F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT MAY 23, 2012 JO HN LEY [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 92 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 7- cv -0 08 97 -J A-KRS WYDELL EVANS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Pet it io ne r Wy de ll Evan s, a Fl or id a d eath ro w in m at e, ap pe al s t he Dis tri ct Co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s fi rs t fe de ral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . This ap pe al pre se nt s a si ng le cla im

forrel ie f—wh ethe r Eva ns was d en ie d t he co ns ti tu ti on al rig httoeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l atth e p en al ty pha se of h is cap it al tri al . Becau se

Eva ns fil edhi s fe de ral pe ti ti on aft er Ap ril 24 , 19 96 , th is cas e is go ve rn edby 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4, as am en de d b y th e Ant i– Terro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty Act o f 19 96 (AEDPA). See Gu zm anv. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 66 3 F .3d13 36 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Whe re, as he re, a s ta te co urt h as de ni edanin effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m on th e m eri ts , th e st an da rda pe ti ti on er m us t m eetto
warra ntfed eral habe as rel ie f “ was in te nd edto be , andis , a di ffi cu lton e.” J oh ns on v. Se c’y , DOC, 64 3 F .3d90 7, 9 10 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ci ti ng Harri ng to n v . Ric ht er,

__ _ U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 31 S. Ct. 7 70 , 78 6 (2 01 1) ). Aftercare fu ll y rev ie win g t he
reco rdin th is cas e an d h av in g t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de th at Eva ns ha s s at is fie d AEDPA’s d em an di ng st an da rdan d, the refo re, tha t h ab eas rel ie f is warran te d. I. BACKG ROUND FACTS 1 A. Trial The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s umm ari zedth e fac ts pre se nt edat Ev an s’s 1 99 9 tri al as f ol lo ws:

Ex cept a s otherwise c ited, the fa cts are taken f rom the opinions of the F lorida Supreme 1 Court: Evans v. State, 838 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2002) (Evans I ); Evans v. State, 946 So. 2d 1 (F la. 2006) (Eva

ns I I ). 2On Octo be r 21 , 19 98 , two da y s aft er be in g rel eas ed fro m pr is on ,

Wy de ll Eva ns sh ot an d ki ll ed hi s br oth er ’ s se ve nte en -y ea r- old girlf rien d, Ang el Jo hn so n, du rin g a n a r gu m en t ov er he r al le ge d un fai th fu ln es s to Eva ns ’[s] br ot h e r . At th e ti m e of th e sh oo ti ng , Evans was in an au to m ob il e with Jo hn so n, Eric a Fo st er, S a m m y Hog an , an d Lin o Ode na t. At so m e po in t du rin g th e arg um en t, Jo hn so n laug he d, to whi ch Eva ns res po nd ed , “ You th in k it ’s funn y ? You th in k it ’s fu nn y ? ” Eva ns th enpu ll edou t a g un an d s ho t J oh ns onin th e ch es t. Eva ns I, 83 8 S o. 2 d a t 1 09 2. Afte r th e sh oo ti ng , Evan s i ns tru ct edHog anto dri ve hi m to a fri en d’s h ou se . Alo ng th e way , Evan s i ns tru ct edOden atto ge t ri d o f th e g un . After s to pp in g a t th e fri en d’s h ou se , Evan s d ire ct edHog anto tak e h im to a ne arb y

pa rk in g l otwher e Eva ns tri edto wip e h is pri nt s fr om th e car . He als o t hr eat en edto ki ll Fo st er an d Hog anif t he y

to ldau th or it ie s wh o s ho t J oh ns on . Once Ev an s was ou t o f th e car , Fo st er an d Ho ga n t oo k J oh ns on to th e h os pi ta l wh ere s he lat er d ie d fr om he r gu ns ho t wo un d. At t he ho sp it al , Fos te r an d Ho ga n e ve ntua ll y id en ti fie d Ev an s as th e sh oo te r. He was a rres te d t he ne xtda y . Duri ng hi s ju ry tri al in Octo be r 19 99 , th e de fen se th eo ry

was t ha t Ev an s ac ci de nt al ly sho t J oh ns on whi le ha nd in g t he gu n t o he r. Evan s t es ti fie d t o t hi s v ers io n o f ev en ts du rin g t he gu il t p ha se of h is tri al . He
was co nv ic te d o f on e co un t o f fi rs t-d eg ree p rem ed it at edm ur de r, on e co un t o f ki dn ap pi ng , andon e co un t o f ag gr av at edass au lt
.
3B. Pen al ty Phas e

On No ve m

be r 3, 1 99 9, a p en al ty pha se was c on du ct ed
. The st at e
es tabl is he d t ha t Ev an s h adtwo pri orco nv ic ti on s fo r ba tt ery up on a la w
en fo rcem en t o ffi cer a nda pr io r co nv ic ti on forag gr av at edba tt ery, an d t ha t h e was
on pro ba ti on at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Defen se co un se l p res en te d n o m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n. Bu t d efen se
co un se l d idpre se ntth e te st im on y of s ev eral ch arac te r witne ss es , in cl ud in g Li ll y Eva ns (de fen da nt ’s m ot he r), San dr a Eva ns (de fen dant ’s aun t), M in ne Jarret t (d efen da nt ’s cou si n) , Lin daKey (de fen da nt ’s li fel on g fr ie nd ), an d P at ty W al ke r (d efen da nt ’s cou si n) . Thes e ch arac te r wit ne ss es ga ve po si ti ve acco un ts of Ev an s,

“ de sc rib in g h im

as age ne ro us m an , a go odfathe r, a lo vi ng an d o be di en t s on an d gr an ds on , a go odfri en d, an d s om eo ne who co un se le d c hi ld ren to st ay ou t o f tro ub le by stayin g i n s ch oo l.” Ev an s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 . Furt he r, Lil ly E va ns to ld th e jury tha t wh il e Eva ns ha d b een anob ed ie ntch il d a ndgo odin sch oo l, h er ad di ct io n t o c rackco cai ne ha d a ffec te d h is be ha vi or . She als o t es ti fie d t ha t Ev an s ha d b een he r in sp ira ti on to st op ab us in g c rackco cai ne . Evan s t es ti fie d t ha t h is
m ot he r’s crac k a dd ic ti on adve rs el y affec te d h im
.

4The jury reco m m en de d t he de ath p en al ty by a vo te of t ento two . Then th e tri al co urt h el d ahe ari ng pu rs ua ntto Sp en cer v . Sta te , 61 5 S o. 2 d 6 88 (Fl a. 19 93 ),
an d e nt ereda writ te n o rd er s en te nc in g Ev an s t o d eat h. Th e tr ia l co urt fo un d t wo ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces : (1 ) Evans ha d b een co nv ic te d o f pr io r vi ol en t fe lo ni es , Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (b ); a nd(2) th e cri m e was co m m it te d wh il e Eva ns was o n pr ob at io n, Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (a). Alt ho ug h Ev an s d idno t re qu es t the tri al
co urt t o c on si de r an y

of t he st atut ory

m it ig at or s, t he co urt co ns id eredeach st atut ory m it ig at orin it s s en te nc in g o rd er an d fo un d t ha t n on e ap pl ie d. Ba se d o n th e ch arac te r ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e, th e tr ia l co urt fo un d t he fo ll owi ng no ns ta tu to ry

m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces : “ (1 ) Eva ns ex pe rie nc edan ab us edor d ep riv edch il dh oo d; (2) he co nt rib ut edto so ci ety ; (3 ) he pe rfo rm ed ch ari tabl e d eed s; (4) he co un se le d you th to av oi d c rime andst ay in sch oo l; an d (5 ) he ex hi bi te d g oo d b eh av io r in pri so n.” Evan s II , at 5 n.3 . Butth e tr ia l co urt o nl y ga ve th es e m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces “ so m e” o r “ li tt le weig ht .” Ult im at el y , th e tri al co urt co nc lu de d tha t t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ou twei gh edth e m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces an d s en te nc edEvan s t o d eath fo r th e fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r
co nv ic ti on . 2

The trial c ourt also sentenc ed Eva ns to life imprisonment for the kidnappingconviction 2 and to 108.15 months in prison for the ag g ravated assault convic tion. 5C. Dire ctApp eal

The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edEvan s’s co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h
se nt en ce o n d ire ctap pe al . Evan s I, 8 38 So . 2d10 90 . Three Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ju st ic es co nc urredin affi rm in g Ev an s’s co nv ic ti on s, b utdi ss en te d a s t o t he de ath p en al ty, fin di ng th ata de ath s en te nc e was di sp ro po rti on at e b ecau se th e ho m ic id e “ oc cu rreddu rin g a n arg um en t b etween Evan s an d t he vi ct im ov er h er al le ge d u nf

ai th fu ln es s t o h is bro th er.” Id . at 1 09 9 (S ha w, J., di ss en ti ng joi ne d b y Ans te ad , C.J., an d P ari en te , J.). The Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari rev ie w. 3 Eva ns v. Fl or id a, 54 0 U.S. 8 46 (20 03 ).

4. St at e Po st co nv ic ti on Evi de nt ia ry Heari ng Eva ns fil eda m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua ntto Fla . R. Cri m . P. 3.8 51 in th e st at e tr ia l co urt ra is in g t encla im s, i nc lu di ng th e p en al ty pha se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m no w bef or e u s. Th e st at e tr ia l co urt h el d a n
ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Octo be r 19 an d 2 0 a ndDecem be r 16 , 20 04 . At th e

As J ustice Shaw e x plained: 3 The victim made the fata l mistake of laughing which incense d Evans to the point that he pulled out a gun and shot her in the chest. There is nothing in the rec ord to show that this was a planned or premeditated kil ling. In fac t, the rec ord re flec ts that the shooting was a spontaneous response to what Evans obviously felt was inappropriate laughter. Evans I , 838 So. 2d at 1099 (Shaw, J., di ssenting joined by Anstead, C.J., and Pariente, J.). 6ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Evan s p res en te d t he tes ti m on y of f iv e la y wit ne ss es : Li ll y Eva ns , San dr a Eva ns , OrenEvan s (d efen da nt ’s bro th er), M arg aretO’ Sh au ne ss y (d efen da nt ’s sp eci al educ at io n t each er), an d B arb ara M cFad de n (d efen da nt ’s
sc ho ol co un se lo r). He al so pre se nt edth e te st im on y of t hr ee m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts , Dr. Ric ha rdCarp en te r, Dr. Henry Dee, an d Dr. Harry

McC la ren , an d the

4 te st im on y of h is tri al co un se l. Eva ns als o t es ti fie d. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s umm ari zedth e la y wit ne ss ev id en ce p res en te d atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng as f ol lo ws: Eva ns pr es e n t e d ev id en ce of a tro ub le d ch il dh oo d. He pr es en te d hi s sc ho ol an d m ed ic al reco rd s, whi ch de m on st rat ed th at he was hi t by a car an d was dia gn os ed wit h a cl os edhe ad in jury at th e ag e o f th ree. [F N 9] H i s m othe r, Lil ly, an d hi s au nt , San dr a, witne ss ed th e acci de nt a n d te st ifi ed th at he st op pe d br eat hi ng fo r at le as t a m in ut e aft er it oc cu rred
. The y als o t es ti fie d th at hi s sp eech an d la ng ua ge pa tt ern s ch an ge d, an d he be ga n to stut te r. I n a d di ti on , Evans ’[s] li fe at ho m e was di ffi cu lt
. His fat he r di ed whe n he was y ou ng , an d he gr ew up wit h a m ot he r who was ad di ct edto crac k coc ai ne an d a st ep fat he r who was abu si ve . As a res ul t of hi s stut te rin g an d di ffi cu lt ie s at ho m e, Eva ns was freque nt ly pi ck ed on an d be at en up by ne ig hb orho od ch il dr en . He ev en t ua ll y ret al ia te d an d st art ed fig ht in g freque nt ly. Lil ly te st ifi ed th at hi s te m pe r “be cam e pr et ty qu ic k.” Eva ns ’[s] br ot he r, Oren , te st ifi ed th at Eva ns was ve ry ag gr es si ve an d reca ll ed in st an ces of Eva ns th ro win g ro ck s at a po li ce o ffi cer. FN9
. Eva ns ’[s] in

jury is no te d i n h i s sc ho ol reco rd s be cau se Eva ns ’ m ot he r rel ay ed th e in ci de nt to a sc ho ol
Dr. McClar en had be en re tained by the state a s a re buttal witness, but was ca lled as a 4 witness by

the def ense during its ca se-in-c hief. 7so ci al work er dur in g o ne of Ev an s’[s] ev al ua ti on s. Eva ns ’[s] sc ho ol reco rd s sh owe d a hi st ory of sp eech an d le arn in g di sabi li ti es , as well as es cal at in g be ha vi or al pr ob le m s du e to an ge r an d ag gr es si on . In el em en ta ry sc ho ol , Eva ns was pl aced in a cl as s fo r ch il dr en wit h learni ng di sabi li ti es an d recei ve d sp eech th erap y . Whi le Eva ns ’[s] IQ te st ed in th e n orm al ran ge , di sp ari ti es be twee n h is ve rb al an d pe rfo rm an ce sc or es on th e te st in di cat ed se ve re le arn in g di sabi li ti es . Eva ns rece iv ed m os tl y fai li ng gr ad es . In ad di ti on to acad em ic pr ob le m s, Eva ns was reg ul arl y di sc ip li ne d fo r be in g di sr up ti ve an d, as he go t ol de r, w as freque nt ly ex pe ll ed fro m sc ho ol fo r fig ht in g. Evans ’[s] vi ol en t be ha vi or es cal at ed fro m be in g ag gr es si ve wit h ot he r stud en ts to be in g ag gr es si ve wit h a te ach er. He was ev en t ua ll y cl as si fie d as em ot io na ll y ha nd ic ap pe d an d was reco m m en de d fo r th e se ve rel y em ot io na ll y di sturbe d pr og ram in hi gh sc ho ol , a pr og ram fo r th e m os t vi ol en t stud en ts
. Sch oo l ps y ch ol og y rep orts de sc rib ed Eva ns as ha vi ng po or im pu ls e co nt ro l, di sp la y in g ex ces si ve ag gr es si on , an d ha vi ng di ffi cu lt y co nt ro ll in g an ge r. At th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Evans ’[s] hi gh sc ho ol te ach e r , B arb ara McF ad de n, an d co un se lo r, Mar ga ret O’ Sh au ne ss y , al so de sc rib ed Eva ns as an gry , vi ol en t, im pu ls iv e, an d ha vi ng anex pl os iv e te m

pe r. Eva ns II, 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 6 –7 . All o f th e la y wit ne ss es tes ti fie d t ha t t he y wou ldha ve te st ifi edat Ev an s’s t ria l i f th ey ha d b een ask ed
. Bu t wh il e b ot h Li ll y an d S an dr a Eva ns tes ti fie d a t t he pe na lt y ph as e, on ly L il ly w as ask edbe fo re tria l t o d o s o. Thre e m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts als o t es ti fie d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng : Dr. Carp en te r, Dr. Dee, an d Dr. M cCl aren . All t hr ee t es ti fie d t ha t Ev an s “ ha d b rai n da m ag e at tri bu tabl e to hi s h eadin jury.” E va ns II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 7 . The ex pe rts al so “ ag reedth atth e d iff

eren ce b etween Evan s’[s] ve rb al an d p erfo rm an ce s co res

8on hi s IQ t es t i nd ic at edpo ss ib le bra in da m ag e as furth er ev id en cedby his lea rn in g

di sabi li ti es .” Id . ButDr. Carp en te r an d Dr. Dee pa rte d ways wit h Dr. M cCl aren

“ ov er wh ethe r Eva ns ’[s] brai n d am ag e le d t o any part ic ul ar b eh av io r.” Id . at 7 –8
. Dr. Carp en te r an d Dr. Dee op in edth atEvan s “ su ffer edfro m an
un co ntro ll ab le rag e rea ct io n o r im pu ls e d is or de r as a res ul t o f th e b rai n d am ag e.” Id . at 8 . They ag reedth atat the ti m e Jo hn so n was sh ot , Evan s’s “ be ha vi or de m on st rat edth athe was e xp eri en ci ng anun co nt ro ll ab le rag e rea ct io n, wh ic h was fu rth er ex acerba te d b y

hi s al co ho l u se .” Id . In Dr. Ca rp en te r’s op in io n, Ev an s’s

“be ha vi orat t he ti m e o f th e sh oo ti ng was due to alc oh ol ab us e, im pu ls e d is or de r,
an d ra ge reac ti on sec on da ry to Evan s’[s] clo se d- he adin jury.” Id. Dr. Dee

5 te st ifi edth atEvan s’s “ al co ho l ab us e ex acerba te d h is bra in da m ag e, cau si ng Evan s to ex pe rie nc e anin st an ta ne ou s ra ge kn own as ‘cli ck in g.’” Id . Bot h t es ti fie d t ha t 6
The F lorida Supreme Court state d: “Dr. Car penter ’s ‘c linical impression’ or diagnosis 5 of Evans w as in ac corda

nce w ith Ax is Iof the Dia g nostic and Statistical Manual of Me ntal Disorder s (4th ed. 2000) ( DSM IV) test: ‘Axis I : Alcohol abuse; Impulse Disorder; Rag e Reac tion Secondary

to Closedhead Injury .’” Eva ns I I , 946 So. 2d at 8 n.13. Dr. De e’s r eport provide d the following“summary impression” of Eva

ns: 6 L ooking at the lifelong history that Evans has, with lear ning disabiliti es, a lack of behavior al and impulse control, which included fre quent rag es, often when they wer e fra nkly inexpl icable to others, attentional problems, over act i v ity , etc., would strong ly seem to support the diagno s i s o f cer ebra l damag e early in childhood, probably resultingfrom the a ccide nt [ at] ag e 3. Evans I I , 946 So. 2d at 8 n.14. 9Eva ns di d n otform th e in te ntto ki ll Jo hn so n. Id . Ins te ad , bec au se of Ev an s’s im pu ls e co nt ro l d is or de r, bo th ex pe rts tes ti fie d t ha t h e m etth e cri te riaforFlo rid a’s two st atut ory

m en ta l-s ta te m it ig at or s: (1) “ [t]he cap it al fel on y was c omm it te d whi le th e d efen da ntwas u nd er the in flu en ce o f ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l di sturba nc e,” Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (b ); a nd(2) , “ [t]he cap aci ty of th e d efen da nt to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al ity of h is or h er co nduc t o r to co nf orm hi s o r he r co nduc t to th e requi rem en ts of l aw was subs tant ia ll y im pa ire d,” id . at § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(f). 7 See Ev an s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 8
. Acco rd in g t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, “ [w]hil e Dr. McC la ren ag reedth at Eva ns su ffer edfro m

a br ai n d y sf

un ct io n a ndso m e d eg ree o f br ai n d am ag e, he di d
no t ag ree tha t Ev an s’[s] bra in dysfu nc ti on ledhi m to be ha ve inan y

parti cu la r way .” Id . Dr. McCl aren op in edth atEvan s’s b rai n d am ag e was “pr ob ab ly
ov ers ha do wedby pers on al ity ch arac te ris ti cs an d t he effe ctof a lc oh ol .” Id . Mor e sp eci fic al ly, Dr. McC la ren tes ti fie d a s fo ll ows : The r e c e r t a i nl y is ev id en ce th at he su st ai ne d a cl os ed -h ead in jury as a yo u n g ch il d an d subs eque nt ly ha d di ffi cu lt ie s wit h hi s be ha vi or a n d le arn in g in sc ho ol whi ch pr og res se d to juv en il e d el in qu en cy an d a du lt cri m in al ity . Whi le so m e m in or de gr ee of br ai n dysfu nc ti on is cert ai nl y a po ss ib il it y gi ve n h is hi st ory of he ad in jury an d em ot io na l an d
Florida also rec og nizes a third mental-state statutory mitigatingcirc umstance, but that 7 mitigator is not re levant to Evans’ s case . See F la. Stats. § 921.141(6)( 3)(“ [t ]he defenda nt acted under e x treme dur ess or unde r the substantial domination of another person.” 10be ha vi or al pr ob le m s as a ch il d pr io r to th e on se t o f cri m in al it y [,] hi s

be ha vi or la te r in li fe ap pe ars to be m or e as so c i a t e d w i t h a cri m in al li fes tyle th an wit h th e effe ct s of so me di sabl in g co gn it iv e di so rd er of su ch a se ve rit y to cau se im pa irments whi ch wou ld be a si gn ifi can t di ffi cu lt y forhi m . Id . at 8 n.1 6. Whil e Dr. McC la ren ag reedwit h t he ot he r ex pe rts th atalc oh ol was a si gn ifi can t fa ct orinEvan s’s b eh av io r atth e ti m e o f th e sh oo ti ng , he was
un cert ai n abo utth e quant it y of a lc oh ol th atEvan s h adco ns um edbe fo re the sh oo ti ng . See i d. at8– 9. He n ot edth atEvan s re po rte d n otdri nk in g dur in g t he car rid e an d h adin di cat edth athe was u nd er co nt ro l an d o th erwi se kn ew wha t h e was do in g. Id . at 9 . As a res ul t, Dr. Mc Cl aren co nc lu de d t ha t Ev an s d idno t m eetth e cri te riaforth e two st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or s, Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (b ) & (f). Id. at9. 8

Dr. McClar en off

ere d a diagnosis of Evans under the DSM-IV that diffe red f rom that of 8 Dr. De e and D r. Carpe nter: Dr. McClar en re ported that Eva ns “appe ars to mee t . .
. AXI S I criteria for Alcohol Abuse in Remission in a Co n t rolled Environment and AXI S I I diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder .” Dr. McClare n further noted that Evans “proba bly meets the AXI S I I diagnosis of Personality Disorder , Not Otherw ise Specified with Nar cissistic and Paranoid Traits.” Dr. McClare n also repor ted that he could not rule out the “possibility ” that Eva ns “suff ers from a Cognitive Disorder, N ot Otherwise Specified, associate d with the afte r aff ects of a childhood concussion and other blows to the head . . . g iven his documented history of hea d injury

as a c hild, as well as . . . fights, football, and boxi ng .” Evans I I , 946 So. 2d at 8 n.16. 11Eva ns ’s tri al co un se l al so tes ti fie d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng . He tes ti fie d

th athe m etwit h Ev an s t wo t im es be twee n t he ti m e o f hi s i ni ti al ap po in tm en t an d th e st artof t ria l fo r a t ot al of app ro xi m at el y fou r ho ur s. Tri al co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t he di d n otin ve st ig at e Evans ’s “ m en ta l h eal th be cau se hi s co nv ers at io ns wit h Eva ns ga ve hi m

no reas on to be li ev e th atEvan s was in sa ne or i nc om pe te nt .” Id
. Fu rth er, tria l co un se l af

firm edth atth e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI) pr ep aredforsen te nc in g “ in di cat edth athi s m en ta l h eal thwas p erfe ctan d t ha t h e ha d o nl y see n am en ta l h eat h e xp ertwhen he was you ng .” Id
. Tria l co un se l ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e p res en te d a n a cci de nt al sh oo ti ng de fen se du rin g t he gu il t p ha se be cau se Evan s i ns is te d o n i t. Id . Alth ou gh tri al co un se l
was aware the re was ev id en ce t ha t Ev an s h adbe endri nk in g l ead in g up t o t he sh oo ti ng , Evan s t ol d h im he was n otdru nkan d kne w whathe was d oi ng . Id. In sh ort, tria l co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adno reas on to qu es ti on Evan s’s v erac it y an d pl an ne d t o e xp lo itin co ns is te nc ie s i n t he ev id en ce t o c reat e rea so nabl e d oubt . Id. Fu rth er, tria l co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t t he acci de ntth eo ry was s up po rte d b y

Evan s’s st at em en ts an d t he re was no ev id en ce t o s up po rt ahe atof p as si on de fen se . Id. W it h re sp ectto th e p en al ty pha se , tri al co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t h e st art ed pr ep ari ng m or e th anfiv e m on th s p rio r to tri al . He m etwit h Li ll y for ap pr ox im at el y

th irt y -m in ut es an d a sk edhe r to co ll ectgo odch arac te r witne ss es 12be cau se Evan s co ul d fa ce t he de ath p en al ty. Acco rd in g t o Li ll y ’s tes ti m on y , tri al

co un se l t ol d h er h e o nl y

want edgo odch arac te r in fo rm at io n. Tri al co un se l te st ifi edth atLil ly tol d h im th atEvan s h adbe enanob ed ie ntch il d a ndha d
rece iv edgo odgra de s i n s ch oo l. Tri al co un se l as ke d Li ll y to pro vi de hi m

na m es of po te nt ia l ch arac te r witne ss es , who m he lat er co nt act edby m ai l. Lil ly test ifi edth at tri al co un se l d idno t ex pl ai n m it ig at io n t o h er; th attri al co un se l d idno t ad dr es s ot he r m at te rs du rin g t he ir m eet in g; th atsh e n ev er m etwit h ade fen se in ve st ig at or ; th atsh e o nl y

m etwit h t ria l co un se l t hi s o ne ti m e p rio r to tri al ; an d t ha t t ria l
co un se l o th erwi se di d n otha ve ti m e to di sc us s t he cas e wit h h er; bu t t ha t s he di d sp eakwit h c ou ns el at t ria l p rio r to he r te st im on y . Bas edon hi s i nt erv ie w with Lil ly, tri al co un se l “ ad op te d the st rat eg y of s ho win g Ev an s’[s] red eem in g qu al it ie s, s uc h a s h ow Ev an s s pe ntti m e wit h h is ch il dr enan d d ev ot edti m e to hi s gr an dm ot he r, atth e p en al ty pha se .” Evan s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 . Thu s, wi th ou t t he be ne fitof Ev an s’s s ch oo l o r m ed ic al reco rd s, wh ic h tria l co un se l n ev er o bt ai ne d, 9
oran y awaren es s o f Evans ’s clo se dh eadin jury, co un se l ch os e to pre se nta po si ti ve ch arac te r “ strat eg y

be cau se he was aware t ha t Ev an s’s cr im in al reco rdin di cat eda pr op en si ty for v io le nc e, an d h e d idno t wan t t o o pe n t he do orto th e St at e Although tr ial counsel wa s awa re that Evans had be en a life long r esident of the 9 jurisdiction where the trial wa s to occur, c ounsel did not obtain Evans’s school or me dical rec ords. 13in tro du ci ng ev id en ce o f Eva ns ’[s] acts of v io le nc e dur in g h is tee na ge y ears .”

Eva ns II, 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 –1 0. Mo reo ve r, tri al co un se l t es ti fie d h e d idno t h av e
an y ev id en ce t o s up po rt s ta tu to ry m it ig at io n a nddi d n otbe li ev e th atEvan s m ay ha ve m etth e two st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or s. Id . at 1 0. Tri al co un se l was
no t awa re tha t Ev an s h adan y pro bl em s i n s ch oo l. Id
. Fo ll owi ng th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d re li ef o n Feb ru ary 15 , 20 05 in a writ te n o rd er. W it h re sp ectto Evan s’s cl ai m th attri al
co un se l was in effe ct iv e atth e p en al ty pha se (al so refe rredto by E va ns , th e tr ia l
co urt, an d t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt as tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to ch al le ng e th e st at e’s cas e atpe na lty

ph as e), the tri al co urt fo un d n ei th er tha t tria l co un se l was de fic ie ntno r th atEvan s h adde m on st rat edpre jud ic e. 5. Po st co nv ic ti on App eal to Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt On d ire ctap pe al fro m

th e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f Eva ns ’s Rul e. 3.8 51 m ot io n, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co ns id eredth ree i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m s, i nc lu di ng th e p en al ty pha se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m at i ss ue in th is ap pe al
. Evan s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 6 , 10 –1 5. Aft er co rrec tl y cit in g t o 1 0

The F lorida Supreme Court c onsidered thefollowingthree ineffe ctive assistanc e of 1 0 counsel c laims: (1) “trial c ounsel was inef fec tive duringthe guilt phase for f ailing to investig ate, prepa re, a nd prese nt the defe nse of diminished ca pacity”; (2) “ trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive at the penalty phase f or fa iling to ade quately

challeng e the State’ s case ”; and ( 3) trial “c ounsel was 14Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) , as t he go ve rn in g

st an da rd , Evan s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 1 0, t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tr ia l
co urt’s d en ia l o f Eva ns ’s pen al ty pha se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m . Id. at11 –1 3. In do in g s o, t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s ta te d: 1 1

Eva ns ne xt cl ai m s th at tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ad equa te ly in ve st ig at e hi s ba ck gr ou nd fo r m en ta l he al th mi t ig at io n to pr es en t a t t h e pe na lt y ph as e. Eva ns cl ai m s th at de fen se co un se l was de fic ie nt fo r fai li ng to di sc ov er a weal th of m it ig at in g in fo rm at io n, in cl ud in g Eva ns ’[s] br ai n in jury an d li fel on g em ot io na l an d be ha vi or al pr ob le m s, an d fo r fai li ng to pr es en t an yth in g ot he r th an po si ti ve ch ara c t e r e vi de nc e at th e pe na lty ph as e. Eva ns al le ge s th at he was pr ejud ic ed by co un se l’s de fic ie nt in ve st ig at io n be cau se di sc ov ery an d

ineffe ctive duringthe pena lty phase f or fa iling to re quest jury

instructions on the statutory mental health mitigators based on e vidence that Evans wa s drinking a t the time of the murder .” Eva ns I I , 946 So. 2d at 6 (footnote omitted). Evans w as only g rante d a ce rtificate of appe alability (COA) a s to claim two [Doc . 23 at 83] ; thus, we do not consider the se other ine ffe ctive assistance of counse l issues. See Walls v. Buss, 658 F.3d 1274, 1278 n.3 (11th Cir. 2011) (statingwe will not consider issues not include d in the COA). We note that claim two had two pa rts: (1) “c ounsel was inef fec tive for f

ailing to r equest the appointment of c o-counse l to assist” with the penalty phase; a nd (b) “ counsel wa s ineffe ctive for f ailing to a dequate ly

investigate Evans’ [s] background and discove r ava ilable mental hea lth mitigation.” Eva

ns I I , 946 So. 2d at 6. Be cause Evans does not a rgue the c o-counse l issue, we consider it aba

ndoned and w ill not address it. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating“issues not raise d by a def endant in his initial brief on appe al ar e deeme d waived” ). We quote extensively

from the F lorida Supreme Court’ s decision bec ause its 1 1 fac tfinding, a

rguments and theorie s must be the focus of our inquiry

under A EDPA. The Supreme Court has made clea r that “a habea s court must determine what arguments or theorie s supported . . . the state ’s cour t decision; and then it must ask whether it is poss ible fairminded jurists could disagr ee that those arguments or theorie s are inconsistent with the holding in a pr ior decision of [the Supreme Court].” Har ring ton, 131 S. C t. at 786; see a lso J ohnson, 643 F.3d at 910. 15pr es en ta ti on of hi s br ai n in jury an d im

pu ls e di so rd er wou ld ha ve le d to anin st ru ct io n o n b ot h m en ta l h eal th st atut ory m it ig at or s. W e de cl in e to ad dr es s whe th er co un se l’s in ve st ig at io n was de fic ie nt be cau se we affi rm th e tri al co urt’s co nc lu si on th at Eva ns ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th a t he was pr ejud ic ed by co un se l’s fai lu re to pr es en t th e m it ig at io n ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti a ry h eari ng . “ [B]ecau se th e Stric kl an d st an da rd requi res es tabl is hm en t of bo th [d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce an d pr ejud ic e] pr on gs , whe n a de fen da nt fai ls to m ak e a sh owi ng as to on e pr on g, it is no t ne ces sa ry to de lv e in to whe th er h e h as m ad e a s ho win g a s t o t he ot he r pr on g.” Eva ns ha s fai le d to es tabl is h pr e ju di ce be cau se th e m it ig at io n ev id en ce he pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng wou ld li ke ly ha ve be en m or e ha rmfu l t ha n he lp fu l. “ An in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m do es no t ari se fro m th e fai lu re to pr es en t m it ig at io n ev id en ce whe re th at ev id en ce p r e s e n t s a do ub le -ed ge d swo rd .” Ree d v. St at e, 87 5 So
. 2d 41 5, 43 7 (Fl a. 20 04 ). Whi le th e te st im on y p r e se nt ed at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng es tabl is he d t h a t Eva ns su ffer ed fro m m en ta l he al th pr ob le m s, it al so di sp la y ed a lo ng hi st ory of be ha vi or al pr ob le m s an d es cal at in g vi ol en ce th ro ug ho ut hi s sc ho ol care er. P r e s e n t in g th is ev id en ce at th e pe na lt y ph as e wou ld ha ve res ul te d in th e jury he ari ng ab ou t Evans ’[s] ag gr es si on to ward s stud en ts an d te ach ers , hi s ag gr es si on to ward s po li ce of fic ers , hi s pr id e in be in g kn own as a “ jack -b oy” be cau se he ro bs drug de al ers , an d h i s h ab i t o f carry in g a gu n. It is jus t as li ke ly th at th is e vi de nc e wou ld ha ve be en m or e “ ag gr av at in g” th an m it ig at in g. S e e Ree d, 8 7 5 S o . 2d at 43 6– 37 (d en y in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m be c a u s e “ ev en if [d efen se ] co un se l ha d
. . . in ve st ig at ed fu rth er, th e te st im on y th at co ul d ha ve be en pr es en te d was jus t as li ke ly to ha ve res ul te d in ag gr av at io n ag ai ns t rat he r th an m it ig at io n fo r [th e de fen da nt ]”). Mo reo ve r, th is m it ig at io n ev id en c e pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng is in co ns is te nt wit h Eva ns ’[s] own te st im on y at th e gu il t ph as e. The ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary h eari ng reg ard in g Evans ’[s] u nc on tro ll ab le rag e di so rd er is in co ns is te nt wit h hi s te st im on y th at h e
16ha d a “ cl ear reco ll ect i on ” of th e sh oo ti ng be cau se he was fo cu se d an d

in co nt ro l. Bas ed on th e fo reg oi ng , Eva ns ha s no t es tabl is he d th at th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at hi s se nt en ce wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t had co un se l di sc ov ered an d pr es en te d th e m it ig at io n ev id en ce Eva ns pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng . See Stric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at 69 4, 10 4 S. Ct
. [at 20 68 ] (es tabl is hi ng th at ap pr op ria te te s t f o r pr ejud ic e is whe th er de fen da nt h a s d em on st rat ed reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at ou tc om e wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t bu t fo r co un se l’s un pr of es si on al erro rs an d de fin in g reas on ab le pr ob ab il ity as “pr ob ab il it y su ffi ci en t t o un de rm in e co nf

id en ce in th e ou tc om e”). The refo re, we are co nf id en t in th e o ut co m e an d a ffi rm

th e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f th is cla im
. Eva ns II, 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 1 2– 13 (so m e ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. 6. Fe de ral Habe as Pro ceed in gs Eva ns ti m el y

fil eda § 2 25 4 p et it io n i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a o n M ay 29 , 20 07 , rai si ng fif

te encla im s. Aft er b rie fin g b y th e pa rti es , bu t wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e Dis tri ctCo urt d en ie d the pe ti ti on
on Sep te m

be r 29 , 20 10 . The Di st ric t Co urt g ran te d Ev an s a C OA as t o h is cla im th attri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e dur in g the pe na lty ph as e. II . STANDARDS OF REVIEW A di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o r de ni al of ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on is rev ie wedde
no vo . W ardv. Hal l, 5 92 F.3d11 44 , 11 55 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). AEDPA “ im po se s a hi gh ly defer en ti al st an dardforev al ua ti ng st at e-co urt ru li ng s” an d “ de m an ds th at st at e-co urt d eci si on s b e g iv enth e b en efi t o f th e d oubt .” Ren ic o v . Lett , __ _ U.S. 17__

_, _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 85 5, 1 86 2 (2 01 0) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Becau se Evan s
se ek s h ab eas rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 b as edup on a cl ai m th atwas ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts by the st at e co urts , we are re st ric te d i n o ur ab il it y to gr an t re li ef b y

§ 2 25 4( d) . See Ca ve v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 63 8 F .3d73 9, 74 2– 43 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). To g ran t Ev an s’s h ab eas pe ti ti on , we m us t fi ndno t o nl y th atEvan s’s co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s ar e m eri to rio us , bu t al so th atth e st at e co urt’s
res ol ut io n o f th os e cl ai m s: (1 ) res u l te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl i c a t i on of , cl earl y es tabl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or (2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba se d on an un reas o n ab l e de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e co urt p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) ; s ee al so Cav e, 63 8 F .3dat 7 42 –4 3. Th e Supr em e Co urt h as
reco gn iz edth at§ 2 25 4( d) (1 )’s “ co nt rary to” an d “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” cl au se s ea ch ha ve in de pe nd en t m ean in g. Be ll v. Co ne , 53 5 U.S. 6 85 , 69 4, 1 22 S. Ct . 18 43 , 18 50 (20 02 ). A st at e co urt’s d eci si on is “ co nt rary to” cle arl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co urt pr eced en t i n e ithe r of

two res pe ct s: (1) “ if t he st at e co urt ap pl ie s a rul e th at
co nt rad ic ts th e g ov ern in g l aw se t fo rth in [Supr em e Co urt] cas es ,” or (2) “ if t he st at e co urt co nf

ro nt s a s etof f

act s t ha t ar e m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m a 18de ci si on of [ th e Supr em e] Cou rt a ndne ve rth el es s arriv es at ares ul t d iff eren t fr om [th e Supr em e Co urt’s] prec ed en t.” Will ia m s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 40 5– 06 , 12 0 S. Ct . 14 95 , 15 19 –2 0 (2 00 0)
. To d et erm in e whe th er a s ta te co urt d eci si on is an“un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” of c le arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law, t he Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y st at ed : The pi vo ta l qu es ti on is whe th er th e st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n of th e [rel ev an t co ns ti tu ti on al ] st an da rd was un reas on ab le
. . . . Fo r pu rp os es of § 22 54 (d )(1 ), an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of fed eral law is di ffer en t fro m an in co rrec t ap pl ic at io n of f ed eral la w. A st at e co urt m us t be gr an te d a de fere nc e an d la ti tu de th at are no t in op erat io n whe n th e cas e in vo lv es rev ie w un de r th e [re le va ntco ns ti tu ti on al ] st an da rdit se lf. A st at e co urt’s de te rm in at io n th a t a c la im la ck s m eri t pr ecl ud es fed eral habe as rel ie f so lo ng as fai rm in de d juri st s co ul d di sa gr ee on th e co rrec tn es s of th e st at e c o u r t ’s d eci si on . And as th e [Supr em e Co urt] ha s exp la in ed , ev al ua ti ng whe th er a ru le ap pl ic at io n was u nr eas on ab le requi res co ns id eri ng th e ru le ’s sp e c i f i c i t y . The m or e ge ne ral th e ru le , th e m or e le eway co urts ha ve in reac hi ng ou tc om es in cas e-b y -cas e de te rm in at io ns . Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 5– 86 (20 11 ) (ci ta ti on s, quo ta ti on m ark s, an d e m ph as is
om it te d)
. Inad di ti on , a st at e co urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n i s en ti tl edto a pr es um pt io n of co rrec tn es s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) . ButAEDPA’ s “ st atut ory pre su m pt io n o f
co rrec tn es s ap pl ie s o nl y

to fin di ng s o f factm ad e b y th e st at e co urt, n otto m ix ed de te rm in at io ns of l aw an d fa ct .” Park er v . Head , 24 4 F .3d83 1, 8 36 (11 th Cir
.
1920 01 ); s ee al so Hall fo rdv. Cu ll iv er, 4 59 F.3d11 93 , 11 99 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ An

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m is a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct
. . . .” W il li am s v . All en, 54 2 F .3d13 26 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Mo reo ve r, be cau se “ th e st an da rd s cr eat edby Stri ck la nd[fo r ev al ua ti ng th e
m eri ts of an i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m ] an d § 22 54 (d ) are bo th ‘ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l,’” Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 8 (q uo ti ng Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 ), “ whe n t he two ap pl y in tan de m , rev ie w is ‘ do ub ly’ so .” Id
. (quo ti ng Kno wles v. Mi rzayance , 55 6 U.S. 1 11 , 12 3, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 41 1, 1 42 0 (2 00 9) ); s ee al so , Cul le n v . Pin ho ls te r, __ _ U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 38 8, 1 40 3 (2 01 1) (st at in g d oubl e d efer en ce s ta nd ardan d re ve rs in g g ran t o f habe as rel ie f fo r fai lu re t o p ay

ad equa te de fere nc e to st at e co urt ad jud ic at io n o f in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m); Pr em o v . Mo or e, __ _ U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 31 S. Ct. 7 33 , 74 0 (2 01 1) (sa m e); Yarb or ou gh v. Gen try, 540 U.S. 1, 6 , 12 4 S . Ct. 1 , 4 (2 00 3) (s am e). Whe n § 22 54 (d ) ap pl ie s t o aStr ic kl an d c la im , “ th e que st io n i s n ot whe th er co un se l’s ac ti on s wer e rea so nabl e. The que st io n i s wh ethe r th ere i s an y
reas on ab le arg um en t t ha t co un se l s at is fie d S tri ck la nd ’s def eren ti al st an dard .” Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 8. Not wit hs ta nd in g d oubl e d efer en ce und er AEDPA an d S tri ck la nd , “ [t]he writ of habe as co rp us st an ds as asaf eg ua rdag ai ns t i m

pr is on m en t o f th os e h el d i n
20vi ol at io n o f th e la w.” Id. at78 0. Ev enun de r AEDPA, we “ m us t b e v ig il an t an d in de pe nd en t i n re vi ewin g p et it io ns forth e wri t.” Id . Ind eed , po st -AEDPA, th e Supr em e Co urt an d t hi s C ou rt h av e eac h g ran te d h ab eas rel ie f ba se d upo n p en al ty ph as e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s. See , e.g., Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , __

_ U.S. __ _, _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 4 47 , 45 5– 56 (20 09 ) (g ran ti ng habe as rel ie f un de r AEDPA bas edon Str ic kl an d) ; Ro m pi ll a v . Beard , 54 5 U.S. 3 74 , 38 0– 81 , 39 3, 1 25 S. Ct . 24 56 , 24 62 , 24 69 (20 05 ) (s am e); W ig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 20 , 53 4– 38 , 12 3 S . Ct. 2 52 7, 2 53 4, 2 54 2– 44 (20 03 ) (s am e); W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 36 7, 1 20 S. Ct. at14 99 (sa m e); Co op er v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 56 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (s am e); Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 10 –1 1 (s am e); Ferre ll v. Hal l, 64 0 F .3d11 99 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ); Wil li am s, 5 42 F.3dat 1 34 5 (s am e). II I. DI SCUSSI ON Eva ns co nt en ds th athe was d en ie d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o t he effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l wh enhi s t ria l l awy er fa il edto in ve st ig at e an d t o pr es en t s ub st an ti al m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. Thu s, t he m eri ts of Ev an s’s cl ai m are squa rel y go ve rn edby the Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng in Str ic kl an d. Se e Will ia m s, 52 9 U.S. at39 0– 91 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 11 –1 2 (h ol di ng th atStr ic kl an d “ cl earl y
es tabl is he d” Supr em e Co urt p rece de ntforev al ua ti ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f

21co un se l cl ai m s u nd er AEDPA). W e h av e su m m ari zedth e St ric kl an d s tand ardas fo ll ows : Und er Stric kl an d [ape ti ti on er] m us t m ak e two sh owi ng s. Fi rs t, he m us t sh ow th at hi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie n t , whi ch m ean s t ha t it “ fel l be lo w a n ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas 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 co m

pe te nt as si st an ce.” In de ci di ng whet he r th ere was de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, co urts m us t re vi ew co un se l’s act io ns in a “ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l” m an ne r an d “ m us t in du lg e a st ro ng pr es ump t i o n t ha t co un se l’s co nduc t fal ls wit hi n th e wid e ran ge of reas on ab le pr of

es si on al as si st an ce.” To ov e r c om e Stric kl an d’s pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss , [a pe ti ti on er] m us t sh o w t h a t “ no co m pe te nt co un se l wou ld h a v e ta ke n th e act io n th at hi s co un se l di d ta ke .” The se co nd sh owi ng requi red un d e r S t ric kl an d is pr ejud ic e: th e pe ti ti on er m

us t al so sh ow th at , b u t fo r hi s co un se l’s de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce, th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t—th at is , ou r co nf id en c e i n t h e ou tc om e m

us t b e u nd erm in edby cou ns el ’s def ic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. . . . Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 28 –2 9 (c it at io ns om it te d) . The que st io n o f pr ejud ic e d iff ers
so m ewh atbe twee n t he gu il t an d p en al ty pha se s, as th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d in Str ic kl an d: Whe n a de fen da nt ch al le ng es a co nv ic ti on , th e qu es ti on is whe th er th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , abs en t th e erro rs , t he fact fin de r wou ld ha ve ha d a reas on ab le do ub t res pe ct in g gu il t. Whe n a de fe nd an t ch al le ng es a de ath se nt en ce . . . th e qu es ti on is whe th er th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , ab se nt th e erro rs , th e se nt en cer— in cl ud in g a n ap pe ll at e co urt, to th e ex te nt it in de pe nd en tl y rewei gh s t h e ev id e n c e —wo ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e ba la nc e of ag gr av at in g an d m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces di d n otwarran t d eat h.

22Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 95 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 –6 9.

To s ho w pre

jud ic e ateit he r ph as e o f a cap it al tri al , “ a d efen da ntne edno t sh ow t ha t co un se l’s d efi ci en t co nduc t m or e li ke ly tha n n otalt eredth e o ut co m e in th e cas e.” Id . at 6 93 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 . This is so be cau se anin effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l “ cl ai m ass ert s t he ab se nc e o f on e o f th e cru ci al ass ur an ces th atth e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g i s re li ab le , so fin al it y co nc ern s ar e so m ewh at weak er an d t he ap pr op ria te st an da rdof p reju di ce s ho ul d b e so m ewh atlo wer.” Id
. at69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 . “ The res ul t o f a p ro ceed in g c anbe ren de redun rel iabl e,
an d h en ce t he pro ceed in g i ts el f un fai r, ev enif t he erro rs of c ou ns el can no t b e sh own by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t o h av e d et erm in edth e o ut co m e.” Id
. Inm ak in g t he pre

jud ic e d et erm in at io n, a r ev ie win g c ou rt “ m us t co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—b ot h t ha t ad du cedat t ria l, an d t he
ev id en ce ad du cedin th e h ab eas pro ceed in g— an d re weig h i t ag ai ns t t he ev id en ce in ag gr av at io n.” Porte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. at45 3– 54 (qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d) . In Se ars v. Up to n, _

__U.S. __

_, 1 30 S. Ct. 3 25 9 (2 01 0) , th e Supr em e Co urt re co gn iz edth at , eve n wh ere s om e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e was pre se nt edby
co un se l, i t h as :
ne ve r he ld th at co un se l’s effo rt to pr es en t so m e m it i g a t i on ev id en ce sh ou ld fo recl os e an in qu iry in to whe th er a faci al ly de fic ie nt m it ig at io n in ve st ig at io n m ig ht ha ve pr ejud ic ed th e de fen da nt
. To th e co nt rary, we
23have co nsist en tl y ex pl ai ne d th at th e Stric kl an d in qu iry re qui re s pr ec ise ly

t h e type of pr ob in g an d fact -s pe ci fic an al y si s th at th e st at e tri al c o u r t fai le d t o u nd ert ak e b el ow. Id . at 3 26 6. Tak ento ge th er, Po rte r an d S ears m ak e cl ear t ha t St ric kl an d re qu ire s a

“pr ob in g a ndfact -s pe ci fic an al y si s” in ev al ua ti ng th e to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e
ev id en ce. Id . The Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atsu ch a pr ejud ic e in qu iry “ wil l
ne ces sa ril y

requi re a co urt t o ‘sp ecu la te ’ as to th e eff ectof t he ne w evi de nc e . . . .” Id . W it h t he se ge ne ral pri nc ip le s i n m in d, we turn t o Ev an s’s cl ai m of p en al ty ph as e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. A. Defici en t Pe rfo rm an ce As a t hr es ho ldm at te r, we rejectEvan s’s ar gu m en t th atwe sh ou ldrev ie w Stric kl an d’s d efi ci en cy

pro ng de no vo be cau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt b as ed it s d eci si on on ly on S tri ck la nd ’s pre jud ic e p ro ng . The st at e tr ia l co urt re jecte d Eva ns ’s pen al ty pha se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m aft er i t d et erm in ed th athe ha d n otsh own de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e. Whi le itis tru e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, h av in g d et erm in edth atEvan s was no t p reju di cedby
co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntm it ig at in g e vi de nc e, de cl in edto ad dr es s wh ethe r
co un se l’s p en al ty pha se in ve st ig at io n was de fic ie nt , itdi d n otdi sapp ro ve of t he tri al co urt’s co nc lu si on reg ard in g d efi ci en cy . See Ev an s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 1 2. Thu s, b ot h S tri ck la ndpro ng s ar e due AEDPA defe ren ce. See Ham m on d v . Hall , 2458 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th at , when“ a st at e tr ia l co urt

reject s a c la im

on on e p ro ng of t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l t es t an d t he st at e supr em e co urt, wi th ou t d is ap pr ov in g t ha t h ol di ng , affi rm s o n t he ot he r pr on g, bo th of t ho se st at e co urt d eci si on s ar e due AEDPA defe ren ce”) . Neverth el es s, we do no t v ie w th is cas e as pre se nt in g aclo se qu es ti on ab ou t wh ethe r th e tr ia l co urt’s de ci si on on de fic ie nc y

was o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. Inli gh t o f tr ia l co un se l’s fai lu re t o d is ch arg e h is co ns ti tu ti on al du ty to co nduc t a t ho ro ug h b ack gr ou nd in ve st ig at io n—whi chwas wel l- a ndlo ng -es tabl is he d a t t he ti m e o f Eva ns ’s 19 99 tri al —n o fa irmind edjuri stco ul d a gr ee wi th th e st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on th at Eva ns ’s cou ns el was n otde fic ie nt
. W e b eg in ou r AEDPA ana lysis of S tri ck la nd ’s def ic ie nc y pro ng wit h t he st at e tr ia l co urt b ecau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d ecl in edto ad dr es s Stric kl an d’s p erfo rm an ce p ro ng . See Hamm on d , 58 6 F .3dat 1 33 2. Th e tr ia l co urt
co rrec tl y id en ti fie d S tri ck la ndas t he go ve rn in g s ta nd ardan d c on cl ud edth attri al
co un se l’s ac ti on s i n i nv es ti ga ti ng m en ta l h eal thm it ig at io n wer e n otde fic ie nt . In do in g s o, t he tri al co urt d et erm in edth atco un se l “ co nduc te d areas on ab le in ve st ig at io n, u nd er the cir cu m st an ces .” Sp eci fic al ly, th e tr ia l co urt re li edup on th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) th attri al co un se l t es ti fie d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athe di d
no t t hi nkEvan s was “ craz y ”; (2) th atEvan s h adto ldtri al co un se l t he sh oo ti ng was
25anacci de ntan d t ha t h e was a go odstud en t; (3) th attri al co un se l was aware o f

Eva ns ’s vi ol en t b ack gr ou nd ; an d (4 ) th attri al co un se l h ad“ se ntlet te rs [to ] va rio us pe op le , ask in g t he m

if t he y wou ldbe ch arac te r wit ne ss es forth e d efen se .” In ad di ti on , as p artof h is pe na lt y ph as e in ve st ig at io n, co un se l h adsp ok enwith Eva ns , hi s m othe r, an d a n aun t. Co un se l was als o a ware o f a p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n i n wh ic h Ev an s s ta te d h is m en ta l h eal thwas p erfe ct . It fai rly app ears fro m th e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er, as well as o urrev ie w of a ll th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng te st im on y , th attri al co un se l fo cu se d h is in ve st ig at io n o n d ev el op in g e vi de nc e o f Eva ns ’s “ red eem in g qua li ti es .” Mo reo ve r, th e tr ia l co urt fo un d t ha t co un se l

“ co nduc te d areas on ab le in ve st ig at io n i nt o [Ev an s’s] bac kg ro un d andm ad e a st rat eg ic de ci si on to foc us on th e p os it iv e as pe ct s o f [Ev an s’s] cha ract er—no t op enth e d oo r to all th e p rio r act s o f vi ol en ce p erp etrat edby [Evan s] si nc e h is te en ag e y ears .” Eve n u nd er the do ub le de fere nc e acc or de d t o t ria l co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce
un de r AEDPA andStr ic kl an d, we h ol d t ha t the st at e tr ia l co urt’s d et erm in at io n th atco un se l was no t d efi ci en t i s ei th er co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law. In th is cas e, tr ia l co un se l’s fa il ur e to co nduc t a c on st itut io na ll y ad equa te ba ck gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n m ean t t ha t h e
ne ve r kn ew ab ou t s ig ni fic an t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, in cl ud in g Ev an s’s cl os edhe ad
26in

jury at ag e th ree, re su lt in g b rai n d am ag e, sp eech an d l an gu ag e d iff ic ul ti es , le arn in g d is ab il it ie s, an d i m pu ls e co nt ro l p ro bl em s, al l o f whi ch were d oc um en te d by sch oo l re co rd s an d s ch oo l p sycho lo gi st s wh enhe was s ev eny ears ol d. Th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s co nt rary con cl us io n u nr eas on ab ly dis co un ts co un se l’s dut y to
co nduc t a t ho ro ug h b ack gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n a s re co gn iz edby the Supr em e Co urt
an d t he n- pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s. As ea rly as 1 98 6, an d l on g b efo re Ev an s’s 1 99 9 t ria l, the Supr em e Co urt cl earl y est ab li sh edth atco un se l i n c ap it al cas es ha ve an“ ob li ga ti on to co nduc t a th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n o f th e d efen dant ’s bac kg ro un d.” W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 36 8– 70 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 00 –0 1 (f in di ng co un se l p erfo rm edde fic ie nt ly by fai li ng to
co nduc t co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te pe na lt y ph as e in ve st ig at io n i n 1 98 6 t ria l); see al so Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. at44 8– 49 , 45 2– 53 (sa m e ex cep t 1 98 8 t ria l); Ro m pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at37 8, 3 87 –8 9 (s am e); W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at51 5– 16 , 52 4– 29 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 32 , 25 36 –3 9 (s am e ex cep t 1 98 9 t ria l); see als o F erre ll , 64 0 F .3dat 12 34 (ho ld in g t ha t t he st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d wh enitdi d n ot fin d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e in co nn ect io n wi th a 19 88 tri al wher e co un se l, am on g ot he r th in gs , “ fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te [th e d efen da nt ’s] up br in gi ng . . . whi ch wou ld ha ve un co ve redev id en ce [o f hi s] im po ve ris he d a ndab us edch il dh oo d” ). The Co urt h as furth er i ns tru ct edth atun de r Stric kl an d, “ ou r pr in ci pa l co nc ern . . . is no t
27whe th er co un se l s ho ul d h av e p res en te d” m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, bu t ra th er “ whe th er

th e in ve st ig at io n s up po rti ng co un se l’s d eci si on no t t o i nt ro du ce m it ig at in g
ev id en ce o f [the de fen da nt ’s] ba ck gr ou ndwas i ts el f rea so nabl e.” Wigg in s, 5 39 U.S. at 5 22 –2 3, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 36 (em ph as is om it te d)
. Of co ur se , we ackno wled ge th at“ th e St ric kl an d t es t o f ne ces si ty requ ire s a c as e-b y -cas e
ex am in at io n o f th e ev id en ce,” C ul le n, 1 31 S. Ct. at14 07 n.1 7 (q uo ta ti onm ark s
om it te d) , andth at“ Stric kl an d i ts el f reject edth e n ot io n tha t t he same inv es ti ga ti on wil l b e requi redinev ery cas e.” Id . at 1 40 6– 07 . Thu s, “ in each cas e we m us t de te rm in e whe th er co un se l co nduc te d areas on ab le ba ck gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n” or

“ m ad e a rea so nabl e d eci si on th atm ad e co nduc ti ng a ba ck gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n
un ne ces sary .” Jo hn so n, 6 43 F.3dat 9 31 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . As we h av e
ex pl ai ne d: The qu es ti on un de r Stric kl an d is no t whe th er . . . tri al co un se l’s ov eral l pe rfo rm an ce atth e se nt en ce s ta ge was ex em pl ary o r ev en av erag e, bu t whe th er he co nduc te d an ad equa te ba ck gr ou nd in ve st ig a t io n or reas on ab ly de ci de d to en d th e ba ck gr ou nd in ve st ig at io n wh e n he di d. See Ferr el l , 64 0 F.3 d at 12 26 (“ ‘[S] tra te gi c ch oi ces m ad e aft er th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n of la w an d fact s rel ev an t to pl au si bl e op ti on s are vi rtu al ly unc ha lle nge ab le , ’ but tho se m ad e aft er ‘less th an co m pl et e in ve st igati on’ are reas on ab le on ly to th e ex te nt th at reas on ab le pr of es si on al jud gm en t supp orts th e li m it at io ns on in ve st ig at io n. ”) (q uot ing St ri ck la nd , 466 U
. S. at69 0– 69 1, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 66 ). Id . at 9 31 –3 2.

28Fu rth er, al th ou gh a sp eci fic m it ig at io n “ th eo ry m ig htbe reas on ab le , in th e ab st ract , [th atfact ] do es no t o bv ia te th e n eedto an al y ze wh ethe r co un se l’s fa il ur e to co nduc t an ad equa te m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on be fo re arriv in g a t t hi s p art ic ul ar th eo ry pre jud ic ed ” th e d efen dant . Sears , 13 0 S . Ct. at32 65 . “ The ‘reaso nabl en es s’ of c ou ns el ’s th eo ry [is ] be si de th e p oi nt[be cau se a de fen da nt ]
m ig htbe pre

jud ic edby his co un se l’s fa il ur es , whethe r hi s h ap ha zardch oi ce was
reas on ab le or n ot .” Id . As th e Supr em e Co urt re it erat edin Sear s: Thi s po in t is pl ai n in W il li am s : W e reject ed an y su gg es ti on th at a de ci si on to fo cu s on on e p o t en ti al ly reas on ab le tri al st rat eg y —i n th at cas e, pe ti ti on er’s vo lu nt ary co nf es si on—was “

jus ti fie d by a ta ct ic al de ci si o n ” w h e n “ co un se l di d no t fu lfi ll th ei r ob li ga ti on to co nduc t a th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n of th e de fen da nt ’s ba ck gr ou nd .” 5 2 9 U
. S
. at 3 9 6 [, 12 05 S. Ct
. at 15 15 ]. A “ ta ct ic al de ci si on ” is a pr ec u r s o r t o co nc lu di ng th at co un se l ha s de ve lo pe d a “ reas on ab le ” m it ig at io n th eo ry in a pa rti cu la r cas e. Id .; s ee al so W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 2, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 35 (ex pl ai ni ng th at

“ co un se l’s fa il ur e to un co ve r an d p res en t v ol um in ou s m it ig at in g e vi de nc e at
se nt en ci ng co ul d n otbe jus ti fie d a s a t act ic al de ci si on . . . be cau se co un se l h adno t ‘fulf il l[e d] th ei r ob li ga ti on to co nduc t a t ho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti onof t he de fen da nt ’s ba ck gr ou nd ’” (qu ot in g Wil li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 96 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 15 )). Here, t ria l co un se l co nduc te d l im it edfam il y in te rv ie ws, rel y in g p rin ci pa ll y up on a sh ort t hi rty-m in ut e in te rv ie w of Ev an s’s m ot he r to ge th er wi th form let te rs

29se ntto po ss ib le ch arac te r wit ne ss es . Cou ns el di d n otco ll ectread il y av ai labl e ba si c b ack gr ou ndm at eri al s, s uc h a s Ev an s’s s ch oo l an d m ed ic al reco rd s. No
co m pe te ntco un se l i n 1 99 9 wo ul d h av e fai le d t o c ol le ctan d re vi ew su ch in fo rm at io n e sp eci al ly whe re, as he re, the de fen da ntwas ali fel on g re si de ntof t he
co un ty in wh ic h t he tri al oc cu rred . Sim il arl y , no co m pe te ntco un se l i n 1 99 9 wo ul d ha ve co nduc te d o nl y

a ci rcu m sc rib edin te rv ie w of t he de fen da nt ’s m ot he r an d
so li ci te d wi tn es se s wi th form let te rs . See ABA Gu id el in es forth e App oi nt m en t
an d P erfo rm an ce o f Co un se l i n Dea th Pen al ty Cases (19 89 ), cit edin W ig gi ns , 1 2 53 9 U.S. at52 4, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 36 –3 7. Fo r ex am pl e, ABA Gui de li ne § 1 1.4 .1 fro m 19 89 —re fle ct in g p rev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s t eny ears pri orto Evan s’s tri al —p ro vi de s t ha t co un se l’s “ in ve st ig at io n s ho ul d c om pr is e eff orts to di sc ov er

We rec og nize that the standard f or ef fec tive assistance of counse l is necessa rily a 1 2 g ener al one: “r epre sentation that does not fa ll ‘below an obje ctive standa rd of r easona

bleness’ in light of ‘ preva iling prof

essional norms.’” Bobby v. Van Hook, ___ U .S. ___, ___, 130 S. C t. 13, 16 (2009) ( quoting Strickland, 466 U .S. at 687–88, 104 S. C t. at 2064–65). “Restatements of profe ssional standards . . . c an be use ful as ‘guides’ to what r easona bleness enta ils . . . to t he extent they

describe the prof

essional norms pre vailing when the r epre sentation took place .” I d. Thus, we look to the 1989 AB A Guidelines for the Appointment and Perf ormanc e of Counsel in Death Penalty

Cases as a

guide to what re asonably diligent c ounsel would do, not a set of inexorable commands of what eve ry capital attorney

must do. S ee id. I

n doing so, w e re cognize that the Supreme Court ha s relied upon AB A guidelines to support its conclusion, post-AEDPA, that counsel wa s ineffe ctive in fa iling to investig ate a nd prese nt miti g atingevidenc e. See, e .g ., Rompil la, 545 U.S. at 387–89, 125 S. Ct. at 2465–67 (refe renc ing 1982 ABAguidelines in context of 1988 trial); Wi g g ins, 539 U.S. at 522–25, 123 S. C t. at 2535–37 (re fer encing 1980, 1982, and 1989 AB A guidelines in context of 1989 trial); Wi lliams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S . Ct. at 1514–15 (re fer encing1980 AB A guidelines in context of 1980 trial). 30al l re as on ab ly avai labl e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e an d e vi de nc e to reb utan y ag gr av at in g
ev id en ce t ha t m ay

be in tro du cedby the pro se cu to r.” ABA Gui de li ne § 1 1.4 .1(C ). Norwou ldco m

pe te ntco un se l i n 1 99 9 fa il to ex pl or e, atlea stpre li m in ari ly, al l p ert in en t av en ue s o f m it ig at io n g oi ng be y on d o nl y go odch arac te r ev id en ce. The ABA gu id el in e ad vi se d c ou ns el to “ ex pl or e th e ex is te nc e o f ot he r po te nt ia l
so ur ces of i nf

orm at io n re la ti ng to th e o ffen se , th e cl ie nt ’s m en ta l s ta te , andth e pr es en ce o r ab se nc e o f an y ag gr av at in g fa ct or s u nd er the ap pl ic ab le de ath p en al ty st atut e an d a ny m it ig at in g fa ct or s.” Id . § 1 1.4 .1(D) (2 )(B)
. Inad di ti on , th e ABA g ui de li ne s re co gn iz e th e cri ti cal im po rta nc e o f in ve st ig at in g t he de fen da nt ’s bac kg ro un d b y co ll ect in g t he de fen da nt ’s m ed ic al
an d s ch oo l re co rd s. Id . § 1 1.4 .1(D) (2 )(C) . Spe ci fic al ly, th e ABA g ui de li ne s ad vi se co un se l t o “ [c]ol le ctin fo rm at io n re le va ntto th e se nt en ci ng ph as e o f tr ia l in cl ud in g, b utno t l im it edto : m ed ic al hi st ory , (m en ta l an d p hysic al il ln es s o r in jury, al co ho l an d d ru g u se , bi rth traum a an d d ev el op m en ta l d el ay s) ; educ at io na l hi st ory (ach ie ve m en t, p erfo rm an ce an d b eh av io r); sp eci al educ at io na l n eed s in cl ud in g c og ni ti ve li m it at io ns an d l earn in g d is ab il it ie s)
. . . .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) . Becau se Evan s’s t ria l co un se l d idno t o bt ai n a ny of h is sch oo l o r m ed ic al
reco rd s, t ria l co un se l cl earl y di d n otdi sc ha rg e th is du ty.

31Neit he r di d Ev an s’s co un se l i de nt ify andad equa te ly int erv ie w col la te ral

wit ne ss es . See i d. § 11 .4.1 (D)(3 )(B) (reco m m en di ng th atco un se l s ho ul d in te rv ie w “ wit ne ss es fam il ia r with a sp ect s o f th e cl ie nt ’s li fe h is to ry th atm ig ht affe ctth e . . . po ss ib le m it ig at in g re as on s fo r th e o ffen se (s ), an d/ orot he r
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e to sh ow wh y th e cl ie ntsh ou ldno t b e se nt en cedto de ath” ). It is pl ai n fr om

th e st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng th attri al co un se l o nl y so ug htto in ve st ig at e p os it iv e ch arac te r ev id en ce. Whil e itis tru e th atco un se l m etwit h Eva ns ’s m ot he r Lil ly prio r to tri al an d a sk edhe r to supp ly the na m es of c ha ract er wit ne ss es to tes ti fy

at the pe na lt y

ph as e, itis ab un da nt ly clearfro m th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atco un se l l im it edhi s i nv es ti ga ti on to , andwas o nl y in te res te d i n, po si ti ve ch arac te r ev id en ce. Tria l co un se l’s i nt erac ti on wit h Li ll y Evan s ex em

pl ifi es th e li m it edna tu re of hi s i nv es ti ga ti on an d u nd ers co res th e co rres po nd in g u nr eas on ab le ne ss of h is so cal le d s tra te gi c d eci si on to curta il hi s m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on . Lill y tes ti fie d t ha t sh e m etwit h t ria l co un se l o nl y on ce p rio r to tri al , andth enon ly for thi rty m in ut es . Dur in g t hi s b rie f m eet in g, co un se l ad vi se d Li ll y th athe want edhe r to co ll ectas
m an y ch arac te r wit ne ss es as p os si bl e b ecau se Evan s co ul d g etth e d eat h p en al ty. By ch arac te r wit ne ss es , Lill y tes ti fie d t ha t s he un de rs to odco un se l wan te d o nl y

“pe op le th atco ul d s ay

so m e g oo d t hi ng s ab ou t” Evan s. Sh e fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t

32sh e rel at edgo odch arac te r ev id en ce t o Ev an s’s co un se l. Acco rd in g t o Li ll y , sh e

ne ve r m etwit h ade fen se in ve st ig at oran d n ev er m etag ai n wi thEvan s’s co un se l
un ti l t he da y

of t ria l. Lil ly furt he r te st ifi edth atco un se l n ev er ex pl or edot he r is su es ab ou t Ev an s’s b ack gr ou ndwit h h er. Tha t co un se l’s b ack gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n was li m it edto go odch arac te r
ev id en ce i s fu rth er d em on st rat edby the form let te rs he sen t t o p en al ty pha se ch arac te r wit ne ss es id en ti fie d b y Lil ly. Duri ng th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , tri al

1 3
co un se l af

firm edth athe us edth es e le tt ers to pre pa re fo r th e p en al ty pha se . Fu rth er, co un se l t es ti fie d tha t the qu es ti on s i n t he let te r were i nt en de d t o e st ab li sh

Those for

m letters stated: 1 3 Dea r [X] : Your name and addr es s wa s p rovi ded to me by L illy Evans, as a possible char acte r witness for her son, Wy dell J ody Evans, with reg ard to charg es of First Degree Murder
. Would y ou please indicate, in your own wor ds, the following : 1. How longyou have known Wy dell J ody Evans; 2. How to [sic] you know Wydell J ody Evans – as a a. friend; b. family

member; c. co-w orker ; d. employee; f. employer. 3. In one or two sentenc es please indicate what you think of Wy dell J ody Evans as a person and whether or not you fee l he committed the crime for which he has bee n charg ed.
33th atEvan s was a go odpe rs on . Ind eed , tri al co un se l co nf irmed th atwas h is
un de rs ta nd in g o f wha t “ no n- st atut ory m it ig at io n was .” Of co ur se , th e ran ge of c on st itut io na ll y rel ev an t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e is far wid er tha n ju stgo odch arac te r ev id en ce, wh ic h i s wh attri al co un se l u nd ers to odit be li m it edto
. In l ig htof t hi s m is un de rs ta nd in g o f m it ig at io n, i t i s n otsu rp ris in g

1 4 th atth e fo rm

let te rs he sen t t o i nv es ti ga te m it ig at io n d idno t ex pl or e th e fu ll ran ge of co ns ti tu ti on al ly relev an t b ack gr ou ndin fo rm at io n. Bec au se co un se l co nduc te d n o m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on be y on d Ev an s’s go odch arac te r, he fai le d t o u nc ov er Ev an s’s cl os edhe adin jury at ag e th ree,
res ul ti ng bra in da m ag e, le arn in g d is ab il it ie s, em ot io na l h an di cap s, an d i m pu ls e
co nt ro l p ro bl em s, al l o f whi ch were s ig ni fic an t en ou gh at a ge sev ento warran t ps y ch ol og ic al ass es sm en t b y publ ic sch oo l au th or it ie s. Th is furth er s up po rts ou r

See L ockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604–05, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 2965 (1978) (re cognizi ng 1 4 that Eig hth and Four

teenth Amendme nts require that capital se ntence r not be pre cluded f rom considering , “as a

mitigatingfac tor, any

aspec t of a de fenda

nt’s char acte r or r ecor d and any of the circ umstances of

the offe nse that the de fenda nt proffe rs as a

basis for a

sentenc e less than death” (empha sis in original)) ; see a lso Tennar d v. Dre tke, 542 U.S. 274, 285–87, 124 S. Ct
. 2562, 2570–72 (2004) ( stating that “impaired intellec tual functioningis inherently mitigating ” and that def

endant ne ed not establish nexus between me ntal capa city and crime for e vidence to be re levant to mitigation); Pay ne v. Te nnessee, 501 U.S. 808, 822, 111 S. C t. 2597, 2607 (1991) (“We have held that a

State cannot pr eclude the sentenc er f rom consider ing ‘ any

rele vant mitigatingevidenc e’ that the defe ndant proff ers in support of a

sentenc e less than de ath . . . . [V] irtually

no limit s are place d on the re levant mitigating e vidence a ca pital defe ndant may introduce c oncer

ning his own c ircumstance s” (quotingEdding s v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 114, 102 S. Ct . 869, 877 (1982))
. 34co nc lu si on th atth e st at e tr ia l co urt’s fa il ur e to fin d c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce

de fic ie ntwas u nr eas on ab le un de r AEDPA. See Ferr el l, 6 40 F.3dat 1 22 9– 30 (“ Bec au se Ferre ll ’s cou ns el fai le d t o c on du cta m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on be y on d Ferr el l’s ch arac te r, th ey

fai le d t o u nc ov er ad di ti on al , ob vi ou s ev id en ce o f se rio us
m en ta l i ll ne ss , furth er co m po un di ng ou r co nc lu si on th atth e [s ta te co urt’s] fail ur e to fin d t he ir m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on de fic ie ntwas u nr eas on ab le .”). Fu rth erm or e, co un se l u nr eas on ab ly fail edto fol lo w up on th e li m it ed ba ck gr ou ndin fo rm at io n h e d idha ve . For e xa m pl e, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt
no te d t ha t at to rn ey

“ [Co un se l] tes ti fie d t ha t t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti onrep orts (PSI ) fro m

Evan s’[s] pri orco nv ic ti on s i nd ic at edth athi s m en ta l h eal th was p erfe ct
an d t ha t h e h adon ly seen a m en ta l h eat h e xp ertwhen he was you ng .” Evan s II , 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 (em

ph as is ad de d) . Thu s, wh il e th e st at e co urts em ph as iz edth at Eva ns ha d re po rte d “ pe rfec t” m en ta l h eal th in hi s PS I rep orts , th e PSIs als o rep orte d t ha t h e h ad“ se ena m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt wh enhe was young .” Id . This in fo rm at io n s ho ul d h av e b een a “ redfla g” to tri al co un se l, al ert in g h im to th e n eed to co nduc t a f

ol lo w-up i nv es ti ga ti on . See Ro m pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at39 2, 1 25 S. Ct. at 24 68 –6 9. No co m

pe te ntco un se l i n 1 99 9 wo ul d h av e fai le d t o fo ll ow- up on su ch in fo rm at io n. Pro m

pt edby thi s re d fl ag , com pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e th en ob ta in edan d re vi ewedsch oo l an d m ed ic al reco rd s, fo r ex am pl e. Andarm edwit h
35th es e rec or ds , com pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e in ve st ig at edEvan s’s m en ta l h eal th
an d c on se qu en tl y

di sc ov eredhi s h is to ry

of b rai n d am ag e. Mo reo ve r, th e st at e tr ia l co urt al l b utig no redco un se l’s o bl ig at io n t o
un de rta ke a th or ou gh an d a de qu at e in ve st ig at io n. Th e tr ia l co urt s id e-s te pp ed , and th eref or e unr eas on ab ly app li edW ig gi ns an d i ts pro ge ny, by pl aci ng un du e
em ph as is on tri al co un se l’s d eci si on to po rtr ay Evan s as a “ go odgu y ,” de sp it e th e
un di sp ut edev id en ce t ha t t ria l co un se l re ach edth atde ci si on wit ho utfir st
co ll ect in g re ad il y

av ai labl e sc ho ol an d m ed ic al reco rd s o r ad equa te ly int erv ie win g fam il y m em be rs . Ind eed , pri orto tri al , th e o nl y m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti onco un se l
co nduc te d was m eet in g t wice wit h Ev an s fo r atto ta l o f ap pr ox im at el y fou r ho ur s, m eet in g o nc e wit h Li ll y Evan s fo r ab ou t thi rty min ut es , andm ai li ng form 1 5 le tt ers to po te nt ia l ch arac te r witne ss es . Whi le th e st at e tr ia l co urt i nd ic at edth attri al co un se l’s p en al ty pha se in ve st ig at io n a ls o i nc lu de d s pe ak in g wi th Evan s’s au nt , th e rec or d c le arl y

Trial counse l testified at the evide ntiary hearing that he only

met with Evans for a

total 1 5 of four hours betwe en the time of his appointment and the first day of trial. He met with Evans once on D ece mber 23, 1998 for two hours and a g ain just before trial on Octobe r 23, 1999 for another two hours. Althoug h we do not categ orica lly find that four hour s is an insufficient amount of time to meet with a c apital def endant f or the purpose of pre paringboth phases of a capital tria l, such limit ed conta ct betwe en an attorney and an inc arc era

ted ca pital defe ndant prior to trial supports our conc lusion that counsel’s pena lty phase inve stigation was unrea sonable. This is especially

true g iven trial counse l’s other limited and cur sory eff orts to investigate and prepa re f or the pe nalty

phase. 36in di cat es th atAun t Sa nd ra Ev an s b ecame a pen al ty pha se wit ne ss by

happ en st an ce. San dr a te st ifi eddu rin g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atsh e b ecame a ch arac te r wit ne ss at t he pe na lt y ph as e o nl y

aft er s he fortu it ou sl y

att en de d c lo si ng arg um en ts du rin g t he gu il t p ha se . Alt ho ug h S an dr a te st ifi edth atsh e h adli ve d i n th e sa m e h ou se as Ev an s an d kne w hi m hi s en ti re l ife , sh e h adne ve r be en
co nt act edby tria l co un se l ab ou t t es ti fy in g p rio r to tri al . Furthe r, San dr a te st ifi ed th atco un se l s po ke wit h h er l es s t ha n fi ve m inut es jus t p rio r to he r pe na lt y ph as e te st im on y an d tha t the y

di d n otdi sc us s m it ig at io n. In st ead , San dr a te st ifi edth at de fen se co un se l t ol d h er t o s ay on ly goo d t hi ng s ab ou t Ev an s atth e p en al ty pha se . Hadco un se l ex pl or edth e fu ll ran ge of m it ig at io n wi th San dr a, in st eadof l im it in g hi s i nv es ti ga ti onto go odch arac te r ev id en ce, h e wou ldha ve di sc ov eredsubs ta nt ia l
m it ig at io n. Sa nd ra wi tn es se d Ev an s b ei ng st ru ckby a car atth e ag e o f th ree. Sh e te st ifi edth ataft er Ev an s ca m e h om e fro m th e h os pi ta l h e “ was jus t t ot al ly di ffer en t.” Inhe r wor ds , “ [h ]e wasn ’t li ke th e sa m e k idI us edto kn ow.” Sa nd ra te st ifi edth atco un se l n ev er as ke d h er ab ou t t he se m at te rs bu t s he wou ldha ve te st ifi edto th es e fac ts at t he pe na lt y ph as e h adsh e b een ask ed . Thu s, t ria l co un se l
was de fic ie ntbe cau se he fai le d t o a de qu at el y ut il iz e th e fam il y

m em be rs to who m he ha d s po ke n. Se e Ferrel l, 6 40 F.3dat 1 23 0– 32 (fi nd in g t ha t t ria l co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , in pa rt, b ecau se he fai le d t o e li ci t s ig ni fic an t an d
37po werfu l m it ig at in g e vi de nc e fro m wit ne ss es who were wi ll in g t o t es ti fy if
co un se l h adask edth em

ab ou t t he de fen da nt ’s bac kg ro un d)
. The st at e tr ia l co urt’s co nc lu si on th attri al co un se l m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si on to pre se nton ly goo d c haract er ev id en ce, d es pi te co un se l’s l ackof i nv es ti ga ti on , sm ack s o f th e k in d o f “po st -h oc rat io na li zat io n” reject edin W ig gi ns . W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 6- 52 7, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 38 . Not ab ly, on th e d efi ci en cy pro ng , Eva ns ’s cou ns el di d fa r le ss to in ve st ig at e m it ig at io n t ha n t ria l co un se l i n Wig gi ns . InW ig gi ns , tri al co un se l d idno t p uton an y m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n o r li fe h is to ry
ev id en ce, s uc h a s ev id en ce o f pe ti ti on er’s p hysic al an d s ex ua l ab us e, be cau se
co un se l d eci de d b efo re tria l t o fo cu s t he ir e ffo rts onretry in g the factua l ca se an d di sp ut in g Wig gi ns ’s di rectres po ns ib il it y for th e cri m e. See i d. at51 6– 17 , 12 3 S
. Ct . at 2 53 3. Al th ou gh tri al co un se l i n Wig gi ns ret ai ne d am en ta l h eal thex pe rt who ev al ua te d t he de fen da nt , cou ns el di d n otco m pi le a li fe h is to ry

wit h t he
as si st an ce o f a fo ren si c so ci al work er. Ackno wled gi ng th es e fac ts , th e st at e co urt de ni edrel ie f, st at in g, “ whe n t he de ci si on no t t o i nv es ti ga te
. . . is a m at te r of tri al ta ct ic s, t he re i s n o i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l.” Id . at 5 17 –1 8, 1 23 S. Ct. at 25 33 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The st at e ap pe ll at e co urt af firm edth e d en ia l o f rel ie f, co nc lu di ng th attri al
co un se l h adm ad e “ a d el ib erat e, ta ct ic al de ci si on to co nc en tra te th ei r effo rt a t
38co nv in ci ng th e jury” th atW ig gi ns was n otdi rect ly resp on si bl e. Id . at 5 18 , 12 3 S
.

Ct . at 2 53 3 (q uo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The s ta te co urt s pe ci fic al ly fou ndth attri al
co un se l “ kn ew of

W ig gi ns ’[s] unf

ortu na te ch il dh oo d” be cau se th ey ha d a va il ab le to th em th e PSI, as well as “ m or e d et ai le d s oc ia l s erv ic e rec or ds th atreco rd ed in ci de nc es of p hysic al an d s ex ua l ab us e, analc oh ol ic m ot he r, pl acements in fos te r
care , andbo rd erl in e m en ta l re ta rd at io n.” Id. (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io ns
om it te d) . Whi le th e st at e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t t he in fo rm at io n c ou ns el ha d
was no t as graph ic or a s d et ai le d a s t he in fo rm at io n d ev el op edby a fore ns ic so ci al
worke r in th e p os tc on vi ct io n h eari ng , th e st at e co urt fo un d “ co un se l d id in ve st ig at e an d wer e aware of app el la nt ’s bac kg ro un d.” Id. (quo ta ti onm ark s
om it te d) . As a res ul t, the st at e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t co un se l m ad e a rea so ne d ch oi ce t o p ro ceedwit h wh atth ey pe rcei ve d was th ei r be stde fen se . Id. at51 8, 1 23 S. Ct . at 2 53 3– 34
. Not wit hs ta nd in g t he st at e co urt’s co nc lu si onab ou t t he st rat eg y of Wig gi ns ’s
co un se l, the Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t t he st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li ed Stric kl an d a ndm ad e an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts , withi n t he
m ean in g o f AEDPA. Id. at52 7, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 38 . In d oi ng so , th e Co urt
em ph as iz edth at : (1 ) “pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m st em s fr om

co un se l’s d eci si on to li m itth e
sc op e o f th ei r in ve st ig at io n i nt o p ot en ti al m it ig at in g e vi de nc e; ” an d (2 ) th attri al
39co un se l at te m pt edto jus ti fy

th ei r li m it edin ve st ig at io n a s re fle ct in g atac ti cal de ci si on . Id. at52 1, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 35 . In re jecti ng th e co nt en ti on th attri al
co un se l m ad e a rea so nabl e ta ct ic al de ci si on , whi chis subs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e as th e arg um en t ad va nc edby the st at e inEvan s’s ca se , th e Supr em e Co urt i n Wig gi ns
em ph as iz edanasp ectof S tri ck la ndth atbe ars rep eat in g: [S]trat eg ic ch oi ces made aft er th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n of la w an d fact s rel ev an t to pl au si bl e op ti on s are vi rtu al ly un ch al le ng eab le ; an d st rat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er l e s s t h an co m pl et e in ve st ig at io n are reas on ab le pr eci se ly to th e ex te nt th at re a s o n ab le pr of es si on al jud gm en ts supp ort t h e l i mi t a ti on s on in ve st ig at io n. In ot he r wor ds , c ou ns el ha s a du ty t o m ak e reas on ab le in ve st ig at io ns or to m ak e a reas on ab le de ci si o n t h a t m ak es pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io ns un ne ces sa ry . In an y in effe ct i v e n e s s cas e, a pa rti cu la r de ci si on no t to in ve st ig at e m us t b e di rect ly as se ss ed fo r reas on ab le ne ss in al l th e ci rcu m st an ces , ap pl y in g a he av y m eas ur e of de fere nc e to co un se l’s jud gm en ts
. Id . at 5 21 –2 2, 1 23 S. Ct a t 2 53 5 (q uo ti ng Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 90 –9 1, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 06 6) (em

ph as is ad de d) . The Co urt i n Wig gi ns ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d,

“ [w]henvi ewedin th is li gh t, the ‘ st rat eg ic de ci si on ’ th e st at e co urts an d
res po nd en ts all in vo ke to jus ti fy co un se l’s l im it edpu rs ui t o f m it ig at in g e vi de nc e
res em bl es m or e a p os t h oc rat io na li zat io n o f co un se l’s co nduc t t han a n a ccu rat e de sc rip ti on of t he ir d el ib erat io ns pri orto sen te nc in g. Id . at 5 26 –5 27 , 12 3 S . Ct. at 25 38
.

40W e b el ie ve th e Supr em e Co urt’s re as on in g andco nc lu si on ap pl y equa ll y to Eva ns ’s cas e. Even ass um in g t ha t d efen se co un se l l im it edth e sc op e o f hi s in ve st ig at io n fo r st rat eg ic reas on s, Wigg in s m ak e cl ear t ha t “ Stric kl an d d oe s n ot
es tabl is h t ha t a c ur so ry

in ve st ig at io n aut om at ic al ly j us ti fie s a t act ic al de ci si on wit h
res pe ctto sen te nc in g s tra te gy.” Id. at52 7, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 38 . In Ev an s’s ca se , th e st at e tr ia l co urt as su m edth at , bec au se co un se l h adob ta in edso m e in fo rm at io n wi th
res pe ctto Evan s’s b ack gr ou nd , (i.e., t al ki ng to Evan s an d h is m ot he r an d s en di ng
ou t fo rm let te rs ), tri al co un se l was in a po si ti on to m ak e a t act ic al de ci si on no t t o
co nduc t fu rth er i nv es ti ga ti on an d i ns te adto pre se nta go odch arac te r de fen se . Thi s was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d. Fu rth er, the st at e tr ia l co urt fo cu se d o n wh ethe r tr ia l co un se l s ho ul d “ ha ve pr es en te d [miti ga ti onev id en ce],” in st eadof c on si de rin g “ whe th er the in ve st ig at io n s up po rti ng co un se l’s d eci si on no t t o i ntro du ce m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o f [th e d efen da nt ’s] ba ck gr ou ndwas i ts el f rea so nabl e.” Id . at 5 23 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 36 (em ph as is om it te d) . Thatth e st at e tr ia l co urt’s fo cu s was m is pl acedis refl ect ed th ro ug ho utit s o rd er. Fo r ex am pl e, aft er s umm ari zi ng th e p os it iv e ch arac te r
m it ig at io n t ha t was pre se nt edat t he pe na lty ph as e, th e st at e tr ia l co urt co nc lu de d th atEvan s “ ha s n otsh own th athi s at to rn ey was i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to furth er in ve st ig at e h is m en ta l h eal th an d t o p res en t t hi s i nf orm at io n i n m it ig at io n.” The
41tri al co urt t he n n ot edtri al co un se l was “ aware of Ev an s’[s] pri orcri m in al reco rd
. .

. . [and ] was als o aware t ha t [Ev an s] hadst at edhi s m en ta l h eal th was p erfe ct .” The co urt wen t o n t o fi ndth attri al co un se l m ad e a “ reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n i nt o th e Defen da nt ’s bac kg ro un d a ndm ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si on to foc us on th e p os it iv e
as pe ct s o f th e Defen da nt ’s cha ract er— an d n otop enth e d oo r to all th e p rio r act s o f vi ol en ce p erp etrat edby the Defen da ntsi nc e h is tee na ge y ears .” Mo reo ve r, th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s d is cu ss io n o f de fic ie nc y foc us es alm os t en ti rel y

on whet he r tr ia l
co un se l s ho ul d h av e p res en te d t he m it ig at io n h e d idno t kno w of, i ns te adof o n
co un se l’s d eci si on no t t o i nv es ti ga te . This is anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d’s d efi ci en cy

pro ng . Insu m , Evan s’s t ria l co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntbe cau se he te rm in at edhi s i nv es ti ga ti onto o e arl y , bef or e h av in g c om

pl et edth e k in d o f th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n c on te m pl at edby W ig gi ns an d t he n- pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al
no rm s. See Sear s, 1 30 S. Ct. at32 64 (ag reei ng wit h s ta te co urt’s d et erm in at io n th atth e “ th e cu rs ory

na tu re o f co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti on in to m it ig at io n
ev id en ce— ‘lim it edto on e d ay or l es s, t al ki ng to wit ne ss es sel ect edby [d efen da nt ’s] m ot he r’—was ‘on it s fa ce . . . con st itut io na ll y in ad equa te ’” (cit at io n
om it te d) ). Had t ria l co un se l co ll ect edread il y av ai labl e m ed ic al reco rd s, o r in te rv ie wedfam il y

m em be rs ab ou t Ev an s’s m ed ic al or p sycho lo gi cal hi st ory , he

42wou ldha ve lea rn edab ou t t he clo se dh eadin jury from th e caracci de nt . Sim il arl y , ha d c ou ns el ob ta in edEvan s’s s ch oo l re co rd s o r in te rv ie wedan y of h is sp eci al educ at io n t each ers an d c ou ns el or s wh o l iv edin th e co m m un it y , he wo ul d h av e al so lea rn edab ou t t he clo se dh eadin jury becau se itwas d oc um en te d i n h is sch oo l
reco rd s al on g wi th hi s l earn in g d is ab il it y , em ot io na l h an di cap , andim pu ls e co nt ro l pr ob le m s. “ Whe th er o r no t t ho se om is si on s wer e su ffi ci en tl y pre jud ic ia l t o h av e affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f se nt en ci ng , th ey cle arl y de m on st rat e th attri al co un se l d id
no t fu lfi ll th ei r ob li ga ti on to co nduc t a t ho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on of t he de fen da nt ’s ba ck gr ou nd .” W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 96 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 14 –1 5. Here, co un se l’s d eci si on to foc us hi s i nv es ti ga ti on on Evan s’s g oo d ch arac te r was no t an in fo rm edde ci si on ba se d upo n aco ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te in ve st ig at io n. As in W ig gi ns , andin bre ach of we ll -d efi ne d n orm s i n e xi st en ce at th e ti m e o f Eva ns ’s 19 99 pe na lt y ph as e, Eva ns ’s tri al co un se l “ ab an do ne d [h is ] in ve st ig at io n o f [Ev an s’s] bac kg ro un d a fte r ha vi ng acqui redon ly rud im en ta ry kn owl ed ge of h is hi st ory

fro m a na rro w setof s ou rces .” W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 4, 12 3 S . Ct. 2 53 7; see als o J oh ns on , 64 3 F .3dat 9 34 –3 5 (f in di ng , un de r AEDPA, th attri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to ad equa te ly inv es ti ga te de fen da nt ’s bac kg ro un d was de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce an d t ha t s ta te co urt’s co ntrary con cl us io n was an
un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d) ; Will ia m s, 5 42 F.3dat 1 34 0– 13 42
43(h ol di ng , un de r AEDPA, th attri al co un se l was de fic ie ntwhen th ey tri edto ob ta in fir st ha ndkn owl ed ge ab ou t t he de fen dant ’s bac kg ro un d o nl y fro m th e d efen da nt ’s
m ot he r an d t ha t s ta te co urt’s co nt rary con cl us io n was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of Str ic kl an d)
. Alt ho ug h c ou ns el ’s dec is io n t o fo cu s o n g oo d c haract er ev id en ce m ig htbe

“ reas on ab le , in th e ab st ract , [it ] do es no t o bv ia te th e n eedto an al yze wh ethe r
co un se l’s fa il ur e to co nduc t an ad equa te m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on be fo re arriv in g a t th is pa rti cu la r th eo ry

pre jud ic ed ” th e d efen da nt . Sears , 13 0 S . Ct. at32 65 . Whi le
we acc ep t t ha t t he st at e tr ia l co urt m ad e a fac tu al de te rm in at io n t ha t t ria l co un se l
m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si onto li m itth e sc op e o f hi s i nv es ti ga ti on , th e rea so nabl en es s of tri al co un se l’s d eci si on is a qu es ti on of l aw. Col li er, 1 77 F.3dat 1 19 9 (quo ta ti onm ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . For a ll th es e rea so ns , we ho ldth atth e st at e tr ia l co urt’s co nc lu si on th attri al co un se l m ad e a rea so nabl e st rat eg ic de ci si on to li m ithi s b ack gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n t o g oo d c ha ract er ev id en ce was co nt rary to,
orin vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co urt pr eced en t. See ge ne ral ly, Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. 4 47 ; Ro m pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. 37 4, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 45 6; W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. 5 10 , 12 3 S . Ct. 2 52 7; W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. 36 2, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 49 5. B. Preju di ce
44Bec au se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad jud ic at edth e m eri ts of Ev an s’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m on Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng , it s de ci si on as t o p reju di ce i s en ti tl edto de fere nc e u nd er AEDPA. See Hamm on d , 58 6 F .3dat 1 33 2. Fu rth er, s in ce the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt co rrec tl y id en ti fie d Stric kl an d a s the go ve rn in g S up rem e Co urt p rin ci pl e, we as k wh ethe r th e st at e
co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f pr ejud ic e “ in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” of Stric kl an d wh enitco nc lu de d t ha t Ev an s was no t p reju di ced . See Will iam s, 5 29 U.S. at 4 13 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 23 (“ Und er the ‘ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n’ claus e, a fed eral habe as co urt m ay gra ntth e wri t i f th e st at e co urt i de nt ifi es th e co rrec t go ve rn in g l eg al pri nc ip le fro m th is Co urt’s d eci si on s b utun reas on ab ly app li es th at pr in ci pl e to th e fac ts of the pri so ne r’s cas e”). Aft er ca refu ll y rev ie win g t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s wri tt enop in io n, we h ol d t ha t i t u nr eas on ab ly app li ed Stric kl an d. Sp eci fic al ly, Po rte r v. M cCo ll um m ak es pl ai n t ha t a s ta te co urt
un reas on ab ly app li es Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng when itdo es “ no t co ns id er o r
un reas on ab ly dis co un t[s ] th e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e ad du cedin th e [s ta te ] po st co nv ic ti onhe ari ng .” 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4. An u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e fac ts in Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , esp eci al ly the
reas on in g o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt wi th res pe ctto it s St ric kl an d p reju di ce
an al y si s i n P orte r v. St at e, 78 8 S o. 2 d 9 17 (Fl a. 20 01 ), is cri ti cal to un de rs ta nd in g 45th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng in th e cas e. In Po rte r v. St at e, th e d efen da ntwas

co nv ic te d o f two co un ts of f irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r an d s en te nc edto de ath o n o ne of th os e co un ts . 78 8 S o. 2 d a t 9 19 –2 0. Aft er Po rte r’s co nv ic ti on an d d eat h s en te nc e be cam e fi na l o n d ire ctrev ie w, he fi le d am ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f inth e st at e tr ia l co urt al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f tr ia l co un se l u nd er St ric kl an d. Id . at 9 20 . Port er cl ai m edth athi s t ria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e b ecau se he fai le d to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e. Id . at 92 1. Th e st at e tr ia l co urt co nduc te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng an d was pre se nt ed wit h e vi de nc e d es cri bi ng Po rte r’s ab us iv e ch il dh oo d, h is he ro ic m il it ary se rv ic e
an d t he traum a h e su ffer edwhi le servi ng , andhi s l on g- te rm subs ta nc e ab us e. Id
. at92 1– 24 . The ev id en ce i nc lu de d c on fli ct in g t es ti m on y fro m th e st at e’s an d de fen da nt ’s m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts reg ard in g t wo s ta tu to ry m en ta l-s ta te m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces : (1 ) subs tant ia l i m pa irment, Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (b ); a nd(2)
ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce, i d. at§ 9 21 .14 1( 6) (f). Id . at 9 23 . The st at e tr ia l co urt fo un d t he de fen se ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y th atth e st atut ory

m en ta l-s ta te
m it ig at or s wer e p res en t t o b e sp ecu la ti ve an d n otsupp orte d b y th e ev id en ce, an d cred it edth e st at e ex pe rt’s c on tra ry tes ti m on y . Id. The st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d rel ie f an d t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed , ho ld in g t ha t the de fen da ntfai le d t o

46m eetth e p reju di ce re qu ire m en t o f Stric kl an d

. Id . at 9 25 . In d oi ng so , th e Fl or id a

Supr em e Co urt s ta te d: At th e co nc lu si on of th e po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng in th is cas e, th e tri al co urt ha d be fo re i t t w o co nf li ct in g ex pe rt op in io ns ov er th e ex is te nc e of m it ig at io n . B a s e d upo n ou r cas e law, it was th en fo r th e tri al co urt to res ol v e t h e co nf li ct by th e weig ht th e tri al co urt affo rd ed on e ex pe rt’s op in io n a s co m pa red to th e ot he r. The tri al co urt di d th is an d res ol ve d th e co nf

li ct by de te rm in in g th at th e gr eat es t weig ht was to be affo rd ed th e St at e’s ex pe rt. W e acce pt th is fin di ng by th e tri al co urt be cau se itwas b as edup on co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Id . at 9 23
. Afte r lo si ng inth e st at e co urts , Porte r th enso ug htan d was gra nt edfed eral habe as rel ie f in th e Dis tri ctCo urt b as edup on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l at th e p en al ty pha se . See Po rte r v. C ro sb y , No. 6 :0 3- cv -1 46 5- Orl- 31 KRS, 2 00 7 WL 17 47 31 6, * 23 –3 1 (M .D. Fla. J un e 1 8, 2 00 7) . Butth is Co urt re ve rs edbe cau se it di d n otfin d a nyth in g u nr eas on ab le ab ou t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Po rte r v. C ro sb y , 84 0 S o. 2 d 9 81 (Fl a. 20 03 ). See Po rte r v. At t’y Gen., 5 52 F.3d 12 60 , 12 72 –7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . The Supr em e Co urt re ve rs edth is Co urt’s jud gm en t i n p artan d h el d t ha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li ed Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng . See Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4– 45 5. The Supr em e Co urt s ta te d i ts reas on in g a s fo ll ows :

47The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on th at Po rte r was no t pr ejud ic ed by

h i s c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o c o n d u c t a t h o r o u g h

— o r e v e n cu rs ory —i nv es ti ga ti on is un reas on ab le
. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ei th er di d no t co ns id er or un reas on ab ly di sc ou n t e d th e m it ig at io n ev id en ce ad du ced in th e po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng . Und er F l o rid a la w, m en ta l he al th ev id en ce th at do es n o t r i s e to th e le ve l of es tabl is hi ng a st atut ory m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce m ay no ne th el es s be co ns id ered by th e se nt en ci ng jud ge an d ju ry as m it ig at in g. In de ed , th e Co ns ti tu ti on requi res th at “ th e se nt en c e r in cap it al cas es m us t be pe rm it te d to co ns id er an y rel ev an t m it ig at in g fact or .” Yet ne ithe r th e po st co nv ic ti on tri al co urt no r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ga ve an y co ns id erat io n fo r th e pu rp os e o f n o n st atut ory m it ig at io n to [th e de fen se ex pe rt’s] t es ti m on y reg ard in g th e ex is te nc e of a b r a i n ab no rm al it y an d co gn it iv e de fect s. Whi le th e St at e’s ex pe rts id en ti fie d pe rcei ve d p r o b le m s wit h th e te st s th at [th e de fen se ex pe rt] us ed an d t h e co nc lu si on s th at he dr ew fro m th em , it was no t reas on ab le to di s c o u n t e n t ire ly th e effe ct th at hi s te st im on y m ig htha ve ha d o n t he jury or th e se nt en ci ng jud ge . Id . (em ph as is ad de d) (fo ot no te s an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. W e b el ie ve th atPo rte r v. M cCo ll um co m pe ls th e co nc lu si on th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, i n Ev an s’s ca se , “ di d n otco ns id er o r un reas on ab ly dis co un te d t he
no n- st atut ory

m it ig at io n e vi de nc e ad du cedin th e p os tc on vi ct io n h eari ng .” Id
. at 45 4. Whil e we ackno wled ge th atDr. McCl aren m ay ha ve di sa gr eedwit h t he de fen se ex pe rt’s c on cl us io ns reg ard in g t he ex te ntof Ev an s’s b rai n d am ag e an d t he
co nc lu si on s t ha t wer e drawnfro m hi s m ed ic al an d s ch oo l re co rd s (i .e., th e de fen se ’s con te nt io n t ha t i t s up po rte d t he ex is te nc e o f st atut ory m en ta l-s ta te

48m it ig at or s) , “ itwas n otreas on ab le to di sc ou nten ti rel y th e eff ectth athi s t es ti m on y
m ig htha ve ha d o n t he jury orth e se nt en ci ng jud ge .” Id . at 4 55
. Mu ch of Ev an s’s m it ig at io n e vi de nc e p res en te d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng
was no t re bu tt ed . All t hr ee ex pe rts ag reedth atEvan s h adbe enhi t b y a car,
su ffer edbra in da m ag e, an d t ha t t he ev id en ce fr om hi s s ch oo l re co rd s an d t each ers sh owe d t ha t h e was em ot io na ll y ha nd ic ap pe d, s ev erel y

lea rn in g d is ab le d, an d h ad di ffi cu lt y co ntro ll in g h is im

pu ls es lo ng be fo re the on se t o f hi s cr im in al ity an d al co ho l ab us e atag e twe lv e. In de ed , itis no t d is pu te d tha t Ev an s was hi t b y a car whe n h e was th ree years o ld , st op pe d b reat hi ng , was ru sh edto th e h os pi ta l, an d
was lat er d ia gn os edwit h aclo se dh eadin jury andpro babl e co nc us si on . It i s n ot di sp ut edth atfol lo win g the acci de nt , Evan s h adpro bl em s wi thhi s s pe ech an d be ha vi or . Nor i s i t d is pu te d t ha t, b y ag e se ve n a t t he lat es t, Ev an s’s co gn it iv e de fic it s an d i m

pu ls e co nt ro l p ro bl em s m an ife st edth em se lv es to su ch a de gr ee as to warran t p sycho lo gi cal tes ti ng by sch oo l au th or it ie s. As a res ul t, Ev an s was th erea fte r cl as si fie d a s s ev erel y lea rn in g d is ab le d, em ot io na ll y ha nd ic ap pe d, an d
un ab le to ad equa te ly con tro l h is im pu ls iv e b eh av io r. Nev ert he le ss , Dr. McCl aren di sa gr eedwit h t he op in io ns of Ev an s’s ex pe rts th atth is ev id en ce ro se to th e le ve l o f st atut ory m en ta l-s ta te m it ig at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, Dr. McC la ren qu es ti on edwhet he r Eva ns ’s adu ltco nduc t an d 49cri m in al it y , parti cu la rly at th e ti m e o f th e o ffen se , were cau se d b y th es e fac to rs . Dr. McC la ren tes ti fie d o n t hi s p oi ntat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng as f ol lo ws: The re certa in ly is ev id en ce t ha t [Ev an s] su st ai ne d aclo se d hea d in jury as a y ou ng ch il d an d subs eque nt ly ha d di ffi cu lt ie s wit h hi s be ha vi or an d le arn in g in sc ho ol whi chpro gr es se d t o ju ve ni le de li nq ue nc y an d adul t cri m in al ity . Whi le so m e m in or de gr ee of br ai n dysfu nc ti on is cert ai nl y a po ss ib il it y gi ve n hi s hi st ory of he ad in jury an d em ot io na l an d be ha vi or al pr ob le m s as a ch il d pr io r to th e o n s e t of cri m in al it y [,] hi s be ha vi or la te r in li fe ap pe ar s t o b e more as so ci at ed wit h a cri m in al li fes tyle th an wit h th e effe ct s of s om e di sabl in g co gn it iv e di so rd er of su ch a se ve rit y to cau se im pa irments whi ch wo u ld be a si gn ifi can t di ffi cu lt y forhi m . Eva ns II, 94 6 S o. 2 d a t 9 n.1 6. W e are no t p ers ua de d b y

th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s at te m ptto di st in gu is h P orte r v. McC ol lu m

fro m Evan s’s ca se . The Di st ric t Co urt re as on edth at , un li ke Po rte r v. McC ol lu m , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt “ di d a ddres s t he ne w m it ig at in g e vi de nc e in it s o pi ni on , andfou ndth atalt ho ug h t he ev id en ce es tabl is he d [Ev an s] su ffer ed fro m m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s, t he ev id en ce al so sh owe d ahi st ory of e sc al at in g vi ol en ce.” Bu t i n o urvi ew, th is an al y si s m is ap pr eh en ds th e Supr em e Co urt’s ho ld in g i n P orte r v. M cCo ll um . InPo rte r v. M cCo ll um , th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he st at e co urt’s pr ejud ic e an al y si s was un reas on ab le be cau se it“ ei th er d idno t co ns id er o r
un reas on ab ly dis co un te d the m it ig at io n e vi de nc e ad du cedin th e p os tc on vi ct io n 50he ari ng .” 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4. Gi ve n t he co nt ex t o f th is st at em en t, we i nt erp retth is

la ng ua ge to m eanth ata st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li es Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce pr on g wh enitfai ls to co ns id er, o r un reas on ab ly dis co un ts to irr el ev an ce, si gn ifi can t m it ig at io n t ha t d oe s n otris e to th e le ve l o f st atut ory m it ig at io n a ndit s pr ob ab le effe cton th e se nt en cer. Inot he r wor ds , th e err or

reco gn iz edinPo rte r v. M cCo ll um can no t b e
m erel y th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt l it eral ly fail edto ad dr es s o r di sc us s the ne w
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e in it s o pi ni on . Even a cu rs ory ex am in at io n o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s wri tt enop in io n i n P orte r v. St at e rev eal s t ha t t ha t co urt ex pl ic it ly ad dr es se d P orte r’s ne w m it ig at in g e vi de nc e b y rev ie win g t he ev id en ce ad du cedat th e st at e co urt ev id en ti ary he ari ng at l en gt h. Se e 7 88 So . 2dat 9 21 –2 5. In de ed , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt g av e a d et ai le d d es cri pt io n o f th e m it ig at io n p res en te d by Port er athi s s ta te co urt ev id en ti ary he ari ng . See i d. at92 2– 25 . Desp it e th is le ng th y ex po si ti on of t he m it ig at io n, h owe ve r, th e Supr em e Co urt cl earl y he ldth at th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce an al y si s was
un reas on ab le . See Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4– 55 . This is be cau se Po rte r v. M cCo ll um

st an ds for

so m ethi ng di ffer en t t ha n the no ti on th ata st at e
co urt m us t m en ti on all of the m it ig at io n p res en te d b y a de fen dantin st at e po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs in ord er t o p ro pe rly con du ctStr ic kl an d’s p reju di ce 51an al y si s. Ra th er, Po rte r v. M cCo ll um co nf irms th atStr ic kl an d’s p reju di ce an al y si s
m us t fo cu s o n t he ob li ga ti on of the jud ge an d ju ry to co ns id er m it ig at io n, as well
as th e im po rta ntrol e o f th e jury in t he de te rm in at io n o f li fe an d d eat h. Th is pr in ci pl e is refl ect edin th ree a sp ect s o f th e Co urt’s an al y si s i n P orte r v. McC ol lu m . Fi rs t, the Supr em e Co urt i n P orte r v. M cCo ll um em ph as iz edth e im

po rta nt
ro le of t he jury in Flo rid a’s cap it al pu ni sh m en t s ta tu te in rel at io n t o S tri ck la nd ’s pr ejud ic e st an da rd : Und er Stric kl an d , a de fen da nt is pr ejud ic ed by hi s co un se l’s de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce if “ th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s un pr o f e s s i o na l erro rs , th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” In Fl or id a, th e se nt en ci ng jud ge m ak es th e de te rm in at io n as to th e ex is te nc e an d weig ht of ag gr av at in g an d m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces an d th e pu ni sh m en t, F l a. St at
. § 92 1.1 41 (3 ), bu t he m us t gi ve th e jury ve rd ic t of li fe or de ath “ gr eat weig ht .” Po rte r m us t sh ow th at bu t fo r hi s co un se l’s de fi c i en cy , th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a d i ffer en t se nt en ce. To as se ss th at pr ob ab il it y , we co ns id er “ th e to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n ev id en ce— bo th th at ad du ced at tri al , an d th e ev id en ce ad du ced in th e habe as pr oc eed in g” —an d
“ rewei g[ h] itag ai ns t t he ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n.” Id . at 4 53 –5 4 (s om e ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . App lying th is st an da rd , th e Supr em e Co urt’s an al y si s empha si zedth e eff ectof t ria l co un se l’s erro rs on th e se nt en ci ng jury. See i d. at45 4 (“ The jud ge an d jury at P orte r’s or ig in al sen te nc in g h eard al m os t n ot hi 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
52m or al cu lp ab il it y .”); id . (“ HadPo rte r’s co un se l b een effe ct iv e, th e jud ge an d ju ry

wou ldha ve lea rn edof t he ‘ ki ndof t ro ub le d h is to ry we ha ve de cl aredrel ev an t t o
as se ss in g ade fen da nt ’s m or al cu lp ab il it y .’ ” (quo ti ng W ig gi ns , at 5 35 , 12 3 S . Ct. at 25 42 )); id . (st at in g, the jud ge an d ju ry di d n othe ar 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 ” (quo ti ng W il li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 98 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 15 )); id . at 4 55 (“ [T]he rel ev an ce o f Po rte r’s ex te ns iv e co m

ba t ex pe rie nc e is no t o nl y th athe serve d h on or ab ly . . . bu t al so th atth e jury mig htfin d m it ig at in g t he in te ns e st res s an d m en ta l an d e m ot io na l to ll th atco m

ba t t oo k o n P orte r.”) Seco nd , whatis im

po rta ntun de r Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce an al y si s i s t he jury’ s ap pr ai sa l o f th e ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng cred ib il it y . “ Und er Fl or id a law, m en ta l 1 6 The Supreme Court’s decision in Kyles v. Whit ley , 514 U.S. 419, 115 S. C t. 1555 1 6 (1995), c onfirms the idea that the jury ’s appr aisal of c redibility must be considere d in the prejudice analy sis. Kyles involved a prose cutor’s duty to turn over f

avora ble evidenc e to the acc used under

Br ady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct . 1194 (1963). In this contex t, Kyles reje cted the notion that a ha beas c ourt should evaluate the “mate riality” of w ithheld evidence exclusively

through the eyes of the postc onviction judge , by stating: J ustice Scalia [di ssenting] sug g ests that we should ‘g aug e’ Bur ns’s cre dibi l i ty by observing that the state judge presiding over Kyles’s postconviction proce eding did not find Bur

ns’s testimony in that proce eding to be convincin g , and by noting that Bur ns has since b ee n co nvicted for killing Be anie. Of course , neither observation could possibly have aff

ecte d the jury ’s appra isal of Bur ns’s cre dibilit y at the time of Kyles’s trials. Kyles, 514 U.S. 419, 449 n.19, 115 S. Ct . 1555, 1573 n.19 (empha sis added). While Br ady ’s standard is for

mulated somewha

t differ ently

than Strickland’s standa

rd, as the Supre me Court 53he al th ev id en ce t ha t d oe s n otris e to th e le ve l o f es tabl is hi ng a st atut ory m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce m ay

no nt he le ss be co ns id eredby the sen te nc in g ju dg e an d ju ry as
m it ig at in g.” Id. at45 4 (c it in g Ho sk in s v . Sta te , 96 5 S o.2 d 1 , 17 –1 8 (F la . 20 07 )). Als o, “ th e Co ns ti tu ti onrequi res th at‘ th e se nt en cer i n c ap it al cas es m us t b e pe rm it te d t o c on si de r an y rel ev an t m it ig at in g fa ct or ,’ ” idat 4 54 –5 5 (q uo ti ng Edd in gs v. Ok la ho m a, 45 5 U.S. 1 04 , 11 2, 1 02 S. Ct. 8 69 , 87 5 (1 98 2) ), an d g iv e th atm it ig at in g e vi de nc e eff ect
. As a co ns eque nc e, al th ou gh a rev ie win g c ou rt 1 7

m ay res ol ve a co nf

li ctin ex pe rt t es ti m on y

reg ard in g the ex is te nc e o f st atut ory
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e ag ai ns t a d efen da nt , itm ay no t fa il to gi ve , forex am pl e, “ an y

has re cognized, Bra dy ’s mater iality test was adopte d from Strickland’s pr ejudice sta ndard. See United States v. Ba g ley , 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. C t. 3375, 3383 (1985) (a dopting Strickland’ s “re asonable probability

test” for prejudice as B rady ’s mater iality standard)
. It is black letter law

that sentenc ing judg es and jurie s in capital ca ses must give 1 7 independe nt weight to evidence of the de fenda nt’s char acte r, re cord, a

nd background, as we ll as any circ umstances of

the offe nse that mig ht justi fy a pena lty less sever e than de ath. See, e .g ., L ockett, 438 U.S. at 605, 98 S. Ct. at 2965 (plurality opinion) (holding it unconstitutional to exclude evidenc e of de fenda nt’s ag e, minor role in of

fense , and abse nce of

intent to cause de ath); see a lso Hitchcock v. D ug g er, 481 U .S. 393, 398–99, 107 S. C t. 1821, 1824 (1987) (r ever sing the Eleventh Circuit and holdingFlorida ’s death penalty scheme was unc onstitut ional to the extent it excluded evidenc e of de fenda nt’s family

background and c apac ity for r ehabilitation); AbdulKabir v. Q uarte rman, 550 U.S. 233, 246, 127 S. Ct. 1654, 1664 (2007) (holdingit unconstitutional to preclude jury from g iving mea

ningf ul effe ct to all mitigatingevidenc e that could provide ba sis for re fusingto impose death pena lty); Br ewe r v. Qua rterma n, 550 U.S. 286, 294–296, 127 S. Ct . 1706, 1713–14 (2007) ( holding it unconstitutional to preclude jur y from g iving mea

ningf ul consideration to mi tigating e vidence of def endant’ s mental illness, substance abuse, a nd troubled childhood); Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 8–9, 106 S. Ct. 1669, 1673 (1986) ( holding it unconstitutional to ex clude e vidence of def endant’ s g ood behavior duringpost-arr est incar cer ation). 54co ns id erat io n fo r th e p ur po se of n on st atut ory

m it ig at io n t o [e xp ert ] te st im on y reg ard in g t he ex is te nc e o f a b rai n abn orm al ity or c og ni ti ve de fic it .” Id . at 4 55
. Sai d a no th er way, wher e th ere i s a c on fli ctin th e ev id en ce ab ou t t he im po rt o f
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e th atm ay requi re cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns , itis “ no t
reas on ab le to di sc ou nten ti rel y th e eff ectth at[ex pe rt] tes ti m on y m ig htha ve ha d
on th e jury.” Id. Thu s, a re vi ewin g c ou rt app lying Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce s ta nd ardm us t
co ns id er the jury’ s p ers pe ct iv e. The que st io n i s wh ethe r th ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

of adi ffer en t o ut co m e fro m th e se nt en cer. Se e St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 69 5, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 –6 9 (“ [T]he que st io n i s wh ethe r th ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at , abs en t t he erro rs , th e se nt en cer . . . wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t t he 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.” ). Thi s n eces sa ril y

in cl ud es co ns id eri ng th e p ro babi li ty tha t a r eas on ab le jury, aft er he ari ng co nf

li ct in g e xp erttes ti m on y , “ wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t t he ba lanc e o f ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ceddi d n otwarran t d eat h.” Id. at69 5, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 06 9. Thi rd , andfin al ly, whi le Po rte r v. M cCo ll um cle arl y st an ds forth e pr op os it io n t ha t a d efen da nt ’s her oi c o r di st in gu is he d m il it ary se rv ic e fo r th is
co un try is i nh eren tl y

a si gn ifi can t t y

pe of m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, an d t he refo re 55can no t b e ig no redin Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce an al y si s, the reas on in g o f Po rte r v.

McC ol lu m

is no t l im it edto war h ero es forsev eral reas on s. To be gi n, n ot hi ng in Po rte r v. M cCo ll um

it se lf i nd ic at es th e Supr em e Co urt m ean t fo r it s h ol di ng to be
so li m it ed . Ind eed , Porte r v. M cCo ll um il lu st rat es ho w cou rts m

us t ap pl y Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce s tand ard . It d idno t b reakan y ne w leg al gro un d. Ra th er, i t is anex am

pl e o f anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f an ol d ru le est ab li sh edby Stric kl an d. It i s al so tru e th atth e Co urt i n P orte r v. M cCo ll um no t o nl y co nc ern edit se lf wit h t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s fa il ur e to co ns id er an d g iv e eff ectto Po rte r’s
m il it ary se rv ic e, bu t was equa ll y co nc ern edwit h t he factth atPo rte r’s jury ne ve r he ardab ou t o th er co ns ti tu ti on al ly relev an t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, su ch as P orte r’s

“ ch il dh oo d h is to ry

of p hysic al ab us e, an d . . . hi s b rai n abn orm al it y , di ffi cu lt y read in g a ndwrit in g, an d l im it edsch oo li ng .” 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4. Th e Co urt
em ph as iz edth at“ ev id en ce ab ou t t he de fen da nt ’s bac kg ro un d a ndch arac te r is rel ev an t b ecau se of t he be li ef, l on g h el d b y th is so ci ety , th atde fen da nt s wh o
co m m itcri m in al act s tha t ar e at tri bu tabl e to a di sa dv an ta ge d b ack gr ou nd
. . . m ay be les s cu lp ab le .” Id . (al te rat io n o m it te d) (qu ot in g P en ry v. Lynaug h, 49 2 U.S. 30 2, 3 19 , 10 9 S . Ct. 2 93 4, 2 94 7 (1 98 9) , abr og at edon ot he r gr ou nd s b y Atk in s v . Virg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 24 2 (2 00 2) ); i d. at44 8 (n ot in g t ha t Po rte r’s 56“ co m

m an di ng off

ic er’s m ov in g d es cri pt io n o f [Po rte r’s co m ba t s erv ic e] was on ly a frac ti on of the m it ig at in g e vi de nc e th athi s co un se l fa il edto di sc ov er o r pr es en t du rin g t he pe na lty

ph as e o f hi s t ria l” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Als o, i nd ep en de ntof P orte r’s he ro ic m il it ary se rv ic e, th e Co urt fo un d “ it
was no t re as on ab le to di sc ou nten ti rel y th e eff ectth at[th e d efen se ex pe rt’s] te st im on y m ig htha ve ha d o n t he jury orth e se nt en ci ng jud ge ,” no twi th st an di ng th e st at e co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e ex pe rt e vi de nc e d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f st atut ory m it ig at io n. Id . at 4 54
. Andfin al ly in t hi s re gard , aft er Po rte r v. M cCo ll um was d eci de d, t he Supr em e Co urt re li edon itto supp ort i ts rev ers al in Sear s v . Upt on . Sears is th e
m os t re cen t ex am

pl e o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s fi nd in g “ de fic ie nc y an d p reju di ce i n ot he r cas es in whi ch co un se l p res en te d wh atco ul d b e d es cri be d a s a s up erfi ci al ly
reas on ab le m it ig at io n t he ory .” 13 0 S . Ct. at32 66 (ci ti ng Po rte r v. M cCo ll um ). In Sear s, t he Supr em e Co urt re ve rs edth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt fo r m is ap pl y in g Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce i nq ui ry an d d et erm in in g t ha t t he de fen dantwas n ot pr ejud ic edby tria l co un se l’s fa ci al ly ina de qu at e m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on . See i d. at32 64 –6 5. Th e m it ig at io n t ha t was de ve lo pe d dur in g Se ars ’s st at e po st co nv ic ti onhe ari ng di d n otin cl ud e h ero ic m il it ary se rv ic e. Rat he r, Sear s’s
un pr es en te d m it ig at io n e vi de nc e sh owe d h e was th e v ic ti m of c hi ld ho odab us e 57an d, l ik e Eva ns , st ru gg le d i n s ch oo l fr om a y ou ng ag e wit h s ub st an ti al be ha vi or al pr ob le m s. See id . at 3 26 2. Al so jus t l ik e Eva ns , by th e ti m e Sea rs reac he d h ig h
sc ho ol he was “ de sc rib edas s ev erel y lea rn in g d is ab le d a ndas s ev erel y be ha vi or al ly han di cap pe d.” Id. at32 62
. Unl ik e th e Fl or id a co urts in Evan s’s ca se , th is Co urt h as th e b en efi t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Po rte r v. M cCo ll um to gu id e o uran al y si s an d
un de rs ta nd in g o f Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce i nq ui ry . Agai n, we d o n otin te rp retPo rte r v. M cCo ll um

as c reat in g n ew la w bu t ra th er as il lu strat in g h ow St ric kl an d’s pr ejud ic e te stm

us t b e p ro pe rly app li ed . Port er v . McCo ll um co m pe ls th e
co nc lu si on th atth e st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng in Evan s’s ca se . Lik e Po rte r, th e st at e co urts in Evan s’s ca se fai le d t o g iv e an y m ean in gf

ul
co ns id erat io n t o t he un reb ut te d t es ti m on y of b rai n d am ag e, le arn in g d is ab il it y , and
em ot io na l h an di cap by the ex pe rts an d l ay witne ss es for“ th e p ur

po se of
no ns ta tu to ry ” m it ig at io n. Ev enass um in g t he jury wou ldha ve co m pl et el y ag reed wit h Dr. M cCl aren ’s op in io n t ha t t he se co nd it io ns di d n otdi rect ly con tri bu te to Eva ns ’s in ab il ity

to co ntro l h is im

pu ls es at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , andth eref or e
es tabl is h s ta tu to ry

m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n, t hi s ev id en ce i s re le va ntm it ig at io n th atco ul d h av e b eenco ns id eredby the sen te nc in g ju dg e an d ju ry . As a res ul t, i t 58sh ou ldha ve be enweig he d b y th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i n i ts pre jud ic e an al y si s. Yet, t ha t co urt fa il edto do so be cau se , as i n P orte r v. M cCo ll um , itun reas on ab ly di sc ou nt edth is ev id en ce t o “ irr el ev an ce” i ns of ar as itass um edth e ev id en ce was
m or e h arm fu l t ha n h el pf

ul . In d oi ng so , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i gn or edth e po ss ib il it y

th atco m pe te ntco un se l co ul d h av e tu rn edth e n eg at iv e ev id en ce i nt o
supp ort fo r hi s m it ig at io n the ory . ThatEvan s was di sr up ti ve an d o th erwi se a di ffi cu ltstud en t wi thesc al at in g p at te rn s o f vi ol en ce i s co ns is te ntwit h e vi de nc e o f br ai n d am ag e an d a n i m

pu ls e co nt ro l d is or de r. Ind eed , th atwas t he tes ti m on y of Eva ns ’s po st -co nv ic ti on m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts . Ju stas e vi de nc e th atPo rte r wen t AW OL fol lo win g c om

ba t was co ns is te ntwit h h is th eo ry of m it ig at io n, s o t oo was
ev id en ce o f Eva ns ’ di srup ti ve be ha vi orin sch oo l. See Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S
. Ct . at 4 55 ; cf

. Sears , 13 0 S . Ct. at32 63 (“ [T]he fac t t ha t Se ars ’ br othe r is a
co nv ic te d d ru g d eal er an d u se r, an d i nt ro du cedSear s t o ali fe o f cri m e, actua ll y
wou ldha ve be enco ns is te ntwit h am it ig at io n t he ory po rtr ay in g S ears as a n in di vi du al wit h d im in is he d ju dg m en t an d re as on in g s ki ll s, wh o m ay ha ve de si red to fol lo w in th e fo ot st ep s o f an ol de r br ot he r who ha d s hu t h im ou t o f hi s l ife .” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). To co nc lu de ot he rwis e rep res en ts , li ke Po rte r, a “ fai lu re t o
en ga ge ” wit h wh atEvan s wen t t hr ou gh as ares ul t o f hi s cl os edhe adin jury,

59res ul ti ng bra in da m ag e, le arn in g d is ab il it ie s, an d i m pu ls e co nt ro l p ro bl em s. Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , 13 0 S . Ct. at45 5. W e rec og ni ze t ha t ev id en ce o f Eva ns ’s tee na ge alc oh ol ab us e an d v io le nc e
m ay ha ve be ena do ub le ed ge d s wor d, t ho ug h o nl y at acert ai n c hr on ol og ic al po in t. Bu t we ca nn otag ree t ha t Ev an s’s cl os edhe adin jury at th e ag e o f th ree,
res ul ti ng bra in da m ag e, an d a cad em ic an d b eh av io ral di ffi cu lt ie s i n s ch oo l ar e
m or e h arm fu l t ha n h el pf

ul , as t he st at e co urts co nc lu de d. J us t t he op po si te is tru e. W e em ph as iz e th atun di sp ut edbra in da m ag e res ul ti ng fro m a tr au m at ic bra in in jury is i nh eren tl y

m it ig at in g. Se e, e.g ., Jeff ers on v. Hal l, 5 70 F.3d12 83 , 13 11 –1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (Carne s, J ., di ss en ti ng ) (d is cu ss in g t he si gn ifi can ce o f a cap it al de fen da nt ’s hea d i nju ry an d b rai n d am ag e in th e co nt ex t o f a p en al ty pha se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m), cert . gra nt ed , jud gm en t v acat edsub. n om . by Jeffe rs on v. Up to n, _

__ U.S. __ _, _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 21 7 (2 01 0)
. W e em ph as iz e as well th e ear ly ons etof Ev an s’s m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s: Eva ns ’s di ffi cu lt y

in co nt ro ll in g h is im

pu ls iv e b eh av io r, as well as h is lea rn in g di sabi li ti es , were d oc um en te d b y sch oo l re co rd s an d p sycho lo gi cal tes ti ng no lat er th anag e se ve n. Su chun di sp ut edm it ig at io n e vi de nc e m us t b e g iv enso m e cre di t i n th e St ric kl an d p reju di ce an al y si s, n ot wit hs ta nd in g Ev an s’s l at er t een ag e al co ho l ab us e an d c riminal it y . See, e.g , Coo pe r, 64 6 F .3dat 1 35 5 (“ W e ackno wled ge th at 60ev id en ce o f al co ho li sm an d d ru g abu se is oft ena two -ed ge d s wor d wh ic h c an ha rm a cap it al de fen da ntas e as il y as i t ca n h el p h im

at s en te nc in g. Ho wev er, we cred it[de fen da nt ’s] ev id en ce o f al co ho l ab us e b eg in ni ng at a ge 11 as m it ig at io n,
as itwas u se d a s a wa y

to esc ap e h is ho rri bl e b ack gr ou nd .” (quo ta ti on m ark s an d ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ); c f. Ro pe r v. Si m m on s, 5 43 U.S. 55 1, 5 68 –7 0, 1 25 S. Ct. 1 18 3, 11 94 –9 5 (2 00 5) (rec og ni zi ng , gen eral ly, th e d iff eren ces be twee n juve ni le an d adul t o ffen de rs in term s o f m or al cu lp ab il ity ); i d. at57 0, 1 25 S. Ct. at11 95 (“ The
su sc ep ti bi li ty of juv en il es to imm atur e an d i rres po ns ib le be ha vi orm ean s ‘th ei r irr es po ns ib le co nduc t i s n otas m or al ly repre he ns ib le as tha t o f an adul t.’” (qu ot in g Tho m ps on v. Ok laho m a, 48 7 U.S. 8 15 , 83 5, 1 08 S. Ct. 2 68 7, 2 69 9 (1 98 8) (p lu ral it y op in io n) ); i d. ([ Ju ve ni le s’] vu ln erab il it y an d c om pa rat iv e la ckof c on tro l
ov er the ir i m

m ed ia te su rro un di ng s m ean juv en il es ha ve a gr eat er cl ai m th anadul ts to be for gi ve n fo r fai li ng to esc ap e n eg at iv e in flu en ces in th ei r who le
en vi ro nm en t.”)
. Insu m , itwas u nr eas on ab le for th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o d is co un t Eva ns ’s po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ce o f m it ig at io n t o i rrel ev an ce i n i ts Str ic kl an d
an al y si s. It s d eci si on th eref or e is no t en ti tl edto AEDPA defe ren ce b ecau se itwas
anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce t es t.

61W e co nc lu de th atEvan s h as sat is fie d S tri ck land ’s dem an di ng st an da rdof

de fic ie nc y

an d p reju di ce. His tri al co un se l p res en te d n o m en ta l h eal th m it ig at in g
ev id en ce, s ta tu to ry

or o th erwi se . Trial co un se l fa il edto in ve st ig at e o r ob ta in Eva ns ’s sch oo l o r m ed ic al reco rd s, an d c on du ct edun reas on ab ly lim it edfam il y in te rv ie ws, d es pi te th e fac t t ha t Ev an s h adli ve d i n t he co m m un it y hi s wh ol e li fe. Cf. Ro m pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at38 4– 86 , 39 0– 93 , 12 5 S . Ct. at24 64 –6 5, 2 46 7– 69 (h ol di ng un de r AEDPA, th attri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e atth e p en al ty pha se whe re co un se l fa il edto ob ta in or e xa m in e d efen da nt ’s pri or co nv ic ti onfil e, whi ch
was a publ ic do cu m en t an d “ read il y av ai labl e” atth e co urth ou se wher e th e de fen da ntwas t rie d)
. As a re su ltof c ou ns el ’s def ic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, tria l co un se l was un aware of Eva ns ’s clo se dh eadin

jury, br ai n d am ag e, im

pu ls e co nt ro l d is or de r, an d l earn in g di sabi li ti es . There was a m pl e n on st atut ory

m it ig at in g e vi de nc e th atco un se l co ul d ha ve pre se nt edwhi ch wou ldha ve pa in te d arem ark ab ly diff eren t p ic tu re o f Eva ns , bu t t ha t t he jury ne ve r he ard . Muc h o f th is ev id en ce was no t d is pu te d b y ev enth e st at e’s ex pe rt. Fu rth er, i t i s n otdi ffi cu ltto im ag in e th atco m pe te ntco un se l co ul d ha ve us edth is ev id en ce t o a rg ue fora li fe s en te nc e, ev enif i t d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f st atut ory

m it ig at io n. Fo r ex am

pl e, ev id en ce o f Eva ns ’s bra in da m ag e an d im pu ls e co nt ro l d is or de r, ei th er al on e o r in co m bi na ti onwit h h is alc oh ol us e an d 62ab us e, are c on si st en t wi th a th eo ry of d efen se th atth e k il li ng was asp on ta ne ou s act , andth eref

or e n otde se rv in g o f de ath. Se e Eva ns I, 83 8 S o. 2 d a t 1 09 9 (S ha w, J., d is se nt in g jo in edby Ans te ad , C.J., an d P ari en te , J.) (“ The vi ct im m ad e th e fat al
m is ta ke of l au gh in g wh ic h i nc en se d Ev an s t o the po in t t ha t h e p ul le d o uta gu n
an d s ho t h er i n t he ch es t. The re i s n ot hi ng in th e rec or d t o s ho w th atth is was a pl an ne d o r pr em ed it at edki ll in g. In fact , th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t t he sh oo ti ng was a sp on tane ou s re sp on se to whatEvan s o bv io us ly feltwas i napp ro pr ia te lau gh te r.”). Inli gh t o f al l t hi s, we h ol d “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, ab se ntth e
erro rs , th e se nt en cer . . . wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t t he ba lanc e o f ag gr av at in g a nd
m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces di d n otwarran t d eat h.” Stri ck land , 46 6 U.S. at69 5, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 06 9. HadEvan s’s jury be enco nf

ro nt edwith t he co ns id erab le m it ig at in g
ev id en ce t ha t was pre se nt eddu rin g t he po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs , “ th ere i s a
reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t i t wo ul d h av e returne d wi th a di ffer en t s en te nc e.” W ig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at53 6, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 43
. IV. CONCLUSION Fo r al l the reas on s ab ov e, we va cat e th e o rd er o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt wi th
res pe ctto Evan s’s cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l atth e p en al ty pha se . Exc ep t fo r th is cla im , we affi rm th e rem ai nd er o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er. Thi s

63cas e is rem an de d t o t he Dis tri ctCo urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to gra ntth e wri t o f habe as

co rp us as t o Ev an s’s p en al ty pha se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m
co ns is te ntwit h t hi s o pi ni on .

64EDMONDSON, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng :

I di ss en t i n thi s ca se lar ge ly becau se I be li ev e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d eci si on of n o p reju di ce i s a d eci si on th atis withi n t he ran ge of r eas on ab le de ci si on s t ha t co ul d b e m ad e in th is cas e, in th e li gh t o f th e h ol di ng s o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. Itis co nc ei vabl e th atth e st at e supr em e
co urt’s d eci si on ab ou t n o p reju di ce m ig ht , in real it y , be m is ta ke n. Bu t ev enif t he st at e d eci si on is m is ta ke n, m is ta ke n d oe s n otau th or iz e th is fed eral co urt t o in te rfer e. 1 To s ay th atth e Fl or id a d eci si on can no t b e rea so nabl y squa redwit h t he ho ld in g o f Por te r v. McCol lu m , 13 0 S . Ct. 4 47 (20 09 ), se em s ju stwron g t o m e. 2 The fact s o f th e p res en t ca se are t oo di ffer en t fr om th e fac ts in Por te r . The The pivotal question in these kinds of c ases is whe ther the state court’s a pplication of 1 Supreme Court holding s was unre asonable . This point cannot be stresse d too much: “an unreasonableapplication of f eder al law is diffe rent fr om an incorrect application of f

eder al law.” Harrington v. Richter , 131 S. Ct . 770, 785 (2011). Unde r AEDPA, the state cour t must be truly g rante d defe renc e and latitude. Today ’s Court play s up the Supreme Court opinion in Porter
. Porter had not bee n 2 decide d yet by

the Supreme Court at the time that the Florida Supreme Court dec ided Mr. Evans’s c ase. G iven the timing of the Supreme Court Porter opinion and g iven the “c lear ly established F eder al law” AEDPA touchstone, I reg ard the emphasis on the Porter opinion today as problematic on the basis of timing, a part fr om other thing s. But I pass over this iss ue. I f the Supreme Court’s Porter decision had be en dec ided year s ear lier and put squar ely befor e the F lorida Supreme Court whe n that state cour t decided Mr . Evans’s c ase, I believe objectively

rea sonable, fa ir-minded jurists -- for rea sons Isketch out in this dissent -- could conclude that the Porter

decision is distinguishable f rom Mr. Evans’ s case and could still conclude that no prejudice was shown, g iven the fa cts of this case
. 65ho ld in g abo utpre jud ic e in Por te r

rel ie d o n t he om is si on at t ria l o f ev id en ce (in cl ud in g t es ti m on y

fro m Po rte r’s co m

m an di ng off

ic er) c on cern in g M r. Po rte r’s
se rv ic e an d s uf

feri ng in co m

ba t o n b eh al f of

ou r co un try as a m em

be r of th e
na ti on ’s arm edservi ces inwart im e. Thatth is servi ce an d s uf feri ng was treat edas
anim po rta ntfactin Por te r

an d m at eri al to th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on on pre

jud ic e in th atcas e se em s p la in to m e. There fo re, the Supr em e 3 Co urt’s h ol di ng in Por te r is li m it edto (an d b in di ng on ) cas es with m at eri al ly si m il ar fa ct s: cas es in vo lv in g t he hi st or ic al factof s ig ni fic an t m il it ary se rv ic e. The pre se ntcas e co m

pl et el y lac ks th e im

po rta ntm at eri al factof wa rti m e
m il it ary se rv ic e. Mr. Ev an s h as no ev id en ce ab ou t m il it ary se rv ic e atall in hi s
reco rd
. The Por te r

op in io n m ig htgi ve so m e p ers ua si ve gu id an ce i n m an y ci rcu m st an ces inwhi ch Por te r is no t a d ire ctpre ced en t. Bu t i f a s ta te co urt i s faci ng fact s t ha t ar e m at eri al ly diff eren t fr om

th e fac ts in Por te r

(wit h i ts st res s o n th e wart im e ev en ts ), th e st at e co urt’s d eci si onab ou t p reju di ce o n t ho se di ffer en t fact s i s n otbo un d b y Por te r’ s ho ld in g; an d t he st at e co urt’s co nc lu si onof n o pr ejud ic e -- wh ethe r co rrec t o r in co rrec t i n s om e u lt im at e se ns e -- wi ll no t b e Our Court has r ecognized the gr eat leg al importance of the historica l fac t of Mr. Porter’ s 3 service . “Porter’ s mili tary service was c ritical to the holdingin Porter .” Ree d v. Sec ’y, Fla. Dep’ t of Corr

. , 593 F.3d 1217, 1249 n.21 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 66co nt rary to o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e Por te r ho ld in g (o r th atof Stri ckl an d , readin th e li gh t o f ortak in g i nt o a cco un t Por te r). To s ay th at Por te r’

s ho ld in g s om eh ow co ntro ls th is cas e o r th atth is cas e is li ke Por te r see m s t o m e to reduc e th e fac ts of M r. Po rte r’s m il it ary se rv ic e an d warti m e su ffer in g t o m at te rs of no co ns eque nc e. As I re ad Por te r , th e h is to ric al fact s o f m il it ary se rv ic e an d wart im e su ffer in g wer e h ig hl y si gn ifi can t t o t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on : the Por te r ho ld in g i s t ie d t o m at eri al fact s. By Co ng res s’s d ire ct io n i n AEDPA, we -- as a fed eral co urt -- m us t d eferto st at e co urt d eci si on s ab ou t s ta te pri so ne rs , exc ep t i n p reci se an d e xtrem el y li m it ed si tu at io ns . I bel ie ve , in th e li gh t o f AEDPA, we lackth e au th or it y to ov erri de a st at e supr em e co urt d eci si on th at , at wo rs t, fa il s t o e xt en d aSupr em e Co urt ho ld in g t o asi gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t s ta te cas e: forex am pl e, a s ta te cas e whi ch la ck s atlea ston e o f th e fac ts th atwas o bv io us ly im po rta ntto th e supp os ed ly pe rti ne ntho ld in g i n acas e b efo re the Supr em e Co urt. So m e quo ta ti on s fr om

th e Por te r

op in io n are s etou t i n t od ay ’s Cou rt op in io n fo r supp ort. The op in io ns of t he Supr em e Co urt ar e n otth e Uni te d S ta te s Co de . Every sen te nc e wri tt enina Supr em e Co urt o pi ni on is no t l aw. Onl y th e Co urt’s h ol di ng s i n c as es are l aw. AndforAEDPA’ s “ cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral la w” st an da rd , on ly the Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng s co un t: “ th e h ol di ng s, as 67op po se d t o t he di ct a.” Se e W il li ams v. Ta

ylor , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 52 3 (2 00 0) . The
reas on in g i n S up rem e Co urt o pi ni on s i s n otth e h ol di ng of t he Supr em e Co urt de ci si on . “ The re i s, o f co ur se , an i m po rta ntdi ffer en ce b etween th e h ol di ng in a
cas e an d t he reas on in g t ha t s up po rts th atho ld in g.” Craw fo rd -El v. Br it to n , 11 8 S
. Ct . 15 84 , 15 90 (19 98 ). Whe n we c on si de r th e li m it at io ns pl acedon th e lo wer fed eral co urts by A EDPA -- li m it at io ns ti edpre ci se ly to Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng s, itsee m s wo rth whi le to be ar i n m in d ajuri sp ru de nt ia l fu nd am en ta l: It i s a m ax im

no t t o b e d is reg ard ed , th atge ne ral ex pr es si on s, i n e ve ry op in io n, ar e to be tak eninco nn ect io n wi th th e cas e inwhi ch th os e ex pr es si on s ar e u se d . . . The re as on of thi s m ax im is ob vi ou s. Th e qu es ti on actua ll y

be fo re the Co urt i s i nv es ti ga te d wi th care , and co ns id eredin it s fu ll ex te nt . Oth er p rin ci pl es whi ch m ay serve to il lu st rat e it , are co ns id eredin th ei r rel at io n t o t he cas e d eci de d, b ut th ei r po ss ib le be ari ng on all ot he r cas es is sel do m co m pl et el y in ve st ig at ed
. Co he ns v. Vir

gi ni a , 19 U.S. (6 Wheat .) 26 4, 3 99 -4 00 (18 21 ) (Ma rs ha ll , C.J.). Wha te ve r “ ge ne ral ex pr es si on s” th e Supr em e Co urt m ig htha ve writ te n ab ou t p reju di ce as bo rn e b y Mr. Po rte r can no t b e co rrec tl y li fte d o utof t he co nt ex t of th e sp eci fic fact s o f th e Por te r cas e an d t he n d ecl aredby us t o b e b ro adlaw tha t th e Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e. Fo r m e, Por te r’ s ho ld in g re pr es en ts no pe r s e rul e ab ou t p reju di ce an d m it ig at io n e vi de nc e th atco m pe ls th is Co urt, i n t he li gh t o f Stri ckl an d’

s st an da rd , to gra nthabe as rel ie f in th is cas e.
68Inth is cas e, Fl or id a’s Supr em e Co urt n ot ed(an d, i n my vi ew, ga ve
m ean in gf ul co ns id erat io n t o) th e sa m e ev id en ce we fa ce. Flo rid a’s Supr em e 4 Co urt s etou t t he co rrec t l eg al st an da rdpe r Stri ckl an d . The que st io n o f pr ejud ic e atsen te nc in g n eces saril y

cal ls forjud ic ia l s pe cu la ti on . Whi le lo ok in g a t t he
ev id en ce, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d idth e n eces sa ry sp ecu la ti on an d re ach eda de fin it e co nc lu si on : n o p reju di ce. Thi s C ou rt h as sp ecu la te d a ndto da y reac he d a di ffer en t co nc lu si on . I am un co nv in cedth at , inth is cas e, th is Co urt’s s pe cu la ti on is rig htan d l awfu l an d t ha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s s pe cu la ti on is no t m erel y
wro ng an d u nl awfu l (i f itis ) bu t, o n t op of t ha t, ac tu al ly unr eas on ab le . On th e to ta l re co rd , I do acce ptth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d eci si on in th is cas e is no t Today ’s Court seems to lay g reat stress on the wording (or lac k of wording ) of the 4 Florida Supreme Court opinion. Ithink that the state opinion as written is all right. But as I understand the law, if the F lorida Supreme Court’ s entire opinion re ad this way : “Evans is due no relief for he has fa iled to demonstrate pr ejudice,”that conclusion of “ no prejudice ” would still be due def ere nce by fede ral judg es. See Cullen v. Pinholster , 131 S. Ct . 1388, 1402 (2011) (“Sec tion 2254(d) applies e ven whe re the re ha s been a summary denial.”) (pena lty -phase

ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of

-counse l claim). And no fe dera l court, g iven AEDPA, c ould corre ctly g rant ha beas r elief in this case , unless a re view of the entire r ecor d -- in the light of the holding s of the United States Supre me Court -- e stablished that the state c ourt conc lusion of no prejudice was be yond the outside border of re asonable . It is the state court de cision that is the essential thing to which w e owe defe renc e, I think. “Under

§ 2254(d), a

habea s court must determine what arguments or theorie s supported or, a s here , could have supported, the state court’s de cision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories a re inc onsistent with the holding in a prior de cision of [the Supreme] Court.” Harrington v. Richter , 131 S. Ct . at 786 (e mphasis added) . For law, I stress what is to me the important and cle ar diff

ere nce be tween a

court’s de cision and a c ourt’s opinion by which the court might make some e ffor t to ex plain its decision: a cruc ial differ ence for both fe dera l and state cour ts. 69ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le ap pl ic at io ns of t he law o f th e Uni te d S ta te s as

es tabl is he d b y

th e h ol di ng s o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. I wou ldaffi rm

th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f habe as rel ie f.

70