout this opi nion. 12fathe r] at al l.”

Bac k i n M il le dg ev il le , Hol se y an d h is no w-fo ursi st ers (Lis a was bo rnaft er th ey m ov edba ckto Mi ll ed ge vi ll e) l iv edwith t he ir m ot he r, us ua ll y inpubl ic ho us in g. The ir m othe r rec ei ve d p ub li c as si st an ce t o h el p p ro vi de forhe r fam il y , bu t Re ev es tes ti fie d t ha t “ th in gs were h orrib le ” in th ei r ho us eh ol d. Sh e rec ou nt ed ho w th ei r m othe r wou ldoft enbe atth e o ld es t thr ee ch il dr en : Re ev es , Ang el a, an d Hol se y . Bec au se sh e “ ha te d i t the re” a nd“ was ti redof t ak in g b eat in gs ,” Ree ve s le ft h om e whe n s he was s ev en te eny ears ol d a ndjoi ne d t he Mari ne Co rp s. Sh e la te r be cam e a Dep ut y

Sh eri ff an d the n aDepu ty Uni te d S ta te s M ars ha l. Ree ve s t ol d t he jury ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r’s in vo lv em en t i n h is li fe. Sh e te st ifi edth atth ei r m ot he r ha d o nc e b een ho sp it al iz edfor ps y ch ia tri c p ro bl em s an d po in te d o utth atsh e h adno t ev enbo th eredto sh ow up fo r th e se nt en ci ng ph as e o f he r so n’s t ria l. Acco rd in g t o R eev es , Hol se y ’s m ot he r ha d n otbe enth ere f orm os t of hi s l ife
. Andalt ho ug h t he ir m ot he r ha d m eninan d o utof t he ho m e whi le th ey were g ro win g up, n on e o f th os e m enha d s pe ntan y ti m e wit h Ho ls ey . Ins te ad , Ree ve s t es ti fie d t ha t ra is in g Ho ls ey an d h er o th er s ib li ng s was “ le ft up t o [h er],”
an d wi th ou t a m othe r orfathe r aro un d, Ho ls ey “ m or e o r le ss ” g rew up o n t he st reet . Pri nc e as ke d R eev es ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s sch oo l p erfo rm an ce. Sh e te st ifi edth at 13he “ di dn ’t do well ” an d t ol d t he jury th athe “ m ig htha ve m ad e itto th e te nt h

gr ad e,” b utdi dn ’t com

pl et e th atgra de . Teach ers ha d u su al ly j us t as si gn edHol se y to th e n ex t g rad e in st eadof a ctua ll y pa ss in g h im

in to th atgra de
. Dur in g R eev es ’ te st im on y , Prin ce i nt ro du cedHol se y ’s sch oo l re co rd s i nt o e vi de nc e, an d h e as ke d Ree ve s t o re adfro m

a se ct io n e nt it le d “ te ach er’s rem ark s.” Ree ve s t he n t es ti fie d: A: . . . For the fir stgra de says, a weakstud en t i n re ad in es s m at eri al s. Sec on d g rad e sa y s, v ery sl ow, n eed s h el p fr om ho m e. Thi rdsays, po orwork er. Fo urth says, po or work er. Fi fth says, can be co nt ro ll edwith fi rm di sc ip li ne an d afew ki ndword s. Very, very

lo w I th in k i t s ay s. Q: The pa rt I ’m

in te res te d— canbe co nt ro ll edwith d is ci pl in e an d a few k in d wo rd s. A: Yes
. Q: Andne ed s h el p fr om ho m e. A: Yes
. Q: Now, d id[Hol se y ] ge t an y he lp fro m

ho m e fro m

hi s M am a? A: No. Q: Didhe ge t a f

ew ki ndword s fr om

hi s M am a? A: Bac k i n tho se ti m es , no . Ree ve s al so tes ti fie d tha t, af te r sp en di ng so m e ti m e in fos te r car e, as a te en ag er Ho ls ey

ha d l iv edfora ti m e atth e Geo rg iaDepa rtment o f Hum an

14Res ou rces ’ You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er. Pri nc e in tro du cedin to ev id en ce Ho ls ey ’s

reco rd s fr om

th atcen te r, whi ch sh owe d t ha t h is m ot he r vo lu nt ari ly adm it te d h im to th e cen te r in Jan ua ry

19 80 , when he was fo urte eny ears ol d. Tho se reco rd s al so in cl ud e a p y sc ho -s oc ia l ev al ua ti on of Ho ls ey th atwas pr ep aredby a beh av io ral sp eci al is t an d aps y ch ol og is t o n J ul y 31 , 19 80
. Acco rd in g t o t ha t ev al ua ti on , when Hol se y was fo urte eny ears ol d, h e was ex pe ll edfro m

sch oo l b ecau se he “pu ll eda bu tc he r kn ife (whi ch he ha d b ro ug ht fro m ho m e)” a ndhe lditto an ot he r stud en t’s thr oa t an d “ hi t h im inth e fac e b utdi d
no t cu t h im .” A juve ni le co m pl ai ntrep ort, wh ic h a ls o was inth e You th Dev el op m en t Ce nt er re co rd s, s ta te d t ha t the sch oo l h adord eredHol se y no t t o return unl es s h is m ot he r acc om pa ni edhi m . Oth er ev id en ce s ho wedth atHol se y ’s m ot he r di d n otacco m pany him ba ck to sch oo l. At P rin ce’s reque st , Reev es readfro m a juv en il e co m

pl ai ntrep ort
co nt ai ne d i n t he reco rd s: The fir stpa rt s ay s . . . th at[Hol se y ] was ba si cal ly a run away cas e. He ha s n o s up erv is io n a t h om e an d re fu se s t o re tu rnho m e. Say s M rs . Hol se y wou ldno t g o t o t he sch oo l, an d s en t a n ot e wit h [h im ]. [Ho ls ey ] was no t al lo wedto return. Whenhe tri edto co m e b ackth e pr in ci pa l ca ll edth e p ol ic e to rem ov e [h im ]. Pri nc e al so ask edReev es to reada se ct io n o f th e p sycho -s oc ia l ev al ua ti on to th e jury, whi ch de sc rib edHol se y as b or de rli ne m en ta ll y

ret ard ed : 15“ [Ho ls ey ] ev id en cedanin ap pr op ria te effe ctdu rin g t he ev al ua ti on .

He sm il edin ap pr op ria te ly andha d d iff ic ul ty m ai nt ai ni ng th ou gh t pa tt ern s. At t im es he ap pe aredun aware of h is imm ed ia te en vi ro nm en t, an d i n aworl d o f hi s o wn.” An ot he r pa rag rap h s ay s, “pr es en t t es ti ng in di cat es [Hol se y ] fu nc ti on s i n t he bo rd erl in e m en ta l ret ard at io n rang e o f in te ll ig en ce. . . . [H] e ap pe ars as an a nt i-s oc ia l in di vi du al who th riv es on tak in g ri sk s o r th ril l s eek in g. He ex hi bi ts anin ab il it y

to pl anah eadan d m ak e sh ort o r rec kl es s d is reg ardforth e co ns eque nc es of h is act io ns . His s oc ia li zat io n re la ti on sh ip s ar e sh al lo w, andhe canbe ex pe ct edno t t o s ho w stro ng lo y al ti es to ot he rs be cau se hi s i nt el li ge nc e is so lo w hi s d is li ke forso ci al co nv en ti on is li ke ly to re su ltin hi s b ei ng cau gh t o fte n.” Ree ve s al so reco un te d t o t he jury th atth e ev al ua ti on st at edth atacad em ic tes ti ng ha d s ho wedth atHol se y , who was fi fte eny ears ol d a t the ti m e o f te st in g, fu nc ti on edat ath ird -g rad e le ve l. Ano th er p artof t he ev al ua ti on , whi ch was i nt ro du cedin to ev id en ce, s ta te s th at“ [p ]erso na li ty test in g i nd ic at es [Hol se y ] is no t s ho win g a ny dis tre ss or g ui lt ” ab ou t p ut ti ng th e kni fe t o h is sch oo lm at e’s th ro atan d t ha t “ [h ]is s oc ia l ad jus tm en t is so m arg in al if s om ethi ng is no t d on e so on he wil l co nt in ue to cau se pro bl em s.” The ev al ua ti onrefl ect edth atHol se y ha d t ak enanIQ tes t o n J ul y 28 , 19 80 , and
sc or eda 70
. The ev al ua ti on co nc lu de d t ha t Ho ls ey “ is pro babl y

ser io us ly di sturbe d.” A su m

m ary of a ho m e ev al ua ti on co nduc te d b y th e You th Dev el op m en t Ce nt er, al so co nt ai ne d i n t he reco rd s s ub m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e, st at ed th atHol se y ’s m othe r “ ha s n o i de a h ow t o c on tro l [h im ] witho utres orti ng to
16ex ces si ve pu ni sh m en t.”

The You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er rec or ds adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e al so co nt ai ne d aps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on of Ho ls ey pre pa redby Dr. FredTres t, o ne of the cen te r’s ps y ch ia tri st s. Dr. Tres t h adco nc lu de d t ha t Hol se y su ffer eda “be ha vi or al /p ers on al it y di so rd er, wh ic h i nc lu de s . . . [an ]
an ti so ci al co m

po ne nt ” an d tha t “ hi s i nt el li ge nc e se em s t o b e b or de rli ne .” Hol se y ha d t ol d Dr. Tres t tha t n ei th er h e n orhi s s ib li ng s h adbe entre at ed“ ne gl ect fu ll y ”
orha d “ rece iv edph y si cal or v erb al ab us e fro m hi s m othe r,” b ut“ he read il y adm it [te d] . . . th athe ha s fe ltrel at iv el y reject edby his m ot he r fo r hi s youn ge r si bl in gs .” He als o t ol d Dr. Tres t tha t h is m othe r “ ‘y el l[e d] at h im ,’ ” “ in freque nt ly ‘slap [p ed ] hi m

on th e h ead ,’ ” an d “ in te rm it te nt ly spa nk edhi m with abe lt ” as pu ni sh m en t wh enhe mis be ha ve d. AndHol se y “ rev eal [ed ] th athi s m othe r’s pr es en t b oyfrien d i s a f

rie ndto hi m

. . . [wh o] tak es hi m

fis hi ng an d b oa t ri di ng , an d p la y s fo otba ll with h im .” Dr. Trest ’s eva lu at io n re po rte d t ha t Ho ls ey was twice su sp ect edof at te m pt in g s ui ci de whi le at t he You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er b utth at Hol se y de ni ed it
. The ev al ua ti on co nc lu de d t ha t, atth e ti m e, Hol se y “ ha s ju stba rel y

as m an y an ti so ci al be ha vi or s as m us t b e p res en t i n the ch il dh oo d h is to rie s o f adul ts who are d ia gn os edas h av in g a nt is oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd ers .” Dr. Trestals o wro te 17th atHol se y

adm it te d “ to ha vi ng ha d t he an ti so ci al urg e to st eal inth e p as t.” The You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er rec or ds als o c on ta in eda “ so ci al hi st ory ” o f Hol se y writ te n b y

Ro saMark s, a c en te r so ci al work er. Marks wrot e th e h is to ry so m et im e aft er Ho ls ey

was a dm it te d t o t he cen te r, an d s he no te d t ha t h e “ was do in g fa ir i n s ch oo l u nt il a y ear a go .” Sh e su m m ari zedHol se y ’s si tu at io n: “ [His ] st ren gth i s i n h is ph y si cal en vi ro nm en t an d h is av erag e in te ll ig en [ce]. His li m it at io ns li e[] inhi s i nabi li ty to ex pr es s h im se lf a de qu at el y . His m ot he r ha s gi ve n up a ll ho pe s an d h as li tt le in te res t i n [Ho ls ey ]. ” Inad di ti on to eli ci ti ng tes ti m on y fro m Reev es ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d, Pr in ce as ke d h er ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s ot he r ol de r si st er, An ge la
. Ree ve s t es ti fie d t ha t An ge lawas avi ol en t p ers on , hadpro bl em s atsch oo l, was
so m et im es ba d t o h er ch il dr en , andha d b eenho sp it al iz edsev eral ti m es at C en tra l St at e Hos pi ta l fo r m en ta l p ro bl em s. The fir stti m e th atAng el a was adm it te d t o Cen tra l St at e Hos pi ta l was when “ sh e was ki ck edou t o f publ ic sch oo l i n t he fo urth gra de ” b ecau se “ [t]eac he rs were h orrif ie d o f he r.” Acco rd in g t o R eev es , Ang el a at te nd edsp eci al educ at io n c la ss es whi le sh e was at C en tra l St at e Hos pi ta l. Ree ve s s ai d t ha t as a ch il d Ho ls ey ha d ra rel y

go tt enin to an y

tro ub le on hi s own bu t i ns te ad“ itwas u su al ly . . . with or b ecau se of . . . Ang el a.” Sh e to ldth e jury thatto ge t re wardm on ey Ang el a h adtu rn edHol se y into th e p ol ic e fo r hi s 1819 83 arm edrob be ry . To Ree ve s, atlea st , Ang el a’s be tra y al was n otsu rp ris in g;

st il l, Ho ls ey

ne ve r co nf

ro nt edAng el a ab ou t i t. Pri nc e in tro du cedin to ev id en ce An ge la ’s m ed ic al reco rd s fr om Cen tra l St at e Hos pi ta l. Tho se reco rd s s ho w, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t wh enAng el a was el ev eny ears ol d t he Ju ve ni le Co urt o f Bal dwi n C ou nt y ord eredhe r adm it te d t o Cen tra l St at e Hos pi ta l fo r a “ ne ur ol og ic al work -up, el ect ro -en cep ha lo gr am , anda co m pl et e rev ie w andev al ua ti on of h er p ers on al it y .” Duri ng th atco urt-o rd ered st ay , ho sp it al off

ic ia ls fou ndhe r to be in“ th e Bo rd erl in e ran ge of i nt el le ctua l fu nc ti on in g” an d c on cl ud edth at“ th e co ns id erat io n o f Mi ldMen ta l Re ta rd at io n can no t b e en ti rel y

rul edou t.” Th e o ffi ci al s fo un d t ha t An ge la ’s per so na li ty

“ refl ect eda gr eatde al of h os ti li ty, in se cu rit y , andde pr es si on an d i nd ic at edth at Ang el a was eas il y

an ge red , cou ldno t co nt ro l h er an ge r, an d d idno t u nd ers ta ndit , pa rti al ly due to he r in te ll ectua l l ev el .” Anda Cen tra l St at e Hos pi ta l ev al ua ti on whe n An ge lawas s ix te eny ears ol d “ co ns id ered[he r] to b e func ti on in g i n am il d
m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e.” All of t ha t ev id en ce was pu t b efo re the jury. Fi na ll y , Reev es to ldth e jury abo uthe r br othe r’s ch arac te r. She st at edth at he ha s “ al way s b een m os tl y qu ie t” an d s he “us edto tea se hi m . . . ab ou t thi ng s be cau se he was a lways sm al l an d s ki nn y .” Bu t, s he tes ti fie d, “ he ’s always . . . be enth e type tha t i f y ou ’re hi s fr ie ndor i f y ou ’re . . . fam il y . . . he st ic ks up for 19y ou . He st an ds
. . . by y ou. . . no m at te r wha t.” Acco rd in g t o R eev es , Hol se y

wou lddo jus t ab ou t an yth in g t o p ro te cthi s s is te rs an d h is m ot he r. Sh e b el ie ve d th athe di d n otha ve th e ab il it y to tak e ad va nt ag e o f th e sa m e o pp ortu ni ti es th atsh e di d b ecau se he do es no t h av e “ wha t you wo ul d c al l g oo d s oc ia l s ki ll s. [He’s]
ne ve r rea ll y

be en , y oukn ow, tha t g oo d i n s ch oo l.” As Ho ls ey ’s ni nt h a ndlas t wi tn es s dur in g t he sen te nc in g p ha se , Tram m el cal le d Dem etra Ho ls ey , on e o f Hol se y ’s y ou ng er s is te rs . Plea di ng with t he jury to sp are h er b ro th er’s l ife , sh e te st ifi ed : [W] he ne ve r I n eed [ed ] hi m he was t he re. . . . No m at te r wha t the pr ob le m was, i f he co ul d h el p u s h e wou ld . Whe n t im es go t h ardwith m e, whe n p eo pl e p utm e d own I al way s h adso m eb od y I co ul d g o t o th atwou ldli ft my

he adup an d l etm e kno w I am so m eb od y . No m at te r wha t you s ai d, you c ou ld n’t t ak e th ataway fro m m e. You kn ow, I was alwa y s p ic ke d a t b ecau se of my si ze. He al way s t ol d m e I was be au ti fu l, n o m at te r wha t. Peo pl e lo okat m e fro m th e in si de , no t the ou ts id e. Ju stke ep m y he adup an d o ne da y

Godwil l b le ss m e.

. . . . I’d jus t l ik e to say ple as e, I b eg of you , sp are h is li fe . . . . I ne ve r ha d afathe r. My

real fathe r di edwhen I was ababy. He was m y on ly fath er fi gu re. . . . There’s s om e g oo d i n e ve ry bo dy. . . . I do n’t h av e n o o th er m al e fi gu re i n my li fe. I h av e a ch il d o f m

y own , an d h is fathe r’s go ne . . . , andI go t t o l iv e a s in gl e m ot he r’s li fe . . . . Bu t I n eedso m ethi ng . If itain ’t bu t a l it tl e b it , justpl eas e le av e m e so m ethi ng . The pa rti es th enpre se nt edth ei r cl os in g a rg um en ts . The p ro se cu to r be ga n by tel li ng th e jury tha t the Sta te ha d p ro ve n fo urst atut ory ag gr av at in g
20ci rcu m st an ces : (1 ) “ Hol se y co m m it te d m ur de r ag ai ns t a p eace off

ic er . . . whi le [th atpe ace o ffi cer] was en ga ge d i n t he pe rfo rm an ce o f hi s o ffi ci al du ti es ,” se e Ga. Co de Ann . § 1 7- 10 -3 0( b) (8 ); ( 2) “ Hol se y sh otan d k il le d Wil l Ro bi ns on for th e pu rp os e o f av oi di ng , in te rfer in g wi th , or p rev en ti ng a la wfu l arres t o f hi m se lf,” see id . § 1 7- 10 -3 0( b) (1 0) ; (3 ) “ Hol se y m ur de redW il l Ro bi ns on whi le he was e ng ag ed in th e co m

m is si on of a no th er capi ta l fe lo ny, . . . arm edrob be ry ,” se e id . § 17 -1 0- 30 (b )(2 ); a nd(4) “ Hol se y . . . m ur de redW il l Ro bi ns on whi le he ha d apri or reco rdof c on vi ct io n fo r a cap it al fel on y , . . . . [th e 1 98 3] arm edrob be ry ,” se e id . § 17 -1 0- 30 (b )(1 ). The pro se cu to r th endi sc us se d Ho ls ey ’s evi de nc e o f m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces . He sai d:

Lad ie s an d g en tl em en , y es , th e d efen da ntdi d n otha ve a pe rfec t ch il dh oo d. Th e fac t tha t h is si st er turne d h im inforanarm edrob be ry to ge t a r eward , do es th atjus ti fy hi s ro bb eri es an d k il li ng a po li ce of fic er? Yes , he’s g otan ot he r si st er tha t h as go t s om e m en ta l p ro bl em s. Doe s t ha t ju st ify whathe ’s do ne ? No d oc to rs ha ve to ldus th atRo be rt W ayne Hol se y

ha s an y m en ta l p ro bl em s.

. . . . Reg in a Hol se y , sh e g rew up i n tha t s am e fam il y . Sam e m ot he r, sa m e fat he r, sa m e h ou se ho ld . Whe n R eg in a tu rn ed18 y ears ol d, s he wan te d t o m ak e so m ethi ng of h er l ife . She joi ne d t he Uni te d S ta te s Mar in e Co rp s. . . . Whe n [Ho ls ey ] tu rn ed18 , he r ob be d aCo rral Co nv en ie nc e St or e. Andy ouhe ardhi m tak e th atbri ck , andhe sm as he d i t i n t he face of S co tt ie Mah er. Sam e ag e as Reg in a, sa m e p aren ts , sam e 21en vi ro nm en t, s am e co nd it io ns .

. . . . . . . Rob ertW ayne Hol se y is th e o x tha t g or es an d g or es ag ai n. Tramm el pre se nt edclo si ng arg um en ts onbe ha lf o f Hol se y . She be gan b y ackno wled gi ng th atth e St at e h adpro ve n fo urst atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces . Sh e th ende fin eda m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce fo r th e jury as “ anyth in g t ha t you wan t to co ns id er o r m ay

co ns id er tha t m ig htjus t i nd ic at e to y outh atth e u lt im at e pu ni sh m en t i n t hi s ca se is no t wh atsh ou ldbe gi ve n.” Tramm el hi gh li gh te d fo r th e jury Hols ey ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e “ ho m e li fe,”
no ti ng th athe “ gr ew up by him se lf.” Arg ui ng th at“ [w]e do n’t al l s ta rt e qu al ly,” Tramm el to ldth e jury tha t Ho ls ey “ ha d n ot hi ng th atev ery ch il d d es erv es to ha ve . He was de pr iv edof e ve ryth in g.” He “ ha d am ot he r who wou ld n’t ev engo to th e sc ho ol so he wou ldge t b ackin .” Sh e al so hi gh li gh te d Ho ls ey ’s li m it edin te ll ig en ce, t el li ng th e jury tha t Hol se y is “bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y

ret ard ed .” Sh e rei te rat edth atpo in t b y rem in di ng th e jury tha t h e “ was jus t as si gn ed[to gra de s] forsch oo l” an d t ha t b y th e ti m e h e was eig ht een y ears ol d h e st il l co ul d n otsi gn hi s n am e. Fi na ll y , sh e as ke d t he jury to co ns id er an y

li ng eri ng do ub t i t m ig hthave ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s gu il t t o wei ghin fav orof n otim

po si ng th e d eat h p en al ty. The co urt i ns tru ct edth e juro rs th atitwas t he ir “ du ty to d et erm in e wit hi n t he 22li m it s p res cri be d b y law wh atpu ni sh m en t [wo ul d] be im po se d i n t hi s o ffen se ” an d to ldth e juro rs th atth ey

were “ au th or iz edto co ns id er al l o f th e ev id en ce re cei ve d he re i n c ou rt i n b ot h s ta ge s o f th is pro ceed in g p res en te d b y th e St at e an d t he de fen da nt .” Afte r de li be rat in g fo r le ss th antwo ho ur s, the jury returne d ave rd ic t fin di ng th atth e St at e h adpro ve n fo urst atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces an d fix in g Ho ls ey ’s sen te nc e atde ath fo r th e m al ic e m ur de r co nv ic ti on . The s ta te tri al
co urt i m po se d t ha t s en te nc e fo r th atco nv ic ti on an d a ls o s en te nc edHol se y to li fe im pr is on m en t fo r th e arm edrob be ry co nv ic ti on . On d ire ctap pe al th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt af firm edHol se y ’s con vi ct io ns an d t he de ath s en te nc e. Hol se y I, 52 4 S .E.2dat 4 80 . The co urt fo un d,

“ co ns id eri ng bo th th e cri m e an d t he de fen da nt , th atth e se nt en ce o f de ath was
ne it he r ex ces si ve no r di sp ro po rti on at e to th e p en al ti es im po se d i n s im il ar ca se s.” Id . The Un it edSta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Ho ls ey ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f cert io rari , Hol se y

v. Geo rg ia , 53 0 U.S. 1 24 6, 1 20 S.Ct . 26 95 (20 00 ), an d h is pe ti ti on forreh eari ng , Hol se y v. Geo rg ia , 53 0 U.S. 1 29 7, 1 21 S.Ct . 17 (20 00 ). II. STATE POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS Afte r th e Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari , Hol se y fil eda pe ti ti on fora writ of habe as co rp us inGeor gi a st at e co urt ra is in g t hi rte engro un ds forrel ie f. One o f th os e g ro un ds forrel ie f, whi ch is th e o nl y rem ai ni ng gro un d a t i ss ue inth is ap pe al , 23was th athi s tria l l awy ers ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e b y

fai li ng to pre se nten ou gh m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce ev id en ce o f hi s l im it ed in te ll ig en ce an d o f hi s t ro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. The st at e co ll at eral co urt h el d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on Ju ne 16 –1 8, 2 00 3,
an d Dec em

be r 8– 9, 2 00 3. Hol se y

cal le d e ig htwitne ss es to tes ti fy : Dr. Ma rk Cu nn in gh am , Dr. Jet hr o To om er, Bre nd a Tramm el , Ron al d S in ge r, Ju dg e L.A. McC on ne l, J r., Cathy Crawfo rd , Reg in a Ree ve s, an d An dr ew Pri nc e. He als o subm it te d 2 24 ex hi bi ts , in cl ud in g t he de po si ti on tes ti m on y of n in et eenpe op le , th e affi da vi ts of f

ifty -two pe op le , andhi s Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s re co rd s. Th e St at e cal le d n in e wit ne ss es to tes ti fy : Dr. Tho m as Sach y , Evel yn Lu to n, Dr. Kri s Sp erry, MarkRo bi ns on , She rif f W il li am Mas se , Jr., Fre d B rig ht , Ric ky Horn , Ji m m ie Bag ge tt , andHowar d S il ls . The St at e subm it te d 2 20 ex hi bi ts . The st at e co ll at eral co urt v acat edHol se y ’s dea th sen te nc e, co nc lu di ng th at hi s t ria l l awy ers ha d re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e o f Hol se y ’s tri al in reg ardto th e p res en ta ti on of m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce ab ou t h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce an d h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Ho ls ey II, No. 20 00 -V-6 04 , at 8 2– 83 . The Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt as su m edth atHol se y ’s tri al la wy ers ha d re nd eredde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, b utitrev ers edth e st at e co ll at eral
co urt. The Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t ev enif Ho ls ey ’s tri al lawyers were 24de fic ie nt , Hol se y ha d n otsh own th athe was p reju di cedby tha t d efi ci en cy . Hol se y III, 6 42 S.E.2dat 6 0– 62
. The Sta te co nt en ds th atHol se y ’s tri al lawyers d idpre se nten ou gh mit ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces ev id en ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e. Becaus e th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on th atHol se y was n otpre

jud ic edby his tri al lawyer’ s as su m ed de fic ie nc ie s was ne it he r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral la w no r ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts , we wil l as su m e th at Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers were de fic ie nt , as t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt d id
. A. Mit ig at in g Ev id en ce Pr es en te d a t the Sta te Co ll at eral Evi de nt ia ry Heari ng Dur in g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l ca ll edtwo witne ss es to tes ti fy

ab ou t h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce— Dr. MarkCu nn in gh am an d Dr. Je th ro Too m er. The y

cal le d h is ol de stsi st er, Reg in a Ree ve s, t o t es ti fy ab ou t h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. As ad di ti on al ev id en ce o f hi s l im it edin te ll ig en ce an d t ro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d, the y subm it te d t he de po si ti ontes ti m on y of e ig ht pe op le an d t he affi da vi ts of t wen ty-ni ne m or e. Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l al so subm it te d s om e d oc um en tary ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng hi s Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s reco rd s.

251. Ho ls ey ’s W it ne ss es a. Dr. Cun ni ng ha m The fir stwitne ss to tes ti fy forHol se y

at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng was Dr. Mark C un ni ng ha m , a cli ni cal an d fo ren si c p sycho lo gi stwho m th e co urt
reco gn iz edas a n e xp ertin th os e fi el ds . He was h ire d t o e va lu at e Hol se y ’s in te ll ectua l s ta tu s an d d et erm in e whe th er h e is m en ta ll y ret ard ed
. 4 Dr. Cunn in gh am

ga ve hi s o pi ni on th atHol se y is m il dl y m en ta ll y ret ard ed
. He ex pl ai ne d t ha t: The re’s a b ro adm is co nc ep ti on th atth e p ub li c h as th atso m eb od y who ’s m en ta ll y

ret ard edis sl ob be rin g andstup or ou s an d c an ’t fas te n th ei r cl ot he s co rrec tl y

an d i s u nabl e to ho lda job , cou ldne ve r le arnto reador wri te at a ll . In o th er wo rd s, the po pu la r no ti on of wh atit m ean s t o b e m en ta ll y

ret ard edinfactis m or e d es cri pt iv e o f so m eb od y who is sev erel y

to m od erat el y

ret ard ed
. . . . Andso th ere a re b ro ad m is co nc ep ti on s i n t he co m m un it y ab ou t wh atitm ean s t o b e m en ta ll y ret ard edan d wh atso m eb od y who ’s mil dl y

m en ta ll y ret ard edcando orno t d o. Dr. Cunn in gh am ’s di ag no si s o f Hol se y as m il dl y m en ta ll y ret ard edwas ba se d o n t he de fin it io n o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n i n t he Fo urth Edi ti on of t he Diag no st ic an d S ta ti st ic al Manua l o f Men ta l Di so rd ers . See Dia gn os ti c an d St at is ti cal Man ua l o f Men ta l Di so rd ers (4t h e d. 2 00 0) [he rei na fte r DSM-I V). Acco rd in g t o h im , DSM-IV “ is th e d ia gn os ti c cl as si fic at io n s y st em th at ’s ut il iz ed Holsey also submitted Dr. Cunningham’s written re port on those topics. 4 26by psycho lo gi st s an d p sychi atris ts so th at[th ey ] are a ll tal ki ng ab ou t the same

di so rd er.” Dr. Cunn in gh am als o e xp la in edth atDSM-IV i s ac cep te d wi th in hi s pr of es si on al co m

m un it y , andit s d efi ni ti on of m en ta l re ta rd at io n i s co ns is te ntwith th e d efi ni ti on pro vi de d b y th e Am eri can Ass oc ia ti onof M en ta l Re ta rd at io n, wh ic h is “ anass oc ia ti on th atbe ga n i n 1 87 6 a ndrep res en ts th e p rimary pro fes si on al
or ga ni zat io n” co nc ern edwith m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Dr. Cunn in gh am

tes ti fie d t ha t a d ia gn os is of “ [m ]ent al ret ard at io n h as th ree pr on gs to it .” The fir stis th atth e p ers on m us t h av e in te ll ectua l ab il it ie s t ha t ar e 5

“ si gn ifi can tl y

suba ve rag e, whi ch is de fin edas . . . anIQ sco re o f ap pr ox im at el y 70
orbe lo w.” Howev er, the DSM-IV andth e AAMR re co gn iz e th at“ anIQ sco re o f 75 an d b el ow [c ]oul d a ls o qua li fy be cau se , infact , th atm ay well rep res en t a t ru e IQ th at ’s les s t ha n 7 0 wi th [an ] erro r co m po ne nttak enin to co ns id erat io n.”

As stated in the DSM-IV: “The essential fe ature of Mental Reta rdation is signific antly 5 subaver ag e g ener al intellectual f unctioning . . . that is accompa nied by signific ant limitations in adaptive f unctioning in at least two of [ten] s kill area s . . . . The onset must occur befor e ag e 18 year s . . . .” DSM-IV, at 41. Geor g ia similarly

define s mental reta

rdation as “ havingsignific antly subaver ag e g ener al intellectual func tioning re sulting in or assoc iated with impairments in adaptive be havior whic h manifested during the developmenta l period.” G a. Code Ann. § 17- 7-131(a )(3) ; acc ord DSM-IV, at 41. In Stripli ngv. State, 401 S.E.2d 500, 504 (Ga. 1991) , the Georg ia Supreme Court explained that the “significantly subaver ag e intellectua l functioning ” fa ctor of the mental reta rdation def

inition “is gene rally

define d as an I Q of 70 or be low.” Ac cordingto the court, howeve r, “a

n I Q test score of 70 or be low is not conclusive” be cause“an I Q scoreis only acc urate within a rang e of se vera l points, and for a va riety of re asons, a pa

rticular sc ore ma

y be less acc urate .” I d.; acc ord Hill, 662 F.3d at 1341 n.6; see also infra pp. 30–31, 37. 27The sec on d p ro ng of am en ta l re ta rd at io n d ia gn os is is a si gn ifi can t

im pa irment i n a dapt iv e b eh av io r, whi ch m ean s s ig ni fic an t i m pa irment i n a t l eas t two of t enad ap ti ve be havi orcat eg or ie s l is te d i n t he DSM-IV. Th os e te n cat eg or ie s ar e co m

m un ic at io n, s el f-ca re, h om e li vi ng , so ci al in te rp ers on al sk il ls , us e o f co m

m un it y res ou rces , fun ct io na l ac ad em ic sk il ls , sel f-d ire ct io n, wo rk , le is ur e, an d h eal th an d s afety . Accor di ng to Dr. Cun ni ng ha m , th ere a re two st an da rd iz edtes ts anev al ua to r canadm in is te r to de te rm in e whe th er s om eo ne ha s a si gn ifi can t i m

pa irment i n a dapt iv e b eh av io r: t he Vin el an d S oc ia l M atur it y (or Adapt iv e Beh av io r) Sca le s o r th e AAMR’s Ad ap ti ve Beh av io r Sca le s. Dr. 6 Cu nn in gh am

de sc rib edth os e te st s: Ty pi cal ly, th e ad ap ti ve be ha vi orsca le s u se a res po nd en t wh o h as ha d cl os e o bs erv at io n o f th e in di vi du al
. . . , y ou ’re tal ki ng to [so m eo ne ] who ha s h adex pe rie nc e o bs erv in g t hi s p ers on inva rio us rol es an d i n in ti m at e d ai ly life act iv it ie s o ve r anex te nd edpe rio d o f ti m e. And y outh enqu ery th is pe rs on ina ve ry de ta il edso rt o f way , fol lo win g th e que st io ns th atare l ai d o utinth e sc al e ab ou t wh atth is pe rs on can do or i s n otab le to do
. Dr. Cunn in gh am

als o e xp la in edth atanev al ua to r can “ ge t i nf orm at io n o n a n an ecd ot al ba si s b y

in te rv ie win g o r ge tt in g d ep os it io ns fro m a br oa d v ari ety

of Dr. Cunningham explained that the Vineland Sca les “provide [] information about how 6 [the patient] compare s to community members a s opposed to individuals that are menta lly reta rded.” He a lso said that the AARM Scales “ provide infor mation about how [the patient] compar es to other individuals who ar e deve lopmentally disabled, to other pe ople that ar e mentally reta rded.” 28th irdparti es , andth atpro vi de s ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n abo utso m eb od y ’s adapt iv e

be ha vi orcap ab il it ie s.” The th irdpro ng of am en ta l re ta rd at io n d ia gn os is is th atth ere m us t b e “ th e on se t o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n b efo re the ag e o f ei gh te en .” Dr. Cunn in gh am ex pl ai ne d t ha t the re ar e d eg rees of m en ta l re ta rd at io n. “ The hi gh es t fu nc ti on in g le ve l o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n i s ca ll edm il d m en ta l re ta rd at io n[ , whi ch is ] a m is no m er be cau se th ere’s n ot hi ng m il d abo utth is co nd it io n. It ’s a cat as tro ph ic di sabi li ty.” 7 Acco rd in g t o Dr. Cu nn in gh am , mil d m en ta l re ta rd at io n re pr es en ts anIQ sco re fro m 50 to ab ou t 7 0 o r 75
. Bel ow i t i s m od erat e (IQ o f 40 to 55 ), se ve re (IQ o f 20 to 40 ), an d p ro fo un d (I Q of 2 0 o r be lo w) m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Unlike Dr. Cunningham, the DSM-IV does not desc ribe mild mental reta rdation as “ a 7 cata strophic disability .” Ac cordingto the part of the DSM-IV that Holsey ’s collater al counse l submitt ed into evidenc e at the e videntiary hearing: Mild Mental Retardation is roughly equivalent to wha

t used to be re fer

red to a s the educ ational categ ory

of “e ducable .” This group constitutes the larg est segment (about 85%) of those with the disorder . As a group, peoplewith this level of Me ntal Retardation ty pically develop soc ial and communication skil ls duringthe pre school year s (ag es 0–5 year s), have minimal impairment in sensorimotor ar eas, a

nd often a re not distinguisha

ble from c hildren without Mental Retar dation until a later a g e. B y their late te ens, they

can a cquire aca demic skills up to approx imately the six th-gradelevel. During the ir adult year s, they

usually achie ve socia l and vocational skill s adequate for minimum self-suppor

t, but may need supe rvision, guida

nce, a nd assistance , espec ially

when under unusua l social or ec onomic stress. With appropriate supports, individuals with Mild Mental Retardation ca n usually live succe ssfully

in the community , either inde pendently

or in supervised se ttings. DSM-IV, at 43. 29To p erfo rm hi s ev al ua ti on of Ho ls ey , Dr. Cun ni ng ham rev ie wed“ a v ery la rg e se t o f rec or ds ,” whi ch in cl ud edth e res ul ts of I Q tes ts th atHol se y ha d t ak en in th e p as t; de po si ti on tes ti m on y ; s worn a ffi da vi ts ; arre streco rd s; an d s ch oo l, 8 Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s, an d o th er i ns ti tu ti on al reco rd s. Dr. Cunn in gh am als o adm in is te redto Reg in a Ree ve s, Ho ls ey ’s si st er, the Vin el an d Ad ap ti ve Beh av io r Scal e an d t he AAMR Ad ap ti ve Beh av io r Sca le . He us edReev es be cau se he be li ev edth atsh e is “ th e m os t re li ab le an d fu nc ti on al m em be r of [Hol se y ’s] fam il y .” Dr. Cunn in gh am

tes ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey

sat is fie d t he fir stpro ng of the m en ta l ret ard at io n t es t. He rev ie wedth ree I Q tes ts th atHol se y ha d t ak en , on e in 19 80 , whe n h e was fif

te eny ears ol d; on e in 20 01 , when he was t hi rty-si x years o ld ; an d
on e in 20 03 , when he was t hi rty-sev eny ears ol d. Hol se y sco reda 70 , 69 , and71
on th os e te st s. Acco rd in g t o Dr. Cu nn in gh am , bec au se Hol se y to okth os e te st s acro ss a twen ty-th ree- y ear p eri od , th e cl us te rin g o f hi s IQ s co re wi th in th ree p oi nt s sh owe d “ anex tra or di na ril y rel iabl e d em on st rat io n o f hi s ac tu al in te ll ectua l

Dr. Cunningham re viewed a ffidavits, which H olsey also submitted into evidence during 8 the evidentiar

y hearing, f

rom the followingpeople: Essie Ande rson, Donald F oster, Sandra Fr ance s, Mary

Havior, B elinda Ha

wkins, Ang ela Holse y , Demetr a Holsey , Henr y Holsey , J r., Annie Howa

rd, Rosa Ingram, F errlando J ones, Thomas L ee, B illy McGrif f, L ouvenia Me lchor, L elia Powell, Sonya Rooks, Sara Simcox, Hugh Tuc ker, Rober t Warner, F reda

Webb, Dr. Her bert Ebe rt, and Holsey ’s mother. 30cap ab il it y .”

Dr. Cunn in gh am

als o t es ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey was “ si gn ifi can tl y

im pa ire d” in ei gh t o f th e te n a dapt iv e b eh av io r cat eg or ie s: comm un ic at io n, h om e li vi ng , so ci al in te rp ers on al sk il ls , us e o f co m m un it y res ou rces , fun ct io na l ac ad em ic sk il ls , sel fdi rect io n, l ei su re, an d h eal th an d s afet y . He al so no te d t ha t Ho ls ey ’s gl ob al ad ap ti ve be ha vi orfun ct io ni ng is “ in th e ei gh t year ol d rang e.” Andba se d o n Hol se y ’s sco re o n t he 19 80 IQ tes t an d o th er an ecd ot al ev id en ce, Dr. Cu nn in gh am te st ifi edth atth ere was anon se t o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n b efo re Ho ls ey tu rn ed ei gh te en . Fo r th os e rea so ns , Dr. Cun ni ng ha m tes ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey

is m il dl y
m en ta ll y ret ard ed , “ whi ch
. . . do es no t re fle cta m il d d is or de r, bu t ra th er the m il d
en d o f a co nt in uu m

of s ev ere d is ab il it y .”

b. Dr. Too m er The ne xtwitne ss Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l p res en te d was Dr. Jet hr o Too m er, a fo ren si c p sycho lo gi stwho m th e co urt re co gn iz edas a n e xp ertinth at fie ld
. He te st ifi edth at , inDecem be r 20 01 when Hol se y

was thi rty-si x years o ld , 9 he pe rfo rm eda ps y ch os oc ia l ev al ua ti on on Hol se y to de te rm in e whe th er Ho ls ey is
m en ta ll y ret ard ed
. As p artof t ha t ev al ua ti on , Dr. Too m er ad m in is te redth e 2 00 1

1 0 Holsey also submitted Dr. Toomer’ s written re port. 9 Acc ordingto Dr. Toomer : 1 0 31IQ te ston whi ch Hol se y sco reda 69 an d a dm in is te reda W RAT “ to ass es s o ve ral l ach ie ve m en t fu nc ti on in g a s i t re la te s t o apa rti cu la r gr ad e le ve l.” Onth e WRAT th atDr. Too m er g av e h im , Hol se y sco redequa l t o t he fif

th -g rad e le ve l i n re ad in g an d s pe ll in g, an d e qu al to th e fo urth -g rad e le ve l i n m ath. Dr. Too m er t es ti fie d t ha t h e rev ie wed“ se ve ral th in gs ,” in cl ud in g Ho ls ey ’s
sc ho ol reco rd s an d “ affi da vi ts fil edby a vari ety of f am il y m em be rs an d p eo pl e who kn ew hi m

du rin g h is de ve lo pm en ta l years.” He a ls o i nt erv ie wedReev es an d adm in is te redto he r th e Sca le s o f In de pe nd en t Be ha vi or , Rev is ed
. Bas edon all of th atin fo rm at io n, Dr. To om er t es ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey sh ows “ de fic it s i n ava rie ty of” ad ap ti ve be ha vi orcat eg or ie s an d t ha t the re i s s om e ev id en ce tha t h e su ffer edan on se t o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n b efo re turni ng eig ht een . In Dr. Too m er’s o pi ni on Hol se y is m en ta ll y

ret ard ed
. c. Reg in a Ree ve s Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l ca ll edhi s o ld es t s is te r, Reg in a Ree ve s, t o t es ti fy [A] [p] sychosocia l evaluation is . . . a kind of history taking . It’s a semistructure d interview where the individual is asked a se ries of que stions reg ardinghis developmenta l history

from birth up to the pre sent time. And as par t of that information g etting, the individual is observed re g ardinghis overall pre sentation, clinical pre sentation, intellectual a nd cognitive presenta

tion, how the person responds to questions asked, [and] how the individual proce sses information. All that is part of the obse rvational piec e that occ urs in conjunction with the takingof the psychosocia l history
. 32ab ou t h is ch il dh oo d. Th e fi rs t p artof h er t es ti m on y was abo utHol se y ’s up br in gi ng in Detr oi t. Sh e te st ifi edth atHol se y oft ensaw t he ir m ot he r an d fa th er fig ht , “ [s ]om e p hysic al ; a l otof v erb al .” One ti m e th ei r fat he r hi t the ir m ot he r with t he ha nd le of abro om or am op , andan ot he r ti m e th ei r m ot he r se t a m il k cart onan d ane wsp ap er o n fi re an d t hr ew th em on to p o f th ei r fat he r, who was co nf in edto a whe el ch ai r. Ree ve s al so tes ti fie d abo utHol se y ’s li fe af te r th ei r m ot he r m ov edhi m an d hi s s ib li ng s b ackto Mi ll ed ge vi ll e. Acco rd in g t o R eev es , th ei r m ot he r su ffer ed fro m ps y ch ol og ic al pro bl em s, i nc lu di ng “ de pr es si on an d s om e o th er s tu ff,” an d th e fam il y

li ve d i n a“ ho rri bl e” ec on om ic si tu at io n a s t he ir m ot he r st ru gg le d t o earn en ou gh m on ey

to pro vi de for

th e fam il y . Befo re s he wenton welf are, the ir
m ot he r earne d m on ey

by w orki ng lo ng ho ur s i n c afet eri as , bab y si tt in g, an d cl ean in g o th er p eo pl e’s ho m es . Bec au se th ei r m ot he r worke d s o m uc h, Re ev es

“ m or e o r le ss pl ay edth e ro le as t he m ot he r.” Ree ve s t es ti fie d t ha t the fam il y di d n otalwa y s h av e en ou gh foo d t o e at . The ir m othe r ga ve eat in g p rio rit y to Hol se y ’s two y ou ng er s is te rs . Ree ve s te st ifi edab ou t a t im e whe n Ho ls ey “ go t up t he ne rv e to askforso m ethi ng els e to eatan d [h is m ot he r] m ad e h im eat , y oukn ow, ev erythi ng th atwas l eftinth e p ot , th e [ch ic ke n] bo ne s, the ric e, th e ch ic ke n, ev erythi ng .” 33Ree ve s s ai d t ha t the ir m ot he r was hardon he r ch il dr en , esp eci al ly the ol de st

th ree: Reev es , Ang el a, an d Ho ls ey . For e xa m pl e, sh e was oft enina ba d m oo d
an d re gu la rly sp ok e n eg at iv el y ab ou t the ir f

athe r. Whe n R eev es , Ang el a, an d Hol se y real iz edth atsh e was in a ba d m oo d, the y wou ldtry to h id e b utoft enwith li tt le su cces s. As a re su lt , th ey su ffer eda lo t o f ve rb al an d p hysic al ab us e. Ree ve s d es cri be d Ho ls ey as “ al way s qui et , nervo us , andsm al l” an d s ai d t ha t he stut te red“ real ly bad ” unt il he was “ [w]ell i nt o h is twen ti es .” In st eadof try in g to bu il d up Ho ls ey ’s sel f-co nf id en ce o r ge tt in g h im

he lp forhi s s tu tt eri ng , th ei r m ot he r wou ldbe rat e an d m ak e fu n o f hi m . She to ldhi m th at“ he was ju stli ke hi s no -g oo d- as s d ad dy” andth at“ he was g oi ng to be a pu nkan d asi ss y .” Andsh e to ldhi m th athe ha d a“ can ’t tal k a ss ” an d tha t h e co ul dn ’t “ ta lkwort h ash it .” Sh e wou ldals o “ cu rs e[] ou t [and ] hu m il ia te []” her s on . Ree ve s s ai d t ha t al th ou gh Hol se y wet t he be d u nt il he was t hi rte eny ears ol d, h is m ot he r ne ve r to okhi m to th e d oc to r ortri edto he lp hi m with t ha t p ro bl em . Ree ve s t es ti fie d t ha t “ [i]t wo ul dn ’t tak e m uc h o f an yth in g” to setth ei r m ot he r in to a vi ol en t ra ge , andsh e p ro vi de d e xa m pl es of t he ph y si cal ab us e Hol se y an d An ge lasu ffer ed . Accor di ng to Reev es , th ei r m ot he r wou ldbe athe r ch il dr en“ [s ]om et im es da il y , eve ry ot he r day ,” an d t ha t s om et im es sh e b eatth em ou ts id e o f th e h om e, “ [i]n t he y ard , on th e p or ch [,] [Ho ls ey ] go t b eat enon th e 34co rn er . . . rig htth ere n ear o urho us e.” Ree ve s s ai d t ha t the ir m ot he r wou ldbe at

Hol se y with e xt en si on co rd s, s ho es , anda br oo m , andwou ldho ldhi s h eadun de r th e b athtub fau cetas h e stru gg le d a ndcri ed
. Sh e sa idth atth os e b eat in gs lef t pe rm an en t s cars onhi s b od y . Test ifyin g abo uta sp eci fic be at in g, Re ev es reco un te d: [O]ne n ig htin pa rti cu la r[, whe n Ho ls ey was t welv e o r th irt een ,] m y m ot he r wai te d b ecau se sh e kne w [he was g oi ng to wet t he be d] th at ni gh t. An d t he m at tre ss es were ch eap , andev erythi ng , so when he pe edth e b edy ouco ul d, the wate r wen t ri gh t thr ou gh . Andwhen sh e he arditsh e wok e h im

up ou t o f hi s s le ep with an e xt en si onco rd
. . . . Ju stbe athi m

with t he ex te ns io n c or d a ndm ad e h im go wash up an d, y oukn ow, cl eanup th e m es s. Ree ve s al so tes ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey witne ss edhi s m ot he r ab us e h is si st er Ang el a in a pa rti cu la rly bru ta l way on t wo o ccas io ns . On o ne oc cas io n, s he in te nt io na ll y

bu rn edAng el a u si ng a wall he at er, an d o n t he othe r, sh e b eatAng el a to th e p oi ntth atAng el a was un co ns ci ou s an d R eev es an d Ho ls ey “ th ou gh t s he was de ad .” Ree ve s s ta te d tha t Ho ls ey ha d n ev er l iv edon hi s o wn an d t ha t h e co ul d n ot do ho us eh ol d c ho res , li ke “ ta ki ng care of t hi ng s o r cl ean in g up.” She als o t ho ug ht th atAng el a h adin flu en cedHol se y ’s beh av io r. Acco rd in g t o R eev es , Ang el a h ad be eninpri so n anu m

be r of ti m es , has ps y ch ol og ic al pro bl em s, an d was in st itut io na li zedas ajuv en il e. Ang el a b eg ange tt in g i n t ro ub le whensh e was 35“ real ly sm al l,” andsh e an d Ho ls ey wou ldoft enge t i nt o t ro ub le to ge th er. Bu t Ree ve s b el ie ve d t ha t An ge lawas a lways th e le ad er an d Ho ls ey so m et im es go t i nt o tro ub le be cau se of t hi ng s t ha t An ge laha d d on e. Hol se y rare ly tol d o n An ge laan d
wou ldso m et im es co ve r fo r he r. Ree ve s s ta te d t ha t af te r Hol se y

go t o utof p ris on fo r hi s ro bb ery co nv ic ti on an d t he n fo r hi s p ro ba ti on vi ol at io n, h e m ov edinwith Ang el a, whi ch Reev es th ou gh t was no t a g oo d i de a “ [b ]ecaus e o f ho w [Ang el a] li ve d h er l ife , th e p eo pl e th atsh e h adth ere,” an d “ th e in flu en ce tha t s he wou ld ha ve ov er h im .” 2. Th e Dep os it io ns an d Aff id av it s a. Dr. Marc Ein ho rn Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l s ub m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e th e d ep os it io n te st im on y an d the writ te n re po rt o f Dr. Ein ho rn , a cli ni cal ps y ch ol og is t wh o h ad actua ll y be enhi redby the Sta te in co nn ect io n wi th th e co ll at eral pro ceed in g t o ev al ua te whet he r Hol se y

is m en ta ll y

ret ard ed
. Dr. Einho rntes ti fie d t ha t, i n co nduc ti ng hi s ev al ua ti on of Ho ls ey , he d idtwo th in gs . Firs t, h e in te rv ie wed Hol se y in pe rs on an d a dm in is te redps y ch ol og ic al tes ti ng onApri l 2 4 a nd25 , 20 03
. Seco nd , he r ev ie wedth e rec or ds th atHol se y an d the Sta te pro vi de d h im , whi ch hi s writ te n re po rt s ta te s ar e th e sa m e rec or ds th atDr. Cun ni ng ha m an d Dr. To om er rev ie wedin co nduc ti ng th ei r ev al ua ti on s. 36Dur in g t he in te rv ie w, Hol se y to ldDr. Einho rnth athe ha d b eg un read in g i n pr is on an d t ha t h e rea d b oo ks , in cl ud in g t he Bib le , alt ho ug h h e d idno t re adev ery da y . Inhi s re po rt, Dr. Ei nh orn s umm ari zedth e in te rv ie w: “ [C]omm un ic at io n ad equa te . Tho ug htpro ces se s wer e co he ren t, l og ic al , andgo al di rect ed . He di d
no t as k a ny qu es ti on s dur in g t he ex am in at io n . . . .” Dr. Ein ho rnadm in is te redto Hol se y anIQ tes t an d aW RAT. On t he IQ tes t, Hol se y sco reda 71
. On t he W RAT, he s co redinth e fi rs t p erce nt il e (fo urth -g rad e le ve l) i n re ad in g a ndin th e fo urth pe rcen ti le (fi fth -g rad e le ve l) i n s pe ll in g a nd
m ath. Bas edon th atps y ch ol og ic al tes ti ng , Dr. Einh orn t es ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey m et th e fi rs t p ro ng of t he DSM-IV d efi ni ti on of m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Dr. Ein ho rnals o t es ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey sh ows si gn ifi can t d efi ci ts inso m e ad ap ti ve be ha vi or s, wh ic h i s t he sec on d p ro ng of t he DSM-IV d ia gn os is for
m en ta l re ta rd at io n. He ex pl ai ne d, h owe ve r, th atth os e d efi ci ts an d Ho ls ey ’s lo w te stsco res were n otdu e to m en ta l re ta rd at io n. In st ead , he r ep orte d t ha t “ cu ltur al de pr iv at io n, al co ho l ab us e, [an d] lo w ave rag e to bo rd erl in e in te ll ect ” li ke ly caus ed

“ Hol se y ’s bel ow av erag e te stsco res an d p oo r ov eral l ad jus tm en t t o l ife .” 1 1 On the subjec t of ca

usation, Dr. Cunning ham testified that cultura l deprivation is not 1 1 inconsistent with mental retar dation. He e x plained: Mental re tardation is i ndepende nt of ca use. And so whe ther or not your hardwar e was pe rmane ntly

stunted beca

use you didn’t g et prope r nurtura nce a s a baby , 37Test ifyin g a t d ep os it io n, h e ex pl ai ne d h is op in io n: He’s ne gl ect ed , he’s ab us ed , he d rin ks , he d oe s p oo rly in sc ho ol , he g et s i nt o t ro ub le , he s tarts ha ng in g o utwith t he wron g pe op le , andit ’s all pre tt y pre di ct ab le . He do es n’t g etin to lo ck st ep with t he m ai ns tre am .

. . . . He ne ve r ha d t he adva nt ag es of wh atm os t o f us wou ldha ve . . . . He was cu ltur al ly dep riv ed . He was p sycho lo gi cal ly dep riv ed . He di dn ’t hav e an yth in g. He was a vi ct im of h is cir cu m st an ces . He di dn ’t hav e p ro pe r pa ren ti ng . He di dn ’t hav e p ro pe r fo od . He di dn ’t ha ve a pr op er educ at io n. He d id n’t h av e a fat he r fi gu re atall . He di dn ’t hav e rea ll y

an yth in g.

. . . . [H]e’ s es se nt ia ll y

bo rd erl in e to lo w ave rag e [i n i nt el le ctua l fu nc ti on in g]. If y outh ro w in to th e equa ti on alc oh ol ab us e [b eg in ni ng atanearl y

ag e], his terrib le co nd it io ns he gre w up in , pra ct ic al ly an y on e wou ldm ak e a p oo r ad jus tm en t t o l ife
. . . . Inhi s wri tt enrep ort, Dr. Ein ho rnno te d o th er ev id en ce tha t was in co ns is te nt with am en ta l re ta rd at io n d ia gn os is : Mr. Ho ls ey ’s m othe r de ni edan y de lay s o f de ve lo pm en ta l m il es to ne s an d t he se wou ldbe ex pe ct edintru e m en ta l re ta rd at io n. . . . [T] he re i s no hi st ory

of s pe ci al educ at io n p la cem en t. Des pi te hi s d iff ic ul t ch il dh oo d, h e m an ag edto lea rnba si c sk il ls th atsu rp as se d t he ex pe ct an cy

of m en ta ll y

ret ard edin di vi du al s. Fo r ex am pl e, in 19 96 , on th e Wide R an ge Achi ev em en t Tes t[,] he o bt ai ne d ahi gh sch oo l le ve l s co re i n a rit hm et ic
. . . . This in cl ud edth e ab il it y to cal cu la te pe rcen ti le s. Th is pe rfo rm an ce i s wel l wi th inno rm al li m it s. . . .
beca use you wer e neg lected or abused or

wer e impoverished or

ate lea d paint or wer e droppe d on your hea d, whateve r it is that compromised this hardwar e in a perma nent way , all of that is called me ntal reta rdation.
38Add it io na l co nt rai nd ic at io ns of s ub no rm al in te ll ig en ce ar e se eninth e

tra ns cri pt s o f te le ph on e cal ls to hi s s is te r, rep ort o f hi s p la y in g p ok er, an d h is [so ph is ti cat edres po ns es to di sc ip li na ry act io ns ] whi le in carc erat ed
. Dr. Ein ho rnals o h ig hl ig ht edth at , as aPiz za Hu t em pl oyee, Hol se y

was a n

“ ex cel le nt ” d is hwa sh er al th ou ghhe was apo or pi zza m ak er b ecau se he co ul d n ot readin gr ed ie nt s, an d t ha t wh il e in pri so n “ he earn edth e le ve l o f trus te e an d was al lo wedto dri ve a truc k.” Dr. Einh orn p oi nt edou t tha t, i n t el ep ho ne co nv ers at io ns with R eev es , Hol se y

“us edvo cab ul ary th atwas wel l ab ov e a m en ta ll y ret ard ed
vo cab ul ary. ” He al so tes ti fie d, “ Men ta ll y ret ard edpe op le do n’t p lay po ke r orat le as t d on ’t un de rs ta nden ou gh to pl ay po ke r.” 1 2 b. Dr. Sh ap iro Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l s ub m it te d t he de po si ti on tes ti m on y of Dr.
Dr. Cunningham criticiz ed Dr . Einhorn’s re liance on thepurportedly contra dictory 1 2 evidenc e. F or example, he testified tha t Dr. Einhorn should not have r elied on Holsey ’s mother’s statements that Holsey

did not have dela

y s in developmental milestones. F irst, acc ordingto Dr. Cunningham, the DSM-IV re cognizes that mi ldly mentally reta rded c hildren may

not have a

ny developmenta l delay s, and sec ond, Holsey ’s mother is a poor source of information because she “is mildly mentally reta rded or borderline intelligent he rself.” He a lso criticized relianc e on the 1996 WRAT test, saying that test “was a dminist ere d outside of the obser vation of the e x aminer” and that he w as “sur

prised that Dr . Einhorn didn’t bringa more critica l analy sis to bear a s he would look at what is so obviously a grossly outlying sc ore.” Dr. Cunningham also thought that, although Holsey

did use words in telephone conver sations with his si ster that we re “ a little surprising ,” Dr . Einhorn had plac ed too much empha sis on that fact. Finally , Dr. Cunningham disagree d with Dr. Einhorn’s vie w that doingan excellent job washingdishes and beingable to play poker w ere inconsistent with mental retar dation, and said that view“sug g ests that Dr. Einhorn doesn’t have a c lear perc eption of what someone who’s mildly mentally reta rded is capa ble of a nd how they

function.” 39Sh ap iro . He is a ps y ch ol og is t wh om Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers h adhi redab ou t two o r th ree m on th s b efo re the tri al to pe rfo rm a ge ne ral ass es sm en t, a g en eral ps y ch ol og ic al ass es sm en t, an d a n a ss es sm en t o f Hol se y ’s in te ll ectua l, ac ad em ic , an d e m ot io na l fu nc ti on in g, b utha d n otcal le d a s a wi tn es s. Hol se y ’s tri al at to rn ey s h adgi ve n Dr. Sh ap iro on ly one do cu m en t b efo re h e m ad e th os e as se ss m en ts —a t wo- pa ge su m m ary of Hol se y ’s fam il y

hi st ory th atth ey ha d pr ep ared
. Inco nduc ti ng hi s ev al ua ti on , Dr. Shapi ro di d n otrev ie w “ hi st or ic al da ta
co nc ern in g . . . Hol se y

fro m sch oo l re co rd s, [Yo ut h Dev el op m en t Ce nt er] reco rd s, pr is on reco rd s, [o r] pri orm en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on s.” (I n h is de po si ti on , Dr. Sh ap iro tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adno t n eed edth os e rec or ds be cau se “ [t]o s om e ex te nt , [th ey ’re] irr el ev an t . . . [be cau se ] if s om eo ne ’s m en ta ll y ret ard edat t he ti m e y ou ev al ua te th em , it ’s li ke ly tha t the y were m en ta ll y

ret ard edas ach il d a ls o.” ) Dr. Shapi ro m etwith Ho ls ey forsev eral ho ur s atth e Ja sp er Co un ty Jail on Decem be r 12 , 19 96 , a li tt le les s t ha n two m on th s b efo re the tri al
. Dur in g t ha t in te rv ie w, Hol se y

to ldhi m th at(1) he ha d b eenrai se d b y hi s m ot he r an d h ad gr own up witho uta fathe r fi gu re; (2) he ha d “ st ay edintro ub le ” g ro win g up; (3) he of te n ra n a way

fro m ho m e b ecau se he was b or edan d wan te d t o g etou t o f hi s ho us e; (4) he wou ld“ ge t a wh oo pi n” when ev er h e g otcau gh t; (5) he reg ul arl y sk ip pe d s ch oo l; an d (6 ) whe n h e was fou rte eny ears ol d, h e to oka kn ife to sch oo l 40on e d ay

be cau se of “ race rio ts ” an d fo un d awhi te stud en t an d t hr eat en edhi m . Hol se y als o t ol d Dr. Sh ap iro th athe ha d b een infos te r car e b ecau se hi s m ot he r

“ co ul dn ’t con ta in hi m ,” th atpo li ce were cal le d a fte r he “ go t i nt o afig ht ” wit h
an ot he r fo st er ch il d, an d t he reaf te r he was s en t t o t he You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er. Afte r th e in te rv ie w, Dr. Shap iro adm in is te redso m e o f th e subt es ts of t he St an fo rd -Bi ne t In te ll ig en ce Sc al e to cal cu la te Hol se y ’s IQ. Dr. Shapi ro ex pl ai ne d th athe ha d a dm in is te redon ly som e o f th e St an fo rd -Bi ne t s ub te st s b ecau se ot he rs were i napp ro pr ia te gi ve n Ho ls ey ’s age , andhe ha d a dm in is te redall of t he subt es ts th atwere ag e-ap pr op ria te forHol se y . Usi ng th e res ul ts of t ho se subt es ts , Dr. Sh ap iro de te rm in edth atHol se y ’s IQ was 7 9. He hadals o a dm in is te redth e Wide 1 3 Ran ge Achi ev em en t Tes t, wh ic h i s s co redon th e sa m e sc al e as anIQ tes t, an d Hol se y ha d s co reda 93 on th e m ath s ect io n. Dr. Shapi ro tes ti fie d a t d ep os it io n th at“ itwou ldno t b e p os si bl e o r li ke ly for a m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on to be ab le to ach ie ve th atsco re.” He di d s ta te , th ou gh , th athe “ [p ]oss ib ly” hadno t wat ch ed Hol se y tak e th e WRAT m ath s ect io n b utin st eadha d l eftth e te stwith Ho ls ey at

In his live testimony

at the evide ntiary

hearing, D r. Cunningha

m, one of Holsey ’s 1 3 expert witnesses, criticiz ed Dr . Shapiro’s use of the Stanford- Bine t Intellige nce Sca le test in 1996 to calculate Holsey ’s I Q. Acc ordingto Dr. Cunningha m, Dr. Shapiro should have g iven to Holsey thirteen subtests of the te st instead of the six s ubtests that he ac tually g ave. And even if g iving the six subtests was appropriate, in Dr. Cunningham’s view D r. Shapiro had use d the wrongstandardization table in ca lculatingHolsey ’s I Q as 79. I f he ha d used the c orre ct table, Dr
. Cunningham believed, he would have c ome up with an I Q of 75. 41th e jail to be m ai le d b ackto hi m . Oth er t es ti ng do ne by D r. Sh ap iro sh owe d t ha t 1 4 Hol se y was re ad in g a t a f

ou rth -g rad e le ve l. Bas edon hi s ev al ua ti on , Dr. Shapi ro was o f th e o pi ni on th atHol se y ’s in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g was in th e b or de rli ne m en ta ll y ret ard edran ge . Dr. Shapi ro te st ifi edth athe pro babl y ha d t ol d P rin ce ab ou t h is im pr es si on s i n “ a v ery br ie f
co nv ers at io n,” bu t h e d idno t p rep are awrit te n re po rt f orPri nc e o r Tram

m el , li ke ly be cau se ne it he r at to rn ey

reque st edon e. Dr. Shapi ro furth er t es ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey ’s st at e co ll at eral co un se l h ad pr ov id edhi m

with t wo 3 -in ch , th ree- rin g b in de rs ful l o f do cum en ts , whi ch in cl ud edHol se y ’s sch oo l an d Yo ut h Dev el op m en t Ce nt er re co rd s, s co res fro m te st s t ha t o th ers ha d a dm in is te red , andaffi da vi ts fro m rel at iv es an d o th ers who kn ew Hol se y . Afte r rev ie win g t ho se do cu m en ts , Dr. Shapr io tes ti fie d tha t h e st il l be li ev edth atHol se y

is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard edbu t i ns te adis in“ th e b or de rli ne ran ge .” Dr. Shapi ro ackno wled ge d t ha t b or de rli ne in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g m ean s a p ers on is inap pr ox im at el y th e b ot to m

fif thpe rcen ti le of i nt el le ctua l fu nc ti on in g. Dr. Shaprio testified that he did not rec all how he g ot the WRAT math portion bac k 1 4 from Holsey , but his usual practice was to “put the materials in the cha rg e of the corr ection office r and a sk that they

make sure the def

endant c ompletes the materials and sends it bac k.” Holsey ’s collater al counse l submit ted the af fidavit of Ta

nekia Ke lly , a for

mer de tention office r at the J asper County J ail. She attested that she r emember ed Dr . Shapiro meetingwith Holsey but that she did not remembe r Dr. Shapir o deliveringany tests or pape rwork to he r that conc erne d Holsey
. No witness testified, howe ver, that anyone had taken the test for Holsey , supplied him with any answe rs, or c hang ed any answe rs that he g ave.

42Not in g t ha t the DSM-IV s ta te s t ha t “ th e es se nt ia l fe atur e o f an ti so ci al

pe rs on al it y

di so rd er i s a p erv as iv e p at te rnof d is reg ardfor an d v io la ti on of t he rig ht s o f ot he rs th atbe gi ns in ch il dh oo d o r ear ly ado le sc en ce an d c on ti nu es in to adul th oo d,” th e St at e as ke d Dr. Sh ap iro if Ho ls ey su ffer s fr om

an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y

di so rd er. Dr. Shapi ro res po nd edth athe di d n otha ve en ou gh in fo rm at io n t o a ns wer tha t que st io n. He di d t es ti fy , ho wev er, tha t Ho ls ey “ ha d
so m e co nduc t p ro bl em s ea rly on ,” in cl ud in g s ki pp in g s ch oo l an d ru nn in g a way fro m ho m e, br in gi ng a kn ife to sch oo l an d p ut ti ng itto an ot he r stud en t’s thr oa t, ge tt in g i n fi gh ts , androb bi ng a co nv en ie nc e st or e. Inhi s o pi ni on , Hol se y ’s hi st ory of co nduc t p ro bl em s wo ul d b e “ co ntrib ut ory to co nduc t d is or de r,” wh ic h “ [i]f it
co nt in ue s u nt il adul th oo d andbe co m es a pe rs is te ntpa tt ernof b eh av io r . . . [it be co m es ] pa rt o f hi s i ng rai ne d p ers on al it y , and
. . . is no w hi s n atur e to be
an ti so ci al .” c. Fo rm er Teac he rs Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l s ub m it te d t he affi da vi ts of t hr ee o f hi s fo rm er te ach ers : Sa ra Si m co x, An ni e Howa rd , andTho m as Lee. They att es te d t ha t Hol se y “ was n’t a v ery go odstud en t” ; d is pl ay edan“ ob vi ou s s lo wne ss ”; su ffer ed
se rio us in te ll ectua l l im it at io ns ; co ul d “ ba rel y read ”; “ jus t was n’t p la y in g wi th a fu ll de ck ”; an d “ di dn ’t hav e an y sm art s g oi ng for

hi m .” Howar d a ndLee al so 43pr ov id edth ei r im pr es si on s o f Hol se y ’s fam il y . Howardatt es te d i n h er af fid av it th atsh e “ go t the feel in g t ha t [Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r] did n’t u nd ers ta ndho w ser io us [h is ] li m it at io ns were” a ndad de d t ha t Ho ls ey ’s si st er An ge la“ was co ns ta nt ly ha vi ng to be rem ov edfro m th e cl as sr oo m .” Lee p ro vi de d s im il ar i nf orm at io n ab ou t An ge la , tel li ng th e co urt tha t h e h adoft ensee n h er “ in fis tfi gh ts with g ro wn m en .” d. Ho ls ey ’s Fam il y Mem be rs Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l s ub m it te d d ep os it io n t es ti m on y an d a ffi da vi ts fro m Bert haIng ram , who is Hol se y ’s m ot he r’s ni ece; an d fr om Hol se y ’s m ot he r. In gr am to ldth e co urt tha t Ho ls ey ’s ho m e “ was alwa y s fi lt hy andstun k wi th th e sm el l o f ur in e an d ro tt in g fo od ”; th atHol se y ’s m ot he r fav or edhe r two y ou ng es t ch il dr enan d v ic io us ly beatHol se y an d An ge la . Accor di ng to Ing ram , th ei r m ot he r “ wou ldpl ug in a cu rli ng iro n a ndwhac k t he ir l it tl e h an ds with i t o nc e it go t h ot .” Sh e wou ldals o l as h “ th em with e xt en si on co rd s, b el ts , a wash er/ dry er ho se , coo ki ng sp oo ns or a nyth in g e ls e sh e fo un d h an dy.” Andwhi le be at in g t he m , th ei r m ot he r wou ldcal l Ho ls ey an d An ge la“ ‘buc k t eet h m ot he r fu ck in g
m on ke y s’” an d “ ‘ugl y

ass bi tc he s.’” Sh e al so to ldth e co urt tha t Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r
m oc ke d h is in ab il it y

to readby som et im es pu tt in g abo okinhi s h an ds an d s ay in g th in gs li ke : “ ‘Can y oureadany of t he word s i n t hi s b oo k, b oy?’”; “ ‘W ha t’s wro ng 44with your he adan yway ? ’”; an d “ ‘Y ou ’re go odfor no th in g ju stli ke y ou r da dd y was .’ ” Hol se y ’s m othe r adm it te d wh ip pi ng he r ch il dr enas aform of p un is hm en t whe n the y

mis be ha ve d, b utsh e d en ie d b urni ng th em with acu rli ng iro n o r be at in g th em with a n e xt en si on co rdor s ho es . She als o d en ie d tha t the ho us e was fil th y . Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l al so subm it te d t he affi da vi ts of t he fol lo win g pe op le : Ro saIng ram , Hol se y ’s aun t; So nya Park s, o ne of Ho ls ey ’s cou si ns ; Hen ry Hol se y , Jr., an ot he r of

Hol se y ’s cou si ns ; Li nd a In gr am , Hol se y ’s m ot he r’s se co nd
co us in ; Dem etra Ho ls ey , on e o f Hol ey ’s y ou ng er s is te rs ; an d An ge laHol se y , on e of hi s o ld er s is te rs . They pr ov id edad di ti on al in fo rm at io n abo utHol se y ’s li m it ed in te ll ig en ce an d h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Ro saIng ram

att es te d i n h er af

fid av itth atHol se y

“ de fin it el y

co ul dn ’t care fo r hi m se lf” an d t ha t h e “ ne ed eda lo t o f gu id an ce an d s up erv is io n.” Park s at te st edth atsh e b eg anli vi ng with h er aunt , Hol se y ’s m ot he r, in th e su m m er o f 19 80 an d, dur in g t ha t t im e, Hol se y ’s m ot he r se em edun in te res te d i n h er s on . Hen ry Hol se y , Jr. at te st edth atHol se y “ al way s u se d s im

pl e wor ds , andke pt to si m pl e to pi cs ” an d “ le arn edth in gs real ly slo wly orno t atall .” He als o n ot ed th atAng el a, th e si st er, “ was a fi gh te r[; ] [s ]he wou ldfig htina m in ut e an d s he
wou ldfig htan y on e.” 45Lin daIng ram att es te d t ha t Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r “ ha d v ery li m it edsk il ls an d si m pl y co ul dn ’t cop e wit h a ll th e res po ns ib il it ie s o f be in g am ot he r an d p ro vi di ng fo r a fam il y .” Sh e st at edth atsh e h adon ce t ol d aps y ch ol og is t wh o was ev al ua ti ng Hol se y ’s m ot he r th at“ sh e p ro babl y was m il dl y

ret ard edsee in g a s h ow s he ha s al way s d ep en de d o n R eg in a, [In gr am ], an d . . . he r y ou ng er d au gh te r Lis a to
m an ag e a l otof b as ic th in gs be cau se sh e si m pl y co ul dn ’t do th em

he rs el f.” W it ho utex pl an at io n, Ho ls ey ’s col la te ral co un se l at ta ch edto Ing ram ’s affi da vi t the ps y ch ol og is t’s Se pt em

be r 28 , 20 00 ev al ua ti on of Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r, whi ch ha d
co nc lu de d t ha t s he was m il dl y ret ard ed
. Hol se y ’s si st er Dem etra at te st edinhe r affi da vi t tha t s he an d h er s is te r Lis a (wh o d idno t s hare the same fath er wi thHol se y , Reev es , andAng el a) “ were THE pr io rit y to ” Hol se y ’s m ot he r: the y “ al way s h adbe tt er cl ot he s an d t oys” an d t he y

“ go t m or e fo odth anth e o th ers di d a t m eal ti m es , to o.” Hol se y ’s si st er An ge la ’s affi da vi t d es cri be d g ro win g up i n t he ir h ou se ho ld . She sai d t ha t the ir m ot he r of te n

“us edall of h er b reath t o e m ba rras s an d d eg rad e [Ho ls ey ] . . . , esp eci al ly in fr on t of ot he r pe op le .” Sh e wou ldcal l h im a “ ‘sis sy boy’ an d t el l h im he was g oi ng to gr ow up t o b e o ne of t he ‘ ga ls .’ ” Acco rd in g t o An ge la , sh e al so “ cal le d [h im ] ‘m on ke y ’ an d ‘cry

baby’ an d yell edanen dl es s s tre am of o bs cen it ie s . . . .” Ang el a st at edth atth ei r m ot he r “ wou ldhi t [the m ] fo r an y reas on or n o re as on .” Sh e sa id , 46“ [Ho ls ey ] an d I we re s m ack edwith a nyth in g o urm ot he r co ul d fi nd , anditwas

brut al . W e were h itall th e ti m e, us ua ll y with a n e le ctric al co rdor wa te rin g h os e . . . . If sh e h adth e cu rli ng iro n c lo se by, sh e’d p lu g i t i n a ndbu rnus with i t.” e. Fo rm er Gi rlf

rie nd s Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l s ub m it te d t he de po si ti on tes ti m on y an d affi da vi ts of t hr ee o f Hol se y ’s form er g irl fri en ds : Ma ry Jac ks on , th e g irl fri en d Hol se y to ldto pi ckhi m

up in a bl ue Jee p a fte r he m ur de redDepu ty Rob in so n whi le in a redcar; Bel in daHawki ns ; an d Lo uv en iaMel ch or . They pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n abo utHol se y ’s in te ll ig en ce l ev el . Jac ks on tes ti fie d i n h er d ep os it io n th atHol se y

co m m un ic at edbe tt er wi th he r fo ur -y ear- ol d s on th anhe di d wi th adul ts . Hawki ns tes ti fie d a t d ep os it io n t ha t Ho ls ey was “ res po ns ib le ” b ut“ha d a
m in d l ik e a ch il d” an d “ fel t l ik e ch il d’s p la y was m or e im

po rta ntto hi m

th an , y ou kn ow, b ei ng ser io us .” AndMel ch oratt es te d i n h er af fid av itth atsh e h adbro ke n up with Ho ls ey

be cau se , inhe r vi ew, he co ul d n ot“ ha nd le th e adul t
res po ns ib il it ie s o f be in g i n aser io us rel at io ns hi p” an d d idno t h av e “ th e smarts of a g ro wn m an .” f. Fri en ds an d Nei gh bo rs Co ll at eral co un se l s ub m it te d t he affi da vi ts of Do na ldFo st er, Ma ry Havi or , Cat he rin e Harri s, Es si e And ers on , San dr a Fra nc is , Jo se ph Trawic k, an d B ertha 47Si m

m on s. All of t he m

were Ho ls ey ’s frie nd s o r ne ig hb or s. Fo st er an d Hav io r pr ov id edin fo rm at io n abo utHol se y ’s in te ll ig en ce l ev el
. Fo st er, a fri en d wh o h ad kn own Hol se y

si nc e th ey

were t een ag ers , att es te d i n h is affi da vi t tha t Ho ls ey “ was jus t s lo w inth e h ead ” an d d idno t “ ha ve th e smarts ne ces sa ry to m ak e h is way

on hi s o wn.” Hav io r at te st edth atHol se y ha d a tt en de d h er chur ch du rin g t he y ear be fo re h e m

ur de redDepu ty Rob in so n, an d s he reco un te d h ow “ he co ul d n otread al on g i n t he hym

n b oo k a ndsi ng with the res t o f th e co ng reg at io n.” Harri s, An de rs on , Fran ci s, Trawi ck , andSimm on s t ol d t he co urt ab ou t ph y si cal ab us e th atHol se y su ffer edat t he hand s o f hi s m ot he r. Forex am pl e, Harri s, a l on g- ti m e fri en d o f Hol se y ’s m ot he r, at te st edinhe r affi davi t tha t “ it di dn ’t tak e an yth in g m or e th ana whi m to co m e o ve r [Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r] befo re . . . . sh e’d h av e a b el t o r a cu rli ng iro n i n h er h an d andgo to whac ki ng [Hol se y ]. ” AndAnd ers on , who li ve d i n Ho ls ey ’s nei gh bo rh oo d dur in g t he 19 70 s an d e arl y 19 80 s, at te st edth atHol se y ’s m ot he r was “ m ean an d c ru el to he r . . . kid s” an d

“ [a]rm edwith o ldsh oe s, b el ts , [or ] ex te ns io n c or ds
. . . wou ldwail on [Hol se y ]
un ti l h e h adwelt s an d abr as io ns all ov er h is bo dy.” Sh e al so de sc rib edinhe r affi da vi t h ow Ho ls ey ’s ho m e was “ fil th y an d d irt y with ro ach es , ol d g arb ag e an d th e st en ch of u rin e.” Inhe r affi da vi t, Fra nc is , who wentto sch oo l wi th Hol se y , pro vi de d m or e 48de ta il s an d re ferr edto Hol se y ’s ho m e as “ th e Tortu re Ch am be r.” Her aff

id av it st at edth atHol se y

“ reg ul arl y

to okbe at in gs . . . in pl ai n v ie w andears ho t o f
ev eryone els e li vi ng ” in th e n ei gh bo rh oo d. Sh e at te st edth atHol se y ’s m ot he r of te n “ dr ag ge d [h im ] by the arm ou t i nt o t he ir c orne r y ardan d wen t t o l as hi ng at hi m with a n e xt en si on co rdall th e whi le cu rs in g andy el li ng at the to p o f he r lu ng s,” c al li ng hi m

“ vi le ” n am es li ke “bu tt ho le ,” “ m othe rfu ck er,” “ si ss y ass ,”

“ stup id he ad ,” “ du m

bo ,” an d “ ret ard at e.” Sh e rem em be redsee in g Ho ls ey

“ ru nn in g fo r hi s l ife an d n otcari ng th athe was c ov eredinredwelt s an d wo un ds .” g. Co worke rs Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l s ub m it te d t he affi da vi ts of t wo fo rm er co worke rs : Fe rrl an do Jo ne s, wh o h adtes ti fie d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se of t he tri al , an d M ari on W in ga te , who ha d n ot . Jo ne s was th e as si st an t m an ag er o f th e Mi ll ed ge vi ll e Pi zza Hu t wh ere Ho ls ey ha d wo rk edfor

a ti m e, an d i n h is affi da vi t, he st at edth atHol se y

“ cam e to workan d t rie d h is be stev ery sh ift ” b ut“ was way be hi ndm os t fo lk s wh enitcam e to sm art s.” W in ga te is a fo rm er s up erv is or at Seab oa rdFarm s, a c hi ck enpro ces si ng co m pa ny where Ho ls ey

work edinth e ear ly 19 90 s. He at te st edinhi s af fid av itth atno ne of t he tas ks th e co m pa ny ass ig ne d Hol se y were h ardor r equi redm

uc h t hi nk in g.

49h. Othe rs

Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l al so subm it te d t he affi da vi ts of Ke nn eth Si m m on s, the m anHol se y

st ab be d a t the So ul Mas te r’s Lou ng e in19 92 ; an d Sco tty Simm on s, Ken ne th Simm on s’ bro th er. Each of t he Simm on s b ro th ers at te st edth atHol se y

ha d arou gh ch il dh oo d, wi th Sco tt y Simm on s n ot in g t ha t Hol se y ’s m ot he r “ us edto tea r in to [Hol se y ] an d b eathi m to a pu lp when he was jus t a l it tl e k id .” The y als o s ub m it te d t he affi da vi ts of Hu gh Tuck er, Lel iaPo well , andSu sa n Marti n, al l o f who m

att es te d t o Ho ls ey ’s in te ll ig en ce l ev el . Tuck er i s a f orm er supe rv is orat t he You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er, an d h is affi da vi t s ta te d t ha t Ho ls ey

“ was ve ry li m it edin te ll ectua ll y ”; “ no t capabl e o f . . . abs tra ctrefl ect io n” ; “ la ck ed th e m atur it y , in si gh t an d s op hi st ic at io n t y pi cal of h is pe ers ”; an d “ us edlan gu ag e li ke th atof ach il d i n g rad e sc ho ol rathe r th anwhatwas e xp ect edof afif te eny ear ol d.” Powe ll ranth e Po well Att en ti onHom e, a h om e fo r ch il dr eninne edof sp eci al pl acement o ut si de of t he ir f am il y ho m es , wher e Hol se y

st ay edforsev eral week s i n 1 98 0. In he r affi da vi t, s he de sc rib edHol se y as “ a sl ow, s im

pl e-m in de d bo y who was way beh in d t he ot he r bo y s h is ag e.” Marti n i s anin ve st ig at orwho
worke d fo r Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers dur in g h is tri al , andsh e at te st edth at , to he r, Hol se y “ was a fai rly slo w andsi m pl e-m in de d young m an .” 503. Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s R eco rd s

Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l al so in tro du cedin to ev id en ce h is off ic ia l Geo rg iaDepa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s re co rd s. A Feb ru ary 19 84 di ag no st ic su m m ary in th os e rec or ds rep orts th atHol se y co m pl et edth e n in th gra de an d s co redwithi n th e “ du ll no rm al ran ge of g en eral in te ll ig en ce” o n t he de pa rtment’s C ul tu re Fa ir te st . The su m

m ary no te s t ha t Ho ls ey

“ do es no t ap pe ar t o b e in ne edof 1 5 sp eci al iz edMH/M R tr eat m en t s erv ic es . . . [al th ou gh he ] co ul d b en efi t fr om ro ut in e co un se li ng servi ces rel at in g t o d ev el op m en t o f in te rn al co nt ro ls ov er h is be ha vi or , con tro l o f an ge r, an d a gg res si ve be ha vi or s, an d h is to ry of s ig ni fic an t
subs ta nc e ab us e.” Itals o n ot es th atHol se y ’s bas ic acad em ic lev el s wer e to o l ow fo r hi m to be pl acedin vo cat io na l trai ni ng . A 19 89 pa ro le rev ie w su m m ary, whi ch is inth e sa m e se t o f rec or ds , st at es th at : “ Si nc e h is arri va l [i n p ris on ] Hol se y ha s m ad e a s at is fact ory

ad jus tm en t. He h as anav erag e p erfo rm an ce ra ti ng an d i s
Holsey also submitted the deposition testim ony and af fidavit of Dr . Her

bert Ebe r, a 1 5 psycholog ist who from 1974 until 1990 or 1991 “ra n the proc essingpart” of the Department of Correc tions’ diagnostic cente r. In his affidavit, Dr. Eber stated that Holsey

took a modified Culture Fa ir intellige nce te st in 1984 but that the re sults of that test “cannot be used as a measure of intellige nce” to diagnose mental re tardation. He e x plained that the Department of Corr ections does not employ

a psycholog ist to admini ster the Culture F air test, the test is not timed, the modified test does not take into ac count re adingskills, and that “the norms used to eva luate the maxi mum potential I Q at the Ge org ia Diagnostic and Classification Center wer e not the norms produce d by

the [Cul ture F air] test’s publisher.” Instead, Dr . Eber ha d develope d the norms using a rese arc h study

of Ge org ia prisoner s, and the test that Holsey was g iven had be en re vised “to better suit [ the] purposes rela

ted to vocational a

nd prison reha

bilitation.” 51pr es en tl y

en ro ll edin sch oo l at8.3 gra de lev el .” Hol se y ’s Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s re co rd s co nt ai n a19 85 di sc ip li na ry rep ort fr om

th e Geo rg iaIndus tri al Ins ti tu te , wher e h e was anin m at e dur in g t he 19 80 s. Acco rd in g t o t ha t re po rt, Ho ls ey “ jum pe d o n” an ot he r in m at e “be cau se he
sa idso m ethi ng ab ou t [Ho ls ey ’s] ga m bl in g g am e.” Hol se y

bro ke th e in m at e’s fro nttee th , bl oo di edhi s n os e, an d g av e h im “ se ve ral kn ot s o n h is he ad .” Ano th er rep ort i n t he reco rd s s ho ws tha t i n 1 98 8 Ho ls ey an d a no th er i nm at e “

jum pe d o n” Bi ll y McGri ff an d Hen ry

Lewis , in juri ng McGri ff. Tha t 1 98 8 re po rt s ta te s t ha t

“ Hol se y . . . li ke [s ] to in ti m id at e n ew in m at es .” 1 6 The Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s re co rd s al so co nt ai n aDecem be r 19 92 of fen de r pr of

il e rep ort. Tha t re po rt s ta te s t ha t Ho ls ey po te nt ia ll y

ha s an

“ Ant is oc ia l Pe rs on al it y ” an d tha t h is “ps y ch ol og ic al pro fil e su gg es ts a ve ry hi gh ris k fo r be in g a ss au lt iv e an d/ orot he rwis e v io le nt .” It a dd s t ha t Ho ls ey “ cu rren tl y

In an attempt to explain away those disciplinary

repor ts, Holsey ’s collateral counse l 1 6 submitt ed the a ffidavits of thre e people with whom Holsey had ser ved time at the Ge org ia Industrial Institut e: B illy McGrif f, Rothman L ewis, and H enry Wil liams. McGriff

attested in his aff idavit that Holsey

did not like to fight, which ma de him a tar g et for prison thugs. L ewis attested in his aff

idavit that Holsey

did not start fig hts in prison and did all he could to avoid fighting. He also said that Holsey had a “ rough time of it in prison . . . because he wa s slow in the hea d.” In his affidavit W illiams attested that the Geor g ia Industrial Institut e wa s a violent prison wher e an inmate was re quired to fight to protect himself. He did note that he himself had an alter cation with Holsey at the prison, but said that it was “out of char acte r” f

or Holsey
. 52is fun ct io ni ng inth e av erag e ran ge of i nt el li ge nc e.” 1 7 B. The S ta te ’s Evi de nc e The Sta te cal le d t wo wi tn es se s atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng to tes ti fy ab ou t Hol se y ’s lev el of i nt el li ge nc e—Dr . Tho m as Sach y an d C hi ef Dep uty

Sh eri ff Howar d S il ls —an d i t s ub m it te d t he affi da vi ts of e ig ht ot he rs who ha d s om e kn owl ed ge ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s in te ll ig en ce. The Sta te als o i nt ro du cedarre streco rd s an d a n F BI i de nt ifi cat io n re co rdsh owi ng th atHol se y ha d b een arre st edin19 82 fo r si m pl e b at te ry , in19 83 forth eftby sho pl ift in g, an d i n 1 99 0 fo r carry in g a co nc eal edweap on . 1 8
The report does conta in this apparently standard disc laimer: 1 7 THI S COMP UTER GENERATED REPORT S HOULD B E VI EWED WI TH CAUTI ON. I T MAY NOT ACCURATELY DESCRI BE T HI S OFF ENDER. THESE STATEMENTS ARE BA SED ON THE B EHAVI ORS AND HI STORI ES OF PERSONS W I TH SI MI LAR TEST SC ORES, I NTERVI EW RESP ONSES, AND PERSONALCHARACTERI STI CS. THE DIAGNOSTI C AND TREATMEN T SUGGESTI ONS BEL OW SHOUL D B E CONSI DERED AS HYPOTHESES W HI CH SHOULD B E CONFIRMED OR RUL ED OUT FOLL OWI

NG EXA MI

NATI ON B Y THE DIAGNOSTI C STAFF O R OTHER PERS ONNEL
. The State a lso submit ted two af fidavits from Jul ius Roberson. Roberson lived ac ross 1 8 the stree t from Holsey

duringthe 1970s and e arly 1980s. In his first affidavit, which is dated Marc h 28, 2002, Roberson attested that “[Holsey ’s mother] was outright violent toward [Holsey ]” and that “[i] t was gut wrenc hing f or me to see and hea

r how [she] treated [Holsey] . . . and know what incredible a buse they had to endur e on an a lmost daily basis.” He said that he often saw Holsey ’s mother whip “ him with ex tension cords, old hoses, or thin bra nches.”He also attested that Holse y

was a “slow lea rner [] ,” “e mpty -hea ded,” a nd “naive .” But in his second a ffidavit, date d August 20, 2003, Roberson contra dicted much of what 531. Th e Witn es se s

The Sta te ’s firs t wi tn es s o n t he subjec t o f Hol se y ’s in te ll ig en ce was Dr. Sach y , who m

th e co urt re co gn iz edas a n e xp ertinfor en si c p sychi atry . He te st ifi ed th atth e St at e h adhi redhi m to ev al ua te whet he r Hol se y is m en ta ll y

ret ard ed
. He to ldth e co urt tha t i n c on du ct in g h is ev al ua ti on he ha d re vi ewed“ th e o th er ps y ch ol og is ts ’ rep orts ” an d ava rie ty of do cu m en ts , in cl ud in g “ m an y de po si ti on s an d a ffi da vi ts of f

am il y m em be rs an d p eo pl e who work ed[wit h Ho ls ey ]” and Hol se y ’s “ sc ho ol reco rd s, et c.” He al so pe rs on al ly int erv ie wedHol se y . Bas edon hi s ev al ua ti on , Dr. Sach y co nc lu de d t ha t Ho ls ey

do es no t m eet

he had attested to in his first affidavit. He explained that an investig ator on Holsey ’s collater al leg al team ha d interviewe d him and months later re turned to his house with a ty ped af fidavit and rea d parts of it to him. In his second af fidavit, Roberson atteste d that he fe lt like the investigator was rushinghim, and he had signed that first a ffidavit without rea ding it himself. And Roberson explained that if the investiga tor had re ad all of that first aff idavit to him, he would not have signe d it. He state d that the first af fidavit “c ontains many

things that [he] did notsay and seve ral things that [he] tol d [the investig ator] were not true.” F or example, he ha d never said that Holsey was a “slow lea rner [] ”; “e mpty -hea ded”; or “naive .” He also attested that Holse y ’s mother “ was fair when she disciplined he r kids,” but in the first af fidavit the investig ator ha d tried to paint a “totally differ ent” a

nd inacc urate picture. And he stated that he had spe cifica lly told the investigator that he ha d never seen H olsey

“whipped w ith branche s, cords, a nd hoses.” As the Ge org ia Supreme c ourt noted, “[t] he re cord is not deve loped on the issue of possible intentional mis conduct” of the investig ator or a nyone on Holsey ’s leg al team but we , like the Georg ia Supreme Court, find the a lleg ations contained in Rober son’s second a ffidavit troubling. H olsey

I I I , 642 S.E.2d at 61 n.2. Those alleg ations also illustrate the sometimes limit ed value of af

fidavits submitt ed by

potential mitigation witnesses who did not testify in the trial or in the evide ntiary

hearing during the state collate ral proc eeding . We have obse rved befor e that af

fidavits submitt ed by

habea s petitioners attac king the ir death sentence s are sometimes “ar

tfully draf ted.” Putman v. Hea d, 268 F.3d 1223, 1245 n.19 ( 11th Cir. 2001).

54“ th e cri te riaform en ta l re tard at io n.” Ins te ad , he h as bo rd erl in e in te ll ectua l

fu nc ti on in g. Dr. Sach y

pe rfo rm eda ne ur ol og ic al ev al ua ti on on Hol se y an d fo un d th athe di d n otsh ow an y

si gn s o f ne ur ol og ic al de fic it
. Fo r ex am pl e, Hol se y

di d
no t h av e “ th e so ft, p hysic al si gn s o f cran io faci al ab no rm al it ie s o r ot he r ph y si cal ab no rm al it ie s co ns is te ntwith m en ta l re ta rd at io n.” Dr. Sach y als o b as edhi s co nc lu si on th atHol se y is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard ed , in pa rt, o n t es ti m on y

at t he tri al . For e xa m

pl e, th e ev id en ce s ho wedth aton th e n ig ht of th e m ur de r, Hol se y

ha d a sk edhi s g irl fri en d t o p ic k h im up ina bl ue Jee p in st eadof i n h er m aro on car. The si gn ifi can ce o f th atis th atHol se y kn ew th e po li ce wo ul d b e lo ok in g fo r a carth atwas re d, the co lo r of th e g et away ve hi cl e. He al so to ldhi s g irl fri en d t ha t h e wan te d t o m on it ora po li ce s can ne r athi s m ot he r’s ho us e. Dr. Sach y tes ti fie d t ha t “ [t]ho se two po in ts . . . are a ctua ll y fai rly
so ph is ti cat ed , cog ni ti ve pa tt ern s o f so m eo ne who ha s fo retho ug htan d i nt actlev el s of for etho ug htth at. . . wou ldbe be y on d t he ran ge of s om eo ne with s ig ni fic an t [o r ev enmil d] m en ta l re ta rd at io n.” Dr. Sach y als o fo un d i t i m

po rta ntth atin te le ph on e co nv ers at io ns co nduc te d wh il e h e was inpri so n, Ho ls ey us ed“ a lo t o f
ve ry hi gh lev el , abs tra ctword s.” 1 9 Dr. Cunningham, one of

Holsey ’s expert witnesses who testified at the evidentiar y 1 9 hearing, c riticized Dr. Sachy ’s conc lusions. His st ated that the a bsence of phy sical abnor

malities is not inconsist ent with a mild mental reta rdation diagnosis. He took the position that relying on 55Dr. Sach y als o t es ti fie d t ha t m en ta l re ta rd at io n i nd ic at or s ca n o ve rlap wi th sym pt om s o f an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er. He ex pl ai ne d: Andth ey canbe [eas y

to m ix up ], inth e fac t tha t s om eo ne m ay th in k so m eo ne with m en ta l re tard at io n i s d oi ng po orinsch oo l o r th ey ’re no t the re atsch oo l o r are th ey jus t s lo w, when inreal it y th ey ha ve an ti so ci al [pe rs on al it y

di so rd er], the y

jus t d on ’t fitinwell . They do n’t en joy sch oo l. The y

ha ve a te nd en cy

to bre akth e ru le s. An d, real ly, th ey ’re onth e ro adto . . . po te nt ia l fo r la te r cri m in al act iv ity . It c anlo okth e sa m e in it ia ll y . . . . He te st ifi edth ata hi st ory of f ig ht in g a ndco m

m it ti ng ag gr av at edass au lt s i s m or e in di cat iv e o f an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er tha n m en ta l re ta rd at io n. He ex pl ai ne d th ata hi st ory

of “ su cces sf

ul arm edrob be rie s o r do in g fa irl y well at t he m ” is in di cat iv e o f an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er an d n otm en ta l re ta rd at io n; su cces sf ul
arm edrob be rie s ar e “ m

uc h m or e d iff

ic ul t fo r so m eo ne with re al m en ta l ret ard at io n.” The Sta te als o c al le d a s a wi tn es s atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng Howar d S il ls , th e fo rm er Ch ie f Dep ut y

Sh eri ff o f Bal dwi n C ou nt y an d t he off

ic er wh o h ad
arre st edHol se y

for Depu ty Rob in so n’s m

ur de r. Si ll s t es ti fie d t ha t h e kne w Hol se y someone’s use of voca

bulary is not an acc epted wa

y of diagnosing me ntal reta rdation. He a lso testified that, “Holse y

is deficient whe n you sy stematically evalua te [him ]. Now, the armchair kind of things that I

may pull out, about an interac tion with a gir lfriend or about the criminal justice sy stem, those arenot a substitute nor do they neg ate the sy stematic mea sures that a re undertaken.” A lthough Dr . Cunningham did not otherwise addr ess Dr. Sac hy ’s re liance on Holsey ’s intera ction with his girlfriend af ter he murdere d Deputy

Robinson, he did testify

that there was nothingin Dr. Sachy ’s re port that would ca use him to chang e his opinion that Holsey is mentally reta rded. 56be fo re the arre stbe cau se Hol se y ha d b een anin m at e in th e Bal dwi n C ou nt y Jai l. Bas edon hi s i nt erac ti on with h im , Hol se y “ was cert ai nl y

no t wel l educ at ed , bu t [h e] nev er d et ect edan yth in g t ha t [h e] woul d h av e p ers on al ly not ic edas b ei ng
m en ta l i ll ne ss .” In st ead , Hol se y “ was co nv ers an t an d a rti cu la te , forhi s educ at io n”
an d c om pl et edhi s jai l ch or es sat is fact or il y .

2. Th e Affi da vi ts The Sta te subm it te d t he affi da vi ts of s ev encu rren t o r fo rm er em pl oyees o f th e Bal dwi n C ou nt y

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce wh o kne w Hol se y fro m hi s t im e as anin m at e atth e co un ty’ s jai l: Jewe l Har da ge , Jer om e Sau ls bu ry , Caro lyn Mo ss , Cathy Alex an de r, So ni a Harri s, Be tt y Jo hn so n, an d El be rt Webb . In the ir a ffi da vi ts , th ey at te st edth atHol se y

was “ in te ll ig en t” an d “ or di na ry ,” an d h e was anin m at e who
un de rs to odan d fo ll owe d i ns tru ct io ns . The Sta te als o s ub m it te d t he affi da vi t o f Eve lyn Lut on , th e atto rn ey who rep res en te d Ho ls ey

aft er h e st ab be d Ken ne th Sim m on s an d s ho t atSco tt y Si m m on s i n 1 99 2. Sh e at te st edth at , alt ho ug h Ho ls ey ’s “ lang ua ge was u np ol is he d, th ere was no do ub t i n [h er] m in d a fte r ta lk in g wi th hi m th athe un de rs to odhi s si tu at io n a ndha d n o p ro bl em s co m pr eh en di ng th e ch oi ces av ai labl e to hi m .” C. The Sta te Co ll at eral Co urt’s Deci si on Afte r th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e st at e co ll at eral co urt co nc lu de d t ha t 57Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers h adfai le d t o p ro pe rly prep are a ndpre se ntm it ig at in g

ev id en ce o f Hol se y ’s li m it edin te ll ig en ce an d t ro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Ho ls ey II, No. 2 00 0- V-6 04 , at 8 2. Th e co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t Ho ls ey was p reju di ced by tha t fa il ur e. Id . at 8 0. “ Inli gh t o f th is lac k o f an y si gn ifi can t p rep arat io n o r pr es en ta ti on ” o f m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, th e co urt re as on ed , “ no on e can ser io us ly be li ev e th at[Hol se y ] rece iv edth e co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te es of t he Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l.” Id . at 8 3– 84 . For t ha t
reas on , th e co urt g ran te d awritof h ab eas co rp us with re sp ectto Hol se y ’s dea th
se nt en ce, v acat in g t ha t s en te nc e an d o rd eri ng th atHol se y rece iv e a n ew tr ia l o f th e se nt en ci ng ph as e o nl y . Id. at84
. D. The Ap pe al The Sta te ap pe al edth e st at e co ll at eral co urt’s g ran t o f habe as rel ie f. The Geo gi a Supr em e Co urt u na ni m ou sl y rev ers edth atgra ntan d re in st at edHol se y ’s de ath s en te nc e. Hol se y

III, 6 42 S.E.2dat 5 9. Th e co urt d id“ acce pt , for th e pu rp os es of t hi s an al y si s,” tha t Ho ls ey ha d s ho wn t ha t h is tri al lawyers h ad pe rfo rm edde fic ie nt ly by

no t p ro pe rly prep ari ng an d p res en ti ng mit ig at in g ev id en ce o f hi s l im it edin te ll ig en ce an d t ro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Id . at 6 2. The co urt n on ethe le ss co nc lu de d t ha t Ho ls ey ha d fa il edto sh ow p reju di ce, “ th at ‘the re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty . . . tha t, b utforco un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , 58th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.’” Id. at60 (qu ot in g S m it h

v. Fr an ci s, 3 25 S.E.2d36 2, 3 63 (Ga. 19 85 )). The Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d i ts co nc lu si on th atHol se y ’s had fai le d t o s ho w a reas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su ltde sp it e th e witne ss es , affi da vi ts , anddo cu m en ts hi s co ll at eral co un se l p res en te d i n t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng : The ad di ti on al ev id en ce Ho ls ey ha s p res en te d i n h is habe as pr oc eed in gs , so m e o f itco nt rad ic te d b y th e [St at e’s] evi de nc e, is la rg el y cu m ul at iv e o f ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l, wh ic h h ig hl ig ht ed Hol se y ’s li m it edin te ll ig en ce, h is tro ub le d andab us iv e h om e li fe, h is po si ti ve co ntrib ut io ns at h om e an d e ls ewh ere, an d h is m ot he r’s an d si st er’s m en ta l h eal th is su es . Havi ng rev ie wedbo th th e h ab eas reco rd an d t he tri al reco rd , in cl ud in g t he tri al tes ti m on y of t wo o f Hol se y ’s si st ers an d o f othe r wit ne ss es , th e tr ia l d ep os it io n t es ti m on y of Cl iff or d Ho ls ey , Jr., an d t he no n- te st im on ia l m at eri al en te redin to ev id en ce attri al , th is Co urt co nc lu de s tha t i nt ro du ct io n o f Hol se y ’s ne w evi de nc e athi s tria l wo ul d n otha ve ha d a n i m pa cton th e jury’ s se nt en ci ng de li be rat io ns su ffi ci en t t o h el p s us ta in a su cces sf ul in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m reg ard in g the sen te nc in g ph as e. Id . at 6 1– 62 (ci ta ti on om it te d)
.

III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION Afte r th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt re ve rs edth e st at e co ll at eral co urt’s g ran t of habe as rel ie f, Hol se y

fil eda 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . He rai se d t encla im s, i nc lu di ng th e o nl y on e atis su e in th is ap pe al : tha t
59hi s t ria l l awy ers ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e b y no t pr es en ti ng en ou gh m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce ab ou t h is li m it ed in te ll ig en ce an d tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. The di stric t co urt d en ie d t he pe ti ti on . Hol se y IV, No: 3: 07 -cv -1 29 (CDL), at 27 . In d oi ng so , itco nc lu de d t ha t the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt h adno t
un reas on ab ly det erm in edth atth e ad di ti on al m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l p res en te d i n t he st at e co urt’s ev id en ti ary he ari ng was la rg el y cu m ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce Ho ls ey ’s tri al lawyers p res en te d a t the
se nt en ci ng ph as e. Id . at 2 3. Th e co urt re as on edth atHol se y ’s tri al lawyers “ di d, du rin g t he sen te nc in g p orti on of t he tri al , pre se ntev id en ce o f [h is ] li m it ed in te ll ig en ce, h is ab us iv e h om e li fe, h is po si ti ve co nt rib ut io ns to hi s s is te rs , andhi s si st er an d m ot he r’s m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s.” Id . Also , rel y in g o n t he lar ge ly
cu m ul at iv e n atur e o f th e ad di ti on al m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce, m uc h o f whi chitfou ndha d b een co ntrad ic te d b y th e St at e’s ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt
co nc lu de d t ha t the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on th atHol se y ha d n otsh own pr ejud ic e was no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Id . at 2 5– 27
. IV. DISCUSSI ON Hol se y co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 60habe as co rp us pe ti ti on an d s ho ul d h av e ru le d t ha t h is tri al lawyers’ per fo rm an ce at

th e se nt en ci ng ph as e was in effe ct iv e u nd er St ric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 68 8, 1 04 S.Ct . 20 52 (19 84 ). He arg ue s t ha t tho se lawyers d idno t p ro pe rly prep are an d p res en t en ou gh av ai labl e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e ab ou t h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce an d h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d a ndth at , if the y ha d d on e so , hi s s en te nc e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. Inrev ie win g adi stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 54 habe as pe ti ti on , we rev ie w on ly for cl ear e rro r th e co urt’s fa ct fin di ng s b utrev ie w de no vo th e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th os e fac ts . Jo hn so n v . Sec’y , Dep’t of Co rr., 64 3 F .3d90 7, 9 29 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). To s uc ceedon hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m , Hol se y ha s t he bu rd enof s ho win g t wo t hi ng s u nd er St ric kl an d. Id . at 9 28 . Firs t, h e m us t s ho w th athi s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , whi ch m ean s t ha t i t “ fel l b el ow an ob jecti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss ” an d was “ ou ts id e th e wid e ran ge of pr of es si on al ly com

pe te ntass is ta nc e.” Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 88 , 69 0, 1 04 S.Ct
. at20 64 , 20 66 ; ac co rdJo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 28 ; Al le n v . Sec’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 7 51 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); S m ith v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 57 2 F.3 d 1 32 7, 1 34 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Cou rts m us t re vi ew co un se l’s ac ti on s i n a

“ hi gh ly defer en ti al ” m an ne r an d “ m us t i ndul ge a st ro ng pre su m pt io n t ha t
co un se l’s co nduc t” was re as on ab le . Stri ck la nd , 46 6 U.S. at68 9, 1 04 S.Ct . at 6120 65 . To ov erco m e th atst ro ng pre su m pt io n o f rea so nabl en es s, Ho ls ey m us t s ho w th at“ ‘no c om

pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e ta ke n t he act io n t ha t h is co un se l d id ta ke .’ ” Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 28 (qu ot in g C hand le r v. Un it edSta te s, 2 18 F.3d 13 05 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc )). The sec on d t hi ng th atHol se y m us t s ho w is th athe was p reju di cedby his
co un se l’s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, wh ic h m ean s “ th at , bu t fo r hi s co un se l’s d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce, the re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Id . (ci ti ng Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 94 , 10 4 S .Ct. at 20 68 ). To fi ndth atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su lt“ ou r co nf id en ce i n the ou tc om e m

us t b e u nd erm in edby cou ns el ’s def ic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce.” Id . at 9 29 (ci ti ng Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 94 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 68 ). Inad di ti on to th e Stric kl an d t wo- st ep sh owi ng , Hol se y ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m is go ve rn edby 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 , as am en de d b y th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6. Se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). Und er AEDPA, a fed eral co urt m ay no t g ran t a p et it io ne r habe as rel ie f on an y cl ai m th atwas “ ad

jud ic at edon th e m eri ts ” inst at e co urt u nl es s t he st at e co urt’s de ci si on was: “ (1 ) . . . con tra ry to , or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es ; o r (2 ) . . . was ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t 62of

th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” Id.; acco rdJo hn so n, 6 43 F.3 d a t 9 29 ; Al le n, 6 11 F.3dat 7 44 –4 5; Ham m on d v . Hall , 58 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 06 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . A sta te co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law o r it s d et erm in at io n o f th e fac ts is un reas on ab le on ly if no “ fai rm in de d ju ris t” co ul d ag ree wi th th e st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n o r co nc lu si on . Harrin gt on v. Ri ch te r, — U.S. —, 13 1 S .Ct. 7 70 , 78 6 (2 01 1) ; ac co rdYarb or ou gh v. Al va rad o, 5 41 U.S. 65 2, 66 4, 1 24 S.Ct . 21 40 , 21 49 (20 04 ). In o urenbanc de ci si on inHil l we p hr as edth is st an da rd“ m or e si m

pl y an d m ay be a li tt le m or e cl earl y : i f so m e fai rm in de d ju ris ts
co ul d a gr ee wi th th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on , alt ho ug h o th ers m ig htdi sa gr ee, fed eral habe as rel ie f m

us t b e d en ie d.” 66 2 F .3dat 1 34 6; acco rdSo ch orv. Se c’y Dep’t o f Co rr., 68 5 F .3d10 16 , 10 28 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (“ Inot he r wor ds , we m ay is su e a wri t of habe as co rp us on ly whe re the re 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 pre ced en ts of t he Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” ( qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) ). AEDPA do es no t i m

po se a co m

pl et e b ar o n t he rel it ig at io n i n fe de ral co urt of cla im s al read y

reject edin st at e p ro ceed in gs . Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 6;
acco rdHil l, 6 62 F.3dat 1 34 5. In st ead , “ [i]t p res erv es au th or it y to is su e th e wri t i n cas es wher e th ere i s n o p os si bi li ty fairm in de d ju ris ts co ul d d is ag ree t ha t the st at e co urt’s d eci si on co nf

li ct s wi th th [e] Cou rt’s p rece de nt s. Itgo es no fart he r.”

63Harri ng to n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 7 86 . As th e Supr em e Co urt h as em ph as iz ed : Sect io n 2 25 4( d) refl ect s t he vi ew th athabe as co rp us is a “ gu ard ag ai ns t ex tre m e m al fu nc ti on s i n t he st at e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em s,” no t a s ub st itut e fo r or di na ry erro r co rrec ti on th ro ug h app eal . Jac ks on v. Vi rg in ia , 44 3 U.S. 3 07 , 33 2, n .5, 9 9 S .Ct. 2 78 1, 2 79 6 n .5 (1 97 9) (St ev en s, J ., con cu rri ng in jud gm en t). As a co nd it io n fo r ob ta in in g habe as co rp us fro m

a fed eral co urt, a s ta te pri so ne r m us t s ho w th at th 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 t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to od an 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 for fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t. Id . at 7 86 –8 7.

“ If thi s s ta nd ardis di ffi cu ltto m eet , th atis be cau se itwas m ean t t o b e.” Id
. at78 6. Itwas d es ig ne d t o b e d iff ic ul t i n o rd er “ to en su re tha t s ta te -co urt jud gm en ts are ac co rd edth e fi na li ty andres pe ctne ces sary to pre se rv e th e in te gr it y of leg al pro ceed in gs withi n o ursyste m of f ed eral is m .” Mart in ez v . Ry an , — U.S. —, 1 32 S.Ct . 13 09 , 13 16 (20 12 ). The Supr em e Co urt g av e th is expl an at io n: Fed eral habe as rev ie w of s ta te co nv ic ti on s frus tra te s b ot h the Sta te s’ so ve rei gnpo wer t o p un is h o ffen de rs an d t he ir g oo d- fai th att em pt s t o ho no r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Itdi stur bs th e St at e’s si gn ifi can t i nt eres t in rep os e fo r co nc lu de d l it ig at io n, d en ie s s oc ie ty the rig htto pu ni sh so m e ad m it te d o ffen de rs , andin tru de s o n s ta te so ve rei gn ty to a de gr ee m at ch edby few exer ci se s o f fed eral jud ic ia l au th or it y . Harri ng to n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 7 87 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; ac co rd Cal de ro n v . Tho m

ps on , 52 3 U.S. 5 38 , 55 5– 56 , 11 8 S .Ct. 1 48 9, 1 50 0– 01 (19 98 ). Fo r th os e rea so ns , “ itwil l b e a rar e cas e in whi ch anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f 64co un se l cl ai m th atwas d en ie d o n t he m eri ts inst at e co urt i s fo un d t o m eri t re li ef i n a fed eral habe as pro ceed in g.” Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 10 –1 1. A. Bec au se th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt d en ie d Ho ls ey ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m

ba se d o n S tri ck la nd ’s pre jud ic e st ep , we rev ie w with ADEPA de fere nc e it s h ol di ng th atHol se y was n otpre

jud ic edby his tri al lawyers’ all eg ed de fic ie nc ie s atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e. See Ko ka l v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 62 3 F .3d 13 31 , 13 45 –4 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Like th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt, we wi ll ass um e fo r pr es en t p ur

po se s tha t Ho ls ey ’s tri al lawyers re nd eredde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce withi n t he m ean in g o f Stric kl an d i n re ga rdto th e se nt en ci ng ph as e. W e wil l al so as su m e th atanatt orne y

ren de rin g c on st itut io na ll y effe ct iv e p erfo rm an ce wo ul d ha ve pre se nt edat t he sen te nc in g p ha se th e ev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey ’s tri al lawyers actua ll y di d p res en t atth atph as e p lu s al l o f th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce tha t h is
co ll at eral co un se l s ub m it te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt. Tho se two ass um

pt io ns do no t af

fectth e o ut co m e o f th is cas e b ecau se Hol se y ha s n otsh own th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng th athe was n ot pr ejud ic edby his co un se l’s as su m edde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce was ba se d o n a n un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts or i s an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Ho ls ey ha s n otsh own th atno fai rm in de d juris t 65co ul d h av e co nc lu de d, as all sev enJu st ic es of t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt d id , th at

he ha s fa il edto carry

hi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atif t he ad di ti on al ev id en ce h ad be enpre se nt edth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t s en te nc in g re su lt
. Hol se y ha s n otsh own th atth e ev id en ce o n t he pre jud ic e que st io n i s s o o ne -s id ed in hi s fa vo r th atth e an swe r is , as t he Supr em e Co urt h as ph ras edit , “be y on d a ny po ss ib il it y

forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 7. He h as no t s ho wn t ha t the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f th e p reju di ce i ss ue was so un jus ti fie d tha t i t “ was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n ex is ti ng law b ey on d a ny po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” I d. at78 6– 87 ; acco rdBo bb y

v. Di xo n, —

U.S. —, 13 2 S .Ct. 2 6, 2 7 (2 01 1) (pe r cu ria m).

B. Hol se y ’s firs t co nt en ti on is th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng th at he di d n otsh ow p reju di ce was ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fact s. See App el la ntBr. 1 8– 28 . He arg ue s t ha t i t was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le fo r th e co urt t o c ha ract eri ze the ev id en ce o f hi s l im it edin te ll ig en ce an d tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d tha t h e p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt as “ cu m ul at iv e” o f th e ev id en ce h e p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se . App el lantBr. 1 8. Ab ou t h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce, h e arg ue s t ha t the jury atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e “ m erel y he ar[d ]
anun de fin edlab el li ke ‘ bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y ret ard ed ,’ ” b utth e ev id en ce p res en te d 66atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng actua ll y ex pl ai ne d t he de fic it s t ha t h e fac edan d pr ov id ed“ qu al it at iv el y

supe rio r in fo rm at io n abo ut[hi s] . . . m en ta l capa ci ti es .” App el la ntBr. 2 4. Ab ou t h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d, h e arg ue s t ha t the jury at th e se nt en ci ng ph as e d idno t h ear s uf fic ie nt“ de ta il ab ou t h is up br in gi ng .” App el la ntBr. 2 2. Hol se y m is ch arac te riz es th e co nc lu si on of t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt. The
co urt d idno t d es cri be th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng ev id en ce as “ cu m ul at iv e” o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se bu t i ns te adch arac te riz editas “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e.” See Hol se y

III, 6 42 S.E.2dat 6 1– 62 . There is a di ffer en ce.

“ Cu m ul at iv e” m ay

m ean “ co m

pl et el y cu m ul at iv e” o r itm ay

no t, b ut“ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” d oe s n otm ean “ cum ul at iv e.” In st ead“ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” m ean s

“ ch ie fly cum

ul at iv e,” “ m os tl y

cum ul at iv e,” o r “ m or e cu m

ul at iv e th anno t.” Se e Ran do m Hou se W eb st er’s Un ab rid ge d Di ct io na ry 10 84 (2ded . 20 01 ); c f. Lanf ear v. Ho m e Dep ot , Inc ., 67 9 F .3d12 67 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (“ Pri m ari ly doe s n ot
m ean ex cl us iv el y ; p rimaril y ex cl us iv el y

m ean s p rimaril y .”). W e h av e so m e se rio us do ub t ab ou t treat in g a s a f act fin di ng to be rev ie wed
un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ) th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e ad di ti on al ev id en ce atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng was “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se . The “ la rg el y cum ul at iv e” co nc lu si on 67do es no t s eem to be a fact fin di ng or a“ de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts ” th atis subjec t t o rev ie w un de r th atst atut ory pro vi si on ; i t s eem s t o b e a co nc lu si on inth e n atur e o f
anap pl ic at io n o f la w to fact . At th e v ery le as t, i t i s n ota fi nd in g o r de te rm in at io n of th e h is to ric al fact s o f th e cas e. See Am . Civ il Lib ert ie s Un io n o f Fl a., In c. v. Mi am i-Da de Cn ty. Sch . Bd., 5 57 F.3d11 77 , 12 06 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th athi st or ic al fact s ar e th e “ who , what , wher e, whe n, an d h ow o f th e co nt ro ve rs y ”). In st ead , th e te rm “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” s eem s m or e o f a way of
co nv ey in g t ha t the re was no t en ou gh of adi ffer en ce b etweenth e ev id en ce pr es en te d dur in g t he sen te nc in g p ha se an d t he ev id en ce p res en te d i n the co ll at eral
ev id en ti ary he ari ng to est ab li sh a reas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su lt
. InCo op er v . Secre ta ry , Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s, 6 46 F.3d13 28 , 13 49 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) , ho wev er, we d idst at e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s
co nc lu si on th atth e p et it io ne r’s co ll at eral he ari ng ev id en ce i n t ha t ca se was

“ cu m ul at iv e to th atpre se nt edat s en te nc in g” was a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts un de r § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). Co op er, tho ug h, ap pe ars to be anou tl ie r. W e co ul d
no t fi ndan y

ot he r de ci si on wher e we h av e an al y zeda st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on ab ou t the cu m

ul at iv e n atur e o f ev id en ce as a de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts un de r § 22 54 (d )(2 ). Our “ un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts ” an al y si s i n c as es ot he r th anCo op er h as in vo lv edde te rm in at io ns of h is to ric al fact s. See , e.g., Rh od e v . 68Hall , 58 2 F .3d12 73 , 12 82 –8 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (rev ie win g u nd er § 22 54 (d )(2 )

whe th er co un se l was pe rs on al ly inv ol ve d i n t he in ve st ig at io n o f m it ig at io n ev id en ce); Carr ol l v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 57 4 F .3d13 54 , 13 68 –6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ) (rev ie win g u nd er § 22 54 (d )(2 ) whe th er the de fen da ntwas m en ta ll y ret ard ed ); Whi se nh an t v . All en , 55 6 F .3d11 98 , 12 08 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (rev ie win g un de r § 2 25 4( d) (2 ) whe th er a ju dg e kne w th ata m ot io n was no t p ro pe rly serv ed ). OurCo op er d eci si on als o app ears to co nf li ctwith t he Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on in Cu ll env. Pi nh ol st er, — U.S. — , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 38 8 (2 01 1) . In Cu ll enth e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the pe ti ti on er h adno t s ho wn t ha t the st at e supr em e co urt
un reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, i n p art , bec au se th e Supr em e Co urt d eci de d t ha t the ad di ti on al mit ig at io n e vi de nc e in th e st at e h ab eas pr oc eed in gs “ la rg el y

dupl ic at edth e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e attri al .” Id . at 1 40 9. Th e Supr em e Co urt d eci de d fo r it se lf t ha t the ad di ti on al ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in g “ la rg el y dupl ic at ed ” th e ev id en ce tha t h adbe enpre se nt edat tri al . Becau se fed eral ap pe ll at e co urts , in cl ud in g t he Supr em e Co urt, ar e n ot fact fin de rs , see Pu ll m an -St an da rdv. Swi nt , 45 6 U.S. 2 73 , 29 1– 93 , 10 2 S .Ct. 1 78 1, 17 91 –9 2 (1 98 2) ; Un it edSta te s v . Nori eg a, 67 6 F .3d12 52 , 12 63 (11 thCir . 20 12 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Ful fo rd , 66 2 F .3d11 74 , 11 81 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), th e Supr em e Co urt’s “ la rg el y

dupl ic at ed ” d et erm in at io n i n C ul le n i s n ota fact fin di ng ; i f it

69were, the Supr em e Co urt wo ul d n otha ve m ad e itbe cau se ap pe ll at e co urts do no t

m ak e fac tfi nd in gs . So, Cu ll enin di cat es th atth is Co urt i n C oo pe r sh ou ldno t h av e tre at edth e “ cu m

ul at iv e” d et erm in at io n a s a f act fin di ng an d t ha t the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” d et erm in at io n i n t hi s ca se pro babl y is no t a fact fin di ng . 2 0 Non ethe le ss , th e St at e in th is cas e d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t we s ho ul d n ottre at th atde te rm in at io n a s a f

act fin di ng forpu rp os es of § 22 54 (d )(2 ), an d d oi ng so do es no t af fectth e res ul t. So we wil l as su m e, as Hol se y arg ue s, tha t the de te rm in at io n was on e o f fac t s ub

ject t o re vi ew un de r § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). W e wil l n ot , ho wev er, b e 2 1 de ci di ng whet he r itwou ldha ve be enreas on ab le to fin d t ha t the ad di ti on al
co ll at eral he ari ng ev id en ce was “ cu m ul at iv e” o f th e tr ia l an d s en te nc in g p ha se ev id en ce b ecau se th atis no t wh atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt s ai d. Itsai d “ la rg el y The dissentingopinion mis construes our statements about the Cullen dec ision. S ee 2 0 Dissenting O p. 120 n.5. We are not saying tha t § 2254(d)(2) applies only to a subset of fac tfindings. Instead, we are pointing out that the Supreme Court and this Court have held that fede ral a ppellate c ourts, of which the Supreme Court is one, do not find fa cts. It follows that when the Supre me Court deter mined in Cull en that the e videnceprese nted in the state c ollatera l proce eding“lar g ely

duplicated” the evidenc e at the se ntence proce eding , the Court was not findingfac ts but applying la w to fac t. And beca

use the Supreme Court’s “lar g ely duplicated” deter mination in C ullen was a

n application of la

w to fac t, it follows that the Georg ia Supreme Court’s “lar g ely

cumulative” de termination in this case wa s also an application of law to fac t. It is as simple as that. The dissentingopinion falsely acc uses us of disreg ardingthe Cooper de cision. See 2 1 Dissenting O p. 118. Whil e we believe that decision is wrongon the question of whe ther “cumulative” is a fac tfinding or an application of law to fac t, we tre at it as corr ect a nd binding and explain why

this case is distinguishable . See infra pp. 88–89. 70cu m

ul at iv e,” an d we wi ll rev ie w forreas on ab le ne ss th atde te rm in at io n, n ot Hol se y ’s pru ne d d own rev is io n o f it
. C. As the Supr em e Co urt h as ob se rv ed , “ [t]he term ‘ un reas on ab le ’ is no do ub t di ffi cu ltto de fin e.” Woodv. Al le n, — U.S. —, 13 0 S .Ct. 8 41 , 84 9 (2 01 0)
. Des pi te th atdi ffi cu lty , th e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d “ th ata st at e-co urt fa ctua l de te rm in at io n i s n otun reas on ab le m erel y be cau se th e fed eral habe as co urt wo ul d ha ve reac he d adi ffer en t co nc lu si on inth e fi rs t i ns ta nc e.” Id . Ins te ad , “ if s om e fai rm in de d ju ris ts co ul d a gr ee wi th th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on , altho ug h o th ers m ig htdi sa gr ee,” t he st at e co urt’s d eci si on is no t u nr eas on ab le . Hill , 66 2 F .3dat 13 46 . To be un reas on ab le , th e err or inth e st at e co urt’s fi nd in g m us t b e so cle ar th atth ere i s n o p os si bi li ty for “ fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at 78 6– 87 . AEDPA “ de m an ds th atst at e-co urt d eci si on s b e g iv enth e b en efi t o f th e do ub t.” Re ni co v. Let t, — U.S. —, 13 0 S .Ct. 1 85 5, 1 86 2 (2 01 0) (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; ac co rdMo rto n v . Sec’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr, — F.3 d — , No. 1 1– 11 19 9, 20 12 W L 23 32 75 8, s li p o p. at14 –1 5 (1 1t h C ir. J un e 2 0, 2 01 2)
. To d et erm in e whe th er the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s “ larg el y cu m ul at iv e” de te rm in at io n was anun reas on ab le on e, we co m pa re the tri al ev id en ce wi th th e ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he st at e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs . In d oi ng so , we 71ke ep inm in d t ha t the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, thi s C ou rt, a ndot he r ci rcu it

co urts of app eal s g en eral ly hol d t ha t ev id en ce p res en te d i n p os tc on vi ct io n pr oc eed in gs is “ cu m

ul at iv e” o r “ la rg el y

cu m ul at iv e” t o o r “ dupl ic at iv e” o f th at pr es en te d a t tria l wh enittel ls a m or e d et ai le d v ers io n o f th e sa m e st ory to ldat t ria l
orpro vi de s m or e o r be tt er ex am pl es or a m

pl ifi es th e th em es pre se nt edto th e jury. See, e.g ., Cul le n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 40 9– 10 (“ The ‘ ne w’ ev id en ce l arg el y dupl ic at ed th e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e attri al . Sch oo l an d m ed ic al reco rd s b as ic al ly sub st an ti at e th e te st im on y

of [ th e p et it io ne r]’ s m ot he r an d b ro th er. Decl arat io ns fro m [th e pe ti ti on er]’ s s ib li ng s s up po rt h is m ot he r’s te st im on y th athi s s te pf

athe r was ab us iv e an d e xp la in th at[th e p et it io ne r] was be at enwith fi st s, b el ts , andev en woo de n b oa rd s.” ( em

ph as es ad de d) ); Won g v . Bel m on te s, 5 58 U.S. 15 , 13 0 S .Ct. 38 3, 3 87 –8 8, (2 00 9) (pe r curia m) (h ol di ng th at“ [s ]om e o f th e [ad di ti on al
m it ig at in g] ev id en ce was m erel y cu m ul at iv e o f th e h um an iz in g e vi de nc e [the pe ti ti on er] actu al ly pres en te d” be cau se “ [t]he sen te nc in g ju ry was . . . well acqua in te d wi th [th e p et it io ne r’s] back gr ou ndan d p ot en ti al hu m an iz in g fe atur es ” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ); B oyd v . All en , 59 2 F .3d12 74 , 12 97 –9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ) (fi nd in g t ha t m

uc h o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e p et it io ne r du rin g po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs “ was inso m e m eas ur e cu m ul at iv e” o f th e tr ia l
ev id en ce b ecau se “ m

uc h (a lt ho ug h n otall ) of

th e ‘new’ tes ti m on y

in tro du cedat 72th e p os t-c on vi ct io n h eari ng wou ldsi m pl y ha ve am pl ifi edth e th em es alr eady rai se d a t tria l” (em

ph as is ad de d) ); Rho de , 58 2 F .3dat 1 28 7 (“ At b es t, the ev id en ce wou ldha ve be encu m

ul at iv e, pr ov id in g m or e in fo rm at io n abo ut[th e p et it io ne r]’ s ba d c hi ld ho odan d e arl y

ex po su re t o d ru gs an d a lc oh ol .” (em ph as is ad de d) ); Ro bi ns on v. Mo or e, 30 0 F .3d13 20 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ [M]os t o f th e n ew m it ig at io n e vi de nc e is cu m ul at iv e o f th e n on st atut ory mit ig at in g c irc um st an ces pr es en te d dur in g re se nt en ci ng . . . . Whi le th e ad di ti on al m it ig at io n wi tn es se s pr oc ur edby [the pe ti ti on er’s h ab eas ] co un se l co ul d h av e p res en te d t he
res en te nc in g ju ry

an d t ria l ju dg e wit h m or e d et ai ls , or d iff eren t ex am

pl es , of t he se as pe ct s o f [the pe ti ti on er’s] lif e, th es e as pe ct s o f hi s l ife were n on ethe le ss kn own to th e res en te nc in g ju ry

an d t ria l ju dg e.” (em

ph as es ad de d) ); R il ey

v. Wain wrig ht , 77 8 F .2d15 44 , 15 49 –5 1, 1 55 1 n .14 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (d es cri bi ng as “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” the for en si c ev id en ce tha t the pe ti ti on er cl ai m edsh ou ldha ve be en pr es en te d a t s en te nc in g b ecau se th atfor en si c ev id en ce wo ul d h av e o nl y

“bu tt res s[ ed ]” the po in ts m ad e b y ot he r witne ss es ); J ack so n v . Brad sh aw, 68 1 F .3d 75 3, 7 69 –7 0 (6 th Cir . 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th atev id en ce p res en te d dur in g c ol la te ral pr oc eed in gs was “ la rg el y cum ul at iv e” o f ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g s en te nc in g be cau se th e co ll at eral ev id en ce p ro vi de d o nl y a “ la rg er p oo l o f in fo rm at io n o f th e sa m e type al read y

off ered ” atsen te nc in g) ; Be uk e v . Hou k, 5 37 F.3d61 8, 6 45 –4 6

73(6 th Cir . 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th atth e p et it io ne r’s co ll at eral ev id en ce was “ la rg el y

cu m ul at iv e” o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l b ecau se itco nc ern edth e sa m e

“ subjec t m at te r [as ] th e ev id en ce ac tu al ly pres en te d a t s en te nc in g” ); P au l v . Uni te d St at es , 53 4 F .3d83 2, 8 42 –4 3 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th at“ [m ]uchof the ne w [co ll at eral ] ev id en ce ci te d b y [th e p et it io ne r] [was] larg el y cu m ul at iv e o f ev id en ce th atwas p res en te d . . . at the pe na lty ph as e o f th e tr ia l” alt ho ug h the co ll at eral
ev id en ce m ig htha ve pro vi de d “ m or e d et ai l ab ou t [t he pe ti ti on er]’ s d iff ic ul t an d ab us iv e ch il dh oo d o r hi s co m pa ss io na te ch arac te r”); Bu ckne r v. Po lk , 45 3 F .3d 19 5, 2 07 (4t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ To the ex te ntth atth e Ma xwe ll an d C ol em anaffi da vi ts pr ov id e n ew de ta il of t he st or ie s o f [the pe ti ti on er]’ s b ro th er’s d eat h a ndhi s fathe r’s al co ho li sm , we con cl ud e th atth is ne w det ai l i s l arg el y cu m ul at iv e.”); Hedric k v . True, 4 43 F.3d34 2, 3 53 (4t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ The ev id en ce tha t [t he de fen da nt ] ha d re cei ve d l ow s co res on in te ll ig en ce t es ts adm in is te redat a n e arl y ag e is lar ge ly cum

ul at iv e o f te st im on y

fro m Dr. Hawk an d [t he de fen da nt ]’ s m ot he r du rin g t he sen te nc in g p ha se th athe ha d l earn in g t ro ub le s i n h is y ou th
. . . .”); Bal dwi n v . Mag gi o, 7 04 F.2d13 25 , 13 34 (5t h C ir. 1 98 3) (ho ld in g th ata pe ti ti on er was no t p reju di cedby his co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se nt“ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” ev id en ce fr om

sev eral witne ss es be cau se “ [t]he ir t es ti m on y wou ld ha ve serve d o nl y

to co rro bo rat e th e p ortra itof t he m ansk et ch edby” othe r

74witne ss es who ha d t es ti fie d a t s en te nc in g)
.

The ev id en ce p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se of Ho ls ey ’s tri al an d dur in g th e co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng all go es to on e o f two ch ap te rs of h is m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces st ory . One ch ap te r is ab ou t h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce an d the ot he r is ab ou t h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d g ro win g up p oo r in a ho m e wit h a n abs en te e fathe r, a m en ta ll y

ch al le ng ed , abu si ve m ot he r, an d avi ol en t, m en ta ll y ch al le ng ed si st er. Hol se y

co nt en ds , ho wev er, tha t i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt h e to lda m or e de ta il edve rs io n o f bo th th os e ch ap te rs of h is st ory th anhi s t ria l l awy ers to ldat t he
se nt en ci ng ph as e o f hi s t ria l. He arg ue s t ha t tho se ad di ti on al de ta il s re nd er the Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” co nc lu si onun reas on ab le . W e wil l
co m pa re the ch ap te rs sep arat el y , tu rn in g fi rs t t o aco m pa ris on be twee n t he
se nt en ci ng ph as e an d s ta te co ll at eral co urt ev id en ce ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s li m it ed in te ll ig en ce, an d t he n t o aco m pa ris on of t he ev id en ce ab ou t h is tro ub le d up br in gi ng . 1. At the sen te nc in g p ha se , Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers i nf orm edth e jury tha t h e is a m anof l im it edin te ll ig en ce. The y to ldth atst ory

pri m ari ly thro ug h t he tes ti m on y of Hol se y ’s si st er Re gi naReev es who was aDepu ty Uni te d S ta te s M ars ha l. Sh e te st ifi edth atHol se y

pe rfo rm edpo or ly in s ch oo l, an d was us ua ll y ass ig ne d t o t he 75ne xtgra de lev el in st eadof a ctua ll y pa ss in g i nt o t ha t g rad e le ve l, an d h e dro pp ed
ou t o f sc ho ol be fo re fi ni sh in g the ten th gra de . The jury lea rn edfro m

hi s s ch oo l
reco rd s, wh ic h R eev es readto th em , th atHol se y was “ a weakstud en t” an d “ ve ry sl ow” an d a“po or

work er” wh o “ ne ed [ed ] he lp fro m ho m e” b utne ve r go t tha t he lp . Reev es als o re adto th e jury partof Ho ls ey ’s You thDeve lo pm en t Ce nt er reco rd s, wh ic h s ai d t ha t Ho ls ey “ fu nc ti on s i n t he bo rd erl in e m en ta l re tard at io n ran ge of i nt el li ge nc e,” an d s he to ldth e jury tha t an ot he r pa rt o f th os e rec or ds de sc rib edho w a th enfif

te en -y ear- ol d Ho ls ey

was fu nc ti on in g a cad em ic al ly at on ly a th ird -g rad e le ve l. Als o, o ne of Ho ls ey ’s tri al lawyers t ol d t he jury in he r cl os in g st at em en t tha t Ho ls ey

is “bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y

ret ard ed ,” a p oi ntsh e rei te rat edby te ll in g t he jury th athe “ was jus t as si gn ed[to gra de s] forsch oo l.” Inth e st at e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs , Hol se y pre se nt edad di ti on al
ev id en ce tha t t ol d am or e d et ai le d v ers io n o f th e li m it ed -in te ll ig en ce s to ry th athi s tri al lawyers h adpu t b efo re the jury in th e se nt en ci ng ph as e. Hol se y cal le d t wo ps y ch ol og is ts to tes ti fy

at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng : Dr. Cu nn in gh am an d Dr. Too m er. Each ps y ch ol og is t t es ti fie d t ha t i n h is op in io n Ho ls ey is m il dl y m en ta ll y ret ard ed , whi ch m ean s h e su ffer s fr om whatDr. Cun ni ng ha m

de sc rib edas a

“ cat as tro ph ic di sabi li ty,” altho ug h t he DSM-IV d oe s n otde sc rib e itth atway , see supr a p . 29 n.7 . Hol se y

als o s ub m it te d t he de po si ti on tes ti m on y of t wo o th er 76ps y ch ol og is ts —Dr. Ein ho rn , who m th e St at e h adhi redto ev al ua te Hol se y , andDr. Sh ap iro who ha d b eenhi redby H ol se y ’s tri al lawyers b efo re the tri al . Tho se two
ex pe rts tes ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard edbu t i ns te adfun ct io ns inth e bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e, whi ch is whatth e jury hadhe arddu rin g t he
se nt en ci ng ph as e. Dr. Shapr io ad de d i n h is de po si ti on tes ti m on y th atso m eo ne in th e b or de rli ne m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e is inap pr ox im at el y th e b ot to m

fif th pe rcen ti le of i nt el li ge nc e. (Dur in g i ts pre se nt at io n a t the same hear in g t he Sta te cal le d a s an ex pe rt wi tn es s Dr. Sa ch y , a ps y ch ia tri st , who ag reedwith Dr. Ei nh orn an d Dr. Sh ap rio th atHol se y is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard edbu t i ns te adfun ct io ns inth e bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e.) Inth e st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in gs , Hol se y als o s ub m it te d t he de po si ti on te st im on y an d a ffi da vi ts of s ev eral witne ss es who tes ti fie d o r at te st edth atHol se y ha s l im it edin te ll ig en ce. Thr ee o f Hol se y ’s form er t each ers ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e

“ was n’t a v ery go odstud en t” ; d is pl ay edan“ ob vi ou s s lo wne ss ”; su ffer edser io us in te ll ectua l l im it at io ns ; co ul d “ ba rel y read ”; “ jus t was n’t p la y in g wi th a fu ll de ck ”;
an d “ di dn ’t hav e an y

sm art s g oi ng forhi m .” Fam il y m em be rs ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e

“ de fin it el y

co ul dn ’t care fo r hi m se lf” ; “ ne ed eda lo t o f gu id an ce an d s up erv is io n” ;

“ le arn edth in gs real ly slo wly orno t atall ”; an d was no t v ery sm art . Hol se y ’s fri en ds an d fo rm er n ei gh bo rs to ldth e st at e co ll at eral co urt tha t h e “ was jus t s lo w 77in th e h ead ”; di d n ot“ ha ve th e smarts ne ces sa ry to m ak e h is way

on hi s o wn” ; an d di d n otha ve “ th e smarts of agro wn m an .” One o f Hol se y ’s form er co worke rs to ld th e co urt tha t “ he was way beh in d m os t fo lk s wh enitcam e to sm art s.” Othe rs sai d th athe “ was ve ry

li m it edin te ll ectua ll y ”; “ no t capabl e o f ab st ractrefl ect io n” ; an d
was “ a sl ow, s im

pl e-m in de d b oy.” 2 2 (We will sav e fo r la te r a d is cu ss io n o f th e co nt rary evi de nc e in th e fo rm of la y tes ti m on y

th atth e St at e p res en te d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e que st io n o f Hol se y ’s in te ll ig en ce. See in fra p . 99 n.2 4.) As o urco m

pa ris on sh ows , th e li m it ed -in te ll ig en ce ev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey pr es en te d dur in g t he st at e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs co nc ern edth e sa m e “ subjec t
m at te r [as ] th e ev id en ce ac tu al ly pres en te d a t s en te nc in g,” Beu ke , 53 7 F .3dat 64 5– 46 , andpri m ari ly w as a m or e d et ai le d re te ll in g o f th e li m it ed -in te ll ig en ce st ory hi s t ria l l awy ers to ldth e jury at th e se nt en ci ng ph as e. Mo stof t ha t ad di ti on al
ev id en ce “ ba si cal ly sub st an ti at e[ed ]” or “ supp ort[e d]” th e te st im on y of R eev es an d th e fac ts inth e rec or ds pu t b efo re the jury whi le sh e was tes ti fy in g abo utHol se y no t b ei ng in te ll ig en t, p erfo rm in g p oo rly in s ch oo l, an d fu nc ti on in g i n t he

To contra dict those depositions and aff idavits, at the state postconviction evide ntiary 2 2 hearing, the State called H owar d Sill s, the forme r Chief Deputy Sheriff B aldwin County , and submitt ed the a ffidavits of e ight other s. Sil ls’ testimony and the a ffidavits desc ribed Holsey as an ordina ry , intelligent pe rson. 78bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y ret ard edran ge . See Cu ll en , 13 1 S .Ct. at14 35 . In o th er wor ds , th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt p ro vi de d a“ la rg er p oo l of in fo rm at io n o f th e sa m e type al read y off ered ,” Brad sh aw, 68 1 F .3dat 7 70 , and
m erel y “ am pl ifi edth e th em es [of

]” his sen te nc in g p ha se ev id en ce, Bo y d, 5 92 F.3d at12 98 , by ex pand in g o n a ndpro vi di ng m or e d et ai ls an d d iff eren t ex am

pl es ab ou t hi s l im it edin te ll ig en ce, s ee Ro bi ns on , 30 0 F .3dat 1 34 7. Fo r th atreas on , a reas on ab le juri stco ul d d et erm in e, as th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt d id , th atth e ad di ti on al ev id en ce ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s li m it edin te ll ig en ce was “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” of th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l. The st at e co ll at eral co urt d idhe ar s om e ev id en ce ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s li m it ed in te ll ig en ce tha t m ay

no t h av e b een cu m

ul at iv e, sp eci fic al ly the tes ti m on y of t wo ps y ch ol og is ts who di ag no se d h im as m il dl y m en ta ll y ret ard edan d Dr. Sh ap iro ’s
ex pl an at io n o f bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Th atso m e o f th e li m it ed
in te ll ig en ce ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt was no t cu m ul at iv e do es no t m ean th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e st at e co ll at eral li m it ed -in te ll ig en ce ev id en ce was “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” was an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts . It was n’t u nr eas on ab le . As we h av e jus t de sc rib ed , m os t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d abo utli m it edin te ll ig en ce i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt was cu m

ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l. An d “ m os tl y ” is

79“ la rg el y .” See R og et ’s Sup er Th es au ru s 3 39 (4t h e d. 2 01 0) (st at in g tha t “ m os tl y ”

is a syno nym

for “ la rg el y ”). Ourde ci si on in Herri ng v. Se cret ary, Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s, 3 97 F.3d 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), is in st ru ct iv e. InHerri ng , th e p et it io ne r arg ue d, am on g ot he r th in gs , th athi s t ria l co un se l was de fic ie ntan d h e was pre jud ic edbe cau se hi s co un se l d idno t “ in tro du ce two p sycho lo gi cal rep orts th atdi ag no se d h im as su ffer in g fr om

ret ard at io n a ndot he r or gani c n eu ro lo gi cal di so rd ers .” Id . at 1 35 1. W e h el d t ha t the pe ti ti on er h adno t s ho wn p reju di ce b ecau se , am on g o th er thi ng s, th e rep orts were “ cu m

ul at iv e” o f th e p et it io ne r’s m ot he r’s tri al tes ti m on y th athe ha d alo w IQ anda le arn in g d is ab il it y . Id. Si m il ar t o t he jury in Herri ng , th e jury atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e in th is cas e h eardth atHol se y ha s l im it edin te ll ig en ce, fu nc ti on s i n t he bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e, an d p erfo rm edpo or ly in
sc ho ol . Som e ex pe rt t es ti m on y di ag no si ng Hol se y

with m il d m en ta l re ta rd at io n (co nt rad ic te d b y

ot he r ex pe rt t es ti m on y

th athe is no t m en ta ll y

ret ard ed ) or
ex pl ai ni ng th e te rm

“bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n” do es no t al te r th e cu m ul at iv e na tu re o f th e res t o f th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s li m it edin te ll ig en ce. 2. W e n ow turn t o aco m

pa ris on of t he ev id en ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e an d st at e co ll at eral he ari ng co nc ern in g Ho ls ey ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Atth e 80se nt en ci ng ph as e, th e jury hear d abo utHol se y ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d fr om

bo th Cli ffo rdHol se y

an d R eg in a Ree ve s an d fr om Hol se y ’s You th Deve lo pm en t Cen te r rec or ds . Cli ffo rdto ldth e jury tha t (1 ) Hol se y gre w up ina “ ro ug h” ho m e th atwas i nf

es te d wi th co ckro ach es ; (2 ) Hol se y ’s m ot he r ne gl ect ed , abu se d, an d

“ walk edall ov er” h im ; (3 ) Hol se y ’s m ot he r wou ldcu rs e at , “ sc ol d[ ,] an d . . . be at ” he r so n; an d (4 ) sh e o fte n l efthe r ch il dr enalo ne at n ig htbe cau se sh e worke d ni gh ts at C li ffo rd ’s club. Hol se y ’s si st er, Ree ve s, t es ti fie d abo uthi s t ro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Sh e to ldth e jury tha t “ th in gs were h orrib le ” fo r Hol se y gro win g up. Sh e rec ou nt ed th atth ei r m ot he r of

te n b eathe r th ree o ld es t ch il dr en—Re ev es , Ang el a, an d Hol se y —wh ic h m ot iv at edReev es to esc ap e fro m th ei r m ot he r’s cru el ty by lea vi ng ho m e atag e se ve nt een . Reev es als o re adto th e jury partof Ho ls ey ’s You th Dev el op m en t Ce nt er re co rd s s ta ti ng th atHol se y “ ha s n o s up erv is io n a t h om e.” Sh e fu rth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t the ir m ot he r was oft enab se ntan d h adon ce b een ho sp it al iz edforps y ch ia tri c is su es an d t ha t Ho ls ey ne ve r rea ll y

kn ew th ei r fat he r. Hol se y , sh e sa id , “ m or e o r le ss ” g rew up o n t he st reet s. Sh e al so to ldth e jury ab ou t h ow An ge la , who was am ajorin flu en ce o n Ho ls ey , was a v io le ntpe rs on who ha d b een ho sp it al iz edsev eral ti m es form en ta l i ss ue s. A su m m ary of a You th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er h om e ev al ua ti on , whi ch was

81co nt ai ne d i n t he reco rd s t ha t wer e p utin to ev id en ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e,

in fo rm edth e jury tha t Ho ls ey ’s m ot he r “ ha [d ] no id ea h ow t o c on tro l [h im ] witho utres orti ng to ex ces si ve puni sh m en t.” In he r cl os in g s ta te m en t, o ne of Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers h ig hl ig ht edHol se y ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e “ ho m e li fe,” n ot in g th athe “ gr ew up by him se lf.” She to ldth atjury th athe “ ha d n ot hi ng th atev ery ch il d d es erv es to ha ve . He was d ep riv edof e ve ryth in g.” Inth e st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l p res en te d
ev id en ce tha t p ro vi de d t he co urt wi th m or e d et ai ls ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d tha n the jury ha d h eardat t he sen te nc in g p ha se . Reev es te st ifi edin m or e d et ai l ab ou t the ve rb al , em ot io na l, an d p hysic al ab us e Hol se y ha d
su ffer edwhi le gro win g up. Sh e to ldth e co urt tha t Ho ls ey ha d g ro wn up i n a

“ ho rri bl e” ec on om ic si tu at io n a ndth athe di d n otalwa y s h av e en ou gh to eat . She
sa idth atth ei r m ot he r was rare ly hom e b ecau se sh e worke d d ay an d n ig ht , and whe n s he was h om e sh e fav or edhi s t wo youn ge r si st ers ov er Ho ls ey , Reev es , and Ang el a. Ree ve s p ro vi de d d et ai ls ab ou t h ow t he ir m ot he r ve rb al ly andph y si cal ly ab us edHol se y . She tes ti fie d t ha t the ir m othe r wou ldcu rs e atan d h um il ia te hi m , te ll in g h im

th at“ he was ju stli ke hi s n o- go od -as s d ad dy” andth at“ he was g oi ng to be a pu nkan d asi ss y .” Thei r m ot he r al so to ldHol se y th athe ha d a“ can ’t tal k 82as s” an d t ha t h e co ul d n ot“ ta lkwort h ash it .” Reev es pro vi de d t he st at e co ll at eral

co urt wi th ex am

pl es of t he ph y si cal ab us e Hol se y su ffer ed , tel li ng th e co urt tha t th ei r m ot he r wou ldbe athi m with a n e xt en si on co rd , sh oe s, an d abro om an d
wou ldso m et im es ho ldhi s h eadun de r th e b athtub fau cet . Reev es als o s ai d t ha t th ei r m ot he r wou ldbe atHol se y be cau se he wet t he be d u nt il he was t hi rte eny ears ol d a ndth atHol se y

ha d o nc e se enhi s m ot he r be atAng el a u nt il sh e was un co ns ci ou s. Hol se y ’s col la te ral co un se l al so subm it te d d ep os it io ns an d a ffi da vi ts th at pr ov id edm or e d et ai ls ab ou t h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Fa m il y m em be rs , fri en ds , andne ig hb or s t ol d h ow h is m ot he r ve rb al ly abu se d h im , cal li ng hi m th in gs li ke a “bu cktee th m ot he r fu ck in g m on ke y []”; a “ ‘sis sy boy’ ”; an d a“ ‘cry baby.’ ” The y

als o t ol d t he co urt tha t h is m ot he r m ad e fun o f hi s l im it ed in te ll ig en ce, s ay in g t hi ng s l ik e: “ Can y oureadan y of t he word s i n t hi s b oo k bo y ? ” an d “ ‘W

ha t’s wro ng with your he adan yway .” Sh e al so wou ldcal l h im a

“ m ot he rfu ck er,” “ si ss y

ass ,” “ stup id he ad ,” “ du m bo ,” an d “ ret ard at e.” Hol se y ’s si st er Dem etra t ol d the co urt tha t h is m ot he r m ad e d is ti nc ti on s b etweenhe r ch il dr en , tre at in g h er two youn ge stdaug ht ers th e b es t. Fam il y , frie nd s, an d n ei gh bo rs de sc rib edth e se ve rity of t he ab us e Hol se y su ffer edat t he ha nd s o f hi s m ot he r. A form er n ei gh bo r to ldth e co urt tha t h is 83m ot he r was “ m ean an d c ru el to he r . . . kid s,” a ndot he rs to ldth e co urt tha t h is

m ot he r wou ldbe athi m

foran y reas on or n o re as onat a ll . Accor di ng to th e de po si ti on s an d a ffi da vi ts , “ whi le curs in g a ndy el li ng at t he to p o f he r lu ng s,” s he rep eat ed ly unl eas he d “ brut al ” b eat in gs onhi m , us in g e xt en si on co rd s, b el ts , a was he r/d ry er h os e, sh oe s, a h otcu rli ng iro n, o r “ an yth in g e ls e sh e fo un d h an dy.” Dur in g t he se vi ol en t o utbu rs ts , Hol se y ’s m ot he r wou ld“ te ar i nt o [h im ] an d b eat hi m to a pu lp .” A frie ndev enreco un te d t ha t s he ha d s een Hol se y “ ru nn in g fo r hi s li fe an d n otcari ng th athe was c ov eredinredwelt s an d wo un ds .” Oth ers to ldth e co urt tha t Ho ls ey ’s chi ld ho odho m e was di sg us ti ng . His
m ot he r’s ni ece s ai d t ha t i t “ was alwa y s fi lt hy andstun k wi thth e smell o f ur in e an d
ro tt in g fo od ,” an d aform er n ei ghbo r sa idhi s h om e was “ fil th y an d d irt y with
ro ach es , ol d g arb ag e an d the st en ch of u rin e.” As thi s co m

pa ris on of t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se an d a t st at e co ll at eral co urt’s ev id en ti ary he ari ng sh ows , th e st at e co ll at eral co urt was no t th e fi rs t co urt t o h ear abo utHol se y ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. Al th ou gh th e co urt h eardm or e d et ai ls ab ou t tha t ch il dh oo d dur in g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e jury at th e se nt en ci ng ha d h eardab ou t h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e upb rin gi ng to o. Lik e th e ev id en ce Ho ls ey

pre se nt edinth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng ab ou t h is li m it ed in te ll ig en ce, the ev id en ce h e p res en te d dur in g t he he ari ng ab ou t h is tro ub le d, 84ab us iv e ch il dh oo d “ba si cal ly sub st an ti at e[ed ]” and“ supp ort[e d]” th e st ory th at Hol se y ’s tri al lawyers h adpu t b efo re the jury ab ou t h ow h e g rew up p oo r in a fil th y ho m e, with am en ta ll y

ch al le ng ed , abs en te e m ot he r who , when sh e was aro un d, b eathi m

an d v erb al ly abu se d h im . See Cu ll en , 13 1 S .Ct. at14 35
. The ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng co nc ern ed th e sa m e “ subjec t m at te r [as ] th e ev id en ce ac tu al ly pres en te d a t s en te nc in g.” Beu ke , 53 7 F .3dat 6 45 –4 6. Th e co ll at eral ev id en ce p ro vi de d a“ la rg er p oo l o f in fo rm at io n o f th e sa m e type al read y off ered ,” Brad sh aw, 68 1 F .3dat 7 70 , whi ch

“ am pl ifi edth e th em es [of

]” the st ory

th atwas t ol d t o the jury, Bo y d, 5 92 F.3dat 12 98 , by pr ov id in g “ m or e in fo rm at io n,” Rh od e, 58 2 F .3dat 1 28 7, “ m or e d et ai ls ,”
an d “ di ffer en t ex am

pl es ” o f Hol se y ’s tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d, Ro bi ns on , 30 0 F.3 d a t 1 34 7. Bu t the ba si c st ory of h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d was

“ no ne th el es s kno wn t o t he
. . . jury” whenitsen te nc edhi m to de ath fo r th e m al ic e m ur de r of Depu ty W il li am

Ro bi ns on . Rob in so n, 3 00 F.3dat 1 34 7. Bec au se th e ev id en ce Ho ls ey

pre se nt edin th e st at e co ll at eral co urt ab ou t h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d was lar ge ly cum ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce h e p res en te d a t tria l, i t was no t
un reas on ab le forth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt t o d es cri be itas l arg el y cu m ul at iv e. At l eas t, fa irmind edjuri st s co ul d d is ag ree abo utwhet he r itwas. Se e Harri ng to n, 13 1 S .Ct. at78 6. 85Two d eci si on s, o ne fro m th e Supr em e Co urt an d o ne fro m th is Co urt,
supp ort o urco nc lu si on ab ou t thi s. Th e fi rs t i s t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Cu ll en . In tha t ca se , “ [t]he m it ig at in g e vi de nc e [attri al ] co ns is te d p rimaril y of t he pe na lty -p ha se tes ti m on y

of [ th e p et it io ne r’s m ot he r]” who tes ti fie d, am on g o th er th in gs , th atth e p et it io ne r’s st ep fathe r was “ ab us iv e, orne arl y so .” Cu ll en , 13 1 S.Ct . at 1 40 8– 09 . Declarat io ns of t he pe ti ti on er’s s ib li ng s s ub m it te d dur in g po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs pro vi de d n ew an d g rap hi c d et ai ls ab ou t tha t ab us e, in cl ud in g t ha t the pe ti ti on er’s “ st ep fathe r be athi m sev eral ti m es a week ” wit h h is fis ts , bel ts , and“ atlea ston ce wi th a two -b y -fo urbo ard .” Id . at 1 42 4 (S ot om ay or , J., d is se nt in g) ; ac co rdid . at 1 41 0 (maj or it y op .). Even so , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d th atth e “ ‘new’ evi de nc e” o f th e ab us e su ffer edby the pe ti ti on er “ la rg el y dupl ic at edth e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e [o f ab us e] at tr ia l” be cau se it“ supp ort[e d] hi s m ot he r’s te st im on y

th athi s s te pf

athe r was ab us iv e an d e xp la in [ed ] th at[th e pe ti ti on er] was b eat enwith fi st s, b el ts , andev enwoo de n b oa rd s.” Id . at 1 40 9– 10
. If, as th e Supr em e Co urt h el d, the ad di ti on al ev id en ce i n C ul le n “ la rg el y dupl ic at ed ” th e ev id en ce atth e tr ia l i n t ha t ca se , id . at 1 40 9, the ad di ti on al
ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se was “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” o f th e ev id en ce atth e tr ia l i n t hi s cas e. Or at l eas t fa irmind edjuri st s co ul d s o fi nd , as t he fiv e Ju st ic es who joi ne d th atpa rt o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s Cu ll ende ci si on di d. Se e Harri ng to n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 8678 6. The sec on d d eci si on th atsupp orts ou r co nc lu si on is th e So ch or cas e. Ther e, we he ldth atth e ev id en ce o f “ ch il dh oo d t rau m a” So ch orpre se nt edinth e st at e co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng was c um ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce tha t h adbe en pr es en te d o n h is be ha lf a t tria l. So ch or , 68 5 F .3dat 1 03 1– 32 . W e ex pl ai ne d t ha t

“ [a]ltho ug h S oc ho r pr es en te d e vi de nc e dur in g t he [st at e co ll at eral ] ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athe su ffer edsev ere b eat in gs an d h eadin juri es as ach il d a ndy ou ng adul t,” t he sen te nc in g ju dg e an d ju ry ha d h eardess en ti al ly the same sto ry . Id. at 10 31 . For e xa m

pl e, hi s “ si st er t es ti fie d dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e th atSo ch or ’s fathe r . . . onc e ‘go t ah ol d o f So ch or ’s hai r, an d h e k ep t b an gi ng hi s h eadag ai ns t th e wal l.’” Id. (a lt erat io n o m it te d) . AndSo ch or ’s fathe r te st ifi edat t he pe na lt y ph as e th athi s m ot he r (n otth e fat he r) h adon ce “ lo sthe r te m pe r an d b eatSo ch or , th enba ng edhi s h eadag ai ns t the wall .” Id . (al te rat io n andqu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . W e h el d t ha t ev id en ce was “ subs tant ia ll y si m il ar,” i d. at10 32 , to So ch or ’s si bl in gs ’ te st im on y at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng “ th atth ei r fathe r ha d brut al ly beat enSo ch orwhen he was ach il d,” id . at 1 02 3, i nc lu di ng hi s s is te r’s te st im on y th at“ th ei r fat he r us ua ll y be aton e o f th e ch il dr enwhen he cam e h om e fro m workan d t ha t So ch or

was h is fav or it e ta rg et ,” id
. If, as we he ld , th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce i n S oc ho r was “ subs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar” 87to th e ev id en ce atth e tr ia l i n t ha t ca se , th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce i n thi s ca se was

“ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” t o the ev id en ce atth e tr ia l i n t hi s ca se . Or at l eas t fa irmind ed juri st s co ul d s o fi nd . Reev es ’ ev id en ti ary he ari ng tes ti m on y an d t he de po si ti on s an d a ffi da vi ts Hol se y

subm it te d d o b ol st er Re ev es ’ an d C li ffo rdHol se y ’s
se nt en ci ng ph as e te st im on y , andth e fac ts fro m th e rec or ds th atwere i nt ro du cedat tri al , by ad di ng de ta il s ab ou t the be at in gs an d v erb al ab us e th atHol se y su ffer ed
. Bu t tho se ad di ti on al de ta il s t el l the same sto ry th atHol se y ’s tri al lawyers t ol d a t th e se nt en ci ng ph as e. The lar ge ly cum

ul at iv e n atur e o f Hol se y ’s col la te ral he ari ng ev id en ce ab ou t hi s ch il dh oo d i s d iff

eren t fr om

th e n atur e o f th e co ll at eral he ari ng ev id en ce tha t we de sc rib edin Co op er. The re we h el d t ha t a F lo rid a Supr em e Co urt “ cum ul at iv e” fin di ng was a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts be cau se th e ev id en ce pr es en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral co urt d idno t t el l the same sto ry as t he ev id en ce pr es en te d a t tria l. See Co op er, 6 46 F.3dat 1 35 3. In Co op er, the pe ti ti on er’s
m ot he r ha d t es ti fie d a t s en te nc in g t ha t the ex te ntof t he ch il dh oo d abu se in fli ct ed
on th e p et it io ne r “ was th e em ot io na l ab us e o f hi s fa th er n otbe in g i nv ol ve d i n h is li fe an d g et ti ng whi pp edby a bel t, s om et im es lea vi ng m ark s” an d o f se ei ng hi s fathe r ph y si cal ly abu se he r. Id. Ev id en ce atth e st at e co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng , ho wev er, s ho wedth atth e d efen da ntha d s uf fere d “ ho rri bl e ab us e” atth e 88ha nd s o f hi s fa th er, i d., i nc lu di ng be in g “ be at en , pu nc he d, an d k ic ke d” fro m th e ti m e “ he was b arel y

ou t o f di ap ers ,” id . at 1 34 2. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t the pe ti ti on er’s co ll at eral ch al le ng e ev id en ce was “ cu m

ul at iv e to th atpre se nt edat s en te nc in g,” ho ld in g t ha t “ a subs ta nt ia l p artof t he in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g [h is ] di sa dv an ta ge d c hi ld ho odwas pr es en te d a t [h is ] tri al ” th ro ug h h is m ot he r’s te st im on y . Id. at13 53 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e h el d t ha t was anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts be cau se hi s m othe r’s te st im on y “ di d n otbe gi n t o d es cri be th e h orrib le ab us e”
su ffer edby the de fen da ntat the ha nd s o f hi s fa th er. Id . Ins te ad , hi s m othe r’s tri al te st im on y on ly tol d t he jury ab ou t the pe ti ti on er’s ab se nt ee fa th er o ccas io na ll y whi pp in g h im

with abe lt . Id. Tha t was a di ffer en t s to ry —n otjus t a l es s d et ai le d
on e—t han t he habe as st ory ab ou t the “ ho rri bl e ab us e” tha t the pe ti ti on er ac tu al ly di d s uf fer. Id . In co nt ras t t o t he ad di ti on al ev id en ce p res en te d i n the st at e co ll at eral he ari ng in Co op er, Ho ls ey ’s add it io na l ev id en ce t ol d l arg el y th e sa m e st ory as h is sen te nc in g p ha se ev id en ce, al th ou gh itdi d a ddde ta il s an d b ol st er tha t
ev id en ce. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s de te rm in at io n t ha t the ev id en ce Ho ls ey ’s col la te ral co un se l p res en te d i n t he
ev id en ti ary he ari ng was l arg el y cu m ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce tha t h is tri al lawyers 89ha d p res en te d dur in g t he sen te nc in g p ha se of h is tri al was n otanun reas on ab le

de te rm in at io n o f fac t u nd er § 22 54 (d )(2 ). D. Hol se y ’s las t co nt en ti on is th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt was wron g t o de ci de th athe di d n otcarry hi s b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th athe was p reju di cedby hi s t ria l l awy ers ’ de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e o f hi s tria l. Preju di ce, o f co ur se , m ean s “ a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, ab se ntth e err or s, the
se nt en cer . . . wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t the ba la nc e o f ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces di d n otwarran t d eat h.” Stri ck la nd , 46 6 U.S. at69 5, 1 04 S.Ct . at 20 69 . Anda reas on ab le pro babi li ty, in tu rn , m ean s “ a p ro babi li ty suf fic ie ntto
un de rm in e co nf

id en ce i n t ha t o ut co m e.” J oh ns on , 64 3 F .3dat 9 35 (qu ot in g P orte r v. M cCo ll um , — U.S. —, 1 30 S.Ct . 44 7, 4 55 –5 6 (2 00 9) ) (al te rat io ns an d s om e qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In d et erm in in g wh ethe r a p et it io ne r ha s ca rri edhi s bu rd enof s ho win g p reju di ce fr om hi s t ria l co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntall th e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce ev id en ce tha t h is co ll at eral co un se l p res en te d, co urts m us t

“ ev al ua te th e to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—b oth t ha t ad du cedat tri al , andth e ev id en ce ad du cedinth e h ab eas pro ceed in g— an d re weig h i t ag ai ns t th e ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n.” Cal la ha n v . Cam pb el l, 4 27 F.3d89 7, 9 36 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ) (al te rat io ns an d quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ; ac co rdJo hn so n, 6 43 F.3d . at 9 35
. 90It i s n oten ou gh fora habe as pe ti ti on er t o c on vi nc e a fed eral co urt tha t h e

was pre jud ic edby the fai lu re t o p res en t the ad di ti on al m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce ev id en ce, tha t the re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su ltif i t h adbe en pr es en te d. Un de r th e unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n c laus e o f 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ), he m us t es tabl is h m or e b ecau se th e que st io n fo r a fed eral habe as co urt i s “ whe th er th e st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law was ob jecti ve ly
un reas on ab le ,” W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 09 , 12 0 S .Ct. at15 21 , andan“un 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,” id . at 4 10 , 12 0 S .Ct. at15 22
. Once ag ai n, a s ta te co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law i s u nr eas on ab le on ly if no “ fai rm in de d ju ris t” co ul d a gr ee wi th th e st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on . Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 6; see als o Yarbo ro ug h, 5 41 U.S. at 6 64 , 12 4 S .Ct. at21 49 ; Hi ll , 66 2 F .3dat 1 34 6. “ [I]f so m e fai rm in de d juri st s co ul d a gr ee wi th th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on , alt ho ug h o th ers m ig htdi sa gr ee, fed eral habe as rel ie f m

us t b e d en ie d.” Hil l, 6 62 F.3dat 1 34 6. So , to pre va il , Hol se y m us t es tabl is h t ha t n o fa irmind edjuri stco ul d c on cl ud e th athe was n ot pr ejud ic edby his tri al lawyers’ fail ur e atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e to pre se ntth e ad di ti on al ev id en ce o f hi s l im it edin te ll ig en ce an d h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d th athi s co ll at eral co un se l p res en te d i n the st at e co ll at eral co urt. See id . Hol se y

91co nt en ds th athe ha s d on e th at , bu t we d is ag ree. 2 3

To b eg in with, “ [t]hi s i s n ota cas e whe re the weig htof t he ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces or the ev id en ce s up po rti ng th em was wea k.” Soc ho r, 68 5 F .3dat 10 30 (al te rat io n o m it te d) ; ac co rdKok al , 62 3 F .3dat 1 34 7. No t atall . There was, an d i s, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce o f ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces , whi chm ak es itm or e di ffi cu ltto est ab li sh pre

jud ic e u nd er St ric kl an d. Se e So ch or , 68 5 F .3dat 1 03 0– 33 (h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er d idno t es tabl is h t he pre jud ic e p ro ng of S tri ck la ndinpa rt be cau se th ere was st ro ng ev id en ce o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce tha t the m ur de r was “ es pe ci al ly hei no us , atr oc io us , andcru el ”); Ro se v. Mc Neil , 63 4 F .3d12 24 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er d idno t es tabl is h t he pre jud ic e pr on g o f Stric kl an d i n p artbe cau se th ere was “ subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n ag gr av at io n” ); C al la han, 4 27 F.3dat 9 38 (ho ld in g tha t s tro ng ag gr av at io n Holsey also argues that the Ge org ia Supreme Court’s e valuation of the mitig ating 2 3 evidenc e he pr esente d at the evide ntiary hearing w as spec ifically

contra ry to the Supreme Court’s application of the Strickland standar d in Wi lliams v. Taylor. That conte ntion lacks merit. In Wil liams, the Court held that the Virg inia Supreme Court’s c onclusion that the petitioner had not established pre

judice wa s an unre asonable application of Strickland be cause the state c ourt “did not enterta in [ the] possi bility ” that “[m]i tigating e vidence unrelated to dang erousne ss may alter the jury ’s selec tion of penalty , even if it does not undermine or r ebut the prose cution’s deathelig ibilit y case .” I d. at 398, 120 S.Ct. at 1516. The Georg ia Supreme Court did not make the same mistake in Holsey ’s ca se. Nothingin its opi nion sugg ests that it “rested its pre judice deter mination on the fac t that [ Holsey ’s] mi tigating e vidence did not undermine or r ebut the evidenc e supportingthe ag gravating c ircumstance [s] .” Willi ams v. Allen, 542 F .3d 1326, 1344 (11th Cir. 2008). Instead, the c ourt expli citly examined the totality

of Holsey ’s ava ilable mitigation evidenc e and w eighed it ag ainst the evidenc e of a g gravation. After doingso, the court conclude d that the ava ilable mitigation evide nce did not under mine its confidence in the jury ’s death se ntence rec ommendation. See Holsey I I I , 642 S.E.2d at 61–62. 92“ de m on st rat es th e b ur de n ade fen da ntface s wh entrying to ov erco m e . . . hars h

ag gr av at in g fa ct or s wi thm it ig at in g e vi de nc e”); Kok al , 62 3 F .3dat 1 34 7– 48 (fi nd in g t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er h adno t s ho wn pr ejud ic e was no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d i n p artbe cau se “ th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces . . . are e sp eci al ly powe rfu l” ); Ruthe rfo rdv. Cr os by, 38 5 F .3d13 00 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ A th irdreas onwhy th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on th at[th e p et it io ne r] hadno t es tabl is he d p reju di ce i s n ot ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le is th atth is is no t a c as e whe re the weig htof t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces or t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng th em was wea k.” ); Crawf or d v . Head , 31 1 F .3d12 88 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (fi nd in g n o p reju di ce i n pa rt b ecau se of the “ st ren gt h o f th e ev id en ce b ot h o f [the pe ti ti on er’s] gu il t an d o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ”); Hall v. Head , 31 0 F .3d68 3, 7 06 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (h ol di ng “ th atth e st at e co urt’s ca lc ul us as t o p reju di ce was [no t] an unr eas on ab le
on e” i n p art“be cau se th e ag gr av at in g e vi de nc e is st ro ng ”); cf. W il li am s, 5 42 F.3d at13 43 (“ Fu rth er s up po rti ng a fi nd in g o f pr ejud ic e is th e fac t tha t thi s ca se is no t hi gh ly agg rav at ed .”). The jury inth is cas e fo un d fo ur st atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces : (1 ) Hol se y m ur de reda de pu ty she rif

f, se e Ga. Co de Ann . § 1 7- 10 -3 0( b) (8 ); ( 2) he
m ur de redth e d ep ut y

sh eri ff wh il e try in g t o avo idarre st , see id . § 1 7- 10 -3 0( b) (1 0) ;

93(3 ) he m

ur de redth e d ep uty

sh eri ff wh il e co m

m it ti ng arm edrob be ry , see id . § 17 -1 0- 30 (b )(2 ); a nd(4) he m ur de redth e d ep ut y

sh eri ff aft er h e h adalr eady be en co nv ic te d o f a cap it al fel on y —the 19 83 arm edrob be ry of aMi ll ed ge vi ll e co nv en ie nc e st or e, se e id . § 1 7- 10 -3 0( b) (1 ). Inad di ti on to th os e st atut ory ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces , th e jury hear d
ev id en ce ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s lo ng hi st ory of v io le nc e ag ai ns t o th ers . Whe n h e was fo urte eny ears ol d, Ho ls ey bro ug hta bu tc he r kn ife to sch oo l, p utitto a sc ho ol m at e’s th ro at , andhi t tha t s ch oo lm at e in th e fac e. Whe n h e was eig ht een y ears ol d, Ho ls ey

rob be d aMi ll ed ge vi ll e co nv en ie nc e st or e b y sm as hi ng th e st or e cl erk ’s face wi th a br ic k. Fo r th atvi ol en t b eh av io r, Hol se y pl ead edgu il ty to an d
was co nv ic te d o f arm edrob be ry with s eri ou s b od il y

in jury. Then , when Hol se y was twen ty-si x years o ld , andwhi le st il l o n p aro le forhi s fi rs t arm edrob be ry co nv ic ti on , he s tabb eda m anfou r ti m es an d trie d t o s ho otan ot he r pe rs on . For th atvi ol en t b eh av io r, he pl ead edgu il ty to an d was co nv ic te d o f th ree m or e cri m es : two co un ts of a gg rav at edass au ltan d o ne co un t o f po ss es si onof afir earm by a
co nv ic te d fe lo n. Th e jury hear d abo utall of tho se vi ol en t cr im es du rin g t he
se nt en ci ng ph as e. And , of c ou rs e, ithe ardex te ns iv e ev id en ce dur in g t he tri al ab ou t h ow Ho ls ey , when he was t hi rty y ears ol d, ro bb edy etan ot he r co nv en ie nc e st or e an d, wh il e fl eei ng , m ur de redDepu ty W il l Ro bi ns on . Hol se y ’s ext en si ve ,

94es cal at in g h is to ry of v io le nc e ag ai ns t o th ers , whi ch be ga n a t l eas t as earl y as a ge fo urte enwhen he pu t a kni fe t o asch oo lm at e’s th ro atan d c on ti nu edth ro ug ho ut hi s l ife , cul m in at in g a t ag e th irt y inth e m ur de r of Depu ty Rob in so n, i s a “ hi gh ly pr ejud ic ia l ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce.” Fr azi er v . Bou ch ard , 66 1 F .3d51 9, 5 33 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; cf

. Cumm in gs v. Se c’y

forDep’t o f Co rr., 58 8 F .3d13 31 , 13 68 –6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (ho ld in g t ha t “ de ta il s o f [the pe ti ti on er’s] thr ee p rio r vi ol en t fe lo ny con vi ct io ns ” was “ da m ag in g t es ti m on y ”). Inad di ti on to all of t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce tha t was be fo re th e jury, the ev id en ce tha t cam e in at t he st at e co ll at eral he ari ng in cl ud edm or e reas on s fo r th e jury to g iv e Hol se y a de ath s en te nc e. Fir st , hi s Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s re co rd s, wh ic h Ho ls ey hi m se lf p utin to ev id en ce atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , est ab li sh th athe co m m it te d a t l eas t o ne vi ol en t ac t wh il e in pri so n. Whil e in carc erat edin 19 85 , he “ jum pe d o n” an ot he r in m at e, br eak in g t ha t i nm at e’s te eth, bl oo dyin g h is no se , andbru is in g h is he ad
. See C umm in gs , 58 8 F .3dat 1 36 8– 69 (h ol di ng th atev id en ce o f th e p et it io ne r’s “ rep eat edin vo lv em en t i n v io le nt in ci de nt s wh il e inpri so n” is “ da m ag in g” ). Seco nd , th e St at e in tro du cedev id en ce atth e h eari ng sh owi ng th atHol se y ha d b een arre st edin19 82 forba tt ery, in19 83 fo r th eftby sho pl ift in g, an d i n 1 99 0 fo r carry in g aco nc eal edweap on . Fi na ll y , itcam e o utdu rin g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atDr. Sach y , th e 95St at e’s ex pe rt wi tn es s, an d Dr. Sh ap iro , th e p sycho lo gi stHol se y ’s tri al lawyers

ha d h ire d t o e va lu at e h im , were o f th e o pi ni on th atHol se y ’s hi st ory of g et ti ng in fig ht s, co m

m it ti ng ag gr av at edass au lt s an d a rm edrob be rie s, s ki pp in g s ch oo l an d
ru nn in g a way

fro m ho m e, an d b rin gi ng a kn ife to sch oo l an d p ut ti ng itto an ot he r stud en t’s thr oa t ev id en cedanan ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er. Alt ho ug h Ho ls ey was ne ve r fo rm al ly dia gn os edas h av in g a nt is oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd er, the te st im on y of t ho se two ex pe rts , andot he r ev id en ce co rro bo rat in g wh atth ey sai d,
wou ldha ve be enad di ti on al ag gr av at in g e vi de nc e b ecau se itin di cat es th at , form al di ag no si s o r no t, Ho ls ey

do es ha ve anan ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er. Andth atis

“ a tr ai t m os t juro rs ten d t o l oo k d is fav or ab ly upo n” an d e vi de nc e o f whi ch “ is no t
m it ig at in g b utda m ag in g.” Kok al , 62 3 F .3dat 1 34 9 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Su gg s v . McNei l, 6 09 F.3d12 18 , 12 31 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (d es cri bi ng as “ po te nt ia ll y ag gr av at in g” ev id en ce s ug ge st in g t ha t the de fen da ntha s an an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er). Th e St at e co ul d h av e p utth atda m ag in g t es ti m on y be fo re the jury th ro ug h e it he r orbo th of t ho se ex pe rts if Ho ls ey ’s tri al lawyers h adcal le d Dr. Cu nn in gh am

to tes ti fy forhi m , as Ho ls ey ’s col la te ral co un se l i ns is t the y sh ou ld ha ve . See g en eral ly Cul le n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 41 0 (e xp la in in g t ha t i f a p et it io ne r cal ls
anex pe rt wi tn es s t o t es ti fy at the sen te nc in g p ha se it“ op en [s ] th e d oo r to reb ut ta l by a sta te ex pe rt” ). 96Evi de nc e co rro bo rat in g Dr. Sa ch y ’s andDr. Shapr io ’s op in io ns was

adm it te d dur in g t he sen te nc in g p ha se . For e xa m pl e, th ere was a ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti onth atco nc lu de d Ho ls ey su ffer eda “be havi or al /p ers on al it y di so rd er, whi chin cl ud es . . . [an ] an ti so ci al co m po ne nt .” Thatev al ua ti on no te d t ha t Ho ls ey ha d, al be itbarel y , “ as m an y an ti so ci al be ha vi or s as m us t b e p res en t i n c hi ld ho od hi st or ie s o f adul ts who are d ia gn os edas h av in g a nt is oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd ers .” The re was als o a n o ffen de r pr of il e rep ort i n t he Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s reco rd s, wh ic h Ho ls ey

hi m se lf i nt ro du cedat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th atst at es th athe po te nt ia ll y

ha s an “ Ant is oc ia l Pe rs on al it y ” an d h is “ps y ch ol og ic al pro fil e su gg es ts a ve ry

hi gh ris k fo r be in g a ss au lt iv e an d/ orothe rwis e v io le nt .” Inad di ti on to th e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o f ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces pre se nt in th is cas e, as we ha ve alr eady di sc us se d a t s om e le ng th , th e ev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey pr es en te d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng ab ou t h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce an d h is tro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d was lar ge ly cum ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce h is tri al lawyers pr es en te d a t the sen te nc in g p ha se . The ad di ti on al ev id en ce h e p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in g m os tl y subs ta nt ia te d, s up po rte d, an d s up pl em en te d t he th em es of C li ffo rdHol se y ’s andReev es ’ tri al tes ti m on y by pro vi di ng m or e d et ai ls
an d m or e ex am

pl es of h is li m it edin te ll ig en ce an d t ro ub le d, ab us iv e ch il dh oo d. See s up ra p p. 7 5– 90 . The cu m ul at iv e n atur e o f th atev id en ce wea ke ns it s 97us efu ln es s t o Ho ls ey on th e p reju di ce i nqui ry . See, e.g ., Cul le n, 1 31 S.Ct . at 1 40 9 (h ol di ng th atth e p et it io ne r di d n otest ab li sh pre jud ic e in pa rt b ecau se “ [t]he ‘ ne w’
ev id en ce l arg el y

dupl ic at edth e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e attri al ”); W on g, 1 30 S.Ct . at 38 7– 88 (ho ld in g t ha t the pe ti ti on er d idno t es tabl is h p reju di ce i n p artbe cau se

“ [s ]om e o f th e [ad di ti on al m it ig at in g] ev id en ce was m erel y cu m ul at iv e o f th e hu m an iz in g e vi de nc e [the pe ti ti on er] actu al ly pres en te d; ad di ng itto whatwas al read y th ere wo ul d h av e m ad e li tt le di ffer en ce”) ; So ch or , 68 5 F .3dat 1 03 1 (h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er d idno t es tabl is h p reju di ce i n p artbe cau se “ [m ]ostof t he
. . . mit ig at in g e vi de nc e th at[he ] pr oduc edinth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng was cu m ul at iv e o f ev id en ce p ro du cedat t he gu il t an d p en al ty pha se s o f th e tr ia l” ); Bo y d, 5 92 F.3dat 1 29 8 (h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er d idno t es tabl is h p reju di ce i n pa rt b ecau se “ m

uc h . . . of t he ‘ ne w’ tes ti m on y in tro du cedat t he po st -co nv ic ti on he ari ng wou ldsi m

pl y ha ve am pl ifi edth e th em es alr eady rai se d a t tria l” ); Ro bi ns on , 30 0 F .3dat 1 34 7 (h ol di ng th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er h adno t s ho wn p reju di ce was no t u nr eas on ab le inpa rt b ecau se

“ m os t o f th e n ew m it ig at io n e vi de nc e is cu m ul at iv e o f th e n on st atut ory m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt eddu rin g re se nt en ci ng ”); Ste wartv. Du gg er, 8 77 F.2d85 1, 85 6 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 9) (ob se rv in g t ha t ad di ti on al ch arac te r witne ss es “ wou ldno t ha ve ha d a n e ffec t o n [t he jury’ s] ver di ct ” b ecau se “ [s ]uchtes ti m on y wou ldha ve 98m erel y

be encu m

ul at iv e”). As we h av e al so di sc us se d, Ho ls ey di d p res en t s om e ev id en ce o f hi s l im it ed in te ll ig en ce dur in g the po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs th atm ig htno t h av e b een cu m ul at iv e, su ch as t he tes ti m on y of Dr. C un ni ng ha m

an d Dr. To om er tha t Ho ls ey was mil dl y

m en ta ll y ret ard ed , whi ch Dr. Cun ni ng ham cal le d a“ cat as tro ph ic di sabi li ty,” andth e te st im on y of Dr. Sh ap iro ex pl ai ni ng th atso m eo ne fun ct io ni ng in th e b or de rli ne m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e is inap pr ox im at el y th e b ot to m

fif th pe rcen ti le of i nt el le ctua l fu nc ti on in g. Bu t the po te nt ia ll y m it ig at in g e ffec t o f Dr. Cu nn in gh am ’s andDr. Too m er’s t es ti m on y is weak en edbe cau se itis co nt rad ic te d by the tes ti m on y

of t hr ee o th er m en ta l h eal thexpe rts —Dr. Sa ch y , Dr. Shapr io , and Dr. Ein ho rn . All th ree o f th os e ex pe rts tes ti fie d tha t Ho ls ey is no t m en ta ll y 2 4 ret ard edbu t i ns te adfun ct io ns in th e b or de rli ne m en ta l re ta rd at io n rang e, whi ch is in fo rm at io n t he jury he ardat t he sen te nc in g p ha se . Andalt ho ug h t he jury di d n ot he ar ev id en ce tha t s om eo ne with b or de rli ne m en ta l re tard at io n fu nc ti on s i n ap pr ox im at el y

th e b ot to m

fif th pe rcen ti le of i nt el li ge nc e, itdi d h ear e vi de nc e th at a p sycho so ci al ev al ua ti onof Ho ls ey do ne by two m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al s
Also, much of the none x pert e vidence that Holsey prese nted at the e videntiary hearing 2 4 about his limi ted intellige nce—that is, the depositions and affidavits from his family , friends, neighbors, teac hers, c oworke rs, and other s—was contr adicted or counter balanc ed by

the State’s evidenc e about Holse y ’s intellige nce le vel. See supra pp. 56–57, 78 n.22. 99whe n Ho ls ey was fi fte eny ears ol d h adco nc lu de d t ha t h e was fun ct io ni ng acad em ic al ly at a th ird -g rad e le ve l. An d i t d idhe ar ev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey was a

“ ve ry sl ow,” “ weakstud en t” an d t ha t wh enhe was fi fte eny ears ol d h e sc or eda 70
on anIQ tes t. Fi na ll y , th is is no t a c as e whe re the ad di ti on al ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in g “ ad ds up to a m it ig at io n c as e th atbe ars no rel at io n” to th e m it ig at io n c as e “ actua ll y pu t b efo re the jury. ” Ro m pi ll a v . Beard , 54 5 U.S. 37 4, 3 93 , 12 5 S .Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 9 (2 00 5) . In the fou r rec en t ca se s wh ere t he Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth ata pe ti ti on er es tabl is he d p reju di ce b as edon hi s t ria l
co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se nten ou gh m it ig at in g e vi de nc e atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e, th e ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs to lda di ffer en t s to ry th anth e st ory

to ldto th e jury at tr ia l. InPo rte r, fo r ex am

pl e, “ [t]he jud ge an d ju ry at P orte r’s or ig in al sen te nc in g he ardalm os t n othi ng th atwou ldhu m an iz e Po rte r orall ow t he m to accu rat el y gaug e h is m or al cu lp ab il it y .” 13 0 S .Ct. at45 4 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Butth ere was po werfu l m it ig at in g e vi de nc e av ai labl e o n t ho se two to pi cs , in cl ud in g “ (1 ) Po rte r’s he ro ic m il it ary se rv ic e in two of t he m os t cr it ic al —an d h orrif ic —b at tl es of t he Kor eanW ar, (2 ) hi s s tru gg le s t o re ga in no rm al it y up on hi s re tu rnfro m

war, (3 ) hi s ch il dh oo d h is to ry

of p hysic al ab us e, an d (4 ) hi s b rai n abn orm al it y , di ffi cu lt y

10 0read in g a ndwrit in g, an d l im it edsch oo li ng .” Id . Becau se th e se nt en ci ng jud ge

an d ju ry “ he ardab so lu te ly non e o f th atev id en ce, ev id en ce wh ic h m ig htwell ha ve in flu en cedth e jury’ s ap pr ai sa l o f Po rte r’s m or al cu lp ab il it y ,” th e Co urt h el d t ha t Po rte r ha d e st ab li sh edth athe was p reju di cedby his tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to pr es en t the ev id en ce an d t ha t n o fa irmind edjuri stco ul d d is ag ree. Id . 45 4– 56 (em ph as is ad de d) (al te rat io n andqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The Supr em e Co urt s im il arl y he ldinRo m

pi ll a th ata pe ti ti on er h ad
es tabl is he d p reju di ce wh enth e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e h e in tro du cedin po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs “ ad d[ ed ] up to a m it ig at io n c as e th atbe ars no rel at io n to th e few n ak edpl eas form ercy actu al ly putbe fo re the jury. ” 54 5 U.S. at37 4, 39 3, 1 25 S.Ct . at 2 45 6, 2 46 9. An d i n Wig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 35 , 12 3 S.Ct . 25 27 , 25 42 (20 03 ), th e Co urt h el d t ha t a p et it io ne r ha d e st ab li sh edpre jud ic e whe n h is tri al co un se l p res en te d n o e vi de nc e o f hi s l ife hi st ory alt ho ug h t he re was

“po werfu l” m it ig at in g e vi de nc e av ai labl e, in cl ud in g t ha t the de fen da nt

“ ex pe rie nc edsev ere p riv at io n a ndab us e in th e fi rs t s ix y ears of h is li fe wh il e in th e cu st od y

of h is alc oh ol ic , abs en te e m ot he r”; th athe su ffer ed“ph y si cal to rm en t” in fos te r car e; an d t ha t h e h ad“ di m in is he d m en ta l capa ci ti es .” Fin al ly, in W il li am s, the Co urt h el d t ha t a p et it io ne r ha d e st ab li sh edpre jud ic e whe n t he
m it ig at io n e vi de nc e attri al de sc rib edth e p et it io ne r as a “ ni ce b oy” andno nv io le nt , 10 1bu t ev id en ce ad du ceddu rin g t he po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs graph ic al ly des cri be d

th e p et it io ne r’s ch il dh oo d, “ fil le d wi th ab us e an d p riv at io n,” an d p ro vi de d
ev id en ce tha t h e was “bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y ret ard ed .” 52 9 U.S. at36 9, 3 98 , 12 0 S.Ct . at 1 50 0, 1 51 5 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d.) W e h av e rel ie d o n s im il ar re as on in g i n c as es wher e we h av e h el d t ha t a pe ti ti on er es tabl is he d p reju di ce. InCo op er, we h el d t ha t the pe ti ti on er h ad
es tabl is he d p reju di ce wh enth e tr ia l ev id en ce t ol d the jury th at“ th e ex te ntof t he ab us e in fli ct edonCo op er was th e em ot io na l ab us e o f hi s fa th er n otbe in g in vo lv edinhi s l ife an d g et ti ng whi pp edby a bel t, s om et im es leavi ng m ark s,” whi ch“ di d n otbe gi n t o d es cri be th e h orrib le ab us e te st ifi edto by Coo pe r’s br ot he r an d s is te r” atth e co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng or e ve n m en ti on th e se rio us ph y si cal ab us e th e p et it io ne r’s br ot he r in fli ct edon hi m . 64 6 F .3dat 1 35 3. An d a s we ex pl ai ne d i n J oh ns on when we he ldth atth e p et it io ne r ha d e st ab li sh ed pr ejud ic e: The pi ctur e [tha t J oh ns on ’s tri al lawyer] pa in te d fo r th e jury was of Jo hn so n h av in g c ol d a ndun cari ng pa ren ts , so m ethi ng inth e n atur e o f th e “ Am eri can Gothi c” co up le . W it h areas on ab le in ve st ig at io n, th ou gh , he c ou ldha ve pa in te d fo r th e jury the pi ctur e o f a y ou ng m an who res em

bl edth e to rm en te d s ou l i n “ The Scre am .” Ther e is no th in g wro ng with aGran t Woo d app ro ach , if tha t i s al l o ne ha s t o u se , bu t anEdv ardMu nc h app ro ach wou ldha ve be enfar m or e li ke ly to s way th e jury to s ym

pa th y forJo hn so n.
10 264 3 F .3dat 9 36 . The co nt ras t b etweenan“ Am eri can Got hi c” ty pe st ory an d “ The Scre am ” type s to ry

inour Jo hn so n c as e an d i n t he Supr em e Co urt’s Po rte r, Ro m pi ll a, W ig gi ns , andW il li am s ca se s i s n otpre se nthe re. To b e su re, s om e o f th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey ’s col la te ral co un se l pr es en te d wo ul d h av e b een he lp fu l t o Ho ls ey du rin g t he sen te nc in g p ha se of h is tri al . Butat t hi s s ta ge of the cas e, aft er the st at e co urt h as ad jud ic at edhi s cl ai m

on th e m eri ts , th athe lp fu l ev id en ce i s n othe lp fu l en ou gh . Hol se y m us t s ho w m or e th anth atth e ev id en ce wo ul d h av e b een he lp fu l. He m us t s ho w th atth e ev id en ce wou ldha ve be enso he lp fu l tha t ev ery reas on ab le juri st , witho utex cep ti on , wou ld ha ve co nc lu de d tha t the re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the sen te nc e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t i f th e jury hadhe ardall of t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce an d a ll of t he m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce. He m us t s ho w no t o nl y

th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s co nt rary con cl us io n i s wro ng bu t tha t i t i s s o wro ng th at
no fai rm in de d ju ris t co ul d re ach th atco nc lu si on . See Harr in gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at 78 6; Yarb or ou gh , 54 1 U.S. at66 4, 1 24 S.Ct . at 2 14 9; Hil l, 6 62 F.3dat 1 34 6; So ch or , 68 5 F .3dat 1 02 8. He m us t s ho w th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s
co nc lu si on was a n “ ex tre m e m al fu nc ti on [] in t he st at e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em []” th atis so “ well un de rs 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 it y

forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 6– 87 . Hol se y 10 3ha s n otsh own us th at . He has no t ca rri edhi s b ur de n. He h as no t cl eare d t he hi gh

hu rd le th at§ 2 25 4( d) (1 ) pu ts in hi s way. Giv enth e st ro ng ev id en ce o f m ul ti pl e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces , in cl ud in g Hol se y ’s ext en si ve , esc al at in g h is to ry of v io le nc e, th e la rg el y

cu m ul at iv e n atur e o f th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce Ho ls ey ’s col la te ral co un se l p res en te d i n t he st at e co ll at eral pr oc eed in gs , andth e weak en edm it ig at in g v al ue of t he po te nt ia ll y no nc um ul at iv e ev id en ce tha t the y

pre se nt ed , a fai rm in de d juris t co ul d a gr ee wi thth e Geo rg ia Supr em e Co urt tha t Ho ls ey was n otpre

jud ic edby his tri al lawyers’ ass um ed de fic ie nc ie s atth e se nt en ci ng ph as e. See Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 6; Yarb or ou gh , 54 1 U.S. at66 4, 1 24 S.Ct . at 2 14 9; Hil l, 6 62 F.3dat 1 34 6; So ch or , 68 5 F .3dat 1 02 8. Fo r th atreas on , we con cl ud e th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt di d n otun reas on ab ly app ly Stri ck la ndwhen ithe ldth athe was n oten ti tl edto rel ie f. 2 5 V. Fo r th e rea so ns we ha ve di sc us se d, we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of Hol se y ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on .
We do not address whe ther we would have c oncluded unde r a de novo standard that 2 5 there was no pre

judice, just as the dissentingopinion does not address whe ther it would have conclude d under § 2254( d)(1) ’s standard that the Georg ia Supreme Court’s de termination that there was no pre

judice wa s “contra

ry to, or an unre asonable application of, c lear ly established Fe dera l law, as de termined by the Supreme Court of theUnited States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 1).

10 4Edm on ds on , Cir cu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g i n t he jud gm en t:

I st an d wi th Ju dg e Carne s ab ou t the co rrec t ju dg m en t i n thi s ap pe al : AFFIR M the Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t t o d en y habe as co rp us rel ie f to th e st at e pr is on er p et it io ne r. I -- v ery res pe ct fu ll y -- d o n otjoi n i n Jud ge Carn es ’s eru di te op in io n. I s tre ss th atitis no t b ecau se th e o pi ni on says so m ethi ng th atI am su re i s wro ng or I am

su re i s ev enli ke ly wro ng . I agr ee wi thm uc h o f th e o pi ni on , at le as t. Bu t the op in io n s ay s a l otan d s ay s m or e th anI th in k i s ab so lu te ly need ed
. Inm y ex pe rie nc e, lo ng is h o pi ni on s al way s p res en t a s tro ng po ss ib il it y of
erro r lu rk in g s om ewh ere i n t he tex t. Tha t the op in io n wri te r is a sk il le d a nd
care fu l ju dg e d oe s n oteli m in at e th e ri sk . Furt he rm or e, no on e wis he s t o jo in in an op in io n t ha t the y

do no t u nd ers ta ndful ly. It i s h ard , ti m e-co ns um in g, p ai ns ta ki ng work fo r th e p an el ’s ot he r jud ge s t o c he cklo ng op in io ns , li ne by lin e, ci te d c as e by cit edcas e. (Of co ur se , always o th er ca se s ar e awai ti ng de ci si onan d a ls o de m an d t he jud ge s’ ti m e an d a tt en ti on .) Mo reo ve r, lo ng op in io ns , eve n i f co rrec t 1

It seems to me that the incidenc e of long opinions has been on the rise in the last deca de 1 or, at lea st, more ar e comingacr oss my desk. I should say

that I , broadly

speaking , do not agree that the length of an opinion nec essarily ref lects the thought, labor, and c are that has bee n invested by

judge s in their endea

vor to dec ide the ca se cor rec tly . The shorte r opinions often ref lect the greater study

and thought leadingup to the ultimate decision. Mark Tw ain touched on a re lated idea : “I f you want me to g ive you a two-hour prese ntation, Iam re ady

today . I f you want only a five -minute speec h, it will t ake me two wee ks to prepar e.” N ever theless, that some case s might truly

demand longopinions, Ido not doubt. And Ibelieve I understand why

J udg e Carnes ha s g one long er in this case
. 10 5in ev ery de ta il , gen eral ly m ak e itha rd er fo r rea de rs to sep arat e a h ol di ng fro m

di ct a (o r le ss th andi ct a: word s o nl y of e xp li cat io n a ndno th in g m or e). The
co nf us io n o f ho ld in g a nddi ct a m ak es co rrec tl y de ci di ng futur e cas es m or e di ffi cu lt , when jud ge s ar e lo ok in g b ackforpre ced en ts . Som et im es , th e o dd es t 2 bi ts are l ift edou t o f op in io ns -- es pe ci al ly the lo ng er o ne s (o fte n wo rd s as to so m e pe rip he ral po in t) - - an d l at er quo te d fl at ly as la w: as if s om eo ne was quo ti ng a st atut e. So , I feel m or e co m fo rtabl e to day jus t fo cu si ng bri efl y

on m y own vi ew of
a v it al po in t. Geo rg ia ’s Sup rem e Co urt d eci si on is en ti tl edto de fere nc e. Inth e co nt ex t o f th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on , I do no t re co gn iz e th e p hr as e, “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e,” as real ly a “ de te rm in at io n o f fac t” withi n the m ean in g o f th e AEDPA; I s ee the word s as m erel y a pa rt o f anap pe ll at e co urt’s re po rt o n h ow i ts de ci si on was t ho ug htth ro ug h a ndreac he d. As su ch , th e “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” ph ras e, in it se lf, i s i ns ig ni fic an t t o m e, al th ou gh th e u lt im at e d eci si on Geor gi a’s Supr em e Co urt re ach edon pre jud ic e is si gn ifi can t. Fo r ba ck gr ou nd , see Eva ns v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 68 1 F .3d12 41 , 12 72 n. 4 (Edm on ds on , J., di ss en ti ng ) (v acat edforreh eari ng enbanc ). Furth erm or e, I d o n otreco gn iz e an yth in g d on e in

L ong er opinions, simply

by virtue of their

leng th, burden the B ar whose member s try to 2 stay curr ent with the Court’s thinking. Also, I worry that long opinions ar e g ener ally less able to be fully understood by

the public than ar e shorter opinions: som e loss in transpar ency . 106Co op er

v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr . , 64 6 F .3d13 28 (11 thCir . 20 11 ), as ho ld in g so m ethi ng to th e co nt rary to m y vi ew to da y

or a s co nt ro ll in g o f th is cas e. Unl ik e th is cas e, Co op er

is a cas e whi ch si gn ifi can tl y in vo lv edtru ly erron eo us fact fin di ng s (a rg uabl y

in cl ud in g t he word“ cu m ul at iv e”) abo uta pa stev en t: th e sp eci fic co nt en t o f Defen dant ’s m ot he r’s tri al tes ti m on y -- fi nd in gs m ad e b y

th e st at e h ab eas co urt wh ic h wer e la te r ap pr ov edby the st at e ap pe ll at e co urt. Giv enth e fu ll reco rd , I be li ev e th e d efer en ce we ar e co m m an de d t o g iv e b y th e AEDPA to th e d eci si on of Ge or gi a’s supr em e co urt co m pe ls anaffi rm an ce to da y . By th e way , th e p ert in en t s ta te co urt d eci si on th atis du e o urde fere nc e is th is de ci si on : tha t the ful l ev id en ti ary reco rdbe fo re the st at e supr em e co urt d idno t sh ow t he pre

jud ic e requi redby Stri ckl an d . Object iv el y reas on ab le juri st s m ig ht di sa gr ee ab ou t p reju di ce o n t hi s re co rd ; bu t t o m e, a d et erm in at io n t ha t Pe ti ti on er 3 di d n otsh ow t he requi redpre jud ic e is withi n t he ou ts id e b or de r of th e ran ge of
reas on ab le
.

For the sake of argument only , Iassume today that the per formanc e of Petitioner’ s trial 3 counsel fe ll short under the Strickland standard. 107BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , di ss en ti ng :

Fo r th e rea so ns st at edin m y di ss en t i n Hi ll v. Hu m

ph rey, 66 2 F .3d13 35 , 13 65 -7 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (enba nc ), I co nt in ue to be li ev e th atGeor gi a’s requi rem en t tha t d efen da nt s p ro ve m en ta l re ta rd at io n b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t i s un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r Atk in s v . Virg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 (20 02 ). I al so be li ev e th atth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s “ de ci si on ” th atth e in effe ct iv en es s o f co un se l d idno t p reju di ce Ho ls ey is “ba se d o n a n unr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts ,” se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(2 ) (2 00 6) , andth eref or e, we m us t co nduc t a d e n ov o re vi ew. See Co op er v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 6 F .3d 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ); J on es v. Walk er, 5 40 F.3d12 77 , 12 88 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (enba nc ). A de n ov o re vi ew co m pe ls th e co nc lu si onth atth e o m is si on of
ev id en ce d es cri bi ng th e n atur e an d e xt en t o f Hol se y ’s abu si ve ch il dh oo d a lo ng with e vi de nc e o f hi s m en ta l re ta rd at io n p reju di cedhi m at t he sen te nc in g p ha se of hi s t ria l i n v io la ti onof S tri ck la ndv. Wash in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 (19 84 ). Mo re s pe ci fic al ly andas d em on st rat edbe lo w, th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s de te rm in at io n t ha t the ex te ns iv e ev id en ce o ffer edon co ll at eral rev ie w was “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” i s u nr eas on ab le in li gh t o f th e sp ars e—a lm os t n on -ex is te nt—ev id en ce of ch il dh oo d abu se an d m en ta l re ta rd at io n p res en te d i n Ho ls ey ’s tri al . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). At tr ia l, a b rie f m en ti on was m ad e o f th e fac t tha t Ho ls ey 108was be at en , witho utan y furth er ex pl an at io n o r de sc rip ti on . The jury ne ve r le arn ed th atth ro ug ho uthi s ch il dh oo d h e was subjec te d t o abu se so sev ere, s o fr eque nt , an d s o n ot or io us th athi s n ei gh bo rs cal le d h is ch il dh oo d h om e “ th e Tortu re Ch am be r.” Lik ewis e, wit h re fere nc e to hi s s ta tu s as bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y ret ard ed , a d ia gn os is th atis un di sp ut edby the st at e’s ex pe rt wi tn es se s, the jury he ardon ly th ata rep ort l is te d h im

as b or de rli ne m en ta ll y

ret ard edwitho utan y

tes ti m on y

to
ex pl ai n t he ex te ntan d c on se qu en ces of h is co nd it io n. On ly one juro r’s vo te was ne ces sa ry to im po se a li fe s en te nc e. The re co rdhe re d em on st rat es th at“bo th th e 1
na tu re an d t he ex te ntof the ab us e th e p et it io ne r su ffer ed ” wou ldha ve affe ct edth e pr ob ab il it y

th at“ atlea ston e juro r” wo ul d h av e v ot edfor a se nt en ce l es s t ha n de ath, s ee Wigg in s v . Smit h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 35 , 53 6 (2 00 3) (em ph as is ad de d) , and th e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e d es cri bi ng th e b eh av io ral an d c og ni ti ve im pa ctof Hol se y ’s bo rd erl in e ret ard at io n wo ul d h av e in flu en ced“ th e jury’ s ap pr ai sa l o f hi s m or al cu lp ab il it y ,” se e Will ia m s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 39 8 (2 00 0)
. W it h re fere nc e to de no vo rev ie w, tri al co un se l was so de fic ie ntth at
co nf id en ce i n the ou tc om e o f Hol se y ’s sen te nc in g i s u nd erm in edan d h e is en ti tl ed

See Ga . Code Ann. § 17-10- 31(c) (“I f the jury is unable to rea ch a una

nimous verdict as 1 to sentence , the judg e shall dismiss the jury and shall impose a se ntence of either life imprisonment or imprisonment for life without parole .”); Humphre y v. Morrow, 717 S.E.2d 168, 173 (Ga . 2011) (“ Geor g ia' s death pe nalty laws . . . provide f

or an a utomatic sentenc e less than death if the jury

is unable to rea ch a una

nimous sentencingverdic t . . . .”). 109to a ne w sen te nc in g h eari ng . Rath er tha n c on du ctanin ve st ig at io n t ha t co ul d l ead

to th e d is co ve ry

an d p res en ta ti on of t he im po rta ntm it ig at in g e vi de nc e d el in eat ed be lo w, Hol se y ’s lea d d efen se lawyer dra nka qu artof v od kaev ery ni gh t o f Hol se y ’s tri al whi le als o p rep ari ng to be su ed , cri m in al ly pro se cu te d, an d di sb arre d fo r st eal in g c li en t fu nd s. He ad m it te d dur in g c ol la te ral pro ceed in gs th at , atth e ti m e h e was pre pa rin g fo r Hol se y ’s cap it al m ur de r tr ia l, h e “pr ob ab ly sh ou ldn’t h av e b een all owe d t o re pr es en t an y bo dy” du e to hi s co nd it io n. Th e Geo rg iatri al co urt, wh ic h i s t he on ly cou rt t o h av e p res id edov er the rece ip t o f li ve te st im on y an d e vi de nc e o n c ol la te ral rev ie w, hel d t ha t “ no on e canser io us ly be li ev e th at[Hol se y ] rece iv edth e co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te es of t he Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l.” Th e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e whi chsh ou ldha ve be enpre se nt edwou ldha ve crea te d areas on ab le pro babi li ty th at“ atlea ston e juro r” wo ul d h av e v ot edfora se nt en ce l es s t ha n d eath, s ee W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at53 5, 5 36 , eve n wei gh edag ai ns t the ag gr av at in g fa ct or s pr es en te d. I am

pl ify each of t he se po in ts be lo w. I. Th e Mit ig at in g E vi denc e o f Chil dho od Abus e is Not “ La rg el y Cumula tiv e”

of the Se nten ci ng -Pha se Tes timony The bri ef m en ti on of abu se at t he sen te nc in g p ha se cam e fro m two witne ss es : Ho ls ey ’s si st er, Reg in a Ree ve s, an d C li ffo rdHol se y , who is no t re la te d

110to W ayne Hol se y . Reg in a Ree ve s’ tes ti m on y m ad e a b rie f, pa ss in g re fere nc e to 2 Hol se y whi le ex pl ai ni ng he r own m ov e o utof h er m ot he r’s ho us e as sh e ap pr oa ch edhe r m ajor it y . She expl ai ne d wh y sh e le ft h om e atth e ag e o f se ve nt een to “ li ve with fr ie nd s.” Q: An d wh atcau se d youto lea ve ho m e? A: W e were ha vi ng —I fel t th a t I was —tha t we were ha vi ng a lo t of pr ob le m s. I ha te d it th ere. Thi ng s were bad
. I was a m ot he r, y ou kn ow, by the ti m e I l e f

t ho m e. I ha d m

y daug ht er whe n I was 17 . I gr adua te d fro m hi gh sc ho ol whe n I was 17
. I di dn ’t feel th at I was , y ou kn ow, tre at ed well , th at I was ap pr eci at ed
. And I fel t th at I co ul d do be tt er, y ou kn ow, so m ewh ere el se be cau se I jus t fel t th at th in gs were ho rri bl e th ere. Q: An d wh atab ou t b ei ng th ere was so ho rri bl e?
. . . . A: Oka y . I was ti red of ta ki ng be at in gs . I do n’t th in k it was , y ou kn ow, s o ho rri bl e th at we di dn ’t, y ou kn ow, ha ve an yth in g. A lo t of p e o p l e di dn ’t ha ve an yth in g. Bu t I al way s fel t th at y ou c ou ld be —n ot ha ve m or e th anan y

bo dy els e b utst il l g ettre at edbe tt er tha n wh atwe were. Q: And whe n y ou say y ou were ti red of ta ki ng be at in gs , who be at y ’all? A: My m ot he r. (Witn es s cry in g) Q: Di d s he be atall th e ch il dr en ? A: Th e o ld es t thr ee m os tl y . Q: Th atwas youan d Wayne an d An ge la ? A: (Witn es s n od s af

firm at iv el y .) Yes. Co un se l as ke d R eg in a n o fu rth er que st io ns ab ou t b eat in gs or abu se an d t hi s was th e to ta li ty of te st im on y

fro m an y fam il y m em be r ab ou t ab us e. 3 Holsey g oes by his middl e name , “Way

ne,” but is also re fer

red to by sever al witnesses 2 by his first name, “Robe rt.” The majority

ref ers to a two- pag e “home evalua tion” cre ated by

a socia l worker

at 3 Geor g ia’s Youth De velopment Center, which Holsey attended when he w as fifte en year s old. See Majority

op. at 81-82. The repor

t contains a two-se ntence summary of the socia l worker ’s “impressions” of

Holsey ’s mother, in which the social worke r states his “doubts as to her ability 111Cl iff

or d Ho ls ey , who was c al le d t o d es cri be a ba r fi gh t i nv ol vi ng Hol se y , st at eddu rin g c ro ss ex am in at io n tha t Way ne Hol se y ’s m ot he r “ wou ldsco ld
. . . an d be at ” th e ch il dr en , bu t ad m it te d t ha t h e h adne ve r actua ll y see n h er b eatth em . He si m pl y st at ed : We l l , I th in k W ayne cam e up th e be st th at he co ul d. I th in k he was ne gl ect ed fro m hi s m ot he r. Sh e, y ou kn ow, ki nd of li ke —ca m e up ki nd of li ke ch il d ab us e. And sh e jus t di dn ’t se e ab ou t th em , y ou kn ow, ki nd of walk edall ov er the m

a li tt le bi t, an d d on e ev erythi ng . Reg in a an d C li ffo rd ’s tes ti m on y canha rd ly be ch arac te riz edas h av in g

“ hi gh li gh te d” Hol se y ’s hi st ory of abu se , as the Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt de te rm in ed . See Sch of

ie ldv. Ho ls ey , 64 2 S .E.2d56 , 61 -6 2 (Ga . 20 07 ). It h ard ly
co m po rts with the “ Tortur e Ch am be r” d es cri be d b y

Hol se y ’s nei ghbo rs an d fa m il y m em be rs at t he co ll at eral rev ie w hea rin g. Ho ls ey ’s si st er t es ti fie d o n c ol la te ral
rev ie w, bu t n otat t ria l, tha t Way ne Hol se y

was b eat enwith e xt en si onco rd s, s ho es , br oo m ha nd le s, o r wha te ve r ob

jects th ei r m ot he r co ul d fi nd , lea vi ng pe rm an en t to cope with Ang ela a

nd Robert [Holsey ],” and that Holsey ’s mother “ loves and c are s for [the children] a great deal, but she ha s no idea how to c ontrol them without resortingto excessive punishment.” The r eport a lso includes positive commentary on Holsey ’s mother’s “pare ntal commitment,” including that “she is willing to g ive Robert all the e ncoura g ement that he ne eds” and that “[s]he forese es no problems with Robert a nd his sist er, Ang ela, r eturningfrom the Youth Deve lopment Center at the sa me time.” Taken in the conte x t in which it was prese nted to the jury and g iven the equivoc al natureof the socia l worker ’s assessment of Mary Holsey , this document ca

nnot rea sonably

be cha rac terized as “highlighting ” Holsey ’s abusive ba ckground, much less as “ larg ely

cumulative” of

the evidenc e introduce d by collater al counse l, espec ially when ther e is no indication that trial counse l ever made the jur

y awa re of the re port' s assessment of Mar y Holsey ’s par entingability . See Schofie ld v. Holsey , 642 S.E.2d 56, 61-62 (Ga . 2007). 112sc ars on hi s b od y . His m ot he r pu ni sh edhi m by hol di ng hi s h eadun de r wat er whi le he cri edan d s tru gg le d t o b reat he . The b eat in gs wou ldsp il l o utof the ho us e an d i nt o t he y ardan d t he st reet , as pe op le fro m th e n ei gh bo rh oo d s to odby, watc hi ng . Thes e b eat in gs wou ldoc cu r fo r an y reas on or n o re as on at a ll , or, as Reg in a p utitonco ll at eral rev ie w, bu t n otat t ria l, wh enhe r m ot he r “ fel t tha t the ho us e was n’t cl ean ,” was “ jus t frus tra te d,” “

jealo us ,” or“ y oukn ow, jus t ab ou t
an yth in g.” Hol se y wet t he be d u nt il he was t hi rte eny ears ol d, an d R eg in a te st ifi edon co ll at eral rev ie w, bu t n otat t ria l, tha t o n o ccas io n h is m ot he r st ay edup at n ig htso th at , when sh e h eardth e u rin e le ak in g t o t he flo orth ro ug h Ho ls ey ’s th in m at tre ss , sh e co ul d b eathi m

ou t o f hi s s le ep with a n e xt en si on co rd . She be athi m when he
wen t ac ro ss th e st reetto pi ckbl ackbe rri es . Eveneat in g m eal s, s uc h a s t he re were , be cam e anop po rtu ni ty for ab us e, as Hol se y ’s m othe r pu ni sh edhi m forask in g fo r m or e fo odby forci ng hi m to eatch ic ke n b on es . Reg in a to ldth e jud ge on co ll at eral rev ie w th atab us e o f th is m ag ni tu de happ en ed“ da il y [or ] ev ery ot he r da y .” Mem

be rs of Ho ls ey ’s ext en de d fa m il y an d c omm

un it y als o c am e fo rwardto te st ify to t he no to rie ty of th e ab us e in fli ct edon Hol se y . BerthaIng ram , Hol se y ’s adul t co us in , tes ti fie d t o wi tn es si ng Hol se y ’s m ot he r be athi m with t he po in te d e nd 113of

he r hi gh -h eel edsh oe s an d o th er h ou se ho ldob jects , bu rnhi m

with acurli ng iro n, an d l oc k h im

in a cl os et . She co rro bo rat edReev es ’ te st im on y th atab us e o n th is sca le oc cu rredon a da il y ba si s, t es ti fy in g t ha t “ itwas arare ev en in g” when th es e b eat in gs wou ldno t o ccu r fo r rea so ns as t riv ia l as Hol se y op en in g t he refr ig erat orto lo okforfoo d. Ess ie And ers on , a fri en d o f Hol se y ’s m othe r who work edat t he lo cal ho sp it al an d v is it edth e ap art m en t re gu la rly, sta te d tha t the ab us e was well kn own th ro ug ho utth e n ei gh bo rh oo d, an d re fle ct edth at“ we were al l g ui lt y forlet ti ng Mary [Hol se y ’s m ot he r] getaway with t he way

sh e m is tre at edhe r ki ds , bu t we were al l s o s care d o f he r ou rs el ve s.” When And ers on tri edto in te rv en e, Hol se y ’s
m ot he r wou ldsh ou t athe r “ I’ll k il l h im if I wan t t o. Th es e are MY ki ds .” Neig hb orCathe rin e Harri s re cal le d g oi ng to Hol se y ’s apa rtment wh enhe was a ch il d a ndwatc hi ng Hol se y ’s m ot he r at ta ckhi m an d h is si st er wi th a be ltor c ur li ng iro n “ whi le th ey

tri edto squa t d own ina co rn er an d c ur l up i n ali tt le ba ll to fen d of f he r bl ows .” Ano th er n ei gh bo r, San dr a Fra nc is , reco un te d t he ti m es sh e h ad watc he d o utth e win do w andsh oo k wi th fearwhi le Hol se y ’s m ot he r be athi m in th e y ard , andth ataft er the se be at in gs , “ itwasn ’t un co m m onfor[Hol se y ] to cu rl up in th e b us he s o ut si de th e Hou si ng pro ject o ffi ce . . . andsl eep th ere unt il
m orni ng .” 114The Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on th atHol se y was n otpre

jud ic edby th e o m is si on of t hi s ev id en ce was ba se d o n i ts de te rm in at io n t ha t Ho ls ey ’s ori gi na l
se nt en ci ng he ari ng “ hi gh li gh te d” Hol se y ’s abu si ve hi st ory su ch th athi s co ll at eral
ev id en ce was “ la rg el y

cu m ul at iv e” o f wha t was in tro du cedat tria l. Ho wev er, thi s de te rm in at io n i s u nr eas on ab le in li gh t o f th e fac ts co nt ai ne d i n t hi s re co rd
. See § 22 54 (d )(2 ). Becaus e th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s “ de ci si on ” th atHol se y was n ot pr ejud ic edat s en te nc in g was “ba se d o n” anun reas on ab le factua l d et erm in at io n, we owe itno de fere nc e. See J on es , 54 0 F .3dat 1 28 8 n .5; see als o C al laha n v . Cam pb el l, 4 27 F.3d89 7, 9 27 n.2 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (em ph as iz in g t ha t § 22 54 (d )(2 ) ap pl ie s wh ere “ ‘the ad

jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m

. . . res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas ba se d onanun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts ’”) (em ph as is inori gi na l) (quo ti ng § 2 25 4( d) (2 )); Harv ey v. Warde n, 6 29 F.3d12 28 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ap pl y in g § 22 54 (d )(2 ) to st at e co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns un de rp in ni ng it s co nc lu si on th atth e p et it io ne r was no t p reju di cedun de r Stric kl an d)
. InCo op er v . Secre ta ry , Dep’t o f Co rrec ti on s, 6 46 F.3d13 28 (11 thCir
. 20 11 ), we li ke wis e co nc lu de d tha t a s ta te co urt’s re jecti on of ape ti ti on er’s Stric kl an d c la im

was b as edon anun reas on ab le factua l d et erm in at io n u nd er a m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le setof f act s. In Co op er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt reject edRic ha rdCo op er’s Stric kl an d c la im on th e g ro un d t ha t “ ‘a sub st an ti al pa rt 115of

th e in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g C oo pe r’s di sa dv an ta ge d c hi ld ho odwas p res en te d a t Co op er’s tria l,’” an d the refo re “ ‘in l arg e p art , in tro du ct io n o f th e ev id en ce pr of fere d [o n c ol la te ral rev ie w] wou ldha ve be enrep et it iv e.’” See Co op er, 6 46 F.3 d a t 1 34 8 (quo ti ng Co op er v . Sta te , 85 6 S o. 2 d 9 69 , 97 6 (F la . 20 03 )). Howev er, we h el d t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e co ll at eral te st im on y was “ inlar ge part . . . rep et it iv e o f” the sen te nc in g p ha se tes ti m on y was anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts un de r § 2 25 4( d) (2 ), be cau se th is te st im on y om it te d t he “ sp eci fic s o f th e ab us e” d ire ct edag ai ns t Co op er an d “ di d
no t b eg in to de sc rib e th e h orrib le ab us e te st ifi edto [on co ll at eral rev ie w] .” Id . at 13 52 -5 3. Eve ry on e o f th e d is po si ti ve fact s t ha t l edth is Co urt i n C oo pe r to fin d t he st at e co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns un reas on ab le un de r § 2 25 4( d) (2 ) is pre se ntin th is cas e. Fir st , Hol se y ’s sen te nc in g p ha se tes ti m on y was e ve n l es s i ll um in at in g a s to th e n atur e an d e xt en t o f ab us e th aninCo op er, wh ere t he de fen dant ’s m ot he r te st ifi edth atCo op er’s fat he r be athi m with abe lt , lea vi ng m ark s o n h is bo dy, w as

“ ve ry hard ” an d “ au th or it ari an ” wit h h im , andde fen se co un se l em ph as iz edth at Co op er’s “ ho rri bl e” an d “ tra gi c” fam il y li fe was “ so m ethi ng th atno ne of [ th e juro rs ] ha [d ] ex pe rie nc ed .” Id . at 1 33 7, 1 33 9. Mo reo ve r, du rin g p ro ceed in gs be fo re the sen te nc in g ju dg e, a d efen se ps y ch ol og is t t es ti fie d t ha t Co op er h adha d a 116“ ‘horren do us ba ck gr ou nd ,’ ” th athi s fa th er was “ ‘excep ti on al ly abu si ve , bo th

ph y si cal ly andve rb al ly,’ ” an d t ha t the im pa ctof t he “ te rro r-fi ll edy ears ” o f ab us e hi s fa th er i nf

li ct edcau se d C oo pe r to su fferlas ti ng ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm . Id. at 13 40
. Seco nd , th e d is parity be twee n t he sen te nc in g t es ti m on y ab ou t ab us e an d wha t was rev eal edon co ll at eral rev ie w inHol se y ’s cas e was ev engre at er tha n t ha t in Co op er. On c ol la te ral rev ie w, th e “ ‘des cri pt io n, d et ai ls , andde pt h o f ab us e’” pr es en te d b y

Co op er “ ‘far exc eed edwhatth e jury was to ld ’” at Co op er’s
se nt en ci ng . Id. at13 54 (qu ot in g J oh ns onv. Se c’y , 64 3 F .3d90 7, 9 36 (11 th Cir
. 20 11 )). Si m il arl y , th e “ de sc rip ti on , det ai ls , andde pt h o f ab us e” p res en te d b y Hol se y on co ll at eral rev ie w “ far e xc eed ed ” th e se nt en ci ng tes ti m on y at Ho ls ey ’s tri al , andth e ab us e rev eal edby H ol se y ’s col la te ral ev id en ce i s ce rta in ly as
ex te ns iv e an d a tro ci ou s as th e ev id en ce o m it te d i n R ic hardCo op er’s tria l. Fi na ll y , th e err on eo us ch arac te riz at io ns of the sen te nc in g p ha se tes ti m on y ab ou t ab us e are th e sa m e in bo thcas es . In Co op er, the st at e co urt d es cri be d t he

“ subs ta nt ia l p artof t he in fo rm at io n” on co ll at eral rev ie w as “ in lar ge pa rt . . . rep et it iv e” o f th e se nt en ci ng tes ti m on y . See i d. at13 48 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Like wis e, th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt ch arac te riz edth e in fo rm at io n pr es en te d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w as “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” o f or“ hi gh li gh t[i ng ]” 117Hol se y ’s sen te nc in g p ha se tes ti m on y . Base d o n t he alm os t i de nt ic al fact s o f

Co op er, the same leg al co nc lu si on is co m pe ll edhe re: th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s ch arac te riz at io n o f th e co ll at eral ev id en ce as lar ge ly cum ul at iv e o f th e te st im on y at t ria l i s an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts un de r § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). The m ajor it y

di sp arag es Co op er as “ anou tl ie r.” See Majo rit y op . at 6 8. Howev er, we h av e n o autho rit y to di sr eg arda pr ev io us de ci si on of a no th er p an el ari si ng fro m

fact s t ha t, l ik e th e fac ts of C oo pe r, are m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th os e b efo re u s. See An de rs v. Ho m et own Mrt g. Sv cs ., Inc ., 34 6 F .3d10 24 , 4 10 31 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Thatrul e “ is no t d ep en de ntup ona subs eque ntpa ne l’s ap pr ai sa l o f th e in it ia l d eci si on ’s correct ne ss .” Sm it h v . GTE Co rp ., 23 6 F .3d 12 92 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Mo reo ve r, Co op er i s n otanou tl ie r an d i s fu ll y co ns is te ntwith o ur

cas es , whi ch , inap pl y in g § 22 54 (d )(2 ), ha ve rev ie wedst at e ap pe ll at e co urts ’ res ol ut io ns of factua l i ss ue s wh ic h are the pre di cat es to th ei r le ga l co nc lu si on s. See , e.g., Hardy v. Co m m ’r, Dep ’t of Co rr., 68 4 F .3d10 66 , 10 87 -8 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) (ap pl y in g § 22 54 (d )(2 ) to factua l d et erm in at io ns un de rp in ni ng de ci si on whet he r
As demonstrate d by

the fa cts described above , I cannot a gree with the majority ’s 4 char acte rization of Holsey ’s ca se as diff ere nt beca

use Cooper pr esente d “a dif fer ent story -not just a less deta iled one” tha

n what wa s prese nted on collateral re view. See Ma jority op. at 89. The differ ence betwee n the sentenc ing e vidence and collate ral e vidence in Cooper is no g reater than the disparity

betwee n the sentenc ing e vidence and collate ral e vidence at issue her e. 118de fen da ntin vo ke d h is Mi ran darig htto rem ai n s il en t); Harv ey , 62 9 F .3dat 1 25 2

(ap pl y in g § 22 54 (d )(2 ) to st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t d efen da ntwas n ot pr ejud ic edun de r Stric kl an d b y co un se l’s s ta te m en ts inop en in g a rg um en t b ecau se th es e st at em en ts were fa ctua ll y si m il ar t o s ta te m en ts inth e d efen da nt ’s
co nf es si on ); B ui v. Hal ey , 32 1 F .3d13 04 , 13 15 -1 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 3) (ap pl y in g § 22 54 (d )(2 ) to ap pe ll at e co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n t ha t was “ subs id iary ” to a le ga l co nc lu si on ). Si m il arl y , inCo op er, as inHol se y ’s cas e, th e st at e co urt’s ch arac te riz at io n o f ev id en ce as cu m ul at iv e was pre di cat edon a subs id ia ry de te rm in at io n t ha t the two bo di es of e vi de nc e b ei ng co m pa redare fa ctua ll y co m pa rab le to each ot he r. See Harve y , 62 9 F .3dat 1 25 2 (r ev ie win g u nd er § 22 54 (d )(2 ) a s ta te co urt’s co m pa ris on of t he factua l co nt en t o f two st at em en ts
co nt ai ne d i n t he reco rd ). The Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n was

“ subs id ia ry ” to th e u lt im at e le ga l d eci si on th atth e p et it io ne r ha d n otsh own pr ejud ic e u nd er St ric kl an d, an d i t i nv ol ve d aco m pa ris on of t he co ll at eral ev id en ce with t he tri al ev id en ce. See Bu i, 3 21 F.3dat 1 31 6. In bo th Co op er an d Ho ls ey ’s
cas es , th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urts ’ de ci si on s t ha t n o p reju di ce was est ab li sh edwere pr ed ic at edonfactua l d et erm in at io ns th atwere “ un reas on ab le
. . . in li gh t o f th e

119ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” See § 22 54 (d )(2 ). Coo pe r is 5
co ns is te ntwith t he cas es fro m ou r ci rcu itap pl y in g § 22 54 (d )(2 ). Mo reo ve r, bo th th e Supr em e Co urt an d o urco urt h av e h el d p reju di ce t o b e es tabl is he d u nd er St ric kl an d wh ere t he tes ti m on y pre se nt edat t ria l fa il edto de sc rib e th e “ na tu re an d e xt en t” of c hi ldho odab us e su ffer edby the pe ti ti on er. If
su ch ev id en ce i s capabl e o f es tabl is hi ng pre jud ic e, itcan no t re as on ab ly be di sm is se d a s “ larg el y

cu m ul at iv e” o f te st im on y

th atm erel y

m en ti on s t ha t the de fen da ntwas b eat en . Spe ci fic al ly, in W ig gi ns , itwas p reci se ly the “ na tu re an d
ex te ntof t he ab us e [the ] pe ti ti on er s uf fere d” th atledth e Supr em e Co urt t o co nc lu de th atan y

reas on ab le co un se l wo ul d i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f th e p et it io ne r’s ab us iv e ch il dh oo d due to it s l ik el y im pa cton th e jury. See 5 39 U.S. at 5 35 -3 7 (em ph as is ad de d) . Sim il arl y , inW il li am s, the Co urt h el d t ha t the pe ti ti on er was pr ejud ic edby couns el ’s om is si on of a“ gr ap hi c d es cri pt io n o f [the pe ti ti on er’s]

The majority

asser ts that Cooper is in conflict with Cullen v. Pi nholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 5 (2011), be cause the majority rea ds Cullen as establishing that § 2254(d)(2) cannot a pply to a state court’s c hara cterization of evidence as cumulative. SeeMajority op. at 69-70. How ever , § 2254(d)( 2) applies to an a ppellate c ourt’s construc tion and char acte rization of the fac ts in the rec ord, includingmix ed questions of lawand fa ct. See, e .g ., Har vey , 629 F.3d at 1252 (applying § 2254(d)( 2) to state cour t’s comparison of fac tual content of two state ments); Gore v. Sec’y , Dep’ t of Corr., 492 F .3d 1273, 1297-98 (11th Cir. 2007) (a pplying § 2254( d)(2) to “mix ed question of fa ct and law ” of whether defe ndant’s Miranda

rights were “scr

upulously honored” ). Moreove r, Cullen does not addre ss, let alone hold, that § 2254(d)( 2) does not apply to a state court’s c hara cterization of evidence as cumulative, a nd thus, cannot conf

lict with Cooper. See United States v. Kale y , 579 F.3d 1246, 1255 ( 11th Cir. 2009). 120ch il dh oo d” in cl ud in g “ do cum en ts . . . th atdra m at ic al ly des cri be d m is tre atm en t,

ab us e, an d n eg le ctdurin g h is earl y ch il dh oo d.” 52 9 U.S. at37 0, 3 98 (em ph as is ad de d) . Andin Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. 4 47 (20 09 ) (p er cu ria m), th e Co urt he ldth at“ itis un reas on ab le to di sc ou ntto irr el ev an ce the ev id en ce o f [a de fen da nt ’s] ab us iv e ch il dh oo d.” 13 0 S . Ct. at45 5. In eachof t he se cas es , itwas no t the om is si onof a n a ckno wled gm en t o f ab us e th atth e Co urt fo un d p reju di ci al , bu t the om is si onof t es ti m on y th atde sc rib edth is ab us e in su ffi ci en t d et ai l fo r th e jury to u nd ers ta ndwhatactua ll y oc cu rred
. Si m il arl y , inW il li am s v . All en , 54 2 F .3d13 26 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ),
no twi th st an di ng th atth e d efen da nt ’s m ot he r te st ifi edat s en te nc in g t ha t h is fathe r be athi m “ with h is fis ts ,” “ m an y

ti m es ,” “ whi pp edhi m

m or e th anhe sh ou ld ,” an d
on ce b eathi m

so sev erel y

th atth e d efen da ntesc ap edto a ne ig hb or ’s ho us e an d cal le d the po li ce, s ee Will ia m s, 5 42 F.3dat 1 32 9, we h el d t he de fen dantwas pr ejud ic edby the om is si on of h is si st er’s acc ou ntof abu se be cau se he r te st im on y m ad e cl ear tha t “ th e v io le nc e ex pe rie nc edby W il li am s as a ch il d fa r ex ceed ed —i n bo th freque nc y

an d s ev eri ty—th e p un is hm en ts de sc rib edat s en te nc in g.” See i d. at 13 42 (em ph as is ad de d)
. Fi na ll y , inJo hn so n v . Secre tary , Dep’t o f Co rrec ti on s, 6 43 F.3d90 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ), we he ldth atpre jud ic e was est ab li sh edbe cau se of t he “ de sc rip ti on ,

121de ta il s, an d d ep th of abu se in [th e d efen da nt ’s] ba ck gr ou ndth atwere b ro ug htto

li gh t” on co ll at eral rev ie w. See J oh ns on , 64 3 F .3dat 9 36 (em ph as is ad de d) . In Jo hn so n, co un se l d efi ci en tl y fai le d t o i ntro du ce d et ai le d e vi de nc e ab ou t h ow the de fen da ntan d h is si bl in gs “ hu dd le d t og ethe r in terro r” wh enth ei r fathe r wou ld be atth ei r m othe r, th atth ei r pa ren ts en ga ge d i n “ kn oc kd own , dra g- ou t fi gh ts ” th at
so m et im es ledth em

to cal l the po li ce, an d t ha t the de fen dant ’s m ot he r “be athi m m or e se ve rel y

th anth e o th er ch il dr en—s om et im es with h er knu ck le s an d
so m et im es with alea th er s trap.” Id. (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Altho ug h m en ti on was m ad e b y Cli ffo rdHol se y

an d R eg in a Ree ve s ab ou t be at in gs , itis no les s t ru e in Hol se y ’s cas e th anitwas i n J oh ns on th atth e

“ de sc rip ti on , det ai ls , andde pt h” of t he ab us e are whatgi ve s t hi s ev id en ce
m it ig at in g v al ue an d a re wh atwas c om pl et el y om it te d i n Ho ls ey ’s tri al
. In de ed , we he ldin Jo hn so n t ha t p reju di ce was est ab li sh edinpa rt b ecau se th e ev id en ce at tri al “ was no t n earl y

as h el pf ul to [th e d efen da nt ’s] cas e as itco ul d h av e b een ” an d

“ m is le ad in gl y

m in im iz edth e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces .” Id . Cou ns el ’s fai lu re t o pr es en t an y

tes ti m on y

ab ou t the “ na ture an d e xt en t” of t he ab us e Hol se y su ffer ed , W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at53 5, s im il arl y m is le d t he jury ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s bac kg ro un d be cau se it“ m in im iz edth e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ” o f Hol se y ’s abu si ve hi st ory .

122The cas es rel ie d upo n b y th e m ajor it y

are i napp li cab le to th e fac ts of t hi s cas e. Inth e cas es cit edby the m ajor it y , th ere e it he r was de sc rip ti ve ev id en ce at
se nt en ci ng co nv ey in g t he na tu re an d e xt en t o f th e ab us e su ffer edby the pe ti ti on er, orth e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e in tro du cedon co ll at eral rev ie w di d n otres em bl e th e co ns is te nt , vo lu m in ou s, an d u nr eb ut te d e vi de nc e o f pe rv as iv e an d s ev ere abu se th atis at i ss ue inth is cas e. Thu s, i n S oc ho r v. Se cret ary, Dep’t o f Co rrec ti on s, 68 5 F .3d10 16 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ), th e te st im on y du rin g the pe ti ti on er’s s en te nc in g ph as e d idde sc rib e, in ex te ns iv e an d e ve n g reat er d et ai l tha n t he tes ti m on y on co ll at eral rev ie w, th e ab us e th atth e p et it io ne r reg ul arl y su ffer edas ach il d, in cl ud in g t ha t h e su ffer edm ul ti pl e h eadin

juri es in fli ct edinanid en ti cal m an ne r to th e h eadin

jury des cri be d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w. See So ch or , 68 5 F .3d10 21 -2 2. In 6 Indeed, the court in Sochor noted the orig inal sentenc ing te stimony as follows: 6 Sochor’s brother, Gar

y , testified that his “whole childhood was memories of nothing but g etting beat” by his pare nts, and that Sochor “took a lot of
. . . beating s” that wer e intended for Gar

y . Gar y testified that he “re member[ed] my mother, when [hi s] dad would g et home, yelling at my dad to spank us for this or for that, and he would start in with the belt, I mean a big belt, and jus t beat, be at , beat.” Sochor’s sis ter, Cathy Cooper, testi fied that Sochor “had a pretty rough life” and t h at al l o f their parents’ “fr ustrations and ever

y thing g ot taken out on” Sochor. Cooper stated that their fathe r “used to be a box er,” “knew how to hit,” and had a “ver y quick and violent temper.” C o o p er testified that “[t] here wer e times wher e literally you’d have to pull [her fathe r] off of” Sochor. Sochor’s fathe r “consta ntly hit [S ochor] with his fist. He’ d hit him in the face, in the arms, and .
. . would jus t b e i n a ra ge, any place he could hit him.” Cooper testified that Sochor “consta ntl y had his lips split open, black eyes, bruises all over his body .” Cooper stated that she “re member[ed] very clea rl y t h at [her] dad had [S ochor] down on the floor and was strattled over the top of him and j u s t , you know, like plummeting with his fist.” Sochor’s fathe r “g ot ahold o f [S ochor’ s] hair, and he kept bang ing his head ag ainst the wall.” Sochor “just sort of 123So ch or , th e jury was to ldab ou t the ki nd , ext en t, an d s ev eri ty of th e ab us e an d n ot

si m pl y th atbe at in gs oc cu rredth atm ay or m ay no t h av e ev enam ou nt edto ab us e. 7 Lik ewis e, inCu ll env Pi nh ol st er, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 38 8 (2 01 1) , th e te st im on y pr es en te d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w was re la ti ve ly lim it edinsco pe an d d idno t ap pr oa ch a d es cri pt io n o f th e sc al e o f ab us e atis su e h ere, wh ere n oton ly fam il y m em be rs bu t al so m em

be rs of Ho ls ey ’s comm

un it y st ep pe d fo rwardto de sc rib e th e se ve rit y an d wi de sp readno to rie ty of th is ab us e. See C ul le n, 1 31 S. Ct. at14 09 -1 0. Th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the co ll at eral he ari ng pro vi de d fa r le ss supp ort than t ha t pr es en te d o n b eh al f of

Hol se y at h is co ll at eral he ari ng . See Pi nh ol st er v . Ay ers ,
slid to the floor, a

nd then dad just started kic king him.” Sochor, 685 F .3d at 1022-22. Sochor’ s pare nts also testified at the orig inal sentenc ing he aring , describing his abuse in detail. See id. at 1022. Simi larly , Robinson v. Moore, 300 F.3d 1320 ( 11th Cir. 2002), is not comparable
. 7 Unlike Holsey ’s ca se but like Sochor, the a ctual sente ncingphase te stimony provided a

n extensive description of spec ific instance s of abuse and the a dditional details only prese nted other instance s of abuse . Compare Robinson, 300 F.3d at 1329-30 (desc ribingsentenc ing pha se testimony as explaining that the pe titioner was exposed to “consider able phy sical abuse ” such a s beingbeate n with a belt or switch while bound at the wrists, beingforc ed to sit with a broom handle be tween his leg s while beingstruck by his gr andfather, that ne ighbor s observe d him with bruises and told him not to go home, a nd that petitioner wa s sexually abused by

relatives and while workingin a migr ant labor c amp), with id. at 1338-39 ( describing c ollatera l child abuse evidenc e as c onsisting of e vidence that the def endant wa s also beate n with “belts, elec tric cor ds, or whatever ,” and w ould be beaten if he stopped pic king c rops for his grandf ather). A holding that a petitioner w as not prejudice d by counsel’s f

ailure to pre sent “more details” or “ differ ent examples” of abuse does not remotely sug g est that it is reasonable to discount evidence of child abuse where no details or examples that would ena ble the jury

to understand the nature a nd extent of this abuse were prese nted at sente ncing
. 12459 0 F .3d65 1, 7 12 (9t h C ir. 2 00 9) (enba nc ), (Koz in sk i, C.J ., di ss en ti ng ), rev ’d,

13 1 S . Ct. 1 38 8 (“ [W] ha t’s re m ark ab le is ho w li tt le supp ort the fam il y m em be rs pr ov id e fo r Pi nh ol st er’s the ory of e xt rem e ab us e an d d ep riv at io n. . . . Wha t’s
rem ark ab le he re i s ju stho w weakth is tes ti m on y actua ll y is .”); id . at 7 13 (“ The si m pl e fac t i s, the re’s n othi ng supp orti ng th e th eo ry of abu se or d ep riv at io n, i n st arkco nt ras t t o t he ev id en ce i n m an y ot he r cas es .”) (ci ti ng W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at 51 7; W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 70 ). Mo reo ve r, th e o st en si bl y m it ig at in g t es ti m on y

at is su e in Cu ll enwas u nd erm in edby the factth atth e p et it io ne r hi m se lf d en ie d t ha t
an y ab us e h adactua ll y

oc cu rred , andinfactde sc rib edth e p ur po rte d abu se by his st ep fathe r as “ ‘dis ci pl in e’ from whi ch he ‘ be ne fit te d.’” See Pi nh ol st er v . Ay ers , 52 5 F .3d74 2, 7 67 -6 8 (9 th Cir . 20 08 ), va cat edenba nc , 59 0 F .3d65 1 (9 th Cir
. 20 09 ), rev ’d, 13 1 S . Ct. 1 38 8 (2 01 1) ; s ee al so id . at 7 67 (“ Pi nh ol st er’s p rimary
co m pl ai ntab ou t h is st ep -fat he r was th at‘ he di dn ’t see m to wantth e k id s

125aro un d.’”). Inco nt ras t, i n Ho ls ey ’s cas e, th e ev id en ce o f pe rv as iv e ab us e is 8
un co ntrad ic te d. II . The Co ll at era l H ea ri ng Ev id ence of Me nta l Ret ar da tio n Wa s No t “L ar ge ly

Cum ul at iv e” of T ha t Pres ente d a t the S ente nci ng Hea ri ng The Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t tria l t es ti m on y

“ hi gh li gh te d Ho ls ey ’s li m it edin te ll ig en ce” s uc h t ha t h is m it ig at in g e vi de nc e was
Nor is the re mainder of

the ca ses cited by

the majority

compar able to this one. In Wong 8 v. Be lmontes, 130 S. C t. 383 (2009), the pe titioner did not offer e videncethat he wa s a victim of child abuse on c ollatera l review , only that his family

“lived in a state of ‘c onstant strife’” that was not direc ted at him. See Wong, 130 S. Ct. at 388. And the sente ncingphase te stimony provided a

detailed a ccount of

that violence. SeeBe lmontes v. Ayers, 529 F .3d 834, 885 (9th Cir. 2008) (O’ Scannlain, J., di ssenting) , rev’ d, 130 S. Ct . 383 (re countingthat, at trial, “B elmontes’s mother spoke of how B elmontes’s father used to be at her , once br eakingher a rm, and anothe r time stabbingher a nd of how B elmontes suffe red f rom the depa

rture of her se cond husband and be came ‘diffic ult to control.’”). In Boy d v. Allen, 592 F.3d 1274 ( 11th Cir. 2010), we distinguished the fa cts of Wigg ins v. Sm ith and Wil liams v. Taylor and discounted the petitioner’s mitigating e videncebeca use, unlike Wigg ins and Wil liams, this evidence did not clea rly reve al that the petitioner himself w as re gularly exposed to abuse, and be cause “the evidenc e [was] mi x ed on the impoverished conditions found in [t he petitioner’ s] hom e.” See Boyd, 592 F.3d at 1300; see also id. at 1299-1300 ( “The re is also no e vidence to sugg est that Boyd’s father wa s ever

direc tly violent towards him, and it is unclear how much of his stepfathe r’s violenc e wa s directe d at B oyd himself.”). Mor eover , we r epeatedly emphasized throughout our dec ision that discounting this lim ited evidenc e of c hild abuse wa s justified beca use of the hor

rific nature of the petitioner’s c rime, which involved the preme ditated torture and murde r of two victims followed by deliberate def

ace ment of their c orpses. See id. at 1302-03, 1302 n.7. Ac cording ly we stre ssed that “in bruta l torture-murde r ca ses like this one, this Court gene rally

has not found Strickland pre judice, eve n wher e the pe titioner’s counsel may have pe rfor

med def iciently by failingto uncover

and pre sent evidenc e of trouble d and abusive childhoods.” I d. at 1301. Fina lly , Rhode v. Hall, 582 F .3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2009) (pe r curiam), did not include any

claim that trial counse l was def icient in failingto introduce e vidence of abuse in the petitioner’s ba ckground, and so is not rele vant to the re asonable ness of the G eorg ia Supreme Court’s de termination that Holsey ’s child abuse evidenc e is “larg ely cumulative” of

his collater al evidenc e. See Rhode , 582 F.3d at 1284 (summarizing evide nce that petitioner alleg ed counsel de ficiently

failed to introduce ).

126“ la rg el y

cu m ul at iv e” o f th e co ll at eral ev id en ce i s al so anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts as i t re la te s t o h is un co nt es te d b or de rli ne m en ta l ret ard at io n. Th e o nl y

refe ren ce t o Ho ls ey ’s m en ta l re ta rd at io n dur in g t he
se nt en ci ng ph as e was Reg in a Ree ve s re ad in g t he word s “ bo rd erl in e m en ta l ret ard at io n” fro m

a rep ort cr eat edwhen Hol se y was fi fte en . Thattes ti m on y was a s fo ll ows : Q: And I w an t y ou to read to th e jury a po rti on of th is ps y ch ol og ic al te st in g da te d 7- 25 -8 0. And , a g a i n, jus t read th e hi gh li gh te d po rti on . The jury wil l be ab le to read th e who le th in g on th is pa ge an d t he ne xtpa ge . Thi s i s re ga rd in g R ob ert . A: It sa y s “ Ro be rt ev id en ced in ”—I ’m so rry . “ Ro be rt evi de nc ed an in ap pr op ria te effe ct [s ic ] du r i ng th e ev al ua ti on . He sm il ed ina ppr opriate ly an d ha d di ffi cu lt y m ai nt ai ni ng th ou gh t pa tt erns . At times he ap pe ared un aware of hi s im m ed ia te en vi ro nm en t, an d in a w or ld of h is own .” Ano th er pa rag rap h sa y s, “pr es en t te st in g in di cat es R o b e rt fu nc ti on s i n t he bo rd erl in e m en ta l re tard at io n ra ng e o f in te ll ig en ce.” Q: Bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e. A: Yes
. As the Geor gi a tr ia l co urt fo un d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w, andas t he Geor gi a Supr em e Co urt d idno t d is pu te , Hol se y ’s reco rdwas “ readto th e jury with ou t an y co nt ex t o r ex pl an at io n o f it s s ig ni fic an ce.” In de ed , altho ug h R eg in a was th e o nl y witne ss who ha d t he op po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n t he m ean in g o f th is in fo rm at io n dur in g Hol se y ’s sen te nc in g, s he tes ti fie d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w th atsh e h adne ve r se enth e rep ort b efo re s he was a sk edto readit , hadno t d is cu ss edth is tes ti m on y with

127co un se l i n a dv an ce o f tr ia l, h adne ve r he ardhe r br othe r de sc rib edas b or de rli ne

m en ta ll y ret ard edbe fo re s he readth os e wor ds to th e jury, andha d n otev enm et th e at to rn ey

who ask edhe r to readth es e wor ds be fo re s he di d s o. As a res ul t, al th ou gh th e jury hear d t he word s “ bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n” sp ok endu rin g li ve tes ti m on y

an d a ga in , on ce, b y

co un se l dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t, the jury ha d
no way of kno win g wh atth os e wor ds m ean t, ei th er i n g en eral or a s t he y rel at e to Hol se y . Inco nt ras t, o n c ol la te ral rev ie w, Hol se y pre se nt edtes ti m on y

an d wri tt en rep orts fro m

fou r ps y ch ol og is ts : Dr. Ma rkCu nn in gh am , Dr. Jet hr o To om er, Dr. Mar c Ein ho rn , andDr. Mic ha el Sh ap iro . Bot h Dr. Cu nn in gh am an d Dr. To om er co nc lu de d t ha t Ho ls ey

is m en ta ll y

ret ard ed . Dr. Einh orn, wh o was ask edto
ev al ua te Hol se y

by the st at e, an d Dr. Sh ap iro , who ha d e xa m in edHol se y in pr ep arat io n fo r tr ia l, ag reedat t he ve ry lea stth athe is “ inth e b or de rli ne ran ge ” o f
m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Inth e co ur se of e xp la in in g h is ev al ua ti onof Ho ls ey as m en ta ll y

ret ard ed , Dr. Cunn in gh am ’s tes ti m on y rel at edacco un ts gi ve n b y va rio us adul ts who kn ew Hol se y an d c on cl ud edth atHol se y ’s adapt iv e b eh av io r in th e are a o f
co m m un ic at io n was th atof asi x- y ear- ol d c hi ld . Dr. Cun ni ng ha m rel at edacco un ts of Hol se y ’s in ab il ity

to tak e car e o f hi s b as ic li vi ng ne ed s. Ho ls ey ha d “ ne ve r 128li ve d o n h is own . . . bu t al way s l iv edwith e it he r a wo m anth athe was g oi ng with

ora fam il y

m em be r.” He wou ldgi ve what ev er m on ey he earn edto hi s l iv in g co m pa ni on at t he ti m e, who wou ldpa y hi m th e m on ey

as an a ll owa nc e, so m et im es rem in di ng hi m

ho w to co un t the m on ey

whensh e g av e itto hi m . Hol se y ne ve r ha d abankacco un t, was un ab le to sh op forgro ceri es or c lo th in g b y hi m se lf, was
un ab le to us e p ub li c tr an sp orta ti on , andco ul d n otord er fo odfro m a m enu a t a
res taur an t. Whil e worki ng at aPiz za Hu t re st au ran t, Ho ls ey ’s supe rv is or s h ad tri edto pro m ot e h im

fro m di sh was he r to pi zza m ak er, b utHol se y was u nabl e to fo ll ow t he reci pe form ak in g the pi zzas . In thi s ar ea o f te st in g, Dr. Cu nn in gh am pl acedHol se y ’s cap aci ty as fal li ng inth e ran ge of afou r-y ear- ol d t o s ix -an d- aha lf- y ear- ol d c hi ld
. Hol se y ’s so ci al ad ap ta ti onwas a ls o years b eh in d h is bi ol og ic al ag e. Dr. Cu nn in gh am

su m m ari zedsev eral acco un ts of Ho ls ey ’s so ci al in te ract io n i n t he se te rm s: The de sc rip ti on th at he ’s a lo ne r is no t [th at he is ] a lo ne r by ch oi ce; it ’s no t th at he is sc hi zo id an d is un in te res te d in rel at in g to othe rs , it ’s he wan ts th e fri en ds , he’s ju stno t ab le to rel at e on anadul t t o a du ltba si s. W it h th e ki ds in th e ho us eh ol d he li ve s in , with th e gi rlf rie nd ’s ki ds , he go t al on g fam ou sl y with th em , wou ld pl ay with th em fo r ho ur s. It’s no t th at he ’s no t in te res te d in rel at in g, it ’s th at hi s rel at io ns hi p sk il ls an d cap ab il it ie s are at a ch il d le ve l an d th at pu ts hi m ou t of s yn c as he at te m pt s t o re la te to adul ts .
129Si m il arl y , Hol se y ’s rel at io ns hi ps with wo m eninadul th oo d “ al l u lt im at el y bro ke up as t he y

id en ti fie d t ha t the y

were re la ti ng to anem ot io na l ch il d i ns te adof a n adul t. . . . [U] lt im at el y

th ey jus t co ul dn ’t to le rat e th e ex pe rie nc e o f be in g i n a n in ti m at e rel at io ns hi p wi th a ch il d.” Dr. Cun ni ng ham gaug edHol se y ’s so ci al ad ap ti ve be ha vi oras a t the lev el of afiv e-year-o ldch il d. Interm s o f se lf- di rect io n, Dr. Cu nn in gh am rel at edacco un ts gi ve n b y ot he r adul ts who kn ew Hol se y

th athe was u nabl e to di recthi m se lf t owa rdgo al s as si m pl e as cle an in g t he ho us e o r ev enco ok in g aba si c m eal . Whe n c on fro nt edby
an ot he r adul t ab ou t h is in ab il it y to pe rfo rm

th es e si m

pl e ta sk s, Ho ls ey

“ wou ldjus t sl um p h is sh ou ld ers an d h an g h is he adan d m um bl e ab ou t wh athe co ul dn ’t do
ve ry well .” Test in g i n t he areaof s el f-d ire ct io n p la cedHol se y at t he fun ct io na l le ve l o f a fo ur -y ear- ol d c hi ld
. Su m m ari zi ng hi s ev al ua ti on inth es e an d o th er ar eas , Dr. Cun ni ng ha m te st ifi edth atHol se y

op erat es , on av erag e, atth e le ve l o f aneig ht -y ear- ol d c hi ldin hi s ad ap ti ve be ha vi or . He tes ti fie d tha t, wh erea s m en ta l re ta rd at io n re qu ire s p ro of of de fic it s i n o nl y

two of t enbe ha vi or al area s, Ho ls ey was d efi ci en t i n e ig ht
. Mo reo ve r, Dr. Cunn in gh am tes ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey ’s IQ sco res tak enov er a twen tyth ree year pe rio d b y

th e Geo rg iaYou th Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er (“ YDC”), b y Dr. Ein ho rn , andby D r. Cunn in gh am hi m se lf, a ndwhi ch reg is te redanIQ of 6 9, 7 0, 130an d 7 1, am ou nt edto “ anex tra or di na ril y rel iabl e d em on st rat io n o f hi s ac tu al in te ll ectua l capabi li ty” as the se sco res “ cl us te r[ed ] withi n thr ee p oi nt s.” Dr. 9 Cu nn in gh am

de sc rib edHol se y ’s bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n a s “ a cat as tro ph ic di sabi li ty.” 1 0 Dr. Too m er’s t es ti m on y

als o d es cri be d Ho ls ey ’s in te ll ectua l an d b eh av io ral cap aci ty as la gg in g fa r be hi ndhi s b io lo gi cal ag e. Dr. Too m er re po rte d tha t Ho ls ey reg is te redsco res at afif

th - orfou rth -g rad e le ve l i n re ad in g, m ath, an d s pe ll in g te st s ad m in is te redas p artof h is ass es sm en t. Dr. Too m er’s as se ss m en t was als o

When Dr. Shapiro per formed a partial I Q test of Holsey

befor e his trial, he obtaine d an 9 I Q score of 79, howe ver, D r. Shapiro neve rtheless a gree d with ever y other e x pert to have examined Holsey

that Holsey ’s intellige nce f alls at least in the borde rline ra ng e of me ntal reta rdation. More over, a s expl ained by Dr. Cunningham, the re sults of that test were not as reliable as the tests administere d by the YDC and by

Drs. Cunning ham, Einhorn, and T oomer, beca use Dr. Shapiro administered only an incomplete subse t of the tests administered on the se other oc casions. The only other c ontrary

test administered to Holsey , the Culture Fa ir test administered by

the Georg ia Depa

rtment of Corre ctions, was desc ribed by the psycholog ist who designed the test, Dr . Her bert Ebe r, as “ not intended to be used f or psycholog ical diagnosis” and that those score s “have absolutely no validity

for a ssessing I Q as de fined by the DSM and ar e not valid for pur

poses of diagnosing or

rulingout mental reta

rdation.” Although the majority

appar ently

discredits Dr. Cunningham’s desc ription of Holsey ’s 1 0 mental re tardation because those prec ise words a re not a lso found in the DSM-IV, seeMajority op. at 29 n.7, eve n Dr. Sac hy , the state e x pert witness whose testimony the majority

finds convincing , stated duringhis deposition that he does not alway s follow the letter of the DSM-IV in diagnosing patients. Specifically , Dr. Sac hy testified that the DSM-IV is, at most, “a g ood startingpoint for ar

rivingat a diagnosis,” but is not t o be tre ated a s a “dia gnostic bible,” and that he disagree d with its assessments in som e ar eas. In any event, no witness f

or the state que stioned the scientific ba sis for Dr. Cunningham’s use of the term “ cata strophic disability” in re lation to borderline mental re tarda tion. 131co ns is te ntwith Dr. Cu nn in gh am ’s con cl us io n t ha t Ho ls ey lag ge d fa r be hi ndhi s ag e g ro up in m

ul ti pl e are as of a dapt iv e b eh av io r. Dr. Ein ho rnex am in edHol se y forth e st at e, bu t h e ag reedwith Ho ls ey ’s
ex pe rts th atHol se y ’s tes t re su lt s an d b eh av io ral de ve lo pm en t m etall th ree el em en ts of t he de fin it io n o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n re qu ire d b y Geor gi a law. Co ns is te ntwith t es t re su lt s o bt ai ne d b y Drs. Cu nn in gh am

an d To om er, Dr. Ein ho rn ’s acad em ic tes ti ng rev eal edth atHol se y pe rfo rm s ata fo urth - orfif th
gr ad e le ve l i n re ad in g, s pe ll in g, an d a rit hm et ic . He nev erthe le ss op in edth at Hol se y was n otm en ta ll y

ret ard edbe cau se he jud ge d Ho ls ey ’s im pa irments to ha ve be encau se d b y

“ cu ltur al de pr iv at io n” an d a lc oh ol ab us e in st eadof m en ta l ret ard at io n. Con si st en t wi th Hol se y ’s exp ert s’ ass es sm en ts , ho wev er, Dr.

1 1 Ein ho rntes ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey ’s m en ta l fu nc ti on in g was be twee n “ lo w ave rag e” an d

“bo rd erl in e” m en ta l re tard at io n. Ein ho rnals o t es ti fie d t ha t h is tes ti ng rev eal edno

Howeve r, Dr. Cunningham explained that mental re tardation is notconting ent upon 1 1 biologica l or neurolog ical impairment, a nd can be the re sult of so-called “ cultural de privation” beca use “[m] ental re tarda

tion is i ndepende nt of ca

use. And so whe ther or not your hardwar e wa s perma nently stunted beca

use you didn’t g et prope r nurtura nce a s a baby , beca

use you wer e neg lected or

abused or

wer e impoverished or

ate lea d paint or we re dr opped on your hea d . . . all of that is called me ntal reta rdation.” D r. Cunningha

m describe d Dr. Einhorn’ s assumption that a “cultura l deficit” a

nd “mental r etar dation” ar e mutually exclusive as “entire ly

inconsistent . . . with DSM-IV and with the Ame rica n Association of Menta l Retardation Standards” and is “not a profe ssionally

acc epted stanc e or vie wpoint.” Simil arly , Dr. Toomer testified that “whe n we talk about diagnosing me ntal reta rdation in individuals, the etiology is varied. And be cause . . . it is psychosocia l or what have you does not in any way diminis h the exist enceor the likelihood of the exist ence of mental re tardation.” 132si gn s t ha t Ho ls ey was m al in ge rin g, o r di ss em bl in g i n o rd er t o app ear m en ta ll y ret ard ed , whi ch was a ls o c on si st en t wi th Dr. Cun ni ng ha m ’s ass es sm en t tha t Hol se y ’s res po ns es to qu es ti on s wer e th e p ro du ctof g enui ne effo rt. Dr. Shapi ro , who was re ta in edby H ol se y ’s tri al co un se l b utwho ne ve r te st ifi eddu rin g Ho ls ey ’s tri al or s en te nc in g, t es ti fie d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w th at Hol se y is “ in th e b or de rli ne ran ge ” o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Lik e Dr. Too m er, Dr. Sh ap iro tes ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey read s ata fo urth -g rad e le ve l. Fi na ll y , eve n Dr. Th om as Sach y , a ps y ch ia tri stwho ex am in edHol se y on be ha lf o f th e st at e, of

fere d t es ti m on y

th atwou ldhave be enhe lp fu l t o Ho ls ey if p ut be fo re a jury . Spe ci fic al ly, Dr. Sach y de sc rib edm en ta ll y

ret ard edin di vi du al s as of te n i nc ap ab le of k eep in g jo bs be cau se th ey are u nabl e to pe rfo rm

seque nc ed act iv it ie s. Th is de sc rip ti on was c on si st en t wi th Hol se y ’s evi de nc e th athe is
un ab le to fol lo w bas ic di rect io ns requi redto sh op for gro ceri es , coo k asi m

pl e
m eal , or p erfo rm

job s m or e so ph is ti cat edth andi sh was he r ortru ck dri ve r. Dr.

1 2 Sach y id en ti fie d i nabi li ty to m ai nt ai n a du ltrel at io ns hi ps as a no th er ch arac te ris ti c

It is not i nconsistent with Holsey ’s evidenc e that he ma intained menial jobs as a 1 2 tray-loade r at a

chicke n proce ssing plant or as a dishwa sher a

t a Piz za Hut restaur ant bec ause of the extraordinarily

simple, repetitive natur e of both jobs. Or, a s Dr. Cunning ham explained, it was not surprisingthat Holsey manag ed to kee p these jobs despite his impairments bec ause “mentally reta rded individuals, if the task is simple and routine a nd they have someguidance , they ’re likely

to be excellent employees in that a rea beca use it fully

eng ag es them and the y

g et a sense of pride in doingthat.” 133featur e o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n, an d t hi s d es cri pt io n was co rro bo rat iv e o f te st im on y

by Hols ey ’s exp ert s an d fo rm er g irl fri en ds th athe was u nabl e to in te racton an adul t l ev el . Furt he r, Dr. Sach y ackno wled ge d t ha t i nabi li ty to o pe rat e si m pl e m ach in ery, su ch as awash in g m ach in e, witho utin st ru ct io ns an d s up erv is io n m ay be co ns is te ntwith m il d m en ta l re ta rd at io n, ju stas Ho ls ey ’s col la te ral tes ti m on y rev eal edth atHol se y

was unabl e to op erat e a was hi ng m ach in e. Dr. Sach y em ph as iz edhi s v ie w th atth e in te ll ectua l el em en t o f bo rd erl in e ret ard at io n i s t he
m os t i m po rtantele m en t i n d ia gn os in g t ha t co nd it io n, an d h e u ne qu iv oc al ly te st ifi edth atHol se y ’s IQ sco res pl ace h im inth e b or de rli ne ran ge of m en ta l ret ard at io n. Cl earl y , Reg in a Ree ve s’ un ex pl ai ne d re ad in g o f th e wor ds “bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n ra ng e” ca nn otreas on ab ly be cal le d “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e” o f th is te st im on y . The co gn it iv e an d b eh av io ral im pa irments th atwere p ai ns taki ng ly
ex pl ai ne d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w by th e p sycho lo gi st s ar e n ota m at te r of ev eryday kn owl ed ge su ch th ata jury w il l b e rem in de d o f th em au to m at ic al ly m erel y

by he ari ng th e wor ds “bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n” sp ok en . Rath er, the tes ti m on y by the se ex pe rts wou ldha ve en ab le d t he jury to un de rs ta ndinco nc ret e te rm s t ha t Hol se y su ffer s fr om

th e “ co gn it iv e an d b eh av io ral im pa irments ” th atreduc e th e m or al cu lp ab il it y

of m en ta ll y

ret ard edan d b or de rli ne m en ta ll y ret ard edoff

en de rs , 134in cl ud in g Ho ls ey ’s di m in is he d c ap aci ty “ to un de rs ta ndan d p ro ces s i nf orm at io n, t o co m m un ic at e, to en ga ge in lo gi cal reas on in g, t o c on tro l i m pu ls es , andto
un de rs ta ndth e rea ct io ns of o th ers .” Atk in s v . Virg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 31 8 (2 00 2) ; se e Bro wnl ee v . Haley, 306 F.3d10 43 , 10 73 (11 thCir . 20 02 ). 1 3 The m ajor it y

refe rs to Reg in a Ree ve s’ sen te nc in g p ha se tes ti m on y th at Hol se y “pe rfo rm edpo or ly in s ch oo l, an d was us ua ll y ass ig ne d t o t he ne xtgra de le ve l i ns te adof a ctua ll y

pa ss in g i nt o t ha t g rad e le ve l,” t ha t Ho ls ey “ dr op pe d o utof
sc ho ol be fo re fi ni sh in g the ten th gra de ,” an d t ha t Ho ls ey was “ ‘very sl ow’ anda ‘poo r worke r’ who ‘nee d[ ed ] he lp fro m ho m e’ bu t n ev er g otth athe lp .” Majo rit y op . at 7 5- 76 . Howev er, n ot hi ng in th e te st im on y refe rredto de sc rib es th e d ep th
an d s ev eri ty of m en ta l i m pa irment t ha t d is ti ng ui sh es a bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y ret ard edde fen da ntfro m

th e g en eral po pu la ti on . See Atk in s, 5 36 U.S. at 3 19 (“ If th e cu lp ab il it y

of the av erag e m

ur de rer i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto jus ti fy

th e m os t ex tre m e sa nc ti on av ai labl e to th e St at e, th e le ss er cu lp ab il ity of t he m en ta ll y

ret ard ed of fen de r su rel y

do es no t m eri t tha t fo rm

of r etrib ut io n.” ). To s ay th attes ti m on y de sc rib in g Ho ls ey

as h av in g a cad em ic di ffi cu lt ie s t ha t ar e sh aredby non -m en ta ll y ret ard edin di vi du al s “ hi gh li gh te d” th e effe ct s o f Hol se y ’s m en ta l re ta rd at io n “[I ]tis abundantly

clea r that an individual ‘right on the e dg e’ of mental re tardation 1 3 suffe rs some of the sa

me limitations of re asoning , understanding , and impulse control as those described by

the Supreme Court in Atkins.” B rownlee , 306 F.3d at 1047. 135de sc rib edon co ll at eral rev ie w is to eras e th e d is ti nc ti on be twee n m en ta ll y ret ard ed pe rs on s an d t ho se who are n ot . See Atk in s, 5 36 U.S. at 3 10 (“ ‘By de fin it io n, [m en ta ll y ret ard ed ] in di vi du al s h av e subs ta nt ia l l im it at io ns no t s ha redby the ge ne ral po pu la ti on .’ ” (quo ti ng Atk in s v . Comm on weal th , 53 4 S .E.2d31 2, 3 25 (Va. 2 00 0) (Koo nt z, J., d is se nt in g) )). Test im on y th atde sc rib es th e im

pa irments th atare u ni qu e to m en ta ll y ret ard edin di vi du al s i s n eces sa ry to di st in gu is h t he
m en ta ll y ret ard edor b or de rli ne m en ta ll y ret ard edde fen dantfro m

a de fen da nt who se cu lp ab il it y

is no t d ecre as edby thi s i nc ap aci ty. Su ch tes ti m on y do es no t, as th e m ajor it y

cla im s, m erel y

ad d “ de ta il s” or e labo rat e o n “ th em es ” th atha ve al read y be encan va ss ed ; i ns te ad , itis ess en ti al to gi ve reco gn it io n t o t he “ co gn it iv e an d b eh av io ral im

pa irments th atm ak e th es e d efen da nt s l es s m or al ly cul pabl e.” Id
. at32 0. Th e se nt en ci ng ph as e te st im on y who ll y fai le d t o d es cri be th e eff ect s o f Hol se y ’s bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n. II I. Ho ls ey Recei ve d In effe cti ve Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el Duri ng the Pena lty Phas e o f Hi s T ri al Bec au se th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt’s d eci si on is fou nd edon th e un reas on ab le factua l d et erm in at io n tha t the sen te nc in g p ha se tes ti m on y

“ hi gh li gh te d” Hol se y ’s abu se an d b or de rli ne m en ta l re ta rd at io n s uc h t ha t h is
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e was “ la rg el y cu m ul at iv e,” we m

us t ap pl y de no vo rev ie w to

136th e p reju di ce co m po ne ntof Ho ls ey ’s Stri ck landcla im . See § 22 54 (d )(2 ); C oo pe r, 64 6 F .3dat 1 35 3; Jo ne s, 5 40 F.3dat 1 28 8 n .5. Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e Geo rg ia Supr em e Co urt d idno t ad jud ic at e th e d efi ci en cy

pro ng of Ho ls ey ’s Stri ck la nd cl ai m on th e m eri ts , we hav e n o s ta te -co urt ad jud ic at io n o f th e d efi ci en cy pro ng to de fer t o. Se e Ro m

pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at39 0. A. Defi ci ency To es tabl is h t ha t h is co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e, Hol se y m us t sh ow t ha t h is co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le acco rd in g t o pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s atth e ti m e o f hi s t ria l. See Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 68 7- 88 . It was well est ab li sh edth ro ug ho utth e ti m e o f co un se l’s p rep arat io n t ha t
anatt orne y

rep res en ti ng a de fen da ntina cap it al cas e b ears “ ‘an o bl ig at io n t o co nduc t a t ho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on of t he de fen da nt ’s bac kg ro un d.’” Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3 d a t 9 31 (qu ot in g Wil li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 96 ). Howev er, as inW ig gi ns , cou ns el ga th eredin fo rm at io n abo utHol se y ’s chi ld ho odfro m a na rro w setof s ou rces : Hol se y ’s sch oo l re co rd s, re co rd s fr om a st at e juv en il e reh ab il it at io n p ro gr am whe re Ho ls ey

was s en t wh enhe was fi fte en , andHol se y ’s cri m in al hi st ory . See 53 9 U.S. at52 3- 34 . Alth ou gh ass is ta ntco un se l Br en daTram m el als o c on du ct ed in te rv ie ws o f Hol se y ’s m ot he r an d t hr ee s is te rs , th es e in te rv ie ws were li m it edto di sc us si ng th e “ gu il t/ in no cen ce” p ha se of Ho ls ey ’s tri al . At th e st at e h ab eas 137he ari ng , nei th er l eadco un se l An dy Prin ce n orTram m el reca ll edask in g Ho ls ey hi m se lf abo uthi s ch il dh oo d. Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh th e ab us e su ffer edby H ol se y was sev ere a ndth e kno wled ge of i t wi de sp readam on g c omm un it y m em be rs who
were av ai labl e an d wi ll in g t o t es ti fy as m it ig at io n wi tn es se s, m os t o f th es e witne ss es were n ev er co nt act edby tria l co un se l. See Co op er, 6 46 F.3dat 1 35 2 (n ot in g l is t o f witne ss es who were wi ll in g t o t es ti fy an d n otco nt act ed ). Tho se in di vi du al s wh o wer e co nt act edsi m pl y were n ev er as ke d fo r in fo rm at io n abo ut Hol se y ’s up br in gi ng . Eventh ou gh co un se l re li edon Reg in a Hol se y to pre se nt
ev id en ce ab ou t Ho ls ey ’s fam il y hi st ory , tri al co un se l n ev er d is cu ss edth e sc op e o r subjec t m at te r of

Reg in a Hol se y ’s m it ig at io n- ph as e te st im on y with h er. Mo reo ve r, “ th e in fo rm at io n t ha t tria l co un se l d idacqui re wo ul d h av e le d a
reas on ab le att orne y

to in ve st ig at e fu rth er” a ndto di sc ov er the pe rv as iv e ab us e in Hol se y ’s bac kg ro un d. Se e Will ia m s, 5 42 F.3dat 1 34 0. Du rin g t he co ur se of
co un se l’s p rep arat io n fo r tr ia l, Ho ls ey ’s fou r si st ers an d h is m ot he r pr ov id ed
co un se l wi th res po ns es to a qu es ti on na ire po si ng ge ne ric qu es ti on s ab ou t the ir kn owl ed ge of Ho ls ey

an d h is ba ck gr ou nd . Sev eral of t he se qu es ti on na ire s co nt ai ne d v iv idrefe ren ces to th e ab us e an d p ov erty inHol se y ’s chi ldho od . In pa rti cu la r, Reg in a Hol se y ’s qu es ti on na ire rep orte d t ha t Ho ls ey “ was be at enwith
va rio us co rd s, s ti ck s, s wit ch es , bro om s, s ho es ,” an d h adbe en“ ch ok ed ” an d “ he ld 138un de r wat er.” Al th ou gh co un se l re cei ve d t he se form s i n a dv an ce o f Hol se y ’s tri al ,

co un se l d idno t d is cu ss th es e o bv io us in di cat io ns of abu se inth ei r in te rv ie ws wi th Hol se y or h is si st ers . See J oh ns on , 64 3 F .3dat 9 32 (“No re as on ab le att orne y [h av in g b een no ti fie d o f ab us e] woul d fa il to in te rv ie w m em be rs of h is cli en t’s fam il y who were re ad il y

av ai labl e an d c ou ldco rro bo rat e o r refu te th e al le ga ti on s of ab us e.”). No th in g i n t he reco rdin di cat es th atco un se l ch os e to cu t o ff the ir in ve st ig at io n i nt o Ho ls ey ’s chi ldho odinli gh t o f si gn s t ha t thi s i nqui ry wou ldbe fru it le ss or wo ul d l eadto th e d is co ve ry of a dv ers e ev id en ce. See W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at 5 25 (fi nd in g p erfo rm an ce d efi ci en t ab se ntin di cat io ns th atfurth er re se arch
wou ldbe us el es s)
. Lik e co un se l’s i na de qu at e in ve st ig at io n o f Hol se y ’s chi ld ho odab us e, co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti on of Ho ls ey ’s m en ta l co nd it io n was de fic ie ntinfai li ng to di sc ov er re ad il y

av ai labl e ev id en ce o f hi s b or de rli ne ret ard at io n, i n i gn or in g pr om in en t l ead s t ha t s ho ul d h av e sp ark edfurth er i nqui ry , andinlac ki ng any st rat eg ic ba si s t o fo rg o t hi s i nv es ti ga ti on . Lead c ou ns el Andrew Pri nc e te st ifi edat th e co ll at eral ev id en ti ary he ari ng th at , pri orto Hol se y ’s sen te nc in g, h e h adread th e rep ort fr om

whi ch Reg in a rea d a t Ho ls ey ’s tri al , whi ch rev eal edth atHol se y , as a fi fte en -y ear- ol d, fu nc ti on edat ath ird -g rad e le ve l an d h adanIQ of 7 0. Th e rep ort al so refe rredto Hol se y as h av in g a“bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n rang e” o f

139in te ll ig en ce an d a s ex hi bi ti ng be ha vi orth atde no te d “ a p rep sycho ti c d is tu rb an ce.”

In de ed , lea d c ou ns el no te d i n h is pre pa rat io n m at eri al s t ha t Ho ls ey was

“bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y

ret ard ed .” Mo reo ve r, as si st an t co un se l Tramm el tes ti fie d a t th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atsh e n ot ic edth atHol se y was e xt rem el y

sl ow fr om

th e fir stti m e sh e m ethi m , andPri nc e d oc um en te d Ho ls ey ’s dem ean oras “ rathe r ps y ch ot ic .” Tram

m el als o re vi ewedHol se y ’s sch oo l re co rd s an d s ha redhe r no te s with l eadco un se l Pr in ce, i n wh ic h s he su m m ari zedHol se y ’s sch oo l p erfo rm an ce as “pi ti fu l.” Fu rth er, Reg in a Hol se y ’s qu es ti on na ire , whi ch was s ub m it te d t o co un se l wel l i n a dv an ce o f tr ia l, s pe ci fic al ly referre d t o apa te rn al un cl e who was m en ta ll y ret ard edan d t o m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s ex pe rie nc edby H ol se y ’s m ot he r an d t wo o f hi s s is te rs . As th e Geo rg iahabe as co urt fo un d, h owe ve r, an d a s t he Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt d idno t d is pu te , Prin ce ad m it te d t ha t h e n ev er co ns id ered pr es en ti ng an y

m en ta l re ta rd at io n e vi de nc e ateit he r ph as e o f tr ia l. Thi s i s n ot
su rp ris in g g iv enhi s o wn t es ti m on y th athe was drin ki ng he av il y du rin g t hi s t im e an d t he m al pr act ic e su itan d c riminal ch arg es co nc ern in g h is th eftof c li en t fu nd s. Bas edup onth e m en ta l h eal th reco rd s t ha t wer e av ai labl e to Pri nc e, “ an y reas on ab ly com

pe te ntatt orne y

wou ldha ve real iz ed ” th atpu rs ui ng ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n abo utHol se y ’s m en ta l d efi ci en cy “was ne ces sa ry

to m ak in g a n in fo rm edch oi ce” abo utm it ig at io n s tra te gy. See Wig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 5. 140Howev er, Bre nd a Tramm el , who was o st en si bl y inch arg e o f m it ig at io n, t es ti fie d th atby the ti m e sh e joi ne d t he cas e, Pri nc e h adalr eady de ci de d t ha t m en ta l h eal th is su es were n otgo in g t o b e p ur su edor p res en te d. Thi s re co rdgi ve s n o 1 4 in di cat io n tha t Pr in ce’s fai lu re t o p ur su e ap paren t l ead s i nt o Ho ls ey ’s m en ta l in cap aci ty w as a m at te r of “ reas on edst rat eg ic jud gm en t; ”i ns te ad , eve ry in di cat io n is th atth is de fectin pre pa rat io n “ res ul te d fr om in at te nt io n” alo ne . Id. at52 6. B. Prejud ic e To s at is fy th e p reju di ce s ta nd ardof S tri ck la nd , Hol se y m us t s ho w “ a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t . . . th e se nt en cer . . . wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t the ba la nc e o f ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces di d n otwarran t d eat h” if
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o f hi s ch il dh oo d abu se an d m en ta l re tard at io n h adbe en in tro du ced . See Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 95 . Becau se Geor gi a requi res th atth e de ath p en al ty m ay

be im po se d o nl y

by a un an im ou s ju ry

ve rd ic t, Hol se y

ne ed 1 5

Prince obtaine d funds from the c ourt to pay for a psycholog ical asse ssment by Dr. 1 4 Michae l Shapiro, but, as in Fer rell v. Ha ll, counsel’s use of Dr. Shapiro wa s “unjustifiably and unrea sonably

circ umscribed.” 640 F.3d 1199, 1227 ( 11th Cir. 2011). Prince used D r. Shapiro only to assess compete ncy

to stand trial and did not inquire about menta l limi tations releva nt to mitigation. Shapiro testified that c ounsel provided him with only a two-pa g e summary

of Holsey ’s per sonal and fa

mily history . Dr. Shapiro c reated no re port of his finding s, and did not make a ny diagnosis as to Holsey ’s mental condition in advanc e of tria l. Whether or not counse l ever discussed Shapiro’s e x amination with him, the lim ited evidenc e of c ounsel’s intera ction with Dr. Shapiro re veals that Shapiro’ s investigation of Holsey ’s mental condition was, at best, a “shar ply limit ed inquiry .” I d. See supra

n. 1. 1 5 141on ly sho w a “reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t atlea ston e juro r wou ldha ve stru cka

di ffer en t b al an ce” b etweenag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g fa ct or s. Wigg in s, 5 39 U.S. at53 7. “ A reas on ab le pro babi li ty is a p ro babi li ty suf fic ie ntto un de rm in e co nf id en ce i n the ou tc om e” o f Hol se y ’s ori gi na l s en te nc in g p ro ceed in g. Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 94 . The l ik el ih oo d o f a d iff eren t o ut co m e m

us t b e

“ subs ta nt ia l,” b utHol se y ne edno t s ho w th athi s co un se l’s erro rs “ m or e li ke ly tha n no t al te redth e o ut co m e.” Harri ng to n v . Ric ht er, 1 31 S. Ct. 7 70 , 79 1 (2 01 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. As d et ai le d abo ve , “ [t]hi s i s n ota cas e in whi ch th e n ew ev id en ce wo ul d ba rel y have alt eredth e se nt en ci ng pro fil e” p res en te d t o t he sen te nc in g jury . Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 5 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Hols ey ’s m it ig at in g ev id en ce i s p reci se ly the po te ntco m bi na ti on of c hi ldab us e an d b or de rli ne m en ta l ret ard at io n t ha t was he ldto est ab li sh pre jud ic e in W il li am s v . Tay lo r. See 5 29 U.S. at 3 98 . Mor eo ve r, ne it he r of th e st at e’s expe rt wi tn es se s, Drs . Sach y an d Ein ho rn , di sp ut es th atHol se y is bo rd erl in e m en ta ll y

ret ard ed , bo th witne ss es ag ree with Ho ls ey ’s exp ert s tha t h e was no t “ m al in ge rin g” or f ak in g the effe ct s o f ret ard at io n, an d n o wi tn es s h as cal le d i nt o que st io n Ho ls ey ’s evi de nc e th athe was th e v ic ti m

of s ev ere abu se th ro ug ho uthi s ch il dh oo d a ndad ol es cen ce. The refo re, Hol se y ’s m it ig at in g e vi de nc e is esp eci al ly stro ng be cau se itis “ co ns is te nt , 142un wav eri ng , com pe ll in g, an d wh ol ly unr eb ut te d.” Ferre ll v. Hal l, 6 40 F.3d11 99 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Thi s i s n ota cas e whe re the ag gr av at in g fa ct or s s o c le arl y ou twei gh edth e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces th atth ere i s n o s ub st an ti al pro babi li ty tha t o ne juro r wou ldha ve weig he d t he m di ffer en tl y . The jury ’s sen te nc e o f de ath was ba se d o n fo urst atut ory

ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces . The fi rs t o f th es e fac to rs was b as edon Hol se y ’s pri orco nv ic ti on forarm edrob be ry when he was e ig ht eeny ears ol d, i n whi chhe rob be d aco nv en ie nc e st or e u si ng a br ic k. Th e rem ai ni ng th ree wer e de riv edfro m

th e imm ed ia te cir cu m st an ces of Ho ls ey ’s cri m e: th atth e sh oo ti ng of Dep uty Ro bi ns on oc cu rredwhi le Hol se y fle d the sce ne of arob be ry , th atit
oc cu rredin ord er t o e va de arre st , andth atDepu ty Rob in so n was a pe ace o ffi cer i n th e li ne of duty . See Ga. Co de Ann . § 1 7- 10 -3 0( b) (2 ), (8 ), (1 0) . In ad di ti on , th e st at e p res en te d e vi de nc e o f th e n on -s ta tu to ry ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces th at Hol se y ha d s tabb eda m anin a ba rro om fig htan d t ha t, as Hol se y att em pt edto fle e th e b arro om

fig ht , a m anha nd edhi m a ri fle with wh ic h h e sh otat apu rs ue r. Howev er, the se ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces were weak en edby defen se ev id en ce attri al an d wo ul d h av e b een furth er d im in is he d b y th e ev id en ce pr es en te d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w. As to th e th ree s ta tu to ry ag gr av at or s re la ti ng to th e cri m e it se lf, t he Supr em e Co urt an d o urcir cu itbo th ha ve he ldm it ig at in g e vi de nc e 143of

ch il d abu se an d m en ta l i m pa irment l ik e Hol se y ’s to crea te a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

of o ut weig hi ng ev id en ce o f cri m es th atwere fa r m or e ag gr av at edth an th is on e. InRo m

pi ll a, th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o f ab us e an d m en ta l i nf

irmity crea te d areas on ab le pro babi li ty of ou twei gh in g a gg rav at in g ev id en ce o f m

ur de r in vo lv in g t ortu re, a s im ul ta ne ou s fe lo ny, anda hi st ory of vi ol en t cr im e in cl ud in g rape at kni fep oi nt . See 5 42 U.S. at 3 78 , 39 2- 93 ; i d. at40 2 (Ken ne dy, J., di ss en ti ng ). In Wil li am s, the Co urt h el d t ha t o m it te d m it ig at in g ev id en ce o f ab us e an d b or de rli ne ret ard at io n m ay ha ve ou twei gh eda ro bb ery an d
m ur de r th atwas a gg rav at edby the de fen da nt ’s subs eque nt“ vi ol en t as saul ts on el de rly vic ti m s” an d a rs on co m m it te d wh il e in pri so n. Se e 5 29 U.S. at 3 68 -6 9, 39 8. Lik ewis e, in Co op er, we h el d t ha t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o f ch il d abu se alo ne , witho utm en ta l i m

pa irment, c reat eda reas on ab le pro babi li ty of ou twei gh in g ev id en ce o f th e cri m e, whi ch was a n “ ex tre m el y ag gr av at edtri pl e h om ic id e” in vo lv in g t he ex ecu ti on -s tyle m ur de r of res tra in edvi ct im s. See 64 6 F .3dat 13 38 -4 1, 1 35 3- 56 . AndinJo hn so n, we h el d t ha t m it ig at in g c hi ldab us e ev id en ce al on e, wit ho utm en ta l i m pa irment, c reat eda reas on ab le pro babi li ty of ou twei gh in g ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s m ur de r of two vi ct im s an d fi ve sep arat e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g tha t the m ur de rs were co m

m it te d “ in a co ld , cal cu la te d,
an d p rem ed it at edm an ne r.” See 64 3 F .3dat 9 17
. 144The m ur de r in vo lv edinth is cas e was “ no m or e b ru ta l tha n t he m ur de r[s ] in th [es e] case [s ]. ” Id . at 9 37 . Andth e cu lp ab il it y ass oc ia te d wi thth is m

ur de r wou ldha ve be endi m in is he d b y th e co ll at eral ex pe rt t es ti m on y de sc rib in g t he effe ctof Ho ls ey ’s bo rd erl in e ret ard at io n o n h is li m it edcap aci ty “ to un de rs ta ndan d pr oc es s i nf

orm at io n, t o l earn fro m

ex pe rie nc e, to en ga ge inlo gi cal reas on in g, o r to
co nt ro l i m

pu ls es .” Atk in s, 5 36 U.S. at 3 20 . Sim il arl y , as t o t he fou rth ag gr av at in g fa ct orof Ho ls ey ’s pri orco nv ic ti on at t he ag e o f ei gh te en , th e wei gh t of th is ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce wo ul d h av e b een reduc edby the co ll at eral te st im on y de sc rib in g t he ex te ntof t he ab us e th atHol se y su ffer edth ro ug ho uthi s ad ol es cen ce, as well as h is bo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Se e Ja ck so n v . Herri ng , 42 F.3d13 50 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (h ol di ng th atag gr av at in g e vi de nc e o f m ur de r wou ldha ve be endi m in is he d b y “ [e]vi de nc e sh owi ng th e g en es is of [ th e de fen da nt ’s] irr at io na l ra ge th ro ug h a n abu si ve up br in gi ng ”). Reg ard in g t he no n- st atut ory ag gr av at in g e vi de nc e reg ard in g t he ba rro om fig ht , Kenn eth S imm on s, the pe rs on who was s tabb ed , tes ti fie d tha t h e “ ha d wo rd s with” Hol se y

ab ou t a f ig htbe twee n Ho ls ey

an d S imm on s’ cou si n t ha t o ccu rred earl ie r th atni gh t. Acco rd in g t o S imm on s, Ho ls ey , othe rwis e u np ro vo ke d, the n st ab be d h im

in th e b ackwith akn ife . Simm on s t es ti fie d t ha t h e co ul d n ot
rem em be r wha t h e an d Ho ls ey

ha d s ai d t o e ach ot he r. In c on tra st , fou r wit ne ss es

145who were p res en t o n the ni gh t o f th e b ar fi gh t t es ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey di d n otst artth e fig htan d s tabb edSimm on s o nl y aft er Si m m on s h adbl ud ge on edHol se y inth e ba ckof the he adwith abri ck , cau si ng Hol se y to bl eedpro fu se ly from

th e h ead
. Luc il le Kend ric k t es ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey was d an ci ng with h er wh enSimm on s ca m e up fro m be hi ndHol se y

an d h ithi m

inth e b ackof the he adwith a n o bjec t i n h is ha nd , andHol se y

st art edbl eed in g fr om

th e h ead . Hol se y

pu sh edKend ric k a way fro m hi m , lea vi ng so m e o f hi s b lo odon he r sh irt , andst art edfig ht in g S imm on s. Si m il arl y , Cli ffo rdHol se y , th e o wne r of th e b ar wh o i s n ota rel at iv e o f W ayne Hol se y , con si st en tl y de sc rib edKenn eth S imm on s an d S im m on s’ cou si n, Sco tt ie Simm on s, as th e ag gr es so rs inth e fi gh t. Sp eci fic al ly, Cl iff or d Ho ls ey te st ifi edth atSimm on s, h is co us in , andanacco m pl ic e were c om in g fr om

an ot he r cl ub to Cli ffo rd ’s bar

to att ackHol se y . Whe n S imm on s arriv ed , Cli ffo rdHol se y wen t o ut si de to m eethi m an d h is co m

pa ni on s an d t ol d t he m

no t t o i nt erfe re wi th Hol se y , who was a lre ady in si de th e b ar wi th hi s g irl fri en d, b ecau se “ he is no t bo th eri ng an y

bo dy. W ayne is no t g oi ng to bo th er y ouif you d on ’t bo th er h im .” Howev er, Si m

m on s “ sl ip pe d o utfro m

aro un d m e an d wen t o n i ns id e th e p la ce,”
an d o nc e in si de he “ wen t i n t he re an d ju m pe d o n Wayne . AndW ayne ha d t o de fen d h im se lf b ecau se Sco tt ie [Si m m on s] andhi s fa m il y

were g oi ng to att ack hi m .” 146Fu rth er, Bel in daHawki ns , Hol se y ’s gi rlf rie ndwho was wi th hi m

onth e ni gh t o f th e al te rcat io n, t es ti fie d t ha t Si m m on s an d t wo o th ers ha d c om e to th e cl ub to att ackW ayne be cau se of a n i nc id en t tha t h adoc cu rredearl ie r th atni gh t. Sh e rem em

be redHol se y

co m in g t o h er i n t he ba r wit h b lo odrun ni ng fro m hi s he ad . She ask edhi m

whathapp en ed , andHol se y to ldhe r Si m

m on s h adhi t h im with abri ckfro m

be hi nd . Like Cli ffo rdHol se y an d Lu ci ll e Ken dr ic k, s he tes ti fie d th atW ayne Hol se y

di d n otst artth e fi gh t. Fi na ll y , all of t hi s t es ti m on y was co rro bo rat edby Regi naReev es , who tes ti fie d a t tria l tha t Ho ls ey ha d “ th ree h ol es in hi s h ead ” as a res ul t o f th e b ar fi gh t, o ne on th e te m pl e, an d two o n t he ba ck si de of h is he ad , all of wh ic h re qu ire d s ti tc he s. Be rth a Si m m on s, wh o i s n ot rel at edto Kenn eth o r Sco tt ie Sim m on s, t es ti fie d t ha t s he di d n otkn ow wh o s ta rte d th e fi gh t b utdi d s ee Ho ls ey st ab Kenn eth S imm on s fo urti m es . W e can no t s ay

th ata reas on ab le jury wou ldweig h the ev id en ce o f th e b ar fig hthe av il y

ag ai ns t Ho ls ey . Rath er, the weig htof t he tes ti m on y sh owe d t ha t Si m m on s at ta ck edHol se y

fir stfro m

be hi ndan d t ha t Si m

m on s ca m e to th e b ar with t wo co m

pa ni on s fo r th e sp eci fic pu rp os e o f as saul ti ng Hol se y . The wei gh t o f th e te st im on y

rev eal edth atHol se y

st ab be d S imm on s i n t he m id stof afig htth at st art edaft er Si m

m on s i nf li ct eda se rio us he adwou ndon Hol se y .

147As fo r th e ev id en ce tha t Ho ls ey fir eda ri fle at Ken ne th ’s cou si n, Sc ot ti e Si m m on s, the ag gr av at in g wei gh t o f th is tes ti m on y was d im in is he d b y

Sco tt ie Si m m on s’ adm is si onth athe was p ur su in g Ho ls ey inord er t o a tt ackhi m

as Ho ls ey le ft t he ba r. Mo reo ve r, Hol se y ’s exp ert s t es ti fie d o n c ol la te ral rev ie w th atHol se y is pro ne to fol lo w th e in st ru ct io ns fro m ot he rs as aco ns eque nc e o f hi s m en ta l ret ard at io n, an d Ho ls ey

fir edth e ri fle at S im

m on s o nl y

aft er a thi rdpe rs on ha nd ed th e ri fle to Hol se y

an d i ns tru ct edhi m

on ho w to co ck , aim , andfir e itas S imm on s ap pr oa ch ed . See Ferrel l, 6 40 F.3dat 1 23 4 (h ol di ng pre jud ic e es tabl is he d i n p art whe re “ ev id en ce o f [the pe ti ti on er’s] m en ta l i ll ne ss m eas ur ab ly w eak en s t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ” b y pro vi di ng anex pl an at io n fo r th e p et it io ne r’s
co nduc t); Hardwickv. Cr os by, 320 F.3d11 27 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ [P]sy ch ia tri c m it ig at in g e vi de nc e n oton ly can ac t i n m it ig at io n, i t al so co ul d si gn ifi can tl y

weak enth e ag gr av at in g fa ct or s.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Altho ug h t he m ajor it y

cla im s t ha t t es ti m on y

fro m de fen se ps y ch ol og is ts
wou ldha ve ledto in tro du ct io n o f te st im on y by D r. Sh ap iro an d Dr. Sa ch y th at Hol se y ’s con du ct“ ev id en cedanan ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er,” ne it he r do ct or

1 6 ga ve anop in io n t ha t Ho ls ey ex hi bi te d t hi s d is or de r. At m os t, Dr. Sac hy op in ed , hypo th et ic al ly andin th e ab st ract , th atag gr av at edass au lt , fig ht in g, an d s uc ces sf ul Majority op. at 96. 1 6 148arm edrob be ry were ea ch in di vi du al ly m or e co ns is te ntwith ant is oc ia l p ers on al it y th anwith m en ta l re tard at io n. Ho wev er, Dr. Sac hy m ad e n o d ia gn os is , andga ve no op in io n, ab ou t Ho ls ey , andm ad e n o c on cl us io ns ba se d o n any revi ew of Hol se y ’s
co nduc t i n p art ic ul ar. Fo r hi s p art , Dr. Shapi ro rep eat ed ly refus edto m ak e an an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y

di ag no si s o r to gi ve an y

op in io n abo utan ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er b as edonth e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le to hi m , des pi te co un se l fo r th e st at e’s pe rs is te ntqu es ti on in g. Fu rth erm or e, m any

asp ect s o f Dr. Sach y ’s tes ti m on y wou ldha ve be en un de rm in edon cro ss ex am in at io n o r reb ut te d b y Hol se y ’s exp ert s. Sp eci fic al ly, al th ou gh Dr. Sach y

tes ti fie d t ha t Ho ls ey

do es no t s ho w si gn s o f “ gr os s ne ur ol og ic al di sf

un ct io ni ng ” o r ph y si cal ab no rm al it y , andth atHol se y ’s cog ni ti ve fu nc ti on in g was “ gr os sl y in ta ct ,” he adm it te d o n c ro ss ex am in at io n t ha t n on e o f th es e fea tures is ne ces sa ril y co rrel at edwith m en ta l re tard at io n. In ad di ti on , Dr. Sach y read il y adm it te d t ha t, b ecau se he is a ps y ch ia tri stan d n ota ps y ch ol og is t, h e was un ab le to cri ti ci ze an y of t he tes ti ng co nduc te d b y Drs. Cu nn in gh am

an d Too m er, an d e ve n Dr. Ei nh orn, al l o f whi ch reg is te redsco res fal li ng withi n the
ran ge of m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Mo reo ve r, Hol se y ’s exp ertDr. Cun ni ng ha m was p rep aredto off

er pe rs ua si ve cri ti ci sm

of Dr. Sa ch y ’s ass es sm en t tha t wo ul d h av e p oi nt edou t fl aws

149in hi s m etho do lo gy and , ov eral l, d es cri be d i t as rel y in g o n s ci en ti fic al ly and

st at is ti cal ly inapp ro pr ia te , sel ect iv e in fo rm at io n. In pa rti cu la r, Dr. Sach y tes ti fie d th athi s o pi ni on was b as edon Hol se y ’s ph y si cal ap pe aran ce an d o n Ho ls ey ’s us e 1 7 of word s t ha t Dr. Sac hy deem ed“ co m pl ex ,” whi ch he ex pl ai ne d wer e th e “ si ng le
m os t s ig ni fic an t thi ng ” th athe rel ie d upo n t o fo rm hi s d ia gn os is
. Howev er, Dr. 1 8 Sach y adm it te d t ha t h is op in io n tha t the se word s ar e co nt rai nd ic at iv e o f m en ta l ret ard at io n was ba se d o n h is ownsubjec ti ve jud gm en t ra th er tha n o n a ny no rm ed
su rv ey , su ch as t he tes ti ng th atform edth e b as is of Ho ls ey ’s exp ert s’ op in io ns . Ask edto jus ti fy

hi s re li an ce o n v oc ab ul ary as a m eas ur e o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n, Dr. Sach y st at ed , “ wha t s ep arat es us fro m lo wer an im al s t ha n o urlan gu ag e sk il ls [s ic ]? . . . I m ean , peo pl e sa y when y ouop eny ou r m ou th th at ’s when ot he r pe op le fin d o uty ou ’re stup id .” At s ev eral ot he r po in ts , Dr. Sach y rel at edhi s v ie w th at Hol se y ’s con du ctdu rin g h is cri m e was no t i nd ic at iv e o f m en ta l re ta rd at io n i n p art be cau se th e co nduc t was no t “ stup id ” o r was “ no n- si ll y .” He als o s ta te d t ha t, i n

In response , Dr. Cunningham testified that abnor mal phy sical cha

rac teristics are 1 7 g ener ally indicative only

of seve re me ntal reta

rdation and not re levant to Holsey ’s contention that he is mildly

mentally reta rded. The wor ds or statements that Dr . Sachy identified we re the words “f orbidden” 1 8 (pronounc ed by

Holsey as “f orbidded” ), “subpoe na,” “ animosity ,” “c overup,” and the phr ases “unconditional love,” “don’t know if I ’m comingor g oing,” “thing s happen f or a r eason,” and “my life is at stake.”

150co nduc ti ng hi s as se ss m en t, h e was “ lo ok in g fo r . . . bla ta nt , si ll y , juv en il e,

m en ta ll y ret ard ed
. . . way s o f be ha vi ng th atm ak e a p ers on dysfunc ti on al
. . . . I th in k p eo pl e u se d t o c al l the m [m en ta ll y

ret ard edpe op le ] si m

pl e . . . Thatwas t he te rm in ol og y

at t he ti m e. AndI jus t d idfai l t o fi ndth atinth e rec or d, an yth in g si gn ifi can t i nd ic at in g areal si m pl ic it y .” Thi s t es ti m on y

co rro bo rat es Dr. Cu nn in gh am ’s cri ti ci sm

th atDr. Sach y

rel ie d o n s ci en ti fic al ly inapp ro pr ia te
an ecd ot es , in cl ud in g s te reo types ab ou t m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on s, ra th er tha n o n a st at is ti cal ly or sc ie nt ifi cal ly val idm etho d b y whi ch to ass es s m en ta l re ta rd at io n. Dr. Cunn in gh am

tes ti fie d t ha t Dr. Sac hy’ s re li an ce o n v oc ab ul ary is no t an ap pr op ria te ba si s o n wh ic h t o d ia gn os e m en ta l re ta rd at io n b ecau se , wher eas

“ syste m at ic ass es sm en t o f vo cab ul ary is on e o f te n o r el ev ensubt es ts inth e fu ll
sc al e IQ te st , . . . un syste m at ic subjec ti ve ev al ua ti onis no t atall a rel iabl e way of di ag no si ng m en ta l re ta rd at io n.” There fo re, ex cl ud in g adi ag no si s o f m en ta l ret ard at io n b as edonan ecd ot al ev id en ce o f vo cab ul ary “ wou ldbe an ex tra or di na ril y

in ap pr op ria te ap pl ic at io n t o m ak e.” Inco nt ras t, n ei th er Dr. Sac hy
no r Dr. Ein ho rnoff

eredany cri ti ci sm of t he m etho do lo gy andass es sm en ts
co nduc te d b y

Drs. Cu nn in gh am

an d To om er. In tro du ci ng Hol se y ’s m it ig at in g ev id en ce o f ch il d abu se an d b or de rli ne ret ard at io n wo ul d n otha ve ledto th e

151in tro du ct io n o f si gn ifi can t ag gr av at in g e vi de nc e b ey on d wh atth e jury hear d

du rin g Ho ls ey ’s ori gi na l s en te nc in g. 1 9 Bec au se we m

us t p res um e th atth e jury eval ua ti ng th e ev id en ce i s ac ti ng

“ reas on ab ly, co ns ci en ti ou sl y , andim pa rti al ly,” see St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 95 , I
can no t b el ie ve th aton e juro r he ari ng all of t he m it ig at in g e vi de nc e wou ldno t cred itHol se y ’s exp ert s an d l ay witne ss es an d fi ndHol se y to be eit he r fu ll y m en ta ll y ret ard edor b or de rli ne m en ta ll y ret ard edan d s o d im in is he d i n h is
co gn it iv e an d b eh av io ral cap aci ty as to be eit he r in el ig ib le for or u nd es erv in g o f th e d eat h p en al ty. Whe n c om bi ne d wi thHol se y ’s evi de nc e o f hi s h orrif ic ch il d ab us e, no ne of wh ic h was pre se nt edto hi s s en te nc in g ju ry , th ere i s a s ub st an ti al pr ob ab il it y

th aton e juro r wou ldno t h av e v ot edinfav orof t he de ath p en al ty had th is ev id en ce b een in tro du cedby com pe te ntco un se l. See W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at 53 7; W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 98 . Accor di ng ly, th e Si xt h Am en dm en t re qu ire s t ha t Hol se y rece iv e a n ew se nt en ci ng he ari ng .

The majority

ref ere nces H olsey ’s ar

rests in 1982 and 1983 for simple battery

and 1 9 shoplifting, and in 1990 f or ca rry ing a conce aled f

irea rm, howeve r, both of the e arlier arr ests occur red during H olsey ’s abuse - and pove rty -stricke n adolesc ence , and the 1990 conce aled- wea

pon charg es we re dr opped. And a lthough Holse y ’s prison re cords r efle ct some disciplinary

violations, the recor ds also contain mitiga ting state ments about his conduct, such a s those from his ac tivity

counselor tha

t Holsey “appe ars hone stly

interested in stay

ing out of any trouble” a nd “is a quiet individual [who] appea rs to stay pretty much to himself.” 152