I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 4 2 9 - S CT AN TH O N Y

D O SS

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 12/ 2006 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OSE P H H. LOP ER, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GRENADA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: RO BE RT B. M c D U FF AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: M ARVI N L. W HI TE , J R. N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON D IS P O S IT IO N : P A R T O N E : R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D . PA R T T W O : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 22/ 2009. M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 01/ 12/ 2009 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC
. GR AVES, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: P ART ONE ¶ 1
. T h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s mo t i o n f o rr e h e a r i n g i s g r a n t e d
. Th e p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n s a r e wi th d r a wn
an d thes e o p inion s are su b sti tuted there for. ¶2. A nthony J oe D os s w as convi ct ed of capi t al m ur der i n t he C i rc ui t C our t of G r enada C ounty and s ent ence d t o death f orthe murde rof

R obertC
. B el l
. D os s ’ convi ct i on and
s e n te n c e w e re a ff

ir m e d b y th is C o u rt o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. D o ss v. S ta te , 70 9 S o. 2d 36 9 (M i ss.

### 2

1 9 9 6 ), cer t . deni ed, 523 U
. S. 1111, 118 S. Ct
. 1684, 140 L . Ed. 2d 821 ( 1998)
. I n D os s v. S ta te , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 (M iss
. 2 0 0 4 ), th is C o u rt g ra n ted D o ss ’ A p p lica tio n fo r L e a v e to F ile a M o ti o n to V ac ate Ju d g m en t an d S en tenc e, fi n d ing th at D o ss w as e n ti tl ed to an ev iden ti ary hear i ng i n the tr i al courton the i s s ues of w hetherhe r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
co u n sel d u rin g th e p en alty p h ase an d w h ethe r he w as m en tal ly retard ed
. T h e tri al co u rt
c o n sid e re d th e e v id e n c e a n d fo u n d a g a in st D o ss o n b o th iss u e s. D o ss su b se q u e n tly filed th is appea l
. T hi s C our tr ever s es the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of pos t - convi ct i on re l i ef on t he i s s ue of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el and r emands thi s m at t er t o the tr i al courtf orf ur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. D os s w as convi ct ed of capi t al m ur der i n the C i r cui t C ou rt of G renada C ounty and
sen tenc ed to d ea th fo r th e m u rde r of R o b e rt C
. B ell
. D o ss’ co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e w ere
a f fi rm e d b y th is C o u rt o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. D o ss v. S ta te , 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ), c e rt. deni ed, 523 U . S. 1111, 118 S. Ct
. 1684, 140 L . Ed. 2d 821 ( 1998)
. D os s f i l ed an A ppl i cat i on fo r L e a v e to F ile M o tio n to V a c a te Ju d g m e n t o f S e n ten c e in th is C o u rt in M a y 2 0 0 3 . T h is C our tgra nt ed D os s l eave t o pr ocee d i n the tr i al courton the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) W hether h e w a s m e n tally reta rd e d ; an d (2 ) w h e th e r h is tria l co u n se l h a d b e e n in e ffe c tiv e a t th e p e n a lty p h a s e . D o ss v. S ta te , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶4. T he G r enada C ounty C i r cui tC our thel d an evident i ary he ari ng on thi s m att er on S e p tem b e r 6 -7 , 2 0 0 6 . D o ss p re se n ted th e fo llo w in g w itn e ss e s: D r. C riss L o tt , a p sy c h o lo g ist; L e e B a ile y , D o s s ’ t ri a l c o u n s e l; D r. D a n ie l G ra n t, a p s y c h o lo g is t; D r. T im o th y S u m m e rs , a ps ychi atr i s t ; Q
. T . D os s , D os s ’ c ous i n; Sadi e D os s , D os s ’ m other ; Sandr a Pr i ce, a daught er

### 3

of Sam “Joe” B row n, w i th w ho m S adie D oss had l i ved i n C hicago; and S am H enry P hil l i ps, D o ss ’ b io lo g ica l fa th e r. T h e S tate p re se n ted D r. G ilb e rt V . M a c V a u g h , III, a p sy c h o lo g ist,
an d D r. R eb M cM icha el, a p sy ch iatri st, as w itn esse s. O n D ec em b er 12 , 20 0 6 , th e tri al co u rt ent er ed an O r derand an O pi ni on, f i ndi ng thatD os s w as notm ental l y ret arded a nd thathe
w as notdeni ed ef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of c ouns el
. D os s ’ M ot i on t o A l t erorA m end O pi ni on and J udgm entw as deni ed. Subse quent l y, D os s f i l ed thi s appea l , as s ert i ng thathe di d notr ece i ve
e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l at th e s e n ten c in g p h a se o f h is tria l an d th a t th e d e c isio n in A tk in s v . V

irg in ia re q u ir e s th a t th e d e a th se n te n c e in th is c a s e b e s e t a s id e . Atkins , 53 6 U. S. 3 0 4 , 1 2 2 S
. C t. 2 2 4 2 , 1 5 3 L . E d
. 2 d 3 3 5 (20 0 2 ). A N A L Y S IS ¶ 5 . Th e s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w a f

t e ra n e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g i n p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n - r e l i e f ( PCR )
cas es i s w el l s ett l ed. T hi s C our thas s ai d: “W hen revi ew i ng a l ow ercourt ' s deci s i on t o deny a pe t i t i on f orpost convi ct i on r el i ef

thi s C our tw i l l notdi s turb the t r i al court ' s f actual f i ndi ngs un l ess they are f

ou nd t o b e cl earl y err on eou s. " B ro w n v. S ta te , 731 So. 2d 595, 598 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng B ank of Mis s is s i ppiv. Souther n Mem 'l P ark, I nc. , 677 So. 2d 186, 191 ( M i s s . 1996) ) ( emphasi s added)
. I n m aki ng that det erm i nat i on, "[ t ] hi s C our tm us texami ne the ent i r e r ecor d and ac cept' that evi dence w hi ch s upport s orr eas onabl y t ends t o s uppor tthe f i ndi ngs of

f act ma d e b e l o w, t o g e th e rwi th a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s wh i c h ma y b e d r a wn theref rom and w hich f

avo r the low er court ' s f

i nd i ng s of f

act. . . . ' " Mullins v. R a tclif f , 515 So. 2d 1183, 1189 ( M i s s . 1987) ( quot i ng Co tto n v. Mc Co n n e ll , 435 So. 2d 683, 685 ( M i s s . 1983) )
. T hati ncl udes def er ence t o the ci r cui tj udge as the "sol e authori ty for det erm i ning credi bil i ty o f the w i tnesses. " Mullins , 515 So. 2d at1189 ( ci t i ng H al l v. State ex r el

. W al ler , 247 M i s s . 896, 903, 1 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 4 (19 6 3 )). L o de n v. S ta te , 971 So. 2d 548, 572-573 ( M i s s . 2007)
. H ow ever , “w her e ques t i ons of l aw
ar e r ai s ed the appl i cabl e s t andar d of r evi ew i s de n ovo. ” B ro w n v. S ta te , 731 So. 2d 595,

### 4

598 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng B ank of Mis s is s i ppiv. S outher n Mem ’l

P ark, I nc. , 677 So. 2d 186, 191 ( M i s s . 1 99 6) )
. The b ur de n of p r oo f a ta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng o n a PCR c a s e i s on t he peti t i on er t o sho w “by a prepo nd erance of the ev i den ce” t hat he i s ent i t l ed to reli ef. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -23 (7) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). I . W HET HER D OS S RE CE I VE D I NE F F EC TI VE AS S I S TA NCE OF COUNS EL AT THE SE NTENCI NG PHASE OF HI S TRI AL. ¶6. D os s a s s ert s thatde f ens e couns el , L ee B ai l ey, fai l ed to properl y inve s t i gat e the
a v a ila b le m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e a n d p re se n ted o n ly o n e w itn e ss in m iti g a tio n a t th e p e n a lty phas e. ¶ 7 . T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt e sta b lish e d a tw o -p a rt tes t fo r d e ter m in in g a c laim of i nef fect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el i n Str i ckland v. W as hington , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 52 , 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (198 4), as f oll ow s: F irst, th e d e fe n d a n t m u st sh o w tha t co u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s d e fic ien t. T h is r equi r es s how i ng thatcouns el m ade e rr or s s o s eri ous thatcouns el w as not fu n c tio n in g a s th e “ c o u n se l” g u a ra n tee d th e d e fe n d a n t b y th e S ix th A m endment
. Second, t he def endantm us ts how thatthe def i ci entper f

or m ance prej ud i ced the defense. T his requi res sho w ing thatcou nsel ’s err ors w ere s o s er i ous as t o depr i ve the def endantof a f ai rtr i al , a tr i al w hos e r es ul ti s r el i abl e. I d. a t 6 8 7 . ¶8. T he C our tf

ur therest abli shed t hat “[ t ] he properm eas ur e of att orney per f

or m ance
r emai ns s i m pl y r eas onabl enes s underpr evai l i ng pr of es s i onal nor m s . ” I

d. at688. “The d efe n d an t m u st sho w th a t th e re is a rea so n ab le pro b ab il ity that, b u t f o r co u n sel’s
u n p ro fe ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. A re a so n a b le pr obabi l i ty i s a pr obabi l i ty s uf f i ci entt o unde r m i ne conf i dence i n the out come. ” I d. at694. W i th r egar d t o a n a t t orney’ s duty t o i nves t i gat e, the C our ts ai d the f ol l ow i ng i n Str i c kl

and :

### 5

T h ese stan d ard s req u ir e n o sp ec ial am p li fi ca ti o n in o rde r t o d efine co u n sel’s d u ty t o i n v esti g ate, the d u ty at issue i n th is ca se. A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o n c lu d e d , s tr a te g ic c h o ic e s m a d e a ft e r t h o ro u g h in v e s tig a tio n o f l a w a n d fa c ts re lev a n t to p lau sib le o p tio n s a re v irtu a lly u n c h a llen g e a b le; a n d stra teg ic c h o ice s m a d e a fte r le ss th a n c o m p lete in v e stig a tio n a re re a so n a b le p re c ise ly t o the ext entthatr eas onabl e pr of es s i onal j udgm ent s s uppor tthe l i m i t at i ons on in v e stig a tio n . In o th e r w o rd s, c o u n se l h a s a d u ty to m a k e re a so n a b le i nves t i gat i ons ort o m ake a r eas onabl e dec i s i on thatm akes par t i cul ar i nves t i gat i ons unnece s s ary. I n any i nef f ect i venes s cas e, a part i cul ardeci s i on nott o i nves t i gat e mustbe di r ect l y as s es s ed f orr eas onabl eness i n al l the c irc u m sta n c e s, a p p ly in g a h e a v y m e a su re o f d e fe re n c e to c o u n se l’s ju d g m e n t. Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S. at690- 91. ¶9. T hi s C our thas appl i ed the Str i ckland s t andar d num er ous t i m es and has f ur thers ai d, “an a t t orney’ s l aps e m us tbe vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the cha r ges and the pot ent i al penal ty. ” See R o ss v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1004 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng State v. T okm an , 564 S o. 2 d 1339, 1343 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. I n R oss , def ens e couns el of

f er ed, as
m it ig a tin g e v iden ce d u ri n g the s en tenc ing p h ase , the testi m o n y o f R o ss’ m o ther, grandm other, a n d d au g hter , a m i nis t er f rom the jai l , and a sheri ff w ho had arr est ed R oss. T he t es t i m ony r ef

er ence d R os s ’ char act er , and the w i t nesses des cr i bed R os s as a “good pr i s oner . ” Id
. at1005. C ouns el ’ s fai l ure t o i nves t i gat e R os s ’ i nm at e r ecor d l ed t o t he
a d m iss io n o f h ig h ly p re

ju d icia l ev id e n c e o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . R o ss ’ c o u n se l als o fa iled to
con du ctan adequ at e i nv est i gati on i nto pot enti al l y m i t i gati ng f act ors, i ncludin g R oss’ p sy ch o log ical pro b lem s, an d fail ed to o b tai n an e x p ert to testi fy to th ese fac tors. T h is C o u rt not ed: W h ile c o u rts m u st d e fe r to law y e rs ’ ju d g m e n ts a n d stra teg ies , “a t a m i ni m um , couns el has a duty t o i nt ervi ew pot ent i al w i tnes s es and t o m ake in d e p e n d e n t in v e s tig a tio n o f t h e f a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f t h e c a s e .” Fe rg u so n v. S ta te , 507 So. 2d 94, 96 ( M i s s . 1987)
. U nd er t his s t andar d, couns el m ay be de emed i nef f ect i ve f orr el yi ng a l m os te xcl us i vel y on m at er i alInc red ulo us ly, in her dis sent, Ju sti ce L am ar c harac terize s o ur ana lys is o f t heaf fi davit s as 1 “lengthy and unnec essary” and then says “itis im proper for this Court to consider ” the affidavits of Le e B ail eyan d Kelv in Winb us h b eca us e “t he y w erene ve r ad

mitted intoev idenc e b ef

orethetri al co urt . . . . ” H ow ev er, Ju sti ce L am ar q uo ted the se very af

fi davit s at length

in her pre vio us m ajo rity opinion, which is now being withdrawn on reheari ng. Moreover, we quote the publishe d opinion of this Court, Doss v

. S tat e , 882 So. 2d 176 (Miss. 2004), on Doss’ ori ginal appli cation for leave and thetri al court he rein reg ardingthe se a ff idavit s, wh ich

we re ind eed

fi led . F urt

he r, t hetri al c ourt sp eci fi cal ly disc us sed

theaf fi davit s in

his Orde r an d n ote d th at h e consid ere d th e af fi davit of Le e Baile y. Fina lly , th erewa s n o o bje cti on to t heus e o f B ail ey ’s a ff

idavit in t hetri al c ourt. 

### 6 f urni s hed by the St at e dur i ng dis covery and conduc t i ng no i ndepende nt in v e s tig a tio n . Id . W h ile c o u n se l is n o t re q u ire d to e x h a u st e v e ry c o n c e iv a b le avenue of

i nves t i gat i on, he orshe m us tatl eas tconductsuf f i ci enti nves t i gat i on to m a k e a n in fo rm e d e v a lu a tio n a b o u t p o te n ti a l d e fe n s e s . State v. T okm an , 564 So. 2d at1343. R oss , 954 So. 2d at1005. T hi s C our tf ur thers ai d: [ C ] ouns el w i l l not be deemed i nef f ect i ve i f ther e i s pr oof

of i nves t i gat i on or i f there i s no factual basi s forthe de fendan t ’s clai m . H ow ever, each o f these p rin c ip les p re su p p o se a c e rta in lev e l of inv e stig a tio n . B y c o n tra st, “ stra teg ic choi ces m ade af

t erl es s t han com pl et e i nves t i gat i on w i l l notpas s m us t eras an excus e w hen a f

ul l i nves t i gat i on w ou l d have r evea l ed a l ar ge body of m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . ”
. . . “ I ti s n otr e a s on a bl e t o r e f us e t o i nv e s t i ga t e w hen th e in v e stig a to r d o e s n o t k n o w th e re lev a n t fa c ts th e in v e stig a tio n w ill u n c o v e r.” R oss , 9 5 4 S o . 2 d at 10 0 6 (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶ 1 0
. In h is a p p lica tio n fo r lea v e filed w ith th is C o u rt in 2 0 0 3 , D o ss re lied o n a ff id a v its 1 f r om s ever al peopl e w i th var i ous connect i ons t o hi m , i ncl udi ng: L ee Bai l ey, tr i al att or ney; K el vi n W i nbus h, B ai l ey’ s i nves t i gat or ; C ar ol yn W atki ns , t he publ i c def enderw ho handl ed
a se p ara te m u rde r ch arg e a g ains t D o ss in S h elby C o u n ty, T en n esse e; S ad ie D o ss, m o ther; V e rle n e F o re st W ill iam s, frien d ; C a ro ly n P h ill ip s, au n t; E rn e stin e W ill iam s, au n t; L u c re tia M o n g e r, siste r; R a n d y D o ss , b ro th e r; R o se ly n M o n e tte J a c k so n , au n t; M a ry Je n n in g s, a u n t; John W estm orel and , f

orm erl y m arr i ed t o an aun t ; A nn et t e Jam es, gir l fr i end ; M arvi n D oss,

### 7

hal f
- br other ; Q
. T . D os s , cous i n; L i l l i e M oor e, aunt ; S and ra Pr i ce, daught erof Sam “J oe” B row n , w h o li v ed w ith D o ss’ m o ther in C h icag o; C han t ay P ri ce, S and ra Pri ce ’s si x teen -ye aro ld d a u g h ter ; V a rn a d o M c D o n a ld , ste p -sis tero f L u c re tia M o n g e r; C a rrie C o le, a u n t; R o sie C aldw ell , fri en d o f D o ss’ m o ther; an d S am P h il li p s, b iolog ical fath er. ¶11. W i th r egar d t o t he af f i davi tof def ens e couns el L ee Bai l ey, thi s C our ts um m ar i zed: D o ss re lies first o n th e a ffid a v it o f h is tria l atto rn e y w h o sta tes th a t: D o ss ’ w a s th e first c a se h e h a d d e fe n d e d w h e re th e d e a th p e n a lty w a s s o u g h t; he d i d n ot s eek an y scho ol, m edical , m ental health o r other re co rds, becau se he di d notr eal i ze the i m por t ance of the r ecor ds i n pr es ent i ng a def ens e dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e; he di d nots eek a dvi ce f r om a m ent al heal th expert , f unds fo r a m e n tal h e a lth e x p e rt o r a n y k in d o f m e n tal h e a lth e v a lu a tio n ; an d h e d id notobt ai n any r ecor ds r es ul t i ng f r om the i nves t i gat i on of cr i m i nal char ges agai ns tD os s i n Shel by C ounty, buthe di d obt ai n the i ndi ctm entand j udgm ent in th a t ca se . B a iley a lso o b tain e d th e a p p o in tm e n t o f a n in v e stig a to r, K e lv in W i nbus h, w ho w as al s o t he i nves t i gat orf orD os s ’ co- defe ndant , Fr eder i ck B e ll. B a ile y sta ted th a t W in b u sh to ld h im h e h a d in ter v iew e d : D o ss ’ a u n t, L i l li e M o ore, D oss’ si st ers , L ucret i a M on ger and M avis M cC ast er; D oss’ b ro th e rs, M a rv in D o ss a n d R a n d y D o ss ; an d Jo h n W e stm o re lan d a n d th a t all s t at e d tha tDos s was a g oo d a nd / orq ui e tp e r s on who g oti nv ol ve d w i th the w ro n g c ro w d . B a iley d id n o t fo llo w u p w ith th e se w itn e s s e s o r a sk th e m to t es t i f y att he s ent enci ng phas e. B ai l ey s t at ed thatW i nb ush t ol d hi m he had cont act ed tw o t eac her s i n B ruce, a M r s . P arkerand a C oach Sm i th, buti tw as ques t i onabl e as t o w hetherthes e peopl e ac tual l y knew D os s , orw hetherthey had mi s t aken hi m f

orFr eder i ck B el l
. B ai l ey di d notr eal i ze thata conf l i ct m i gh tres ultfr om usi ng W i nb ush, w here on e of B ai l ey’s pot enti al defense s tr at egi es w as t o bl ame B el l as the i ns t i gat orof the s hoot i ng. B ai l ey s t at es that he i nt ervi ew ed onl y D os s ’ m otherand an auntf ora f ew m i nut es . B ai l ey s t at es thathe f el the di d a good j ob i n def endi ng the ca s e att he gui l tphas e, butthat he di d notknow w hathe w as doi ng as t o the s ent enci ng phas e. D oss , 882 So. 2d at186. ¶12. A s t o the af

f i davi tof i nves t i gat orK el vi n W i nbus h, thi s C our ts ai d: K el vi n W i nbus h’ s af

fi dav i ts t at es thatthi s w as hi s f i r s tm i t i gat i on in v e stig ati o n , an d that h e w as a lso the inv esti g ator fo r F red erick B ell. W in b u sh id e n tified L ill ie M o o re , L u c re tia M o n g e r, M a v is M c C a ste r, M a rv in D os s , R andy D os s , and J ohn W es t m or el and, a fr i end, as f avor abl e mi t i gat i on

### 8

w itn e ss e s . W in b u sh a lso id e n tifie d C o a c h S m ith , a te a c h e r a n d c o a c h in B ruce, as s om eone w ho knew A nthony and s ai d he “beha ved f ai r l y w el l f

orthe mo s tp a r t . ” W i n b u s h s t a t e d th a th e g a v e Ba i l e y c o n t a c ti n f o r ma t i o n f

o rs o me of the w i tnes s es , and B ai l ey knew W i nbus h ha d c ont acti nf or m at i on f

orthem a ll. W in b u sh s a y s th a t h e w a s n e v e r a sk e d to fo llo w u p w ith th e w itn e ss e s, to arr a ng e f ors ub po e na s , t o a rr a ng e f orthe i rp r e s e nc e a ttr i a l , o rt o l ook f or a d d iti o n a l w itn e ss e s a fte r W in b u sh ’s in iti a l rep o rt. H e w a s a lso n o t as k e d to do any i nves t i gat i ng i n C hi cago. I d. ¶13. C ar ol yn W atki ns , publ i c def ender i n Shel by C ounty, “st at es i n an af f i davi t thats he obt ai ned s chool r ecor ds f orD os s f

r om C hi cago; D os s ’ m edi cal r ecor ds f r om C hi cago, i ncl udi ng r ecor ds i nvol vi ng a 1986 he ad i nj ury; a nd the 1988 ps ychol ogi cal r eportdone at the U ni ver s i ty of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. She s t at es thatLee B ai l ey neverr eques t ed thes e r ecor ds
. ” Id
. ¶14
. A s t o the r em ai ning aff i dav i t s, this C ou rtcharact eri zed them as f oll ow s: T h e affiants say that D o ss w as sh y an d q u iet , n o t a vio lent p erso n ; th at th ere w er e t i m es w hen D oss seem ed t o go i nt o a s ei zur e ortr ance of s om e ki nd, whe n h e d i d n o tr e s p o n d t o p e o p l e ; th a th e h a d me n t a l o rme d i c a l p r o b l e ms th a t b e g a n w ith h is m o th e r’s d rin k in g a n d d ru g u se d u rin g h e r p re g n a n c y w ith hi m , f ol l ow ed by l ead poi s oni ng and hea d i nj ur i es dur i ng D os s ’ chi l dh ood; thatm ent al i l l nes s s eemed t o run i n the D os s f ami l y; thatD os s w as eas i l y l ed by Fr eder i ck B el l , w ho w as a bad, vi ol entper s on and cam e f r om a vi ol ent f ami l y; thatD os s be gan t o run w i th a ba d c r ow d w hen he moved f r om C hi cago to M iss iss ip p i; th a t D o ss ’ b irth an d u p b rin g in g in C h ica g o w e re rid d led w ith cr i m e, drug a bus e and poverty. Speci f i cal l y m ent i oned and bl amed f orm uch of the mi s f or tune s uf

f er ed by D os s and hi s f

ami l y i n C hi cago w as Sam B r ow n, w h o liv e d w ith D o ss ’ m o th e r. D o ss a p p a re n tly b e liev e d fo r m u c h o f h is e a rly l i fe that Sam B row n w as his biol og i cal father. A ccordi ng t o v ari ou s af fi dav i t s, Sam B r ow n w as vi ol entand abusi ve t ow ar d D os s , hi s m otherand the r es tof the f ami l y; he t ook w hatl i t t l e m oney t he f ami l y had t o buy drugs and gambl e; and he sold drugs and i ntr od uced the ch i l dren i n the f am i l y to drugs. D oss , 882 So. 2d at187.

### 9

¶1 5 . In fi n d ing that D o ss sh o u ld h av e the o p p o rtu n ity to p rese n t ev iden ce to the tr ial co u rt i n s uppor tof

hi s cl ai m thatcouns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e and pr es entavai l abl e mi t i gat i on evi dence cons t i tut ed i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , thi s C our ts ai d: W e acknow l edge thatm any di s cr epanc i es exi s tamong t he af f i davi t s pr es ent ed by D os s i n s uppor tof

thi s i s s ue. H ow ever , w e conc l ude thatD os s has m ade a s uf f i ci ents how i ng underthe Str i c kl and t es tthatB ai l ey’ s ef

f or t s f el l s hor tof th e e ffo rts a c o u n se l sh o u ld m a k e in a d e a th p e n a lty se n ten c in g trial, so a s to e n tit le D o ss to a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g o n th is c laim in th e c irc u it co u rt. T h is w as B ai l ey’ s f

i r s tdeath penal ty cas e, and he adm i t t ed thathe di d notknow w hathe w as doi ng i n the s ent enci ng pha s e. W hen couns el makes c hoi ces of w hi ch w i tnes s es t o us e ornot use, those choi ces m us tbe made bas ed on couns el ’ s pr operi nves t i gat i on. C ouns el ’ s m i nimum duty i s t o i nt ervi ew pot ent i al w i tnes s es and t o m ake an i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of the f act s and ci r cumst ance s of

the ca s e. Id
. at189. ¶16. T he tr i al court hel d a PC R evi dent i ary hear i ng i n 2006 and hear d t es t i m ony f r om L ee B ai l ey, Q
. T . D os s , Sadi e D os s , Sandr a Pr i ce and Sam Phi l l i ps . O n D ece m ber12, 2006, the tr i al c our ti s s ued an opi ni on, f i ndi ng thatD os s ha d notr ece i ved i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of
cou nsel
. W e fi nd the tr i al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng s t o b e cl earl y err on eou s. ¶17. D os s ’ a ppl i cat i on f orl eave t o thi s Courti ncl uded, a s a n e xhibi t , an aff i dav i t f r om B a iley , w h ich sta ted , in r e lev a n t p a rt:

3. Pr i ort o thi s , I had neve rr epr es ent ed a de f endanti n a capi t al m ur der c a se w h e re th e d e a th p e n a lty w a s s o u g h t. 4. I di d nots eek orobt ai n a ny s chool , medi cal , ment al he al th, orother r ecor ds r egar di ng M r . D os s . T hi s w as notf ora ny s tr at egi c r eas ons . I di d not r eal i ze the i m por t ance of obt ai ni ng s uch r ecor ds i n or dert o pr epar e f orthe s ent enci ng phas e of

a capi t al cas e. 5. I knew the def

endant , M r . D os s , had gr ow n up i n C hi cago a nd had gone t o el ement ary s chool and i nt o the begi nni ng of hi gh s chool ther e. I w as aw are that M r. D oss had b een in speci al edu cat i on cl asses i n C hicago an d als o s uf f e r e d f r om bl a c ko ut s a nd h e a da c he s . H oweve r , I d i d no tu nd e r s t a nd t he sig n ifica n c e o f th is a n d d id n o t se e k a n y a d v ic e fro m a m e n tal h e a lth e x p e rt.

### 10

A l s o, I di d notr eques tf unds f ora m ent al he al th expertorany type of m ent al heal th eval uat i on. T hi s w as notf orany s tr at egi c r eas on. 6 . I d id n o t o b tain a n y re c o rd s fro m th e in v e stig a tio n d o n e in M e m p h is by M r . D os s ’ att orney ther e. H ow ever , I did obt ai n the i ndi ctm entand j udgm enti n t hatcas e.

. . . 9 . I d id n o t as k M r. W in b u sh [in v e stig a to r w h o p ro v id e d sta tem e n ts and cont acti nf

or m at i on forseve r al pot ent i al w i tnes s es t o B ai l ey] t o f ol l ow up w i th any of

thes e pot ent i al w i tnes s es , orw i th a nyone el s e, a nd I di d notf ol l ow u p w ith th e m m y se lf to o b tain m o re in fo rm a tio n o r to d e ter m in e fo r m y se lf w h ethe r th ey w o u ld b e h elpfu l w itn esse s. I did n o t ask a n y o f th em to testi fy atthe s ent enci ng phas e. T hi s w as notf orany part i cul ars tr at egi c r eas on. 1 0
. O ther tha n the fa m il y m em b ers just m en ti o n ed an d M r. W e stm o re lan d [p o ss ib le w itn e s s w h o k n e w D o ss ], th e o n ly o th e r sp e c ific in d iv id u a ls M r. W in b u sh id e n tified th a t h e h a d ta lk e d to w e re tw o tea c h e rs in B ruce, M i s s i s s i ppi , M r s . Par kerand s om eone he i dent i f i ed onl y as “C oach S m ith
. ” B u t i t w as F red d ie B ell w h o h ad g o n e to s ch o o l i n B ruc e, n o t M r. D oss, w ho l i ved in C alho un C i ty. Indeed , M r. W i nb ush tol d m e t hat M rs . Par kerhad onl y t aughtM r . B el l , notM r . D os s . M r . W i nbus h s ai d that“C oach S mi th ” k n e w M r . Do s s a n d th a tM r . Do s s h a d b e h a v e d we l l a r o u n d h i m. He nev er expl ai ned ho w C oach S m i th k new M r. D oss. I di d n ot as k M r. W i nb ush t o go back f

orcl ar i f i cat i on, ort o go back an d try t o f i nd other s w ho m i ght know M r . D os s a s oppos ed t o M r . B el l , i ncl udi ng thos e w ho l i ved i n C al houn C i ty w her e M r . D os s pr es ent l y l i ved. I di d notdo thi s i nves t i gat i on mysel f and d id n o t try to co n tact C o ac h S m ith m y self. 11. A l though I knew M r . W i nbus h w as w or ki ng as the i nves t i gat orf or M r. B e ll, I d id n o t c o n sid e r a t th e tim e h o w th is p o se d a c o n flict o f in ter e st. I w as not part i cular l y focused on ob t ai ning evidence for the sentenci ng ph ase t o s how thatM r. B el l w as the more cul pabl e of the tw o, and thathe had dom i nat ed M r . D os s and l ed hi m i nt o thes e m i s deeds
. H ad I been f ocus ed on that, I m igh t hav e re ali ze d the c o n fl ictan d so u g h t ano ther inv esti g ator. 12. T o the ext entthatM r . W i nbus h cl ai m ed thath e s pent100- 120 hours i nv est i gat i ng thi s cas e, I do notbel i eve thi s i s acc ur at e. E ven i f you i ncl ude the t i m e he s pentdr i vi ng and l ooki ng f orpeopl e, I do notthi nk he s pentthatm uch t i m e. 1 3
. I did n o t do an y m it igation in v e stiga ti o n in C h icag o , w h ere M r. D os s gr ew up and l i ved m os tof hi s l i f e, and I di d notask M r . W i nbus h t o do s o. I di d notcon t act an y w i tnes s es orf ami l y m ember s ther e. I di d nots eek fu n d s fro m the C o u rt fo r su c h an inv e stig a tio n . T h is w a s n o t fo r a n y stra teg ic r eas on. 14. M y t i m e r ecor ds s how t hatthe onl y f ami l y m ember s orf

r i ends w ho I i nterview ed w ere the d efendan t ’s m other, w h o w as the o nly w i tness I p re se n ted a t th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se , an d o n e o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s a u n ts, w h o I d id

### 11

notcal l as a w i tnes s . T he di s cus s i on w i th them l as t ed onl y a f ew m i nut es acc or di ng t o m y r ecor ds
. I di d t al k agai n w i th the def endant ’ s mot herdur i ng th e trial, a n d p rio r to h e r te stim o n y , I d isc u ss e d th e p o ss ib le te stim o n y w ith h e r . Ho we v e r , th i s d i s c u s s i o n wa s n o tl e n g th y a n d I d i d n o ts p e n d mu c h t i me i nt ervi ew i ng herorpr epar i ng hert o t ake the s t and. 15. T he omi s s i ons thatI ha ve m ent i oned i n thi s af f i davi tw i th r es pect to th e m iti g a tio n in v e stig a tio n w e re n o t m o tiv a ted b y a n y p a rticu lar stra teg ic re a so n . A lth o u g h I b e liev e I d id a g o o d jo b in d e fe n d in g th is c a se a t th e g u ilt p h a se , I h a d n e v e r h a n d led a p u n ish m e n t p h a se in a c a p ital c a se b e fo re . It is unl i ke anythi ng I ha ve everdone
. T her e’ s no otherpr ocee di ng thatI have e ver been i nvol ved i n w her e the j ury de ci des the puni s hm ent , a nd of cour s e, none w h e re th e sta k e s w e re th is h ig h . M y o m iss io n s in th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se in th is cas e w er e due, I bel i eve, t o m y i nexper i ence i n thi s part i cul artype of proceed i ng . L oo king bac k o n it , I beli eve no w thatI prov i ded a go od defense atthe gui l tphas e, b ut t hatI f ai l ed t o undert ake the es s ent i al f unct i ons of pr oper l y and thor oughl y i nves t i gat i ng mi t i gat i on a nd pr es ent i ng a def ens e at the pena l ty phas e. 16. I f I f ai l ed t o m ake any obj ect i ons duri ng the tr i al thats houl d have been m ade, that w as not the resul tof any st rat egy decis i on s. L ee B ail ey A ff. (A u g . 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 ). ¶ 1 8
. A fte r th e P C R h e a rin g , th e trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e “ tes tim o n y o f L e e B a iley w a s in sh a rp c o n tra st w ith th e in fo rm a tio n th a t w a s c o n tain e d in th e a ffid a v it” s u b m itte d to th is C ou rt , bu tthat B ai l ey w as not tryi ng to m i sl ead, becau se he did no th ave access t o his case f i l e w hen he s i gned the aff i davi tand w as “r el yi ng on hi s m emory of event s thathad t aken pl ace overei gh ty ears ear l i er . ” The t r i al courtal s o not ed thatB ai l ey bel i eved he had not obt ai ned r ecor ds f

r om Car ol yn W atki ns , D os s ’ publ i c def enderi n M emphi s , w hen he s i gned the aff i dav i t , bu tthen real i zed tw o d ays before tri al that he had actuall y g ott en som e of these
re c o rd s . ¶19. T he tr i al court ’ s r eas oni ng w as i ncorr ect . B ai l ey’ s i nabi l i ty t o r emem ber that he had
a c tu a lly o b tain e d th e se re c o rd s c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n b e c a u se h e d id n o t h a v e a c c e ss to h is f i l e. B ai l ey adm i t t ed dur i ng r edi r ectexami nat i on thatthe f i l e w as avai l abl e any t i m e he

### 12

re q u e ste d it a n d tha t M c D u ff, D o ss ’ p re se n t co u n se l, w e n t so far as to o ffe r to d riv e th e file t o B ai l ey. A l s o, the f

ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed betw een M cD uf f and B ai l ey dur i ng t he h e a rin g : Q
. W as there e v er a ti m e that y o u a sk ed m e to lo o k a t th at fi le th at I didn ’t get i tt o y ou w i thin a f

ew day s? A
. N o. Q
. O kay. A
. N ow , ther e w as – t her e w as s om et hing he a s ked aw hi l e ago a bout m eet i ng hal f

w ay i n J acks on. I r emem bers om ethi ng aboutthat
. B utno, you’ ve al w ays been c or di al
. Y ou al w ays – w heneve rI w ant ed s om ethi ng, you had i tr i ghtther e. ¶20. M or eover , the por t i on of the f i l e cont ai ni ng the r ecor ds that B ai l ey found tw o days bef or e tr i al w as note ven i ncl uded i n the f i l e thatw as gi ven t o M cD uf f , butr atherw as f

ound i n a s t or age box i n B ai l ey’ s of f i ce. Speci f

i cal l y, B ai l ey t es t i f

i ed dur i ng di r ectexami nat i on i n the PC R hear i ng: A
. I gots om e r ecor ds f r om M emphi s . I thi nk thatCar ol i ne W at s on [ s i c] eith e r h a d them sen t t o m e b y so m eo n e e lse o r she sen t th em to m e. I do n ’t know , butI gotthem i n m y poss es s i on. A nd t hey w er en’ ti n the r egul arf i l e.

. . . Q. Ok a y . An d , a n d wh e r e d i d y o u f i n d th e m? A
. I n an ol d f

i l e of m i ne, a bi g box thatI had ol d cr i m i nal fi l es s t or ed aw ay i n. I f ound them i n t her e. Q
. W er e they i n a part i cul arf i l e f ol derthatw as l abel ed? A
. N o. ¶ 2 1
. Ba i l e y f

u r th e rt e s t i f

i e d th a tth e d o c u me n t s th a th e d i s c o v e r e d two d a y s b e f o r e th e P CR hear i ng i ncl uded recor ds fr om N orth M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er , Shel by C ounty governm ent ( f r om J oyce K i ng, l egal i nves t i gat or ) , B ethany H os pi t al i n C hic ago, and a ps ychol ogi cal
re p o rt fro m th e U n iv e rsity o f M iss iss ip p i. B a iley a lso a c k n o w led g e d th a t so m e o f th e re p o rts
w er e mi s s i ng m ul t i pl e page s and he had neve robt ai ned com pl et e copi es . M or eover , w i th t he

### 13

exce pt i on of

t he “f or got t en” r ecor ds , the r emai nderof B ai l ey’ s t es t i m ony atthe PC R hear i ng
ver i f i ed hi s s w orn s t at ement s i n the af f i davi t , f orexampl e: Q
. A n d p rio r to y o u sig n in g th a t af fid a v it y o u a n d I – p rio r to a n y a ffid a v it bei ng dr af

t ed you and I t al ked aboutthi s cas e, di dn’ tw e? I came t o your of f i ce a nd w e t al ked. A
. Sur e. Sur e. Q
. A nd then I dr af

t ed an a f f i davi t , a nd I br oughti tba ck t o you. A nd you and I w entoveri tl i ne- by- l i ne, di dn’ tw e? A
. Sur e. Q
. A nd you t ol d m e thateverythi ng i n ther e thatyou s i gned i n the f i l e [ s i c] ver s i on w as true, di dn’ tyou? A
. Sur e. Q
. Y ou s i gned i tunderoath, di dn’ tyou? A
. Sur e. Q
. N o w , d id y o u lie in th a t af fid a v it? A
. I di dn’ tr emem beraboutthos e f i l es t hatI gotf

r om C ar ol i ne W at s on [s ic ]. Q
. R i ght
. Y ou thoughtyou had notr eques t ed thos e. A
. I di dn’ tthi nk I had thos e. Q
. I s t her e any pl ace otherthan thatw her e you s ai d s om ethi ng – you b e liev e d it w a s tru e a t th e tim e . W a s th e re a n y p lac e w h e re y o u sa id s om ethi ng you di dn’ tbel i eve w as true? A
. N o . N o . P ara g rap h 5, ab o u t h im gro w ing up i n C h icag o . Y ea h
. T h at’s tru e. H av ing b lack -ou ts. Y ea h
. I d idn ’tse ek a m ed ical h ea lth ex p ert. T h at’s tru e. I did n ’tthin k tha t W inb u sh w as a c o n fl icto f i n terest. Y o u k n o w , that’s true. I di dn’ tas k hi m t o f ol l ow up on any of

thes e w i tnes s es . T hat ’ s true. B utnow , notbei ng part i cul ar l y f ocus ed on the s ent enci ng hear i ng, s o m e th in g s h a v e b e e n s a id in h e re to d a y th a t le a d s m e to th in k th a t y e a h , I w as t ryi ng t o gets om e w i tnes s es f orthe s ent enci ng. B utas f aras I w as conce r ned and ha vi ng as l i t t l e expe r i ence as I had, w hi ch w as abs ol ut el y none, I di dn’ ts ee thatther e w er e any w i tnes s es otherthan w hatw e had. Q
. A nd do you r eca l l thatw hen you and I t al ked aboutthi s c as e, I had your fi l e w i th m e, b rough titto G renada pri or t o yo u si gn i ng the aff i dav i tso y o u c o u ld g o th ro u g h it? A
. B r oughti tt o W i nona. Q
. I m ean t o W i nona. I ’ m s orry. A
. Y es. Y ou broug ht i tt o W i no na. Y es. Q
. Y o u h a d it th e re p rio r to sig n in g th e a ffid a v it. A
. Y ou t al ki ng aboutf i ve yea r s ago? Q
. Y eah.Bailey admitted during r edirectexamination that he al so could have filed amotion in limine 2 to prohibitthe intr oduction of evidence of the youth court char ges, but failed t o do so. 

### 14 A. I d o n ’ tr e me mb e rth a t . I j u s tk n o w – I k n o w t h a ty o u c a me u p a n d c a me up fai rl y o ft en I tho ug ht. Y ou w ere r eal l y d i l i ge n t, b u t I d on ’t– I j ust re m e m b e r sig n in g th e a ffid a v it. I n f act , I di dn’ teven r emem ber w hatw as i n i t . W hen D oug E vans [pro sec u to r] w a s ask ing m e a b o u t i t, I said I sign ed an affidav it
. I do n ’t r emem berw hati tw as . B ut , you know , m emory – mem ory i s s l i ppi ng a l i t t l e. Q
. R igh t. A re y o u ab le t o say at this p o int

– I w an t to m ak e this clea r. A re you s ayi ng atthi s poi ntt hatw e di d notgo thr ough t he f i l e pr i ort o you si gni ng th a t? A
. N o, I am not s ayi ng that
. Y ou w entthr ough everythi ng thor oughl y. Q
. A nd i n Par agr aphs 4 and 6 aboutthe r ecor ds, as soon as you f ound th o se re c o rd s y o u to ld m e ; rig h t? A
. R ig h t. ¶ 2 2
. T h e trial c o u rt fu rth e r fo u n d th a t D o ss a n d h is m o th e r w e re n o t “ fo rth c o m in g w ith
m any w i t ne s s e s w ho c ou l d o f f e rt e s t i mony tha tw ou l d b e f a vo r a bl e t o Ant ho ny , ” a nd t hat B a iley w a s g iv e n th e n a m e o f D e rm a P o lice C h ief M a rk H e n d rix , b u t ch o se n o t to c a ll h im beca us e of

an unf avor abl e rul i ng on a mot i on i n l i m i ne. Speci f i cal l y, the tr i al courtf

ound 2 that“[ t ] hi s s how s thatB ai l ey m ade a n ef f or tt o l ocat e any w i tnes s es thatA nthony bel i eved coul d of f ert es t i m ony thatw oul d be f avor abl e t o hi m . ” The t r i al courts ai d: T hi s courtdur i ng the evi dent i ary hear i ng hear d m any t al es of w oe conce r ni ng the envi r onm enti n w hi ch A nthony w as r ear ed, i ncl udi ng an ab u sive fathe r/ step fathe r an d a n ind if feren t an d a lcoh o li c m o ther. H o w ev er, this i nform at i on w as not pr ov i ded t o B ai l ey d uri ng his represent at i on of D oss. S a d ie te stifie d th a t sh e d id n o t sh a re th e in fo rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g A n th o n y w ith B a iley . S h e sta ted th a t o n ly a fte r g e tti n g to k n o w M c D u ff a n d th in k in g o f h im as a br other , di d s he s har e i nf or m at i on w i th M cD uf

f conce rni ng the det ai l s of herl i f e and of A nthony’ s upbr i ngi ng. T h is c o u rt d o e s n o t b e liev e th a t th e fa ilu re o f B a iley to lea rn th e so rd id de t a i l s o f

the l i f e o f Sa di e Dos s a nd o f

Ant ho ny , i n a ny way i ndi cat es t hat B ai l ey w as i nef

f ect i ve. H e w as r el yi ng on Sadi e and A nthony t o pr ovi de info rm ati o n ab o u t A n tho n y ’s l if e a n d o f po tential w itn esse s tha t co u ld testi fy fa v o ra b ly a b o u t A n th o n y . If th o se tw o d id n o t p ro v id e th a t in fo rm a tio n to Ba i l e y , h e i s n o tt o b l a me f o rth e i rl a c k o f

f o r th r i g h tn e s s . Onl y f

r o m th e m,

### 15

coul d he have l earned the names of Q
. T . D os s , Sam Phi l l i ps , Sandr a Pr i ce, or the i ndi vi dual s t hatsubmi t t ed af f i davi t s t o the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our t , but di d nott es t i f

y atthe hea r i ng. O p ’n, C ir cu itC o u rto f G ren ad a C o u n ty, atp p . 9 -10 (D ec . 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ). ¶23. T he tr i al courts ai d thatSadie had fai l ed t o provide cert ai n i nform at i on t o the U ni ver s i ty of

M i s s i s s i ppi dur i ng an unr el at ed pr ocee di ng i n 1988 and dur i ng a br i ef di s cus s i on w i th B ai l ey i n 1993, s ayi ng: T h is c o u rt w ill n o t sp e c u late a s to w h e th e r sh e fa iled to p ro v id e th is in fo rm a tio n to th e U n iv e rsity o f M iss iss ip p i an d to B a iley d u e to embar r as s m ent , orw hetherm uch of hert es t i m ony i n the evi dent i ary hear i ng wa s a f i g me n to f

h e ri ma g i n a t i o n d u e t o t o o ma n y y e a r s o f d r i n k i n g Cr o wn R oyal and bee r , orw hetherhert es t i m ony i s l aced w i t h perj ury [ n4] and e x a g g e ra tio n in a n a ttem p t to fre e A n th o n y fro m d e a th ro w . H o w e v e r, th is courti s of

the opi ni on thatB ai l ey di d the bes the coul d w i th the 1993 ver s i on of the truth thatw as pr ovi ded by Sadi e. n4 She ei therpe r

j ur ed her s el f

i n A nthony’ s or i gi nal tr i al or atthe evi dent i ary hear i ng. A tthe t r i al , s he t es t i f i ed thatSam B r ow n w as A nthony’ s fa ther
. N ow s he cl ai m s hi s f atheri s Sam P hil l i ps. O p’ n atp. 11. ¶24. H ow ever , the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs ar e contr adi ct ed by the r ecor d i n thi s m att er . T he
re c o rd e sta b lish e s th a t B a iley sp o k e o n ly b rie fly to S a d ie b y tele p h o n e an d n e v e r m e t w ith h e r in p e rso n p rio r to D o ss ’ tria l in 1 9 9 3 . F u rth e r, d u rin g th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f D o ss ’ tria l, B a iley fa iled to a sk a s in g le q u e stio n th a t w o u ld e v o k e a n y “ so rd id d e tails o f th e life o f S a d ie
a n d A n th o n y ” o r th a t w o u ld e v o k e a n y “ tale s o f w o e ” a b o u t ab u se a s s tate d b y th e trial c o u rt. T h e re levan tport i on s of Sadie’ s t est i m on y on di rectexam i nati on by B ai l ey fr om 199 3 a re as f oll ow s: Q
. N ow , w her e w as A nthony born?

### 16

A
. C hi cago. Q
. A n d , w h o is his fath er? A
. Sam B r ow n. Q
. I s Sam her e t oday? A
. N o , h e ’s n o t. H e d o n ’t k n o w a n y th in g a b o u t it
.

. . . A
. H e’ s nother e. H e don’ tknow anythi ng abouti t . I got– I tr i ed t o get in to u c h w ith h im , b u t I c o u ld n ’t. Q
. A nd, ar e you and Sam m arr i ed? A. No , we n o t ; c o mm o n l a w. Q
. H ow l ong di d A nthony l i ve i n C hi cago? A
. I think 16 years, i f I ’m no tm i st aken
. 15 or 16 y ears . Q
. A nd, then w her e di d he move t o? A
. C al houn C i ty. Q
. A nd, he’ s been l i vi ng ther e w i th you? A
. Y es. Q
. D i d he go t o s chool ther e? A
. A per i od of

t i m e. Q
. H ow l ong? A
. I r eal l y d on ’tkn ow . I think abo ut a coup l e of m on ths. Q
. W h a t g ra d e h a s A n th o n y c o m p lete d in sc h o o l? A
. I tw as ‘ tw i xt[ s i c] the 9th and the 10th. Q
. H as he bee n w or ki ng? A
. N o. H e w entt o l ook f ora j ob. T hey s ay he’ s t oo s hor tand t oo young.

. . . Q
. D o you have a ny otherr el at i ves thatl i ve ther e w i th you? A
. T al ki ng abouti n C al houn C i ty? Q
. U h -h u h . (A ff

ir m a tiv e .) A
. W hen A nthony w as w i th m e? Q
. U h -h u h . (A ff

ir m a tiv e .) A
. Y es , I di d. Q
. H ow m any? A
. O ne. Q
. A nd, w hatki nd of hom e di d you have? A
. B eaut i f

ul hom e. O ne m or e thi ng. Y ou s ay w ho al l s t ayed. M y other – I have one daught ers t ayed w i th m e, per i od. Q
. N ow , do you w or k? A
. N o, I don’ t . I been s i ck. Q
. H uh? A
. I ’ m s i ck. Q
. H ow l ong you been s i ck? A
. F or 20-som et hing yea rs .

### 17

Q
. N ow , w hatki nd of i ncome does your f ami l y have? W hen A nthony w as l i vi ng ther e w i th you? A
. I w as on w el f

ar e atthe t i m e.

. . . Q
. A n d , h e d id n ’t g ra d u a te f ro m h ig h sc h o o l? A
. O nl y f

r om the 8th. Q
. N ow , you know A nthony. W oul d you t el l us how – w hatki nd of per s on i s A nthony? A
. A n th o n y w a s a w a rm , b e a u tifu l pe rso n , a n d h e a lw a y [sic ] at h o m e w ith me , a n d wh e n I wa s s i c k h e a l wa y s wo u l d g e tu p a n d h e try t o f i x me f ood. Som et i m es I can’ tw al k. T he arthr i t i s ha ve m e s om et i m es . L i ke t oday, I m ay be abl e t o w al k j us tas s tr ai ghtas any of y’ al l and then the nextcoupl e of

days , I m ay notcan w al k. I have t o w al k w i th a crut ch. A nd, he w oul d do form e. H e al w ays sai d, “M ama, I w antt o geta j ob, w her e I can t ake c ar e of you. ” A nd, A nthony al s o w as pl ayi ng bal l one da y a nd thi s – a man c a me thr ou gh the a l l e y a nd hi thi m on the head and bus t ed hi s head, a nd I t ook hi m t o the doct or . H e had a concus s i on. So, A nthony w as very go od
. A nd, af t erthathe s t art ed havi ng h ea d ac h es, an d I t o o k h im to the d o ctor. Q
. W hen w as thi s thathe gothi ti n the hea d? A
. I tw as w hen he w as about11. A nd he al s o gothi ti n the hea d w hen he w as about17, I thi nk. A t17 he gothi ti n the hea d agai n. Q
. N ow , w hen yo u say h i ti n the head , are you t al king ser i ou s? A
. Y es. Q
. A ll righ t, ho sp ital? A
. I to o k h im to th e h o sp ital a n d th e y re lea se h im , an d h e a lso w a s h it a ga i n a nd he w a s t a ke n t o the ho s pi t a l , a nd the y s e ntme a s t at ement f r om C hi cago – f

r om the hos pi t al – that– I don’ tha ve the pape r s now – t hathi s hand w as hur tand hi s head w as bus t ed. Q
. A l l r i ght , no w , w hen h e gothi ti n the hea d thes e t i m es di d you not i ce any cha nge i n A nthony? A
. H e w oul d have he adac hes
. Som e days he w on’ tsay nothi ng. T hen, the n e x t d a y , h e ta lk . B u t, h e d id n ’t b o th e r n o b o d y . ¶ 2 5 . C lea rly , c o u n se l w a s a w a re o f D o ss ’ h e a d in ju rie s, y e t fa iled to in v e stig a te th e d e tails behi nd thes e i nj ur i es ort o pr es enta ny othere vi dence dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e r egar di ng the ext entof

the i nj ur i es and any l ong t erm orperm anentdamage -
- de s pi t e por t i ons of t he hos pi t al recor ds and var i ous ps ychol ogi cal eval uat i on r eport s bei ng pr ovi ded t o B ai l ey byTh e diss ent w ould f ind Baile y’s failure to inv estigate D os s’ h ead inj uri es a s p rop er und er 3 anentirely sep arate an d ina pp lic ab le the ory

of co m pe ten cy . Thedis sent later no tes thetri al c ourt’ s findingthat “D os s did n ot a pp ear to b e in san e. ” D os s’ s an ityis n ot at is su e.



### 18 the p ub l i c defend er’ s off i ce i n S helby C ou nty. If cou n sel h ad i nq uir ed further i nto D oss’ 3 injuries, co u n sel ea sil y w o u ld h av e o b tai n ed the n am es o f p o tential w itn esse s su ch as S an d ra Pr i c e , whom the r e c or d r e ve a l s was r a pe d du r i ng the s a me h ome i nv a s i on when Doss w as beat en w i th a pi pe. I f

couns el had r evi ew ed the r ecor ds i n hi s pos s es s i on, he a l s o w oul d have di s cover ed otherpos s i bl e w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng D os s ’ br other s and s i s t er s. A l s o, couns el
a p p e a re d su rp rise d a t S a d ie’ s s tate m e n t th a t sh e h a d b e e n sic k . C o u n se l fa iled to a sk a sin g le ques t i on a boutw hetherD os s ha d e verbe en abus ed, w hatki nd of e nvi r onm enthe had bee n exp osed to i n C hicago, ho w he d i d in schoo l , w hetherhe w as i n sp ec ial edu cat i on cl asses , o ra n y th i n g e l s e t h a tc o u l d h a v e b e e n mi t i g a t i n g . Co u n s e l me r e l y a s k e d wh a tk i n d o f h o me Sadi e had i n M i s s i s s i ppi , notC hi cago, and w hatki nd of per s on D os s w as , w i thoutdel vi ng i nt o any otherr el evantevi dence
. T he duty of r eas onabl e i nv est i gat i on r es t s s quar el y on
couns el ’ s s houl der s . T here i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d t o es t abl i s h thatcouns el undert ook a
r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i on. ¶26. D ur i ng the P C R h eari ng , S adi e D os s t es t i f i ed thatSam B r ow n i s the f atherof her
o th e rs o n , Ra n d y Do s s , a n d th a ts h e wa s l i v i n g wi th S a m B r o wn a tt h e t i me s h e b e c a me p reg n an t w ith A n tho n y . S ad ie t esti fi ed th at Sa m P h il li p s i s actu all y D o ss’ b iolog ical fath er, butthatD os s w as t ol d hi s f atherw as Sam B r ow n and t hatshe f el tS am B r ow n w as hi s f ather becau se he he l ped rai se D oss. S adie f urther t est i fi ed thatthe fam i l y suff ered vi olentabu se
a t th e h a n d s o f S a m B ro w n , w h o D o ss b e liev e d w a s h is fa th e r fo r se v e ra l y e a rs a n d w ith
w hom they l i ved unt i l D os s w as appr oxi m at el y f i f t een ye ar s ol d. Sadi e t es t i f i ed thats heSand ra P ric e, Sam

Bro wn ’s da

ughter wh o als o liv ed

wi th t hefamilyin C hic ag o, likew ise 4 tes tif ied durin g th e P CR

he aringthat th e f

amilyha d live d in

a ver y b ad ne igh bo rho od , and

that Brown had used drugs and was very angry and abusive towar d the family. Price also te stified about theho m e inva sio n in

wh ich sh e w as rap ed

an d D os s w as b eat en , s uf ferin g a he ad inj ury , and

that Doss was very quiet and kept to himself. 

### 19 dr ank hea vi l y dur i ng herpre gnancy w i th D os s , t hatSam B r ow n beathers o vi ol ent l y thats he b e g a n b lee d in g a n d a lm o st s u ffe re d a m isc a rria g e , tha t S a m B ro w n in fe c ted h e r w ith gonorrhea w hi l e s he w as pr egnant , and thatshe t ook the medi cat i on V al i um w hi l e s he w as pr egnant . I n addi t i on, Sadi e t es t i f i ed thatD os s had l ead poi soning as a chi l d; thathe had
w i tnes s ed Sam B r ow n beat i ng her ; thathe w as be at en and abus ed by Sam B r ow n; thatSam B r ow n had abus ed drugs and s pentthe f ami l y’ s m oney on drugs ; thatthe f ami l y had l i ved i n a very poor , bad, drug- i nf es t ed nei ghborhood w her e gangs w er e pr e va l e nti n Chi cago; and 4 pr ovi ded var i ous otherr el evantevi dence t hatt r i al couns el f ai l ed t o even i nqui r e aboutdur i ng th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f D o ss ’ o rig in a l trial. ¶27. W i th r egar d t o per s onal i nf or m at i on that w as not r eport ed dur i ng the i nt ervi ew att he U n iv e rsity o f M iss iss ip p i in 1 9 8 8 ste m m in g fro m a n u n re la ted y o u th c o u rt m a tter, S a d ie t est i fi ed as fol l ow s: Q
. O kay. N ow , t hes e sort s of thi ngs , the thi ngs that– the i nf ect i on you g o t, the b ea ti n g s w h il e y o u w ere preg n an t, th e b ea ti n g s w h il e y o u w ere w ith S a m B ro w n , are th o se th in g s y o u w o u ld – y o u w o u ld tell strangers? A
. N o. Q
. W ou l d y ou t el l m any peo ple abou ttho se things? A
. N o. Q
. W h y n o t? A
. I tw oul d hur tm e, and peopl e l augh. I had t ol d s om eone, and they lau g h e d a b o u t it
. Q
. D o you – do you everr emem bert aki ng A nthony to be s een by a ps ychol ogi s toveri n O xf or d? A
. Y es.

### 20

Q
. O kay. D o you r emem berthem aski ng you aboutyourpr egnanc y? A
. N o , I d o n ’t.

. . . Q
. M iss D o ss , y o u s a id y o u d id n ’t te ll m a n y p e o p le a b o u t th is. W h y d id you t el l m e? A
. W el l , y’ al l w er e j us ts o comfort[ s i c]
. J us tl i ke he w as m y ow n f ami l y, and I w oul d t al k t o y’ al l
. J us ts om ethi ng ther e aboutyou w as j us tl i ke f ami l y, and I don’ tt el l everybody. Q
. D id y o u an d I spe n d a lot o f t im e tog ethe r? A
. Y eah. Q
. D i d you f

eel l i ke you gott o know m e? A
. Y es, I did. Just li k e if yo u w as a b roth er. Q
. D i d I expl ai n thi s m i ghtbe i m por t antf orA nthony’ s cas e? A
. Y es. Q
. D i d I as k you t o m ake up a nythi ng? A
. N o. Q
. D i d I as k you t o s ay s om ethi ng thatw as n’ ttrue? A
. N o.

. . . Q
. D i d L ee Bai l ey as k you aboutany of thes e pr i vat e – w oul d he as k you any of thes e ques t i ons a boutpr i vat e det ai l s , the l aw yer , A nthony’ s tr i al law y er? A
. N o , h e d id n o t. Q
. O k a y . D id y o u fe e l li k e y o u g o t to k n o w M r. B a iley v e ry w e ll? A
. N o , I d id n o t. ¶ 2 8
. A lso , tes tim o n y w a s o ffe re d b y p sy c h o lo g ica l ex p e rts d u rin g the P C R h e a rin g a s to
w hy Sadi e i ni t i al l y m ay nothave pr ovi ded thi s i nf or m at i on. D ur i ng di r ectexami nat i on of
co u rt -ap p o inted e x p ert D r. C ri ss L o tt , c o u n sel for D o ss as k ed L o ttw h ethe r i t w as n ec essa ry t o s pend t i m e w i th peop l e t o getthem t o di s cus s pr i vat e mat t er s . L ot tans w er ed: “That
v aries. I think so m e p eo p le m ay b e v ery o p en . S o m e p eo p le ce rt ainly m ay b e re luctan t. In the cus t ody eval uat i ons I do, I r ar el y geti nf or m at i on f

r om peopl e. T hey don’ tw antt o get i nvol ved. N o m att erhow m any t i m es I try t o c ont acts om eone l i ke that , I m ay neve rgetany i nform at i on . ” F urther, du ri ng cross exam i nati on of L ott , the S t at e el i ci t ed as fol l ow s:

### 21

Q
. Y eah. But , butyou ar e – you ha ve t o r el y on thi s s or tof s tuf f and the vali dity o f tho se things. D o yo u fi nd itint eres t i ng that the p robl em s that M i ss D os s deci ded she had af t ert he convi ct i on, m uch l ongeraf t erhe w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d to dea t h, are notthe s ame ones s he had w hen s he w as havi ng hi m tr eat ed i n 1988 atthe – ori nt ervi ew ed orassess ed atO l e M i s s orat T upel o? M R . M C D U F F : I am g o ing to obj ectt o thatevidence. Itm akes a char act er i zat i on thati s nots uppor t ed by the evi dence ori n the evi dence
. T H E C O U R T : I ’ l l overrul e the obj ect i on. A
. M r . W hi t e, the eva l uat i on thatw as done i n ‘ 88 by the U ni ver s i ty of M issi ssipp i w as a y o u th c o u rtev alua ti o n w h ich w as lo o k ing , asse ssing M r. D o ss a t th a t ti m e p rio r to g o in g to p o ss ib ly tra in in g sc h o o l. It w a s n o t w h a t I w o u ld c o n sid e r to b e a c o m p re h e n siv e e v a lu a tio n a n d c e rta in ly n o t a c o m p re h e n siv e fo re n sic e v a lu a tio n . I d o th o se e v a lu a tio n s to o , the y o u th court . A nd m y re por tw oul d notbe as exha us t i ve and I w oul d as k the mot her a b o u t su b sta n c e a b u se h isto ry b u t a lo t o f tim e s th e y m a y b e m in im izin g th a t, b e c a u se it i s n o t so m e th in g th a t th e y w a n t to o w n u p to a t th a t p o in t. So i t ’ s – I s ee i t . I s ee thatocca s i onal l y, thatp eopl e – i n t erm s of the cont extthati f

I ’ m tr yi ng t o getan eva l uat i on fora chi l d as t o w hetherornot they s houl d getm ent al heal th tr eatm enta nd go t o O akl ey. I don’ tal w ays get al l the d at a fr om the p arent s. A nd I ’ l l eval uat e the par ent , butt hey m ay nott el l m e eve rythi ng atthat tim e . S o i t’ s – I see tha t an d I u n d erstan d yo u r con ce rn h ere . B u t fo r m e it hasn’tbeen that unusu al , no tt o g etal l the d at a i n cert ai n cases. ¶29
. D r. T i m othy S um m ers al so t est i fi ed ab ou tthis : Q
. I n obt ai ni ng i nf or m at i on thata per son m i ghtcons i derpr i vat e or e m b a rra ss in g , is it im p o rta n t fo r th e p sy c h o lo g ist o r p sy c h iatris t, w h o e v e r is i nt ervi ew i ng them, t o t ake thei rt i m e w i th thatper s on t o expl ai n? A
. Y es. Q
. E xpl ai n w hy t hi s pr i vat e, perhaps embar r as s i ng, i nf or m at i on i s bei ng so u g h t. A
. Y es. Q
. D r. L o tttest ifi e d ea rl ier ab o u t th e d if feren ce b etw ee n the c u rsory ev alua ti o n an d m o re e x tens ive fore n sic e v alua ti o n . Is itp o ssible th at a cu rsory eval uat i on , l i ke a yo uth c ou r te va l ua t i on , a pe r s on mi gh tno tr e ve al embar r as s i ng i nf

or m at i on butthen l at ermi ghtdo s o once they ar e appr oache d and the im po rt ance is exp l ai ned t o them of t al king abo ut pr i vate det ai l s? A
. Y es.

### 22

A gai n, ther e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e B ai l ey eve ras ked Sadi e any que s t i ons that
w oul d el i ci tthi s evi dence
. M or eover , even i f nei therD os s norSadi e had pr ovi ded any
m itig a tin g e v id e n c e , B a ile y s till w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n re lie v e d o f h is d u ty to in v e s tig a te . See R om pil la v. B eard , 545 U
. S. 374, 125 S. C t . 2456, 162 L . E d. 2d 360 (2005) ( “[ E ] ven w hen
a capi t al def

endant ’ s f

am i l y m em ber s and the def endanthi m s el f

have s ugges t ed thatno
m i t i gat i ng evi dence i s avai l abl e, hi s l aw yeri s bound t o m ake r eas onabl e ef f or t s t o obt ai n and
r evi ew m at er i al thatcouns el know s the pr os ecut i on w i l l pr obabl y r el y on as evi dence of aggr avat i on atthe s ent enci ng phas e . . . . ”) I n R o m p ill a , the evi dence i n m i t i gat i on i ncl ud ed t he bri ef

t es t i m ony of

f i ve of R om pi l l a’ s f

ami l y m ember s ar gui ng f orr es i dual d o u b t , a s k i n g f

o rme r c y , a n d s a y i n g t h a tRo mp i l l a wa s i n n o c e n ta n d a g o o d ma n . On P CR, R om pi l l a r ai s ed i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el f

orf ai l ur e t o pr es ents i gni f

i cantm i t i gat i ng
ev iden ce ab o u t his ch il d h o o d , m en tal ca p ac ity an d h ea lth , an d alco h o li sm . T h e tri al co u rt deni ed r el i ef

, and t he Pennsyl vani a Supre m e C our taf f i r m ed. R om pi l l a then pet i t i oned f or
a w r i tof habe as corpus i n fe der al di s tr i ctcour t , w hi ch f ound, i n re l evantpar t , thatcouns el h a d fa iled to in v e stig a te “ p re tty o b v io u s s ig n s” o f R o m p ill a ’s tro u b led c h ild h o o d a n d h is
me n t a l i l l n e s s a n d a l c o h o l i s m , “ a n d i n s t e a d h a d r e l i e d u n j u s t i f i a b l y o n R o m p i l l a ’ s o wn des cr i pt i on of

an unexc ept i onal backgr ound. ” R o m p ill a , 5 4 5 U .S . at 3 7 9 . T h e T h ird C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed, f

i ndi ng i n partthatc ouns el had att empt ed t o uncoverm i t i gat i on evi dence by i nt ervi ew i ng R om pi l l a and f ami l y m ember s and by cons ul t i ng w i th thr ee ment al heal th exper t s . A f

t ergra nt i ng cer t i or ar i , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tr ever s ed, not i ng th a t th is “ c a se , li k e so m e o th e rs r e c e n tly , lo o k s to n o rm s o f a d e q u a te in v e stig a tio n in pr epar i ng f

orthe s ent enci ng pha s e of a c api t al tr i al , w hen def ens e couns el ’ s j ob i s t o count er

### 23

the St at e’ s evi dence of

aggr avat ed cul pabi l i ty w i th evi dence i n m i t i gat i on. ” Id
. at380- 81. A ppl yi ng a s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , the C our taddr es s ed the m i ni m al contr i but i ons of R om pi l l a and hi s fa m i l y m ember s t o any m i t i gat i on cas e and t he l ack of us ef ul i nf or m at i on pr ovi ded by the ment al heal th r eport s . T he C our tal s o s ai d:

W hen new couns el ent er ed the ca s e t o r ai s e R om pi l l a’ s pos t convi ct i on claim s, h o w ev er, th ey ide n ti fi ed a n u m b er o f li k ely av en u es the tri al l aw y ers coul d f rui t f ul l y have fol l ow ed i n bui l di ng a mi t i gat i on cas e. School r ecor ds ar e one e xampl e, w hi ch tr i al c ouns el neverexami ned i n s pi t e of the pr of es s ed unfa m i l i ar i ty of

the s ever al f

ami l y m ember s w i th R om pi l l a’ s chi l dhood, and d e s p ite c o u n s e l’ s k n o w le d g e th a t R o m p illa le ft sc h o o l a ft e r th e n in th g ra d e . .

. . O ther exam ples are r ecords of R om pil l a’s j uv enil e and adu l ti ncarcerat i on s, w h ich c o u n sel d id n o t con su lt , alth o u g h the y w ere aw are o f th eir cli en t’ s c rim in a l re c o rd . A n d w h ile c o u n se l k n e w fro m p o lice re p o rts p ro v id e d in p re tria l d isc o v e ry th a t R o m p ill a h a d b e e n d rin k in g h e a v ily a t th e tim e o f h is of f ens e, . . . , and al though one of the ment al heal th expert s r eport ed that R om pi l l a ’ s tr ou bl e s w i th a l c oh ol mer i t e d f urthe ri nv e s t i ga t i on , . . . , c ou ns el di d notl ook for evi dence of a hi s t ory of

depende nce on a l cohol thatm i ght h a v e e x te n u a tin g s ig n if ic a n c e . R o m p ill a , 5 4 5 U . S
. at 38 2 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶ 3 0
. In th e in sta n t c a se , B a iley so m e h o w o b tain e d th e re c o rd s fro m th e se p a ra te a c tio n in M emphi s , al though he w as uncl earon how exact l y t hatcam e about , butt her e i s no evi dence h e e v e r a c tu a lly re v iew e d th e re c o rd s, w h ich w o u ld h a v e o p e n e d u p se v e ra l p o ss ib le
m i t i gat i on l eads
. T hes e r eport s i ncl uded i nf or m at i on t hatD os s : dra nk al cohol re gul ar l y and had s t art ed dr i nki ng ata ge el even; ha d tr i ed otherdrugs ; w as i n s peci al educa t i on cl as s es and had done poor l y i n s chool ; had a l ow I Q ; had f ami l y and l egal i s s ues i n C hi cago; exhi bi t ed char act er i s t i cs of

var i ous ps ychol ogi cal di s or der s ; and t hathi s m ent al di f f i cul t i es m ay have h ad an organi c basi s. B ai l ey fai l ed t o requestcom plet e copies of the records that w ere
m i s s i ng pages a nd he f

ai l ed t o r eques ta ny r ecor ds on hi s ow n. A ddi t i onal l y, couns el f ai l ed

### 24

t o f ol l ow up w i th any of

the pot ent i al w i tnes s es i nt ervi ew ed by i nves t i gat orW i nbus h. A l s o, B ai l ey fai l ed to do a ny thing m ore than a bri ef, cu rs ory tel eph on e i nterview w i th S adie D oss,
w h o w a s h is s o le m itig a tio n w itn e s s . ¶3 1
. C o u n sel’s pe rform an ce w as c learly d eficien t un d er Str i c kl and
. H ow ever, D oss m ust also sh o w that the d eficien t perfo rm an c e p rejud iced h is de fen se, i
. e., b u t f o r co u n sel’s
u n p ro fe s s io n a l e rr o rs , th e re s u lt o f t h e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if fe re n t. Id
. , 46 6 U. S. at687. I n R o m

p ill a , the C our tf

ound: T he acc um ul at ed entr i es w oul d ha ve des tr oyed the beni gn conce pt i on of R om pi l l a’ s upbr i ngi ng and ment al capa ci ty def ens e couns el had f

or m ed f r om t al ki ng w i th R om pi l l a hi m s el f and s om e of

hi s f ami l y m ember s , and f

r om th e re p o rts o f th e m e n tal h e a lth e x p e rts. W ith th is in fo rm a tio n , co u n se l w o u ld have be come ske pt i cal of the i m pr es s i on gi ven by the f i ve f ami l y m ember s and w oul d unques t i onabl y have gone f urther t o bui l d a mi t i gat i on cas e. Fur ther ef f or tw oul d pr es um abl y have une arthed much of the mat er i al pos t convi ct i on co u n sel fou n d , inclu d ing test im o n y from sev era l m em b ers o f R o m p il la’s f a mi l y , wh o m tr i a l c o u n s e l d i d n o ti n t e r v i e w. R o m p ill a , 545 U . S. a t391. T he C our tthen s um m ar i zed the evi dence thatw oul d have be en
unearthed, i ncl udi ng thatR om pi l l a’ s par ent s w er e both s ever e al coholi cs, thathi s m ot her dr ank dur i ng pr egnanc y, and thathi s f atherhad a vi ci ou s t em per an d oft en bea tbot h the
m o th e r a n d R o m p ill a . T h e C o u rt a ls o n o te d th e e v id e n c e u n c o v e re d b y R o m p ill a ’s p o stc o n v ictio n c o u n se l, sp e c ifica lly , th a t R o m p ill a su ffe re d fro m o rg a n ic b ra in d a m a g e , tha t h is pr obl ems r el at ed bac k t o hi s chi l dhood and thatthey w er e l i kel y cau sed by fe t al al cohol sy n d rom e. W ith reg ard to the p rejud ice p ron g o f Str i c kl and , the R om

pil la C our ts ai d: T hi s evi dence adds up t o a m i t i gat i on cas e thatbear s no r el at i on t o the f e w n a k e d p l e a s f

o rme r c y a c tu a l l y p u tb e f o r e th e j u ry , a n d a l th o u g h we s uppos e i ti s pos s i bl e thata j ury c oul d ha ve hea r d i tal l and s t i l l have de ci ded on t he dea th penal ty, thati s notthe t es t . I tgoes w i thouts ayi ng thatthe undi s cover ed “mi t i gat i ng evi dence , t aken a s a w hol e, ‘ m i ghtw el l have

### 25

i nf l ue nc e d the j ury’ s a pp r a i s a l ’ of [ Rom pi l l a ’ s ] cul pabi l i ty, ” W ig g in s v . Sm ith , 539 U
. S. [ 510] , at538, 156 L
. E d. 2d 471, 123 S. Ct
. 2527 ( quot i ng Wil lia ms v. T aylor , 529 U
. S. [ 362] , a t398, 146 L . Ed. 2d 389, 120 S. C t . 1495) , and the lik e lih o o d o f a d iffe re n t re su lt i f th e e v id e n c e h a d g o n e in is “ su ffic ien t to underm i ne conf

i dence i n the out come” actual l y r eac hed ats ent enci ng, Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S. at694, 80 L
. E d. 2d 674, 104 S. C t . 2052. Id
. at 39 3
. If D o ss’ tri al co u n sel ha d review ed th e rec o rds p rov ided by the p u b li c d efe n d er’s of f i ce i n Shel by C ounty and had f ol l ow ed up w i th pot ent i al w i t ness es , he w oul d have
uncover ed mi t i gat i ng evi dence al m os ti dent i cal t o thati n R o m p ill a . ¶32. Pur s uantt o the R o m p ill a , W i gg ins , and Wil

lia ms cas es ci t ed abo ve, the mi t i gat i on evi dence di s cover ed by D os s ’ pos t - convi ct i on couns el , “t aken a s a w hol e, m i ghtw el l have in flu e n c e d th e ju ry ’s a p p ra is a l o f D o s s’ c u lp a b ili ty , an d th e lik e lih o o d o f a d iffe re n t re su lt if th e e v id e n c e h a d g o n e in is s u ffic ien t to u n d e rm in e c o n fid e n c e in th e o u tco m e a c tu a lly
r eac hed ats ent enci ng. ” R o m p ill a , 5 4 5 U .S . at 3 9 3 . A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g m e n t o f th e C irc u it C o u rt o f G re n a d a C o u n ty d e n y in g p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief is r e v e rs e d , an d th is m a tter is
rem and ed to the tr i al cou rtw i th i nst ruct i on s t o v acat e t he d eat h sentence and t o g rantD oss
a new s ent enci ng hear i ng. P A R T T WO LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: I I . W HET HER T HE DE CI S I ON I N A T K IN SV . V IR G IN IA RE QU I RE S T HA T T HE DEATH S ENTENCE I N THI S CASE B E S ET AS I DE. ¶33. I n hi s r eques tf

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef f i l ed i n 2003 w i th thi s C our t , D os s al l eged that hi s death s ent ence w oul d vi ol at e the Ei ghth A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tthe exe cut i on
o f t h e m e n ta lly re ta rd e d
. See A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 536 U . S. 304, 122 S. C t . 2242, 153 L
. E d. 2d 335 ( 2002)
. D os s r el i ed on a ne ur ops ychol ogi cal eval uat i on per f or m ed by D r . M i chae l

### Th ef ir s t de f initi on wa s prov i de d b y t

heAm e ri c an A s s oc i ati on

on Menta l Re tardati on 5 

### (AAMR) :

“ Ment al ret ardation re fe rs to s ubst antia l l im it ations in pres ent fun ctioning. It ischa ra cteriz ed by s igni fi ca

ntly subaverage inte ll ec tual f unctioning, e xis ting conc urr ently wi th rel at ed l im it ations in t wo or m oreof the f

oll owing appl ic abl e adaptiveski llarea s: communi cati on, s el f- c a re , community us e, se lf

direc tion, health and s af ety, f unctiona l a ca dem ic s, and wor k. Me nta l retardatio n man ifests befo re age 1 8.” Atki ns , 536 U. S. at 309 n.3 ( quoting Ment alRet ardation: Def ini ti on, Cl as si fi cati on, and Syst em s of

Support 5 (9th ed. 1992))
. The s ec ond def

ini ti on was provi ded by the Am eric an Ps ychi atri c As soc iati on: “Thees se nti alfe at

ureof Me nta l Re tardation i s s igni fi cantly subaverage gene ra l intel le ct

ualfunc ti oning ( Cri te ri on A) that is ac com

pani ed by si gnif ic ant limi tati ons in ada

ptive f unctioning in at le as t two of thefol lowing skill areas: co mmun ication , self-care, home livin g, so cial/interp erson al skills, useof c omm

unit y re source s, se lf

-dire ction, func ti onalac ade mi c s kil ls , wor k, le is ure , he alth, and s af

ety (Crit erion B). Theons et must occ ur be for e a ge 18 years (Crit erion C). Me nta l Ret ardation has m any dif fe re nt e ti ologi es and m ay be s ee n as a f

ina l c omm on pathway of vari ous pathol ogic alproc es se s that af fe ct thefunc ti oning of

thece ntralner

vous s yst em .” Diag nostic and Stati stic alManua l of

Ment alDis orde rs 3 9 (4th e d. 2000) . “ Mil d” m ent al retardation is typic al ly use d t o de sc ribe peopl e with an I Q l eve l of 55-75 to app rox imately 7 0. Id. , at 42- 43. 26 G el bor tand the af

f i davi t s of D r . J ames M er i kangas , a psyc hi atr i s t , and Jef f r ey E no, a cl i ni cal
so c ial w o rk e r. T h is C o u rt fo u n d th a t “D o ss h a s m o re th a n m e t th e th re sh o ld re q u ire m e n t to be hea r d on the Atkins iss u e ” a n d g ra n ted D o ss lea v e to p re se n t h is A t kins cl ai m bef

or e the tr i al c our t . I n s o f

i ndi ng, thi s Courtr el i ed on i t s deci s i on i n Ch a se v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1013 (M i ss. 20 04 ), w herei n thi s C ou rtat t em pted t o clar i fy the ap pli cat i on o f A tk in s v . V irg in ia i n the tr i al court s of

thi s s t at e. I n A tk in s, th e S u p re m e C o u rt se t fo rth tw o , alm o st id e n tica l, def i ni t i ons of

m ent al r et ardat i on. Atkins , 5 3 6 U . S
. at 30 9 n . 3
. T h ese d efinit ion s w ere 5

### Id.
27

ado pt ed by thi s C our ti n Fo ste r v . S ta te , 84 8 So
. 2d 17 2, 17 5 ( M i s s . 20 03 ) , a nd f ur t her exami ned i n Ch a se v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1013, 1029 ( M i s s . 2004)
. B oth def i ni t i ons of

m ent al
r et ar dat i on r equi r e notonl y s i gni f i cant l y s ubaver age i nt el l ectua l f unct i oni ng, butal s o r el at ed
o r s ig n if ic a n t lim ita tio n s in a d a p tiv e sk ills th a t o c c u r b e fo re a g e e ig h te e n . Atkins , 53 6 U. S. at309 n. 3. A l l thr ee f

act or s , ( 1) s i gni f

i cants ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng, ( 2) r el at ed
ors i gni f i cantl i m i t at i ons i n adapt i ve s ki l l s , and ( 3) m ani f es t at i on bef

or e age 18, m us tbe met in o rde r for the o ffen d er to b e c lassif ied a s m en tal ly retard e d a n d e li g ible for Atkins p ro te c tio n fr o m e x e c u tio n . I d. ¶34. T he ca s e s ub j udi ce exempl i f i es w hatthe A t

kins m aj or i ty r ecogni zed, that“[ t ] o t he
e x ten t th e re is s e rio u s d isa g re e m e n t ab o u t th e e x e c u tio n o f m e n tally re tar d e d o ffe n d e rs, it is i n det erm i ni ng w hi ch of f ender s ar e i n f

actr et ar ded.
. . . N otal l peopl e w ho cl ai m to be
m ent al l y r et ar ded w i l l be s o i m pai r ed as t o f al l w i thi n the r ange of m ent al l y r et ar ded of f ender s aboutw hom ther e i s a nat i onal cons ens us . ” I d . at317. I n exami ni ng the sc ope of Atkins , o u r C o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th a t “A t kins exem pts a ll m ent al l y r et ar ded per s ons –even thos e w ho ar e mi ni m al l y m ent al l y r et ar ded–f r om exec ut i on . . . . ” Ch a se v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 2 6 (M iss. 20 0 4 ). W ith reco g n it ion o f th e d if fi cu lty in “d eterm ining w h ich o ffen d ers
ar e i n f actr et ar ded[ , ] ” the Supr eme C our tl ef tto the s t at es “the t as k of devel opi ng
a p p ro p ri a te w a y s to e n fo rc e th e c o n s titu tio n a l r e s tr ic tio n ” o n th e e x e c u ti o n o f s e n te n c e s . Atkins , 536 U
. S. at 3 1 7 . U nli ke m any st at es, o ur st at e L egis l ature ha s not chosen to add res s

### A rep ort settin g fo rth th e find ing s of th e Wh itfield d octo rs w as a dmitted into 6 

### evi denc e through the t es timony of Dr . Lott . Whil e the tri alcourt rec ei ved t es timony f rom Drs . Lott, Ma c Va

ugh, and McMi cha el , the r eport e nte re d int o evi denc e provide s the f indings of all th e do ctors; thus, w e speakin terms o f the rep ort’s co ntents. As the di ss ent

aptly not es , the Whi tf

iel d Repor

t l is ts a f ull -s ca leIQ s cor e of

71. 7 

### Howeve r, Dr. Gilbert Mc Vaugh t es ti fi ed that thecor re ct sc oreis 70. 28 th e iss u e o f m e n tal re tar d a tio n in th e c o n tex t of d e a th -p e n a lty li tig a tio n . U n les s a n d u n til it does s o act , w e ar e bound t o pr ovi de gui dance t o ourtr i al court s and t o app l y t he
co n sti tuti o n al m an d ates o f Atkins . ¶35. Fol l ow i ng r emand by t hi s C our t , the G rena da C ounty C i r cui tC our ti n J ul y 2004
or der ed thatD os s be s entt o the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al ( “W hi t f i el d”) f ora f or ens i c ment al h e a lth e v a lu a tio n to a ss ist th e c irc u it co u rt in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r D o ss w a s m e n tally
r et ar ded as def

i ned i n Atkins and Ch ase . D o ss w as ex am ined at W h it fi eld b y D rs. G il b ert M a c V a u g h III, C riss L o tt, Jo h n M o n tg o m e ry , a n d R e b M c M ich a e l (“ W h itfield d o c to rs” ) in N ovember2005. A ccor di ng t o D r . L ot t , t he W hi t f i el d doct or s f

ound, t o a r eas onabl e degr ee
o f p sy c h o lo g ica l an d p sy c h iatric c e rta in ty , th a t D o ss w a s n o t m e n tally re tar d e d a s s e t fo rth i n Atkins and Ch ase . T hey s peci f i cal l y concl uded thatD os s had an ove r al l I Q s cor e of 70 6 7 and w as i n the bo rder l i ne range of i ntel l ectual f un ct i on i ng . T he ev al uati on st at ed thatD oss’ true I Q s cor e may have been hi gher , butpos s i bl e mal i nger i ng orf at i gue may have f

act or ed i nt o the s cor i ng. ¶ 3 6
. T h e e v a lu a tio n f u rth e r sta ted th a t D o ss d id n o t h a v e a h isto ry o f sig n ifica n t d e fic its i n adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng due t o i nt el l ectual l i m i t at i ons . T he eval uat i on not ed thatD os s had
w or ked, car ed f

orhi m s el f

, and methi s ow n basi c nee ds , and had s how n no s i gns of sig n ifica n t d e fic its a s fa r a s s o c ial/in terp e rso n a l s k ills , co m m u n ica tio n , u se o f c o m m u n ity

### 29

r es our ces orl ei s ur e ac t i vi t i es w er e conc erned. T he eval uati on s t at ed thatD os s ’ s ugges t ed p rob lem s in a rea s su ch as fun cti o n al a ca d em ics, w o rk, se lf -direction , h ea lth , an d safe ty w ere bett erexpl ai ned by hi s chaot i c upbr i ngi ng than by i nt el l ectual de f i ci t s . The eval uat i on f

ound thatD os s w as “f

ai r l y adepti n copi ng w i th the l i f e demands f

ors om eone hi s age i n t hat
e n v ir o n m e n t.” ¶37. Fi nal l y, the eva l uat i on s t at ed that , des pi t e the pr es ence of s ever al r i s k f

act or s f or
m ent al r et ar dat i on, D os s ha d a tl eas ttw o pr i orps ychol ogi cal eval uat i ons atthe age of f i f t een, nei therof

w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a di agnos i s of m ent al r et ar dat i on. T hes e eva l uat i ons f ound that D os s di d notde m ons tr at e def i ci t s c ons i s t entw i th ment al r et ar dat i on pr i ort o r eac hi ng the age of ei ght een. ¶38
. D oss al so w as exam i ned by D r. D aniel G ranti n M ay 2 00 5. G rantfound that D oss’ t es tr es ul t s w er e s i m i l arto t estr es ul t s obt ai ned by otherps ychol ogi s t s , w hi ch i ndi cat ed
con si st ent ef

for tand a l ack o f m al i ng eri ng . G rantfound that, as the co m p lexity of a t ask incre ase d , D o ss’ l ev el of pe rform an ce de cre ase d
. G ran t ag ree d w ith ea rl ier fi n d ing s o f D r. G el bor tthatD os s ’ tes tre s ul t s and pas thi s t ory w er e cons i s t entw i th “neur ops ychol ogi cal i m pai rm ent s and pr obabl e or gani c br ai n dys f unct i on” and w er e “l i kel y both congeni t al and acqui r ed atan ea r l y ag e. ” G r antf ound thatD os s ’ I Q s cor e of 71, r ecor ded w hen he w as f i f t een, w oul d actual l y be i n the 66- t o- 67 s cor e r ange w hen corr ect ed. G r antf ound thatthe t es t s he had a dm i ni s t er ed cl earl y place d D os s ’ l evel of f unct i oni ng w i thi n the mi l d m ent al
r et ar dat i on r ange of

i nt el l i gence , and al s o s how ed si gni f i canti m pai r m ent s i n adapt i vebehavi ors ki l l s . G r antf ound thatD os s’ tes tres ul t s w er e “c ons i s t entw i th the di agnos i s of M i l d M ent al R et ar dat i on as def i ned i n the D i agnos t i c and St at i s t i cal M anual of M ent al

### 30

D i s or der s Four th E di t i on - T extR evi s i on, M ent al R et ar dat i on D ef i ni t i on s, C l assi fi cat i on , and Suppor t s , T enth E di t i on publ i s hed by the A m er i can A s s oci at i on on M ent al R et ar dat i on and
a s d e s c ri b e d b y th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt in th e A tk in s d e c is io n .” ¶39. D os s als o w as exami ned by D r . T i m othy Sum m er s i n J ul y 2006. Sum m er s di d not per f or m any t es t i ng on D os s butr el i ed on pr i ort es t s a nd r eport s by other s . Sum m er s f ound thatD os s w as m ent al l y r et ar ded “a s def i ned i n A t

kins v. V ir gini a as m ani f

es t ed by an I Q of 7 1 a n d lim itatio n s in a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g in a t le a st tw o a re a s o f fu n c tio n in g sig n ifica n tly l ow erthan hi s pe er s of

e qual a ge pr i ort o the t i m e thathe w as 18. ” Sum m er s f ur therf ound thatD os s “meet s the ment al re t ar dat i on cr i t er i a( s ) as def i ned by t he A m er i can A s s oci at i on of M ent al R et ar dat i on, w hi ch def i nes m ent al r et ar dat i on as an I Q bet w een 70- 75 as w el l as adapt i onal f

unct i onal l i m i t at i ons des cr i bed above al ong w i th i dent i f i cat i on of

s ub aver age i nt el l ectual f

unct i oni ng pr i ort o age 18. ” Sum m er s f ound thatD os s “expe r i ence d s i gni f i cant l i m i t at i ons i n hi s ef

f ect i venes s i n m eet i ng the day t o day cha l l enges i n l earning, per s onal i ndepen de nc e a nd s oc i a l r e s po ns i bi l i ty. ” Summer s f ou nd tha tD os s w a s e a s i l y i nf l ue nc ed
an d h ad p o o r soc ial jud g m en t r eg ard ing asso ciati o n w ith n eg ati v e p ee r gro u p s. S u m m ers concl uded thatD os s w oul d l i kel y be the l eas ts m artper s on in any p eergr oup and had problem s w i th logi c, for esi gh t , strat egic thinki ng , and un derst and i ng con sequen ces. ¶40. T he ci r cui tcourtconsi der ed t he expe r tt es t i m ony and l ay w i tnes s es pr es ent ed by the part i es and f

ound thatD os s had notprove n by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thathe w as
m ent al l y r et ar ded. The ci r cui tcourtf ound thatthe W hi t f

i el d doct or s , w ho had det erm i ned thatD os s w as notr et ar ded, w er e m or e cr edi bl e than D r s . Sum m er s and G r ant , w ho had f ound th a t D o ss w a s re tar d e d . T h e re c o rd re v e a led th a t D r. G ra n t h a d n o t ad m in iste re d a n y tes ts

### Th e court no ted th at Dr. G rant h ad assessedmaling ering interms o f con sistencyin 8 

### te st -t aking behavior , but

that hehad not adminis te re d a spec if ic tes t to as se ss ma lingering. 31 t o s how l ack of

m al i nger i ng, as r equi r ed by Ch ase . T h e c o u rtalso fou n d that D r. S u m m ers 8 di d nott es tf

orm al i nger i ng. ¶41. T he ci rcui tcour tnot ed thatal l of the exa m i ner s had opi ned thatD os s m etthe f i r st
r equ i rem ent of

m ental ret ardat i on , that he di spl ayed subav erage i ntel l ectual f unct i oni ng, and,
as a resu lt, th e co u rtan alyz ed o n ly the issue o f de fi cit s in a d ap ti v e fu n cti o n ing
. T h e c o u rt not ed thatD r s . G r antand Sum m er s had made the r equi r ed f i ndi ngs i n thi s ar ea t o det erm i ne thatD oss w as ret arded. I tf ur therf ound thatD r . G r anthad r el i ed s tr i ct l y on t es t s he had adm i nis t ered t o D oss and had s po ken t o n o fam i l y m em bers orotherpersons besi des D oss. T h e c o u rtfou n d that the tests u sed b y G ran t ha d n o t bee n n o rm ed for p ri so n p o p u lat ion s. D r. S u m m ers m ad e h is f

ind ing b ase d o n h is i n terview w ith D o ss, affi d av it s from fam ily
m ember s , and pr i ort es t i ng. ¶42. T he ci r cui tcourtnot ed t hatD r s . M acV augh and Lot thad i nt ervi ew ed D os s , num er ous f ami l y m ember s , and other s w ho had obs erved hi m i n t he pas t . D os s w as gi ven tw o t es t s by the exa m i ner s atthe M i s s i s s i ppi S t at e H os pi t al t o as s es s m al i nger i ng, one of w hi ch i ndi ct ed possi bl e mal i nger i ng. T he courtnot ed thatD r s . M acV augh and Lot thad det erm i ned that D os s di d nothave de f

i ci t s i n adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng, and thatD os s ha d he l d l egal j obs and had
o b tain e d m o n e y ill e g a lly , sa v e d a n d sp e n t h is m o n e y , b o u g h t h is c lo th e s a n d p re p a re d h is fo o d , p lay e d sp o rts, a n d e n g a g e d in p e rso n a l re latio n sh ip s. T h e c o u rt f o u n d th e W h itfield doct or s ’ “appr oach a nd the met hodol ogy thatthey us ed i s m uch more compel l i ng than the app roach used by expert s off ered by D oss. ” T he ci rcui tcou rtado pted the fi nd i ng s of D rs .

### 32

M acV augh, L ot t , and M cM i chael , and f ound thatD os s had f ai l ed t o pr ove, by a pr eponder ance of

the evi dence , thathe w as m ent al l y r et ar ded. ¶43. D os s ar gues thatthe ci r cui tcourterr oneous l y r ej ect ed D r . G r ant ’ s f i ndi ng of m ent al
r et ar dat i on beca us e D r . G r antf ai l ed t o t es tf

orm al i nger i ng as r equi r ed by Ch ase . A ccor di ng t o D r . G r ant , he det erm i ned thatD os s w as notm al i nger i ng by the cons i s t ency of scor es of test s tak en in the p ast. W h il e the c ir cu itc o u rtc ertainly n o ted this ac ti o n o r ina cti o n b y D r. G ra n t, th is w a s n o t th e o n ly fa c to r in its d e c isio n to re jec t D r. G ra n t’s fin d in g s. F u rth e r, it
w as an appr opr i at e cons i der at i on f orthe courtw hen r evi ew i ng the t ot al i ty of the evi dence pr es ent ed. ¶44
. D oss next ar gu es that the cir cuitcou rterr ed in accepti ng the o pini on s of D rs . M acV augh and Lot toverthatof D r . G r anton the i s s ue of a dapt i ve f

unct i oni ng, even though D r . G r antw as the onl y one t o adm i ni s t eradapt i ve- f unct i oni ng t es t s . D os s al s o ar gues t hat th e ten th ed iti o n o f M e n tal R e tar d a tio n : D e fin iti o n , C las sific a tio n , A ss ista n c e , an d S u p p o rt, by the A A M R , s peci f

i cal l y r e qu i r e s a dapt i ve - f un c t i on i ng t e s t i ng i n o r de rt o det erm i ne ment al
r et ar dat i on, and D r . G r ant ’ s opi ni on, w hi ch w as bas ed on the t enth ed i t i on of M ent al R et ar dat i on and i ncl uded suc h t es t i ng, w as t he onl y cr edi bl e opi ni on gi ven atD os s ’ hear i ng. A s w e w i l l expl ai n i nfr a , thes e ar gum ent s ar e f l aw ed f ortw o r eas ons : ( 1) thi s C ou rthas
r ece nt l y hel d i n L

y n c h v. S ta te , 951 So. 2 d 54 9 (M i ss . 2007) , th a t th e re is n o t o n e tes t to d eterm ine m en tal retarda ti o n , inclu d ing the a d ap ti v e fu n cti o n ing co m p o n en t; an d (2) the re is n o a g re e m e n t am o n g s c h o la rs o r p ro fe ss io n a ls a s to th e p ro p e r te stin g to b e u se d in
as s es s i ng adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng.

### 33

¶45. T hi s C our tcl ar i f i ed the natur e of

t es t i ng f orand def

i ni ng m ent al r et ar dat i on i n L ynch
v. S ta te : A ccor di ngl y, i n M i s s i s s i ppi i ti s acce pt abl e t o ut i l i ze the M M PI
- I I and/ orother s im ila r t e s ts . I

d. at 1 0 2 9
. T h is C o u rtdid n o t inten d by i ts h o ldin g to d e c lare th e M M P I-II o r a n y o n e tes t as e x c lu siv e ly su ffic ien t. H a v in g a v a rie ty o f te sts a t th e ir d isp o sa l, co u rts a re p ro v id e d w ith a sa fe g u a rd fro m p o ss ib le m a n ip u latio n o f re su lts a n d d im in ish e d a c c u ra c y w h ich m ig h t re su lt i f c o u rts ar e l i m i t ed t o on e t es t . T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tm ent i oned the W e c h s le r A d u lt I n te llig e n c e S c a le s T e s t. See Atkins , 536 U
. S. at309 n. 5, 122 S. C t . 2242. O thert es t s , as s ugges t ed by ment al heal t h exp er t s , i ncl ude the St ructur ed I nt ervi ew of R eport ed Sym ptom s ( SI R S) , the V al i di ty I ndi cat or P ro fi le (V IP ), a n d th e T e s t o f M e m o ry M a lin g e ri n g (T O M M ). See D ou glas s M os s m an, [ A t ki ns v. V i r gi ni a] : A P sychi atr i c C an o f W orm s, 33 N
. M . L . R ev. 2 5 5 , 2 7 7 -78 (S p ri n g 2 0 0 3 ). T he C our t ' s i nt erpr et at i on i n thi s cas e as t o the pr opert es tt o be admi ni s t er ed w i th re gar d t o an Atkins he aring sup erc ed es an y co n tr ary de cisi o n s. T h is C o u rt nei therendor s es the M M PI
- I I as the bes tt es tnorde cl ar es thati ti s a r equi r ed te s t, a n d d e c is io n s th a t st a te o th e rw is e a re e x p re s s ly o v e rr u le d
. S e e , e .g . S c o tt v. S ta te , 9 3 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 3 8 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g th a td e s p i t e th e d o c t o r 's us e of a batt ery of

othert es t s , a dm i ni s tr at i on of the M M PI
- I I i s r equi r ed pr i or to an ad ju d ica tio n o f a c laim o f m e n tal re tar d a tio n ); G o o din v. S ta te , 856 S o. 2d 267, 277 ( M i s s . 2003) ( decl ar i ng thatthe M M PI
- I I i s t o be admi ni s t er ed f or a det erm i nat i on of

m ent al r et ar dat i on s i nce i ti s the bes tt es tt o det ect m a lin g e ri n g ). O urtr i al cour t s ar e f r ee to us e any of

the above l is t ed and appr ov e d t e s t

s orothe rap

pr ov e d t e s t

s no tl is t e d to de t e r m i ne m ental re ta rd a tio n a n d

/o r m a lin g e rin gb

y a d e fen da n t. L ynch , 951 So. 2d at556- 57 ( emphasi s added)
. T he tr i al courtdi d not have the benef i tof L ynch , as i tw as deci ded af t erthe ci r cui tc our ti s s ued i t s opi ni on on D os s ’ m ent al r et ar dat i on. T he W hi t f

i el d doct or s f

ol l ow ed Ch ase a s th is C o u rt d ire c ted in D o ss v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 176, 19 0-91, 192 n. 1 ( M i s s . 2004) , and bas ed thei ropi ni on on the ni nth edi t i on of M ent al R etard ati o n . U n d er L

ynch , the expert s w ho e xami ned D os s and the ci r cui tcourtw er e f r ee t o us e orcons i derany appr oved t es t“t o det erm i ne ment al r et ar dat i on a nd/ orm al i nger i ng by a def endant
. ” L

ynch , 951 So. 2d at557.

### 34

¶46. Fur therm or e, the conc eptual i zat i on of “adapt i ve beha vi or ” or“ad apt i ve s ki l l s ” has p ro v e n e lu s iv e . N o te , I m pl em ent i ng A tki ns , 1 1 6 Ha r v . L. Re v . 2 5 6 5 , 2 5 7 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; L o i s A. W e it h o rn , S

y m p o siu m : C o n c e

p tu a l H u rd les to th e A

p p lica tio n o

f A t ki ns v . Vi r gi ni a, 59 H as t i ngs L . J . 1203, 1219 ( 2008) (“ ther e i s no s i ngl e, comm onl y- acc ept ed conc eptual i zat i on
o f ‘ad ap ti v e b eh av ior’” ); see als o D or a W . K l ei n, C at egor i cal E xclus i ons f

r om C api tal P u n ish m e n t: Ho w Ma ny W ro n gs Ma ke a R ig h t? , 72 B r ookl yn L . R ev. 1211, 1234 n. 3 ( 2007) ( not i ng thats chol ar s and court s al i ke f i nd thatdet erm i nat i ons r egar di ng adapt i ve f unct i oni ng are of t en subj ect i ve). T here has been con fusi o n n o t on ly abou tthe co ncep ti t sel f, bu tal so d is a g re e m e n t a s to its v a lu e . N o te , I m pl em ent i ng At k i n s , 1 1 6 Ha r v . L. Re v . a t2 5 7 5 . S o me
s tu d i e s h a v e s u g g e s t e d th a tI Q r e ma i n s th e b e s twa y o f me a s u r i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e i n s o me
c o n te x ts . I

d. ; s ee al

s o J a m e s W . E llis a n d R u th A . L u c k a s s o n , S y mp o s i u m on th e ABA C rim in a l J

u s tic e Me n ta l He a lth S ta n da rd s: Me n ta lly R e ta rd e d

C rim in a l D e

fen da n ts , 53 G eo. W a s h . L . R e v . 4 1 4 , 4 2 2 n .4 6 (c itin g Z ig le r, B a ll a & H o d a p p , O n the D ef i ni t i on and C las s i f i cat i on of MentalR etar dat i on , 89 A m . J . M ent al D ef i ci ency 215, 227 ( 1984) ) ( not i ng thatthr ee s chol ar s have pr opos ed thatadapt i ve f unct i oni ng be omi t t ed f r om the def

i ni t i on of m ent al r et ar dat i on beca us e “‘ the es s ence of m ent al r et ar dat i on i nvol ves i nef f i ci ent
co g n it ive fu n cti o n ing ’”). ¶47. A dapt i ve f

unct i oni ng hi s t or i cal l y has been a s s es s ed “on the i nher ent l y s ubj ect i ve bas es of i nt ervi ew s , obs ervat i ons , and pr of es s i onal j udgm ent . ” K l ei n, 72 B r ookl yn L . R ev. at12 35
. In r ecent decade s, res earchers hav e dev elop ed an i ncreasi ng nu m ber of t est i ns trum ent s forquant i f yi ng adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng, onl y a f

ew of w hi ch have gai ned
a c c e p ta n c e in th e fi e ld
. I d. ; W ei thorn, 59 H as t i ngs L . J . at1220. T hes e t es t s pr ovi de a

### 35

nece s s a ry o bj e c t i ve mea s ur e mentbu tof f e rno pa na c e a . The r e a r e “ no ge ne r a l l y a cce pt ed p sy c h o m e tric in stru m e n ts fo r m e a su rin g a d a p tiv e sk ill lev e ls th a t ar e c o m m e n su ra te in
re lia b ility w ith IQ te s ts .” N o te , I m pl em ent i ngA t ki ns , 116 H arv. L. Rev. a t2575 n. 72 ( ci t i ng A A M R , M ent al R et ar dat i on: D ef i ni t i on, C l as s i f

i cat i on, and S ys t ems of

S uppor t s , 24, 87- 90 (1 0 th e d . 2 0 0 2 )) (n o tin g th a t th e A A M R co n c e d e s th a t th e re is n o c o n se n su s re g a rd in g tes ts fo r ad a p tiv e b e h a v io r, bu t state s th e re are a n u m b e r o f tes ts w ith “e x c e lle n t p s y c h o m e tric p rop erti es” ). O n e c o m m en tato r s u g g ests that ex ist ing m ea su rem en t i n stru m en ts are i nadequa t e and ha ve very l i t t l e ut i l i ty i n the Atkins cont ext . W ei thorn, 5 9 H as t i ngs L . J . at 1222. ¶48. B y ci t i ng thes e co ntr ov ers i es , w e i n no w ay s ugges tthatthi s C our tabandon the ad ap ti v e-b eh av ior p ron g , o r i n ti m ate tha t th e tests for m ea su ri n g ad ap ti v e fu n cti o n ing are inh ere n tl y u n reli ab le. O u r po int i s to il lustrat e tha t th ere is co n side rab le, sinc ere di s agr eementamong prof es s i onal s and s chol ar s i n the f i el d as t o t he bestm ethod f or
m e a su rin g a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g . T h e c o n c e p t a n d m e a su re m e n t o f a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g is
an uns ett l ed ar ea w i thoutcons ens us among e xp ert s and ther ef or e, w e ca nnotf

i nd thatt he W h itfield d o c to rs’ o p in io n s a re b a se les s, o r th a t th e trial ju d g e c lea rly e rre d in a c c e p tin g th e ir op i nions. ¶49. W e al s o f

i nd evi dence w hi ch r eas onabl y s uppor t s the tr i al j udge’ s concl us i on thatt he op i nions of the W hit fi el d d octor s w ere m ore com pell i ng . A l tho ug h D r. G ran t t ested D oss f ori m pai r m ent s i n adapt i ve- s ki l l behavi or s , he s poke t o no f ami l y m ember s orotherper s ons b esid es D o ss. I n terview s w ith fa m ily m em b ers, an d o thers fa m il iar w ith an ind ividu al’s ty p ica l b e h a v io r o v e r an ex ten d e d p e rio d o f ti m e in v a rio u s se tti n g s, ca n su p p lem e n t o r a id

### 36

i n the i nt erpr et at i on of

t es tr es ul t s . Peggy M . T obol ow s ky, A t ki ns A f t er m ath: I

dent i f yi ng Mental l y Retar ded O

f f ender s and E xcludi ng Them Fr om E xec ut i on , 30 J
. L egi s . 77, 98 ( 2003) ( us i ng di f

f er entsour ces of dat a i s r ecomm ended r atherthan pl aci ng s ol e r el i ance on th e a d a p tiv e -s k ill a s s e s s m e n t in s tru m e n t) ; L in d a K n a u s s & Jo s h u a K u tin s k y , I nt o the Bri ar P at ch: E thi cal

D i l em m as Faci ng P s

ychologis t

s Fol l ow i ng A tki ns v. V i r gi ni a, 11 W i dener L . R ev. 121, 130- 31 ( 2004)
. A ddi t i onal l y, t es t i ng i ns trum ent s f oras s es s i ng adapt i vefu n c tio n in g im p a irm e n ts c a n , fo r a v a rie ty o f re a so n s, “ b e les s th a n id e a l fo r a ss e ss in g a d u lt
cr i m i nal def

endant s w ho m i ghtbe ment al l y r et ar ded. ” K l ei n, 72 B r ookl yn L . R ev. at1235 ( ci t i ng cert ai n pr obl ems s uch as t he unavai l abi l i ty of car egi ver s orotherr el i abl e i ndepende nt sources, the u se of i nap propri at e no rm s, and the atypi cal env i ronm ent of a pri son); K nau ss & K ut i ns ky, 11 W i denerL . R ev. at131 ( “Few ( i f any) m eas ur es of

adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng have been de s i gned ornor m ed f oruse w i th a cor r ect i onal popul at i on. T hus , adapt i ve f unct i oni ng p ri o r to in c a rc e ra tio n s h o u ld b e th e ta rg e t f o r a s s e s s m e n t.” ); N o te , I m pl em ent i ng A t ki ns , 116 H arv. L . R ev. at2576 ( not i ng thatan i ndi vi dual ’ s envi r on m entm ay add a l ayerof
uncert ai nty t o di agnos i ng adapt i ve- s ki l l def i ci t s )
. I ndeed, D r . L ot tst at ed t hathe knew of no
s tudi es thathave norm ed an adapt i ve- f unct i oni ng t es tfort hos e on death r ow , and D r . G r ant admi t t ed thatthe adapt i ve- f unct i oni ng t es t s he adm i ni s t er ed w er e notnor m ed f ora pr i s on popul at i on. ¶50
. In sum , w e hav e i n thi s case expert s w ho t ake o pp osi t e po si t i on s as t o w hetherD oss i s men t a l l y r e t a r de d. N e i the rs i de ’ s metho do l og y, a pp r oa c h, o ru nd e r s t a nd i ng o f t he i s s ue i s i nf al l i bl e. T he ul t i m at e i s s ue of w hetherD os s i s , i n f

act , ment al l y r et ar ded f orpurpos es of the Ei ghth A m endment , i s one f orthe tr i al j udge, w ho s i t s a s the tr i erof f actand as s es s es

### 37

the to tal ity o f th e e v iden ce as w ell as th e cre d ibil ity o f w itn esse s. W h il e e x p ert op inion s are hel pf ul and insi gh t ful , the ul t i m at e dec i s i on of m ent al r et ar dat i on i s notcomm i t t ed t o t he expert s , butt o the tr i erof f act . A s the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas not ed, “the s ci ence
o f psy ch iatry, w h ich info rm s bu t d o es n o t co n tr o l u lt im ate l eg al de term ination s, is an ev era d v a n c in g s c ie n c e , w h o s e d is tin c tio n s d o n o t s e e k p re c is e ly to m ir ro r t h o s e o f t h e la w .” Kans as v. Cra ne , 5 3 4 U . S
. 4 0 7 , 4 1 3 , 1 2 2 S
. C t. 8 6 7 , 1 5 1 L . E d
. 2 d 8 5 6 (20 0 2 ). ¶51. T he t r i al j udge hear d al l the evi dence and the expe r topi ni ons of f er ed, and f

ound t he W h ifield d o c to rs to b e m o re c re d ib le. T h e trial ju d g e fo llo w e d th e p ro c e d u re s w e se t fo rth i n Ch ase and concl uded t hatD os s had fa i l ed t o prove by a pr eponder ance of evi dence t hat he i s m ent al l y r et ar ded. Forthe r eas ons s etf or th her ei n, thi s C our tcannots ay thatthe tr i al j udge cl ear l y e r r ed i n doi ng s o. A ccor di ngl y, thi s Courta f f i r m s the ci r cui tcourt ’ s j udgm ent to the ex tent that itd en ied p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef b ase d o n D o ss’ Atkins c l a i m. CO NC L US I ON ¶52. A ccor di ngl y, f

orthe r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, the j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof G renada C ou nty i s aff

i rm ed t o the extentthat i tden i ed p ost -convict i on rel i ef based on D oss’ Atkins c laim . T h e c irc u it co u rt’s ju d g m e n t is re v e rse d to th e e x ten t th a t i t d e n ied p o stc o n v ictio n re lief b a se d o n D o ss ’ c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l d u rin g th e p e n a lty p h a se , an d th is c a se is re m a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt w ith in s tr u c tio n s to v a c a te D o ss ’ d e a th
s e n te n c e a n d to g ra n t D o ss a n e w p e n a lty p h a se se n ten c in g h e a rin g , co n sis ten t w ith th is C our t ’ s opi ni on. ¶ 5 3 . P ART ONE: RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. P ART TW O: AF F I RM ED .

### The c onte nt of theaf fi davi t i s se t for

th in detai l in Pre si ding Jus ti ceGraves ’s opini on. 9 

### 38 P ART ONE: W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, KI TC HENS , AND CHAN DL ER , J J . , CO NCU R. DI CK I NSON, J . , S PECI ALLY CO NCU RS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY CH AND LER, J . CH AND LER, J . , S PECI ALLY C O N C U R S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C .J ., AND DI CK I NSON, J . LA M AR, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , JJ. P AR T T W O: W AL LE R, C. J . , CA RL S ON , P . J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y K I T C H E N S, J. DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶54. I f ul l y j oi n Pr es i di ng Jus t i ce G r aves ’ s excel l entanal ys i s of the f i r s ti s s ue, and I agr ee that this m at t er s ho uld be rem and ed for a new sent encing h eari ng . I w ri t e sepa rat el y b ecause of m y conce r n that , i n r ece ntye ar s , the ac cept abl e s t andar d f oref f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el in d e a th -p e n a lty c a s e s h a s s lip p e d to a n u n a c c e p ta b ly lo w le v e l. See e
. g. B y ro m v. S ta te , 927 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 3 1 -32 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (D ickin so n , J. , d issen ti n g ). ¶55. A l though I have no pe r s onal r el uct ance i n vot i ng t o af f i r m the dea th penal ty i n an
a p p ro p ria te c a se , I ca n n o t d o so w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t h a s n o t h a d re a so n a b le (n o t n e c e ss a rily per f ect ) r epr es ent at i on a nd a f ai rtr i al ; and part i cul ar l y dur i ng the phas e of the tr i al i n w hi ch the f act - f i nderdeci des w hetherornott o putthe def endantt o death. ¶56. D os s – w ho ver y w el l m ay des erve t he death penal ty – cert ai nl y di d nothave ef f ect i ve
orr e a s on a bl e r e pr e s e nt a t i on d ur i ng the p e na l ty ph a s e o f h i s tr i a l
. I f

i nd i ta mazi ng t hat
a n y o n e m ig h t co n c lu d e o th e rw ise , afte r re a d in g th e a ffid a v it su b m itt e d b y h is tria l co u n se l. 9 I agr ee t hat w e m ustrem and fora n ew sentenci ng h eari ng o n the que st i on of w hetherD oss
s houl d be exe cut ed ors erve l i f e w i thoutpar ol e.

### 39

CH AN DL E R, J . , J OI NS T HI S OP I NI ON
. CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶57 . I concu r w i th the m ajorit y o p inion a u tho red by Just i ce G raves, ho l ding t hat D oss
r ece i ved i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c ouns el
. I a gr ee w i th the m aj or i ty thatA nthony D os s ’ s t r i al
couns el , L ee Bai l ey, r ender ed cons t i tut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance atthe pena l ty phas e of D o ss ’s tria l b e c a u se h e fa iled to in v e stig a te a ll av a ilab le e v id e n c e in m itig a tio n . I w rite
s epar at el y t o addi t i onal l y expr es s that , i n my opi ni on, c ouns el ’ s pe r f or m ance w as def

i ci ent beca us e he di d notobt ai n r ecor ds f r om the C hi cago Publ i c School sys t em thatw oul d have been ge ner at ed w hen D os s w as det erm i ned t o be l earni ng- di s abl ed and pl ace d i nt o s peci al
e d u c a tio n c las se s. H a d c o u n se l o b tain e d th e se re c o rd s, h e w o u ld h a v e h a d a c c e ss to f eder al l y- m andat ed i nf

or m at i on f

r om t eac her s , s chool of f i ci al s , and D os s ’ s m otherand
s t epf atherqui t e pos s i bl y, r egar di ng D os s ’ s behavi or , hom el i f e, i nt el l ectual capa ci ty, and
aca demi c f

unct i oni ng. ¶5 8
. A s estab li sh ed at th e e v id e n tiary h e a ri n g , B ail ey o b tai n ed d o cu m en ts f rom D o ss’s p u b li c d efe n d er in M em p h is. T h ese d o c u m en ts i n clud ed a c o p y o f th e p u b li c d efe n d er’s
r eques tf orr e c or ds f

r om Fa r a da y El e ment a ry Sc ho ol i n Chi c a go , whi c h w a s a t t a c he d t o a
o n e -p a g e c o p y o f D o ss ’s r e g istra tio n c a rd fro m th e C h ica g o P u b lic S c h o o l sy ste m . T h is
r egi s tr at i on car d s how ed thatD os s had been enr ol l ed i n the C hi cago Publ i c School s ys t em thr ough the ni nth gr ade. B ai l ey’ s r ecor ds f r om M emphi s al s o i ncl uded tr ans cr i pt s f r om M ar s hal l H i gh School , w hi ch s how ed thatD os s had att ended pa r tof the ni nth gr ade ther e, and thath i s l astd ay w as M arch 29 , 19 88
. T his w as consi st ent w i th the evi den ce t hat D oss
m o v e d fr o m C h ic a g o to C a lh o u n C ity , M is s is s ip p i, in M a rc h 1 9 8 8
.

### 40

¶59. T he r egi s tr at i on car d s how s that the l as t aca demi c year that D oss at t ended Far aday E l em entary S cho ol w as the 19 86 -1987 scho ol year, w hen D oss w as i n the ei gh th grade. D oss turned f our t een i n N ovemberof thats chool year . A h and w r i t t en not e atthe bott om of t he page c ont ai ni ng t he copy of the r egi s tr at i on car d s t at ed: “A nthony D os s r ece i ved Learni ng D isa b ili ties R e so u rc e S e rv ice s w h ile a t F a ra d a y . A ll o f h is s c h o o l re c o rd s w e re se n t to M a rs h a ll H ig h S c h o o l i n c lu d in g th o s e S p e c ia l E d u c a tio n R e c o rd s . s / [ill e g ib le ], C o u n s e lo r.” ¶6 0. A ccor di ng t o t he 1986 ver s i on of r e gu l a t i on s pr omul ga t e d b y the U ni t e d St at es D epart m entof

E ducat i on, begi nni ng on O ct ober1, 1977, bef or e s peci al educa t i on s ervi ces
w er e pr ovi ded t o a chi l d, a publ i c agenc y w as r equi r ed t o “ have i n ef f ectan i ndi vi dual i zed educa t i on progr am f

orevery handi cappe d chi l d w ho i s r ece i vi ng s peci al educa t i on f r om t hat
a g e n c y .” 3 4 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .3 4 2 (1 9 8 6 ), s ee als o E ducat i on f orA l l H andi cappe d C hi l dr en A ct of 1975, Pub. L . N o. 94- 142, 89 St at . 773 ( codi f i ed as amended at20 U
. S. C
. §§ 1400- 1461 (19 8 2 )). A n “‘ind ividu ali ze d ed u ca ti o n p rog ram ’ m ea n s a w ri tt en sta tem en t f o r a handi cappe d chi l d thati s devel oped and i m pl ement ed i n acc or dance w i th §§300. 341- 300. 349. ” 34 C
. F. R . § 300. 340 ( 1986)
. T he publ i c age ncy w as t o m ake e f f or t s t o i ncl ude the chi l d’ s par ent s atm eet i ngs f orthe purpos e of

devel opi ng an i ndi vi dual i zed educ at i on p ro g ra m , a lo n g w ith te a c h e rs a n d o th e r i n d iv id u a ls . 3 4 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .3 4 4 (1 9 8 6 ). ¶6 1
. A n ev alua ti o n o f a h a n d ica p p ed ch il d w as to b e co n d u cted b y “a m u lt idiscipli n ary t eam orgr oup of

per s ons , i ncl udi ng a tl eas tone t eac herorothers peci al i s tw i th know l edge i n the ar ea of suspect ed d i sabi l i ty. ” 34 C
. F . R . § 3 00
. 53 2(e) (1986 ). T he team w as t o assess the chi l d “i n al l ar eas re l at ed t o the s us pect ed di s abi l i ty, i ncl udi ng, w her e appr opr i at e, heal th, vi s i on, hear i ng, s oci al and emot i onal s t atus , gener al i nt el l i gen ce, aca demi c per f or m ance ,

### 41

comm uni cat i ve s t atus , and m ot ora bi l i t i es , ” and i tw as perm i t t ed t o us e t es t s f oras s es s m ent p u rp o s e s . 3 4 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .5 3 2 (a ),( f) (1 9 8 6 ). ¶6 2. A ccor di ng t o t he couns el or ’ s no t e , D os s r e c e i ve d l e a rni ng - di s a bi l i t i e s s e r vi c e s at Far aday. Fora scho ol- aged chi l d s us pect ed of havi ng a s peci f

i c l earni ng di s abi l i ty, the eval uat i on t eam w as t o i nclude the chi l d’ s r egul art eac her , ora r egul arcl as s r oom t eac her qual i f i ed t o t each a chil d of hi s orherage, and “a tl eas tone per s on qual i f i ed t o conduct i ndi vi dual di agnos t i c exam i nat i ons of chi l dr en, s uch as a s chool ps ychol ogi s t , s peec hla n g u a g e p a th o lo g is t, o r r e m e d ia l r e a d in g te a c h e r.” 3 4 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .5 4 0 (1 9 8 6 ). A d e te rm in a tio n th a t a c h ild h a d a s p e c if ic l e a rn in g d is a b ility w a s g o v e rn e d b y 3 4 C .F .R . § 300. 541, w hi ch s t at ed: (a) A team m ay d eterm ine th at a c h il d h as a sp ec if ic l ea rnin g d isab il ity if: ( a) ( 1) The c hi l d doe s nota chi eve comm ens ur at e w i th hi s orherage a nd abi l i ty l evel s i n one orm or e of the ar eas l i s t ed i n par agr aph ( a) ( 2) of thi s s ect i on, w hen pr ovi ded w i th l earni ng exper i ence s appr opr i at e f or the chi l d’ s age a nd abi l i ty l evel s ; and ( a) ( 2) T he t eam f

i nds thata chi l d has a s ever e di s cr epanc y betw een achi evementand i nt el l ectual abi l i ty i n one orm or e of the f ol l ow i ng areas : ( a) ( 2) ( i ) O r al expr es s i on; ( a) ( 2) ( i i ) L i s t eni ng compre hens i on; ( a) ( 2) ( i i i ) W r i t t en expr es s i on; (a )(2 )(iv ) B a sic re a d in g sk ill ; ( a) ( 2) ( v) R eadi ng compre hens i on; ( a) ( 2) ( vi ) M athemat i cs cal cul at i on; or

### 42 ( a) ( 2) ( vi i ) M athemat i cs r eas oni ng. (b ) T h e tea m m a y n o t id e n tify a c h ild a s h a v in g a sp e c ific le a rn in g d isa b ili ty i f the s ever e di s cr epanc y betw een abi l i ty and ac hi evementi s pr i m ar i l y the resu lto f: ( b) ( 1) A vi s ual , hear i ng, orm ot orhandi cap; ( b) ( 2) M ent al r et ar dat i on; ( b) ( 3) E m ot i onal di s turbance ; or ( b) ( 4) E nvi r onm ent al , cul tur al oreconomi c di s advant age. 34 C
. F. R . § 300. 541 ( 1986)
. Pur s uantt o 34 C
. F. R . § 300. 543, an eva l uat i on t eam w as req u ir ed to m ak e a w ri tt en rep o rto f th e e v alua ti o n ’s resu lt s, to inc lud e a stat em en t of:

( b) ( 1) W hetherthe chi l d has a s peci f i c l earni ng di s abi l i ty; ( b) ( 2) T he bas i s f

orm aki ng the det erm i nat i on; ( b) ( 3) T he r el evantbehavi ornot ed dur i ng the obs ervat i on of the chi l d; (b )(4 ) T h e re latio n sh ip o f th a t b e h a v io r to th e c h ild ’s a c a d e m ic f unct i oni ng; (b )(5 ) T h e e d u c a tio n a lly re lev a n t m e d ica l fin d in g s, if a n y ; ( b) ( 6) W hetherther e i s a seve r e di s cr epanc y bet w een ac hi evementand abi l i ty w hi ch i s notcorr ect abl e w i thouts peci al educa t i on and r el at ed s ervi ces ; and ( b) ( 7) T he det erm i nat i on of the t eam co ncerni ng the ef f ect s of e n v ir o n m e n ta l, c u ltu ra l, o r e c o n o m ic d is a d v a n ta g e . 34 C
. F. R . § 300. 543 ( 1986)
. A l l i nf or m at i on us ed i n m aki ng the det erm i nati on had t o be d o c u m e n ted . 3 4 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .5 3 3 (a )(2 ) (1 9 8 6 ). M o re o v e r, a r e e v a lu a tio n o f a c h ild w a s to b e co n d u cted ev ery th ree ye ars, o r m o re frequ en tl y i f w arran ted o r req u ested b y the c h il d ’s p are n t or t ea ch er. 34 C
. F . R . § 3 0 0
. 5 3 4 (b) (1 9 8 6 ).

### I note th e fac t th a t D o ss w a s d e ter m in e d to b e lea rn in g -d isa b led ind ica tes tha t h is 10 e v a lu a to r s d id n o t c o n s id e r h im to b e m e n ta lly re ta rd e d
. See 34 C
. F. R . § 300. 541( b) ( 2) (1 9 8 6 ). 

### 43 ¶63. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n R ompil la v. B eard , 545 U . S. 374, 382, 393, 125 S. C t . 2456, 162 L
. E d. 2d 360 ( 2005) , re cogni zed thatt he sc hool re cor ds of a def endantw ho, l i ke D os s , dr opped outi n the ni nth gr ade, w er e one a venue c ouns el f rui t f ul l y coul d have fo llo w e d to o b tain m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e to m e e t th e S tate ’s c a se o f a g g ra v a tio n . T h e M e m p h is publ i c def

ender ’ s f i l e pl ace d Bai l ey on not i ce thatD os s ha d be en des i gnat ed as l earni ngdi s abl ed w hi l e att endi ng t he Far aday s chool
. A s the appl i cabl e r egul at i ons m ake c l ear , had B ai l ey obt ai ned t he as s oci at ed document at i on, he w oul d have ha d acc es s t o a w eal th of i nf or m at i on aboutD os s ’ s chi l dhood i n C hi cago w hi ch he c oul d have us ed ei theras
m i t i gat i ng ev i dence, oras a l ead f orl ocat i ng otherm i t i gat i ng evi dence
. T he evi dence
unearthed by D os s ’ s pos t - convi ct i on couns el a boutD os s ’ s i m pover i s hed l i vi ng condi t i ons in C h ica g o , h is fa m ily ’s a b u se a t th e h a n d s o f S a m B ro w n , h is m o th e r’s a lco h o l ab u se , h is
ow n ear l y drug abus e, hi s l ow I . Q
. , and hi s ps ychol ogi cal di s or der s hi nt s atthe hel pf ul info rm ati o n this d o c u m e n tati o n w as li k ely to h av e c o n tai n ed
. In m y o p inion , B ail ey ’s 10 f ai l ur e t o obt ai n thi s doc um ent at i on, de s pi t e hi s not i ce of i t s e xi s t ence , cons t i tut ed def i ci ent perf orm ance thatcom bined w i th the ot her om i ssi on s ci t ed b y the m aj ori ty to prej ud i ce D oss. ¶6 4. M or eover , I am qui t e conf i dentt ha tD os s w a s pr e j ud i c e d b y c ou ns e l ’ s de f i c i ent i nves t i gat i on. A s the maj or i ty r ecogni zes , the m i s s i ng mi t i gat i ng e vi dence w as very s i m i l ar t o thati n R o m

p ill a , s uch that , t aki ng the evi dence as a w hol e, i t“mi ghtw el l have i nf l uence d the j ury’ s appr ai s al of

[ D os s ] ’ s cul pabi l i ty. ” R o m p ill a , 5 4 5 U. S
. a t3 9 3
. Howe v e r , my

### 44

c o n c lu sio n th a t D o ss w a s p reju d ice d is b o lste re d b y th e fa c t th a t D o ss ’s ju ry a c tu a lly i ndi cat ed i t s ambi val ence dur i ng penal ty- phas e del i ber at i ons by sendi ng a not e t o the j udge
s t a t i n g : “ T o J u d g e : Do we h a v e th e o p t i o n o f ‘ L i f e wi th o u tp a r o l e ’ ? ” T h e n o t e p l a i n l y s h o ws that the im po si t i on of the death penalty w as nota cl ear- cut deci si on forthe jury. T here i s a
r eas on abl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcouns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e the ava i l abl e mi t i gat i ng evi dence , the pena l ty phas e w oul d nothave r es ul t ed i n a s ent ence of death. W AL LE R, C. J . , AND DI CKI NS ON, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. LAM AR, J UST I CE, DI S S ENTI NG TO PART O NE: ¶65. I di s agr ee w i th the m aj or i ty’ s concl us i on that D os s r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el underthe t es ts etf or th i n Str i ckland v. W

as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 104 S. C t . 2052, 8 0 L . E d . 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ). T h e re fo re , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶66. In ap plyi ng the t es ts etf or th i n Str i c kl

and , “ a c ou r ts ho ul d ke e p i n mi nd that t he pri ncipl es . . . do no test abli sh m echan i cal rul es . . . [ and ] the u l t i m at e focus of i nq uiry m ust be on the f

undament al f

ai r nes s of

the pr ocee di ng w hos e r es ul ti s be i ng chal l enged. ” Id
. at 6 9 6 . U n d e r th e first p ro n g , “th e d e fe n d a n t m u st s h o w th a t co u n se l’s re p re se n tatio n s fe ll bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s . ” I

d . at688
. In as sess i ng rea so n ab leness, “eve ry ef f or tm us tbe made t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng ef f ect s of hi nds i ght , t o r econs tructt he circu m stan ce s o f co u n sel’s ch all en g ed co n d u ct, an d to ev alua te th e c o n d u ct from co u n sel’s per s pect i ve atthe t i m e. ” I d . at 68 9
. F u rthe r, there is a str o n g p resu m p ti o n that co u n sel’s conductw as the r esul to f sound tr i al s tr at egy, and the r eas onabl enes s of an i nves t i gat i ve deci s i on “i s s ubs t ant i al l y i nf l uence d by the def

endant ’ s ow n s t at ement s oract i ons . ” I d. at 689, 691.

### As no t e d b y them a j ori ty, Is umm ari z e d s om e of thea f f i davi t s i n my o ri gina l 11 

### op inio n, Do ss v. Sta te , whi ch i s be ing wi thdrawn. Unli ke the ma jorit y, Idid not

chara ct eriz e these affid avits as ev iden ce, wh ich th ey are n ot. 45 ¶ 6 7 . U n d e r th e p re

ju d ice p ro n g , a “ d efe n d an t m u st sho w that there is r ea so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty that , butforcouns el ’ s unpr of es s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ” I

d . a t 6 9 4 . T o a ss e ss p re ju d ic e , th e c o u rt m u st re w e ig h th e e v id e n c e in aggr avat i on agai ns tthe evi dence i n m i t i gat i on and det erm i ne w hether“the bal ance of aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s di d notw arr antdeath. ” I d . a t 6 9 5 ; s ee W

i ggins
v. Sm ith , 539 U
. S. 510, 534, 123 S. C t . 2527, 156 L
. Ed. 2d 471 ( 2003)
. T her ef or e, the tr i al
courthad t o det erm i ne w hetherther e w as a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty thatthe j ury w oul d not have i m pos ed a s ent ence of death had i tal s o hear d the t es t i m ony and r evi ew ed the evi dence pr es ent ed i n 2006. ¶68. U nderthe pr opers t andar d of re vi ew , t hi s C our tcannotdi s turb the tr i al court ’ s f actual f i ndi ngs unl es s they ar e cl ear l y er r oneous . L o de n v. S ta te , 97 1 S o. 2 d 5 4 8 , 57 2 (M i ss. 2007)
. T hi s C our tm us tgi ve def er ence t o the tr i al j udge’ s f i ndi ngs of

f act , s i nce he ors he i s the “‘ s ol e author i ty f

ordet erm i ni ng cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tnes s es . ’ ” I

d . ( quot i ng Mullins v. R a tl if f , 515 So. 2d 1183, 1189 ( 1963) )
. I f i nd thatthi s C our thas i m pr oper l y r ew ei ghed the evi dence pr es ent ed atthe PC R hear i ng, and f ur ther , t hati thas i m pr oper l y r evi ew ed evi dence th a t w a s n o t ad m itt e d b e fo re th e trial c o u rt. ¶6 9
. F irst, th e m ajority pro v ides a l en g thy an d un n ec e ss a ry a n a ly sis o f th e a ffid a v its att ache d t o D os s ’ m ot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef
. T he af

f i davi t s of L ee Bai l ey and 11 K el vi n W i nbus h w er e nevera dm i t t ed i nt o e vi dence be f or e the tr i al c our t , a nd i ti s i m pr oper

### Th e tri a lc ourt n ot e d that

B a i l e y’ s 2 00 6 t e s t i m ony c on f l i c t e d wi th hi s a f

f i davi t . At 12 

### the time B ailey sig nedhis affidav it, h e w as unab le to lo cate certain re cord s or rev iew D oss’ file, wh ich h e hadgiv en to Do ss’ po st-convictio n- relief co un sel. A l le vi de nc e that

w a s a dm i tt e d at

thegui l t p ha s e w a s a l s o r e i ntr od uc e d at the 13 

### senten cing ph ase. See Do ss v. Sta te , 709 So. 2d 369 (Mi ss . 1996) , f or di sc uss ion of

the underlying fa ct s of

thi s c as e. 46 f orthi s C our tt o cons i derthem as e vi dence on appea l
. Second, the C our tf ai l s t o cons i der 12
a n y o f th e a g g ra v a to rs p re se n ted a t th e first s e n ten c in g h e a rin g , an d a s a c o n se q u e n c e , it s concl us i on of

pr ej udi ce l acks f

oundat i on f

r om the r ecor d. ¶70. I n 1993, the j ury hear d t es t i m ony fr om F r ank C of f ey, S adi e D os s , and E
. J . B obo. 13 C of f ey t es t i f i ed thatD os s had t r avel ed t o M emphi s , T ennes s ee, af t erthe murde rof

B el l , and thatD os s had comm i t t ed a s econd mur deri n M emphi s. C off ey conf i r m ed thatD os s had b ee n co n v ict ed o f se co n d -de g ree m u rde r. E . J. B o b o , a n o ffi ce r w ith the C alho u n S h eriff’s D epart m ent , t es t i f

i ed thatD os s had a ba d r eput at i on f orpeac e and vi ol ence . ¶71. Sadi e D os s t es t i f i ed thatD os s had f

i ni s hed the ni nth ort enth gr ade. She t es t i f i ed that th e y h a d a “ b e a u tifu l h o m e ,” a n d th a t A n th o n y w a s a “w a rm , b e a u tifu l p e rso n ” w h o w o u ld pr epar e herf

ood and hel p herw hen s he w as s i ck. H ow ever , Sadi e al s o t es t i f i ed thats he had
r el i ed on w el f

ar e w hen D os s l i ved w i th her
. She st at ed t hatD os s had s uf f er ed tw o s er i ous head i nj ur i es , one w hen he w as e l even and one w hen he w as s event een. A s t o the ef f ect s of the hea d i nj ur i es , s he t es t i f i ed that“[ D os s ] w oul d have hea dache s . Som e days he w on’ ts ay nothi ng. T hen, the nextday, he t al k. ” O n cr os s - exami nat i on, S adi e adm i t t ed thatA nt hony had bee n convi ct ed of

s econd- degr ee mur deri n T ennes s ee. ¶72. A tthe conc l us i on of the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the tr i al c our tpr es ent ed the j ury w i t h the fol l ow i ng i nst ruct i on s as t o ag gravat i ng and m i t i gati ng fact ors:

### Th e juryun animo uslyfoundthat all aggravatorsexisted bey on d a reaso nab le do ub t. 14 

### 47 C ons i deronl y the f

ol l ow i ng el ement s of

aggr avat i on i n det erm i ni ng w hether the dea th penal ty s houl d be i m pos ed: 1. T he def

endant , A nthony D os s , w as pr evi ous l y convi ct ed of anothercapi t al of f ens e orof

a f el ony i nvol vi ng the us e orthr eatof vi ol ence t o the per s on. 2. T he capi t al m ur derof R obertC
. “B ert ” B el l w as comm i t t ed w hi l e the def endantw as engaged o r w as a n acc om pl i ce, i n the comm i s s i on of arm ed r obbery. 3. T he cap i t al m urder of R ob ertC
. “B ert ” B el l w as com m i t t ed for the p urpose o f a v o id in g o r p re v e n tin g law fu l ar re st.

. . . C ons i de rthe f

ol l owi ng e l e ment s of

mi t i ga t i on i n d e t e r mi ni ng w he the rthe death penal ty w oul d [ s i c] notbe i m pos ed: ( 1) T he age of

D ef endantatthe t i m e of

the cr i m e. (2) L o v ing an d ca ri n g ch il d to h is m o ther. (3 ) G re w u p in p o v e rty e n v iro n m e n t. ( 4) L ack of

s i gni f i cantf atherf i gur e. ( 5) Suf f er ed hea d i nj ur i es w hi ch cha nged per s onal i ty. ( 6) T he D ef

endantact ed underextr eme dur es s orunders ubs t ant i al dom i nat i on of anotherper s on. ( 7) T he D ef

endantw as an ac compl i ce i n the capi t al of f ense c om m i t t ed by an o ther p erso n an d h is pa rt ici p ati o n w as re lat ively m ino r. ( 8) W enti nt o s t or e w i th gun thatw oul dn’ tf i r e. ( 9) L ack of

educa t i on. (10) I nterven ed in [ si c] beh al f of R ob ertJam es. A f t erw ei ghi ng the aggr avat or s and mi t i gat or s , the j ury s ent ence d D os s t o death. 14 ¶73. A s t he maj or i ty not es , the tr i al courtconduct ed a PC R evi dent i ary hear i ng i n 2006 and heard t est i m on y fr om L ee B ai l ey, Q
. T . D oss, S adie D oss, S and ra Pri ce, and S am P hil l i ps. C o n tra ry to th e m a

jo rity ’s c o n c lu sio n , I fin d th a t B a iley d id p e rfo rm a re a so n a b le i nv est i gati on form i t i gati on evidence. F i rs t , B ai l ey w as i n con t actw i th the C apit al D efense R es our ce G r oup, w hi ch pr ovi ded h i m w i th i nf or m at i on r egar di ng the def ens e of a dea thp e n a l ty c a s e . Ba i l e y t e s t i f i e d th a th e h a d u t i l i z e d th e ma t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d t o h i m.

### Th e recordsho ws th at Baileycontacted W atkin s onthree, sep arate occasio ns. 15 

### The undate d Dis chargeSumm ar y me nti oned that

Doss’ “le galproble ms ste m f rom 16 

### robbe ri es ,”that hedrank al coh ol regu larly, had tri ed other drugs , and that hehad an estimated IQ of 8 0. Th e 19 88 Psy cho log ical R epo rt statedthat D oss h ad b een p laced o n p rob ationwith theCalhoun County Youth Court as a r es ult

of gui lt y ple as to breaking a

nd ent ering, po ssessionof mariju ana, an d cau singa family disturban ce. Th e report also stated th at Do ss had robbed an el derly man in Chi ca go. I t m entione d that Dos s ha d pri mari ly att ende d spe ci aleduc ation cl as se s in Chic ago, but had been ma ins treame d int o som e r egul ar cl as se s in j unior high s chool , whe rehe ha d ac hie ved s omesuc ce ss . I t s tate d that Dos s wante d to go bac k to Chi ca go, and that he had a 71 IQ af

te r t es ting. I t f

urther provi ded that

Doss ’ m ent al difficu lties might havean organi c bas is
. Thereport ma de no m ention of Sadi e’ s drinking probl em s and thete rribl e e xis te nceshedes cribe d in l iving with Sam Brown in Chic ago.
48 ¶74. B ai l ey al s o t es t i f i ed that he had obt ai ned s chool , m ent al heal th, and m edi cal r ecor ds f r om C ar ol yn W atki ns , D os s ’ publ i c def enderi n M emphi s , Tennes s ee. Bai l ey’ s t es t i m ony 15
r evea l s t hat t he dec i s i on nott o i ntr oduce thes e document s w as s tr at egi c. T he f ol l ow i ng 16
e x c h a n g e to o k p lac e b e tw e e n B a iley a n d th e S tate a s to w h y h e d id n o t u se th e se d o c u m e n ts atthe s ent enci ng phas e: Q . T h e re w a s a re a so n y o u d id n ’t w a n t m e [th e p ro se c u to r in the o rig in a l trial] to e v e n k n o w a b o u t th a t stu ff a t th e tim e , w a sn ’t it? A
. W el l , I m ean i t , i thas s om e i nf or m at i on aboutotheract s by A nthony. Q
. R ob beri es. A
. Y eah. Q
. A s a mat t erof

f act , he w as be i ng eval uat ed, acc or di ng t o hi m , beca us e he had comm i t t ed r obberi es . A nd he had be en s entt o the youth courtther e f or ro b b e rie s a n d d ru g tre a tm e n t; i s th a t rig h t? A . C o rre c t. Q . A lso in th e stu ff th a t I n e v e r g o t at th a t ti m e th a t is in th e stu ff th a t y o u d id s eek a nd geti ts how ed thathe w as t es t ed and hi s t es tscor es show ed hi s I Q at 8 0 ; is th a t co rre c t? A . C o rre c t. Q
. Y ou di dn’ tw antm e t o have thatei ther , di d you? A
. N o.

. . . .

### 49

Q
. O kay. N ow , and w e’ve t al ked aboutthi s . I tw as f urni s hed i n di s covery. If a ll o f th is stu ff th a t yo u h a d av a ilab le to y o u h a d b e e n p re se n ted , w e w o u ld h a v e p o ss ib ly b e e n a b le to , in a d d iti o n to w h a t th e ju ry h e a rd , b e e n a b le to b rin g o u t th a t h e h a d b e e n c h a rg e d w ith ro b b e rie s. H e h a d b e e n c h a rg e d w ith s el l i ng drugs . H e had been cha r ged t w o days bef or e thi s m ur derw i th s hoot i ng s om eone el s e i n B ruce. A l l of thats tuf f w oul d have pos s i bl y been a bl e t o have b e e n b ro u g h t o u t fo r th e ju ry is th a t co rre c t? [ obj ect i on t o s pecul at i on; courtal l ow s ques t i oni ng t o cont i nue] Q
. Y ou kn ow abo ut al l these other charges, do n’tyo u, fr om the repo rt s?

. . . A
. I tw as avai l abl e. Q
. Y ou had yourf

i l e atthatt i m e. A
. Y eah. ¶75. T he m aj or i ty al s o t akes i s s ue w i th the f act that B ai l ey f

ai l ed t o i nves t i gat e the ext ent of D os s ’ head i nj ur i es . H ow ever , B ai l ey t es t i f i ed thatf

ur theri nves t i gat i on w as not
w a rra n ted , sin c e D o ss c o u ld c lea rly c o m m u n ica te w ith h im a n d w a s c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial. B ai l ey s t at ed: I n t al ki ng w i th A nthony – I m ean I spentsome t i m e t al ki ng w i th hi m . A nd I d id n ’t – I d id n ’t se e w h e re A n th o n y h a d a p ro b lem d isc u s s in g th is c a se w ith m e . H e to ld m e e v e ry th in g a b o u t it. H e e x p la in e d h o w h e g re w u p . I re m e m b e r ta k in g d o w n n o tes a b o u t h is e a rly life . . . . I re m e m b e r t a lk in g to hi m aboutdi f

f er entas pect s of

the ca s e.

### Th e majorityinco rrect lystates that B ailey sp ok e on ly o nce w ith S adie v ia 17 

### te lephone. Bai le y t es ti fi ed: “ I had se veral– I had te lephone ca ll s. I say s eve ra l. I don’t think the rewas but maybeone or two on my time she et , but I know I t alked t o her more tim es thanthat b y telep ho ne.” The m aj ori ty a ls o conc lude s that Bai le y fa il ed t o el ic it

per sonal info rm ation f

rom Sadi e at t he firs t se nte ncing hearing. His fai lure to ques ti on Sadieas to theinf orm ation t

hat shete stif ie d to in 2006 was a dire ct cons eque nceof her

fai lure to provi de that infor mati on to him. In r evi ewing themi ti gating instruc ti on subm itte d at thef ir st s ent enc ing he aring, as wel l a s Sa die ’ste stimony , it i s e vide nt t hat Bai le y did in fa ct

tr y to s oli ci t pe rs onal inf orm ation t

hat is cr uci alat these nte ncing phas e.

50 ¶76. B ai l ey al s o r el i ed i n parton D os s and Sadi e t o pr ovi de names of pot ent i al w i tnes s es 17 t o tes t i fy atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. B ai l ey t es t i f i ed thathe had “ no r eas on t o bel i eve that th e re w a s a n y o n e in C h ica g o th a t co u ld h e lp A n th o n y D o ss .” D o ss a n d S a d ie p ro v id e d o n ly the n am e of one w i tness, M ark H end ri cks, the C hief of P oli ce in D erm a, M i ssi ssi pp i
. D oss
w or ked f orH endr i cks as a conf

i dent i al i nf

or m anton drug cas es . B ai l ey w ant ed t o i ntr oduce thi s t es t i m ony, buti f

H endr i cks had t es t i f

i ed, the St at e w as pr epar ed t o cr os s - exami ne H e n d ric k s o n se v e ra l cr im in a l v io latio n s in v o lv in g D o ss . W h ile B a iley f ile d a m o tio n in lim in e to e x c lu d e th is te stim o n y , the trial c o u rt d e n ied it. ¶77 . B ai l ey al so ob t ai ned cou rt funds t o hir e an i nv est i gator , K elvin W inb ush. W i nb ush l ocat ed and i nt ervi ew ed s even pot ent i al w i tnes s es : Li l l i e M oor e, D os s ’ a unt ; Coach Sm i th, D oss’ form er physi cal edu cat i on t eache r; M arvi n Joe D oss, D oss’ b rot her; R and y D oss, D os s ’ br other ; L ucr et i an M onger, D os s ’ s i s t er ; and M avi s M cC as t er , D os s ’ s i s t er . B ai l ey deci ded nott o us e them as w i tnes s es , s i nce thei rt es t i m ony w oul d nothave be en mi t i gat i ng. ¶78. T he maj or i ty al s o ar gues thata prope ri nves t i gat i on w oul d have yi el ded the t es t i m ony
o f Q .T . D o ss , S a n d ra P ric e , a n d S a m P h ill ip s, in a d d iti o n to th e ex p a n d e d tes tim o n y o f S a d ie D o ss. Q
. T . D o ss, D o ss’ co u sin, test if ied tha t they ha d spe n t ti m e tog ethe r an d h ad d o n e y ard

### 51

w or k t ogetherw hen D os s vi s i t ed M i s s i s s i ppi , and l a t e rw he n Doss m oved bac k f r om C hi cago
a s a t e e n a g e r . Q. T. s t a t e d th a tDos s was a q u i e tp e r s o n a n d a f o l l o w e r , nota l e a de r . Q. T. tes tified th a t D o ss e v e n tu a lly h a d b e g u n to h a n g a ro u n d w ith F re d e ric k B e ll, a n d Q .T . felt that B ell w as a b u ll y an d tr o u b lem ak er. Q
. T . testi fi ed tha t D o ss k n ew h o w to d efe n d h im self, butQ
. T . w as unaw ar e of D os s havi ng a gun. ¶79. A tthe 2006 hear i ng, Sadi e t es t i f i ed thats he had dr ank al cohol r egul ar l y w hen s he w as p r e g n a n twi th Do s s , th a ts h e h a d c o n tr a c t e d g o n o rrh e a a ta r o u n d th a tt i me , a n d S a m B r o wn h ad b ea ten h er to the po int that sh e h ad alm o st m iscarri ed
. S h e testi fi ed that o ther m em b ers
o f h er fa m il y h ad su ffered fro m m en tal p rob lem s. S ad ie stated that sh e d id n o t t ell str an g ers aboutthes e pr obl ems, and tha tB ai l ey di d notas k anythi ng aboutthe pr i vat e det ai l s of her l i f e. ¶ 8 0
. S a n d ra P ric e tes tified th a t S a m B ro w n w a s h e r fa th e r a n d th a t s h e h a d liv e d w ith B r ow n, S adi e, and D os s i n C hi cago. Pr i ce c onf i r m ed atthe 2006 hea r i ng the brut al tr eatm ent t he f ami l y ha d r ece i ved f

r om Sam B r ow n, w ho w as a l s o a drug us er . She s t at ed thatD oss
w as a qui etper s on w ho gener al l y st ayed t o hi m s el f
. Pr i ce al s o t es t i f

i ed t hatt he f

ami l y had l i ved i n a nei ghborhood w her e gang act i vi ty and vi ol ence w er e com m on. Sandr a deni ed that
s he had s een Sadi e abus e al cohol or drugs . She t es t i f i ed thati n 1989, she ha d been r aped a nd beat en by a gang of

men w ho br oke i nt o thei rr es i dence , a nd thatD os s al s o had bee n beat en by thes e i ntrud ers . T he St at e s ugges t ed thatthe att ack w as i n r et al i at i on f orD os s ’ s el l i ng drugs. ¶81. Sam Phi l l i ps t es t i f i ed atthe 2006 hea r i ng thathe w as the bi ol ogi cal f atherof A nt hony Do s s a n d t h a th e a n d S a d i e h a d n e v e rma rr i e d
. P h i l l i p s a l s o t e s t i f i e d th a th e h a d r a i s e d two

### 52

chi l dr en w ho had neve rbeen i n t rouble w i th the l aw . Phi l l i ps f ur thert es t i f

i ed thathe had repeat edly t old D oss t o st op sel l i ng drugs an d leave the st reet s. ¶ 8 2
. T h e trial c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t B a ile y h a d p ro v id e d e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l to Do s s . Th e c o u r ts u mma r i z e d Ba i l e y ’ s t e s t i mo n y a n d c o n c l u d e d th a tBa i l e y wa s n o tt o b l a me f orD os s and Sadi e’ s “l ack of f or thr i ghtnes s . ” The c i r cui tc our ta l s o f ound thatLee B ai l ey h ad n o tr o u b le co m m u n icati n g w ith D o ss, an d D o ss d id n o t app ea r t o b e ins an e. T h e c o u rt al s o not ed thatatthe t i m e o f D os s ’ tr i al , exec ut i on of the ment al l y r et ar ded w as not pr ohi bi t ed. T he ci r cui tcourtf ound thatnot hing in the r ecor ds i ndi cat ed thatD os s w as
m e n tally re tar d e d , o r th a t B a iley sh o u ld h a v e c o n su lted a m e n tal-h e a lth e x p e rt. ¶83. T he tr i al court w as pr es ent ed w i th conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony f

r om Sadi e. H ert es t i m ony on al cohol abus e and m ent al pr obl ems c ontr adi ct ed her1993 t es t i m ony and the i nf or m at i on thats he had pr ovi ded i n t he 1988 P s ychol ogi cal R eport . Fur therm or e, S andr a Pri ce t es t i f i ed thatS adie di d notdr i nk orabus e drugs . T he courtconcl uded that“a mot her ’ s t es t i m ony
w o u ld b e s o m e w h a t s u s p e c t a n d to ta lly b ia s e d in f a v o r o f h e r c h ild fa c in g th e d e a th p e n a lty .” ¶84. A s f

or Sandr a Pr i ce’ s t es t i m ony, the tr i al court f ound that the s ym pathy that s he may have ge ner at ed f

orD os s w oul d have been of f s etby hert es t i m ony thats he bel i eved D os s had notm ur der ed anyone
. Fur ther , the courtal s o f ound thatt he j ury w oul d have been c oncerned by hert es t i m ony thatD os s ’ act i ons m ay have tr i gger ed the home i nvas i on. ¶85. T he tr i al courtal s o f ound thatthe t es t i m ony of Q
. T . D os s and S am Phi l l i ps w oul d not have s w ayed the j ury t o i m pos e a se nt ence othert han death. T he tr i al courtconcl uded that Q
. T . D os s ’ t es t i m ony “w oul d have i ndi cat ed t o the j ury thatA nthony w as m aki ng a
cons ci ous deci s i on t o as s oci at e w i th per sons o f bad char act er . ” The t r i al courtal s o f ound

### 53

thatPhi l l i ps ’ s t es t i m ony t hatA nthony w oul d have been bett eroff ra i s ed i n hi s hous ehol d w as pur e s pecul at i on. ¶86. A f

t er r evi ew i ng the evi dence pr es ent ed at the 2006 hear i ng, the tr i al courtconcl uded in a th o ro u g h , th ir ty -s e v e n -p a g e o p in io n th a t th e ju ry still w o u ld h a v e se n ten c e d D o ss to d ea th. A fter rev iew ing the re co rd, I can n o t say that the tri al co u rt ’s fi n d ing s o f fact are clea rl y erro n eo u s. B ail ey ce rt ainly u n d ertoo k a re aso n ab le i n v esti g ati o n that y iel d ed li tt le
m i t i gati on evidence. D oss and S adie ( al on g w i th the seven fam i l y m em bers w hen W i nb ush in ter v iew e d ) fa iled to d isc lo se a n y d e tails o f D o ss ’ life in C h ica g o , a n d D o ss fa iled to e x h ib it
an y m en tal d eficien cies. U n d er Str i c kl and , the “r eas onabl enes s of an i nves t i gat i ve dec i s i on “i s s ubs t ant i al l y i nf

l uence d by the def

endant ’ s ow n s t at ement s oract i ons . ” Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at689, 691. ¶87. Fur therm or e, I do notf i nd thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y that, b u t f

o r B ail ey ’s (a lle g e d ) e rro rs, th e o u tco m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. W h ile th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in 2 0 0 6 w o u ld h av e g arn ere d so m e sy m p athy , ita lso w o u ld h av e a cted as a d o u b le-ed g ed sw o rd b y re fe re n c in g D o s s ’ p ro p e n s ity fo r v io le n c e a n d s u b s ta n c e a b u s e . See B u r g e rv. K e mp , 483 U .S . 7 7 6 , 7 9 1 -9 5 1 0 7 S . C t. 31 1 4 , 9 7 L . E d . 2 d 6 3 8 (1 9 8 7 ). F u rth e rm o re , the m a jo rity
a ffo rd s n o d e fe re n c e to th e tria l c o u rt’s fin d in g s o f f a c t, an d in m y o p in io n , h a s im p ro p e rly
r ew ei ghed t he evi dence t o concl ude w i th hi nds i ghtthatD os s r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. I w oul d a f

f i r m the tr i al c our t ’ s j udgm entthatD os s r ece i ved ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance
o f c o u n se l at th e p e n a lty p h a se o f th is tria l. CARL S ON, P . J . , RANDOL P H AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG T O P AR T T W O:

### The Whi tf ie ld Repor

t finds that Doss obtained a ful l sc al e IQ sc oreof 71. Howe ver , 18 

### Dr. Gilb ert M cVau ghco nced ed at trial th at he mad e a scorin g erro r andthat th e correct fu llsc al e s cor e s hould have be en 70. 54 I I . W HET HER T HE DE CI S I ON I N ATK I NS v. VI RGI NI A RE QU I RE S TH AT T HE DEATH S ENTENCE I N THI S CASE B E S ET AS I DE. ¶ 8 8
. T h e m a

jo rity o f th is C o u rt relie s o n an in c o m p lete a n d a d m itt e d ly p a rtially in a c c u ra te reportfr om the S t at e H ospit al atW hit fi el d (the W hit fi el d R epo rt ) t o fi nd that A nthony D oss i s notm ent al l y r et ar ded pur s uantt o A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 536 U . S. 304, 122 S. C t . 2242, 153 L . E d. 2d 335 ( 2002)
. B eca us e I w oul d f i nd thatthe evi dence i n thi s cas e cl ear l y r equi r es 18
a fin d in g th a t D o ss is m e n tally re tar d e d , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶8 9
. T h e m ajority ac k n o w ledg es in foo tno te 6 that it is “sp ea k ing in term s o f the re p o rt ’s
c o n ten ts,” d e sp ite te stim o n y o ffe re d to c o rre c t, cla rify a n d c o m p lete th e re p o rt. F u rth e r, th is
r eportcl ear l y s t at es t hati tw as w r i t t en w i thoutthe expe r t s bei ng abl e to co ntac tnum er ous pe op l e and w i tho ut benefi tof subst anti al , rel evan ti nform at i on . T he repo rtsays: “[ H ] ow ever , thes e att empt s w er e uns ucce s s f ul atthe t i m e thi s r eportw as w r i t t en. A l though
w e re q u ested m o re c o m p let e s c h o o l r ec o rds fo r M r. D o ss, th e p sy ch o log ical t esti n g rep o rt and r aw dat a f

r om N or th M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er , and the raw d at a f r om a pr i or p sy c h o lo g ica l ev a lu a tio n b y D r. G e lb o rt, w e h a d n o t re c e iv e d th o se rec o rd s a t th e ti m e th is
r eportw as w r i t t en. ” The r eportl at ers ays : “H ow ever , thi s opi nion is l i m i t ed by a l ack of avail able r ecords r el at ed t o M r. D oss’ s cho ol his t ory and other pri or i ntel l ectual as sess m ents , a s w e ll as o b sta c les e n c o u n ter e d w h e n a ttem p tin g to a ss e ss a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g in in d iv id u a ls w h o h a v e b e e n o n d e a th ro w fo r a n e x ten d e d p e rio d o f tim e .” I w rite s e p a ra tely

### 55

b e c a u se I su b m it th a t a n a n a ly sis o f th e e n tire r e c o rd a n d a p p lica b le la w is n e c e ss a ry to deci de thi s i s s ue. ¶90. I n Ch a se v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1013 ( M i s s . 2004) , thi s C our t cl ar i f i ed the appl i cat i on
o f Atkins i n the tri al cou rt s as f oll ow s: T he Atkins m a

jo rity c it ed , w ith ap p rov al, tw o sp e c ific, a lm o st id e n tica l, def i ni t i on s of

" ment a l r e t a r da t i on . " The f i r s tw a s pr ov i de d b y the A mer i can A ss o c iatio n o n M e n tal R e tar d a tio n (A A M R ):

Mentalr etar dat i on re fe rs to su b sta n tial lim itatio n s in p re se n t fu n c tio n in g . It i s c h a ra c ter ize d b y sig n ifica n tly su b a v e ra g e in telle c tu a l fu n c tio n in g , e x istin g c o n c u rre n tly w ith re late d lim ita tio n s in tw o o r m o re o f th e fo llo w in g a p p lica b le adapt i ve s ki l l ar eas : com m uni cat i on, sel f
- car e, comm uni ty us e, s el f
- di r ect i on, heal th and s af ety, func t i onal acade m i cs , l ei s ur e, and w or k. M ent al r et ar dat i on m ani f es t s bef or e age 18. Atkins , 53 6 U. S. a t30 8 n
. 3, c i t i ng M e nt a l Ret a r da t i on : D e f i ni t i on, C l as s i f i cat i on, and Sys t ems of Support5 (9t h ed. 1992)
. T he s econd w as p ro v id e d b y T h e A m e ric a n P sy c h iatric A ss o c iatio n :

T h e e ss e n tial fe a tu re o f M e n tal R e tar d a tio n is s i gni f i cant l y s ubaver age ge ner al i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng (C riter io n A ) th a t is a c c o m p a n ied b y sig n ifica n t li m itatio n s in adap t i ve func t i on i ng i n atl easttw o o f the fol l ow i ng ski l l areas : comm uni cat i on, s el f

- car e, hom e l i vi ng, s oci al / i nt erper s onal s ki l l s , us e of

c omm un i ty r e s ou r c e s , s e l f
- di r e c t i on , f

un c t i onal ac ad em ic sk il ls, w o rk, l eisu re, he alth , an d safe ty (C ri teri o n B ). T he ons etm us toccurbef or e age 18 ye ar s ( C r i t er i on C )
. M ent al R et ardat i on h as m any d i ff erenteti ologi es and m ay b e seen as a f i nal comm on pathw ay of var i ous pathol ogi cal pr oces s es that a ffe c t th e fu n c tio n in g o f th e c e n tra l n e rv o u s s y ste m ." D iag n o stic an d S tat ist ical M an u al of M en tal D isord ers 3 9 (4th ed
. 2 0 0 0 ). Id
. T he D i agnos t i c and St at i s t i cal M an ua l of M e nt a l D i s or der s , f

r om w hi ch the A m er i can Psyc hi atr i c A s s oci at i on de f i ni t i on i s quot ed, f

ur thers t at es that "mi l d" ment al r et ar dat i on i s typi cal l y us ed t o des cr i be per s ons w i th a n I Q l evel o f 5 0 -5 5 t o a p p r o x im a te ly 7 0
. Id
. at42 -43. T he M anu al fur ther provides,

### 56

h o w e v e r, th a t m e n tal re tar d a tio n m a y , u n d e r c e rta in c o n d iti o n s, b e p re se n t in a n in d iv id u a l w ith a n IQ o f u p to 7 5 . [n .1 8 ] Id
. at40. A ddi t i onal l y, acc or di ng t o the Atkins m aj or i ty, "i ti s es t i m at ed thatbetw een 1 a nd 3 percent of the p o p u la ti o n h a s a n IQ b e tw e e n 7 0 a n d 7 5 o r l o w e r, w h ich is ty p ica lly cons i der ed the cutof

f I Q s cor e f orthe i nt el l ectual f

unct i on prong of

the ment al ret ardat i on defi nit i on . " Id
. ci t i ng 2 K apl an & S ado ck' s C om pr ehens i ve T extbook of

Psyc hi atr y 2 95 2 ( B . Sadock & V . Sadock eds 7th ed. 2000) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
n. 18 T hi s poi nti s conce ded by the St at e. H ow ever , I Q , al one, do e s notde t e r mi ne m e nt a l r e t a r da t i on . A c c or di ng t o the D SM
IV , "it is p o ss ib le to d iag n o se M e n tal R e tar d a tio n in in d iv id u a ls w ith IQ ' s b e tw e e n 7 0 an d 7 5 w h o e x h ib it sig n ifica n t d e fic its in adap t i ve be ha vi or . Conve r s e l y, M e nt a l Ret a r da t i on w oul d notbe d iagn o sed in an ind ividu al w ith an IQ low er tha n 7 0 if there are no s i gni f i cantdef i ci t s ori m pai r m ent s i n adapt i ve f unct i oni ng. T h ese d efinit ion s w ere p rev iou sly a d o p ted a n d a p p rov ed b y this C o u rt i n Fo ste r v . S ta te , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 7 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). T h is C o u rt fu rth e r h e ld in Fos terth a t th e M in n e so ta M u lti p h a sic P e rso n a lity In v e n to ry -II (M M P I-II) is t o be a dm i ni s t er ed s i nce i t s a s s oci at ed val i di ty s cal es make the t es tbes ts ui t ed to d e tec t m a lin g e ri n g . . . . F o ste r m u st p ro v e th a t h e m e e ts th e a p p lica b le s t andar d by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence
. . . . T hi s i s s ue w i l l be cons i der ed and dec i ded by the ci r cui tcourtw i thouta j ury. Id
. at175. T hes e def

i ni t i ons , appr oved i n Atkins , a nd a dopt ed i n Fos ter , t ogether w i th t he M M P I- II , [ n. 19] pr ovi de a c l ears t andar d t o be us ed i n thi s St at e by o u r tri al co u rt s in d eterm ining w h ethe r, for E ig h th A m e n dm e n t p u rp o s e s , a cr i m i nal def

endanti s m ent al l y ret ar ded. T he tr i al j udge w i l l m ake s uch det erm i nat i on, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence, aft err ece i vi ng evi dence pr es ent ed by the def

endantand the St at e.
n. 19 A l tho ug h this C ou rt has i den t i fi ed the M M P I- II as a t est thats houl d be gi ven, w e now cl ar i f y ourpos i t i on by s t at i ng that the expe r ts houl d us e the M M PI
- I I , and/ orany o t her t es t s and pr ocedur es per m i t t ed undert he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Evi dence , a n d d e e m e d n e c e ss a ry to a ss ist th e e x p e rt a n d th e trial c o u rt in f or m i ng an opi ni on as t o w hethert he def endanti s m al i nger i ng. P r ocedur e t o be us ed
.

### 57 H avi ng es t abl i s hed the def i ni t i on of m ent al r et ar dat i on t o be used f or p u rpo ses o f E ig h th A m e n dm e n t p r o t e c t i o n t o me n t a l l y r e t a r d e d d e f e n d a n t s , we nowt ur n to t he procedure to be us ed in reaching a de ter mina ti on of mental retardati on. W e hol d t hatno def

en da ntmay b e a dj ud ge d ment a l l y r et ar ded f or purpos es of

the E ighth A m endm ent , u n les s s u c h d e fe n d a n t p ro d u c e s, a t a m i ni m um , an expe r tw ho expr es s es an opi ni on, t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of c e rta in ty , tha t:

1 . T h e d e fe n d a n t i s m e n ta lly r e tar d e d , as th a t term is def i ned by the A m er i can A s s oci at i on on M ent al R et ar dat i on and/ orT he A m er i can Ps ychi atr i c A s s oci at i on; 2 . T h e d efe n d an t h a s c o m p lete d th e M in n e so ta M u lti phas i c Per s onal i ty Inve nt ory- I I ( M M PI
- I I ) and/ orothers i m i l ar te s ts , a n d th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t m a lin g e ri n g . Such exper tm ustbe a l i cens ed ps ychol ogi s torps ychi atr i s t , qual i f i ed as an expe r ti n the f

i el d of a s s es s i ng ment al r et ar dat i on, and f ur therqual i f

i ed as an expe r ti n the admi ni s tr at i on and i nt erpr et at i on o f t est s , and i n the eval uat i on of

per s ons , f

orpurpos es of

det erm i ni ng m ent al r et ar dat i on. U pon m eet i ng thi s i ni t i al r equi r ementt o go f orw ar d, the def

endantm ay pr es ents uch otheropi ni ons and evi dence as the tr i al courtm ay al l ow pur s uant t o the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. T her eaf t er , the St at e may of

f erevi dence , and t he m att ers houl d pr ocee d as ot her evi den t i ary heari ng s on m oti on s. A tt he concl us i on of the hear i ng, t he t r i al cour tm us tdet erm i ne w hether the def end ant has es t abl i s hed, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thatthe d efe n d an t i s m en tal ly retard ed
. T h e fac tors t o be co n side red b y the tri al co u rt are the exp ertop i nions off ered by the p art i es, and otherevidence if l i m i t at i on s, orl ack ther eof

, i n the adapt i ve s ki l l ar eas l i st ed i n the def i ni t i ons of

m ent al r et ar dat i on appr oved i n Atkins , and di s cus s ed above
. U pon m aki ng s uch det erm i nat i on, the tr i al courts hal l pl ace i n the r ecor d i t s f i ndi ng and the f

actual b a s is th e re fo r. Ch a se v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d at1027- 29. ¶91. D os s underw ent a ps ychol ogi cal eval uat i on a tthe U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi i n 1988 pu rs uan tt o a y ou th-courtproceed i ng . D espi t e t he m aj ori ty’s as ser t i on that “D oss had a tl east

### Anothe r I Q t es t was a dminis te re d t o Dos s at Nor th Mis si ss ippiMe dic alCent er that 19 

### produc ed a

re sult of 80. Howe ver , this te st

was adm ini st er ed j ust

a f ew m onths af

te r the Unive rs it y of Mi ss is sippi t es t and was merely an estimate d sc orebas ed on a shor te ned versio n o f an ex am. D r . C r i s s L ot t , w ho w as c ontr act ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al to a ss ist in th e e v a lu a tio n o f D o s s, a c k n o w led g e d th a t th is te st w a s n o t a tru e re su lt. L o tt t es t i f i ed: “Ther e coul d pos s i bl y be a pr act i ce ef f ectther e. I tw as al s o an es t i m at ed I Q
. T hat 

### 58 tw o pr i orps ychol ogi cal ev al uat i ons atthe age of f i f t een, nei therof

w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a di a gn os i s o f

men t a l r e t a r da t i on , ” the r e c or d i nd i c a t e s tha tDos s was “ t o be e va l uat ed f or pos s i bl e drug pr obl ems w hi ch m ay be c ontr i but i ng t o hi s behavi or ” and not for the p urpose of det erm i ni ng i f

he w as m ent al l y r et ar ded pur s uantt o Atkins . M o re sig n ifica n tly , d e sp ite th e m a jo rity ’s s tate m e n t th a t “[t]h e se e v a lu a tio n s fo u n d th a t D o s s d id n o t d e m o n stra te defi ci t s consi st ent w i th m ental ret ardat i on . . . ,” ther e w as absol utel y n o fi nd i ng that D oss i s no tm ent al l y r et ar ded pur s uantt o Atkins . N otw i ths t andi ng the purpos e f orw hi ch D oss
w as eval uat ed, the r eportf r om thi s eval uat i on i ndi cat ed as f ol l ow s : 1) O n the W i de R ange A chi evementT es t - R evi s ed ( W R A T
- R ) , D os s achi eved a s i xth- gr ade l evel i n A r i thm et i c and bel ow a thi r d- gr ade l evel i n re adi ng and spel l i ng; 2) on t he W echs l erI nt el l i gence Scal e f or C hi l dr en- R evi sed (W ISC
- R ) , D os s obt ai ned a ve rbal s cal e I Q of 67, pl aci ng hi m i n a
m ent al l y def

i ci enti nt el l i gence cl as s i f i cat i on , a per f

or m ance s cal e of

80, pl aci ng hi m i n a l ow - aver a ge i nt e l l i ge nc e c l a s s i f i c a t i on , a nd a f

ul l s c a l e of

71 , pl a c i ng hi m i n a bo r de r l i ne classifi ca ti o n o f i n tel li g en ce ; 3) “T h e B en d er M o tor G estaltM o tor T est rev ea led th at th ere
m ay be s om e or gani c b asi s t o A nthony’ s di f f i cul t i es , ” as D os s s how ed poorpl anni ng, per ceptual di f

f i cul t i es , i natt ent i venes s and a hurr i ed approach t o t as ks ; 4) the M i l l on A dol e s c e ntPe r s on a l i ty I nv e nt ory ( M A PI ) r e ve a l e d “ no unus ual t es t - t aki ng att i tudes thatm ay h a v e d is to rt e d th e M A P I r e s u lts .” 19i s , they onl y gave f ours ubt es t s . So i ti s nota f ul l I Q
. I tw as n’ ta ful l eval uat i on i n t erm s of us i ng the f

ul l t es ti t s el f

. I tw as onl y f

ours ubt es t s . ” 

### Bas ed on thes e f ac tor s and othe rs te stif ie d to at t ri al , the va li dit

y of this re sult i s not

re li abl e. 59 ¶92
. In 20 01 , D r. Jam es M eri kan gas execu t ed an affidav it , w hich w as at t ached t o D oss’
a p p lica tio n f

o r le a v e filed w ith th is C o u rt, o u tli n in g th e n e e d fo r a n e u ro p sy c h iatric
e v a lu a tio n o n D o ss a n d o p in in g th a t th e U n iv e rsity o f M iss iss ip p i re p o rt fro m 1 9 8 8 su g g e sts
or gani c br ai n damage and ment al r et ar dat i on. D os s a l s o a t t ache d the af f i davi tof J ef f r ey Eno,
a c li n ical an d foren sic soc ial w o rke r, t o his ap p li ca ti o n for l ea v e. E n o p rov ided a li fe h ist o ry
o f D o ss , inc lu d in g p re n a tal h isto ry , ex p o su re to lea d p a in t ch ip s, d e tails o f h is v io len t, abus i ve upbr i ngi ng i n a dange r ous area, physi cal i nj ur i es , s ubs t ance abus e, and hi s t or y of
m ent al i s s ues w i thi n t he f ami l y. ¶93. I n 2003, D r . M i chae l G el bor t per f or m ed a neur ops ychol ogi cal eval uat i on of D os s at Par chman, dur i ng w hi ch the f ol l ow i ng t es t s w er e admi ni s t er ed: W echs l erA dul tI nt el l i gence Scal e- I I I , W echs l erM emory Sca l e- I I I s ubt es t s , W i de R ange A chi evementT es t - I I I , L at er al D om i nance Exam i nat i on, Str ength of G r i p, T r ai l M aki ng T es t , C at egory T es t , i t ems f r om t he L ur i a N ebr as ka, and di agnos t i c i nt ervi ew w i th m ent al st atus t es t i ng. G el bor t ’ s r eport , w hi ch
w as at t ached as an ex hibi tt o h i s appli cat i on forl eave, i nd i cat ed as fol l ow s: I nt el l ectual t es t i ng f

ound V erbal , Per f

or m ance , and Ful l Sca l e I Q s cor es of 68, 79, and 71, r es pect i vel y. T hes e s cor es a r e vi r tual l y i dent i cal t o thos e obt ai ned in th e d ista n t p a st a n d len d w e ig h t to th e o p in io n th a t th e p a tien t p u t fo rth appr opr i at e ef

f or t , as w el l as t hat hi s i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng i s i n the bo r de r l i ne ment al l y r et ar ded r ange a nd thathe qual i f i es , i n t erm s of

i nt el l ectual im p a ir m e n t, f

o r a d ia g n o s is o f M e n ta l R e ta rd a tio n .

### 60

E xhi bi tH H , A ppl i cat i on f orLeave t o Fi l e M ot i on t o V aca t e J udgm enta nd Sent ence , 1999- D R
- 296 ( M ay 20, 2003)
. G el bor t ’ s i m pr es s i ons w er e: C on si st ent w i th t he pastt estr esul t s, M r. D oss pr esent s w i th a F u ll S ca le IQ sc o re b e tw e e n th e s e c o n d a n d th ird p e rc e n til e q u a lify in g h im fo r a d iag n o sis of M ent al R et ar dat i on. A cl i ni cal s oci al w or keri s col l ect i ng i nf or mat i on a bout M r . D os s and i nves t i gat i ng the otheri s s ues i nvol ved i n m aki ng a def i ni t i ve di agnos i s . I n any eve nt , the pat i entis show i ng cl earand cons i s t ent i m pai r m ent s i n f

r on t a l l ob e f

un c t i on i ng a ndbi l at er al t empora l l obe f unct i oni ng w ith n o tab le im p a irm e n ts in re a so n in g , jud g m e n t, pr o b lem so lv in g , an d a ll types of new l earni ng and m emory s ki l l s . B as ed on t he curr enteval uat i on and h isto ric a l in fo rm a tio n re v iew e d , M r. D o ss d o e s q u a lify a n d is d iag n o se d w ith O r gani c B r ai n D ys f

unct i on, al s o di agnos ed as Cogni t i ve D i s or derN O S bas ed upon ot hernos ol ogi cal s ys t ems. T he dat a and hi s t or i cal i nf or m at i on r ef

l ect thatthes e def

i ci t s ar e l i kel y both congeni t al and acquir ed atan ea r l y age, p re d a te th e e v e n t fo r w h ich h e w a s tried a n d c o n v icte d , an d w e re a s re a d ily an d ea sil y o b serv ed an d d iagn o sed a t th e ti m e o f his o ri g inal tr ial as th ey are att hi s poi nti n t i m e. T hey have a s i gni f i canti m pactand ef

f ecton hi s behavi or w i th t he pat i enthavi ng i m pai r m ent s i n the abi l i t i es of pr obl em sol vi ng and r eas oni ng, as w el l as ant i ci pat i ng the cons equenc es of hi s behavi orand p lan n in g a d a p tiv e ly a n d e ffe c tiv e ly in to th e fu tu re b e c a u se o f h is neu rocogn i t i ve im pairm ents . E xhi bi tH H , A ppl i cat i on f orL eave t o F i l e M ot i on t o V aca t e J udgm entand Sent ence , 1999- D R -29 6 (M ay 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 ). ¶9 4
. W h il e a c k n o w led g in g th e S tate ’s q u e stio n s c o n c e rnin g D o ss’ claim s, this C o u rt grant ed D oss l eave to presenthis Atkins cla im b e fo re the tri al co u rt . T h e tri al co u rt
a p p o in ted th e M iss iss ip p i S tate H o sp ital to m a k e a d e ter m ina ti o n o f w h ethe r D o ss is m e n tally
r et ar ded. D os s w as exami ned by D r s . G i l bertM acV augh I I I , C r i s s L ot t , J ohn M ont gom ery,
a n d R e b M c M ich a e l in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 . A t t h e e v id e n tiary h e a rin g , D o ss c a lled D r. L o tt,
w h o w as c o n tr ac ted b y the M issi ssipp i State H o sp it al to assist i n the e v alua ti o n o f D o ss, D r. D ani el G r ant , and D r . T i m othy Sum m er s as w i tnes s es . T he St at e ca l l ed D r s . M acV augh and M cM i chael, em ployees of the M i ssi ssi pp i S t at e H ospit al , as w i tnesses.

### Becau se there is n o questio n th at Do ss meets the first p ro ng of sig nificantly 20 

### sub averag e intellectu al fun ction ing , the maj o rity ’s discu ssionregard ing maling ering is unnec es sary and ir

re le vant . Moreove r, thema jorit y’s st at em ent

that “[t ] he eva luati on st at ed that [ Doss ’] tr

ue I Q sc oremay havebee n highe r, but pos siblema lingerin g or fati gue m ay havefa ct ore d in t

he s coring, ” i s incom

ple te . Whi lethereport did say Dos s’ s cor e m ay be highe r, it al so s ai d Doss ’ truesc oremay be thre e points l es s, or 67. Tes timony a ls o indi cate d that Dos s’ sc orecoul d be consi derably les s. Further , thereport s pec if ic al ly s ai d fati gue m ay havefa ct ore d int o Doss ’ s cor e on one me as ureof m al inge re d me mor y def ic it s, i. e. , TOMM, but also th at Do ss was co op erative an d p ut fo rth a g oo d effo rt. 61 ¶95. D os s w as admi ni s t er ed the St anf or d B i net Fi fth E dit i on t es t by G r ant on M ay 5- 6, 2 0 0 5 . D o ss ’ fu ll-sc a le I Q sc o re w a s 6 2 . D o ss w a s a d m in iste re d th e W e c h sle r A d u lt I nt el l i gence Scal e- I I I ( W A I S- I I I ) dur i ng the eval uat i on atthe M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al ( W hi t f i el d) on N ovember2, 2005. D os s r ece i ved a c orr ect ed f ul l
- s cal e I Q scor e of

70 on the W A IS -I II , w h ic h is a s ta n d a rd iz e d te s t o f a d u lt in te llig e n c e . ¶96. E xpert s f

or both the St at e and the def endant agr ee that D os s m eet s the f i r s tcr i t er i on
o f sig n ifica n tly su b a v e ra g e in telle c tu a l fu n c tio n in g m a n ife ste d b e fo re a g e e ig h tee n . L o tt 20 t est i fi ed repeatedl y thathe agreed that the t est i ng o f D oss m eet s t he fi rs tcri t eri on , that D oss has s i gni f

i cant l y sub average int el l ectual f unct i oni ng thatw as m ani f es t ed bef or e age ei ght een. L ot tal s o t es t i f

i ed thatD os s had scor ed l ow consi s t ent l y overt he yea r s w i th the exc ept i on of th e e stim a ted IQ in 1 9 8 8 , w h ich L o tt ac k n o w led g e d w a s n o t a tr u e r e s u lt. See s upr a n o te 3. M acV augh t es t i f

i ed, i n re l evantpar t : “T he, t he r ange of scor es on I Q t es tform i l d m ent al
r et ar dat i on i s appr oxi m at el y 70 t o 50 t o 55. So I t hi nk t hati s t he r ange thatw e ar e t al ki ng
a b o u t h e re in M r. D o ss ’ c a se .” M a c V a u g h a lso tes tifie d th a t D o ss m e e ts th e in telle c tu a lim p airm en t pro n g o f A t kins . “B uti n a f

or ens i c cont ext , part i cul ar l y thi s cas e, w i th t he
cr i t er i a s etf

or th by Ch ase and Atkins , I thi nk he does s at i s f y the cogni t i ve ori nt el l ectual

### Th e majoritydisco unts f in din gs inthe reco rd th at establishDo ss’ adap tive-sk ills 21 

### def ic it s be ca usethe sefindings re ly on inte rvi ews with Doss
. Howeve r, thefindings in t he Wh itfield R epo rt sub stantiallyrely o n interview s withD oss as w ell. Also , the fin din gs in theWhit fi el d Repor

t rely on int er

vie ws with SadieDoss, yet thereport note s that

Sadi e ha s pre vious ly be en t es te d and r ec ei ved an IQ s cor e in theme nta lly re tarde d range. 62 im p airm en t pro n g o f At k ins . S o I d o n ’t – I th in k h e d o e s h a v e m ild m e n tal re tar d a tio n in t erm s of the i nt el l ectual i m pai r m entpr ong of the di agnos i s . ” ¶97. A s D oss m eet s t he fi rs tpr ong of s i gni f i cant l y s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng
m ani f es t ed bef

or e age ei ght een, the r el evanti s s ue i s then w hetherD os s has re l at ed or sign if ican t deficit s in a d ap ti v e fu n cti o n ing
. A d ap ti v e-sk il l areas a re c o m m u n icati o n , selfcar e, f unct i onal aca demi cs , comm uni ty us e, s el f
- di r ect i on, heal th and s af ety, lei sure , and
w or k. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatD os s does have r el at ed ors i gni f i cantdef i ci t s i n adapt i ve f unct i oni ng. 21 ¶98. G r ant admi ni s t er ed a s t andar di zed t es t t o as s i s t i n a det erm i nat i on of D os s ’ adapt i ves ki l l s f unct i oni ng. G r antt es t i f i ed: Q
. O kay. O kay. T he – i n t erm s of adapt i ve funct i oni ng w hatar e your concl us i ons about , aboutthati s s ue? A
. I f

eel thathe has def

i ci t s atadapt i ve f

unct i oni ng. Q
. O kay
. In w hat ar eas? A
. I l ooked ati tf

r om tw o di f

f er entpoi nt s of

vi ew . I l ooked ati tf

r om the s ki l l s he has on the l anguage ar ea, hi s l anguage s ki l l s ar e – s how ed s i gni f i cant d e f i c i t s . An d h i s a c a d e mi c s k i l l s s h o we d s i g n i f i c a n td e f i c i t s . An d th o s e two ar eas w oul d f

i tw i thi n – w oul d s how – one w ay of s how i ng t hathe metpoor a d a p tiv e b e h a v io r. A s th e y sa id , tw o s e ts o f d e v iatio n s b e lo w th e m e a n s in tho se tw o areas. A nd I al s o admi ni s t er ed the adapt i ve – the i ndepende ntl i vi ng ski l l s. A nd the norm s f

orthatt es tf

orthi s gr oup i s – the me ans sco re i s – the mean a g e sc o re is 3 4 , w h ich is w h a t h is a g e is. S o I m e a n h e h a d a sc o re o f – a fu ll s cal e s cor e of

65. Q
. O kay.

### 63

A
. A nd i f you n oti ce, he had som e, som e b et t er scores , som e l ow er s cores. A nd r et ar ded i ndi vi dual s are no di f f er entthan the r es tof

us . T hey have s tr e n g th s . Th e y h a v e we a k n e s s e s . An d h e h a d s o me s tr e n g th s a n d s o me w eakn esses i n d i ff

erentvari ables
. Q
. In th e fu ll sc a le s tan d a rd sc o re o f 6 5 , w h y d o e s th a t lea d y o u to concl ude he ha s gotdef i ci t s i n adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng? A
. B ecause i t ’s m ore than tw o set s of devi at i on s bel ow the m ean. I tal so i s consi st ent – these scores ar e con si st ent acr oss al l these v ariab les. A l m ost every t es tI gave hi m w as w i thi n a f ew poi nt s of

thats cor e. Q
. T he number65 her e, i s thaton the ad apti ve – the i ndepende ntl i vi ng sc a les tes t o r th e e q u iv a len t o f 6 5 o n a n IQ tes t? A
. R i ght
. W i th 100 bei ng aver age. ¶ 9 9
. G ra n t fu rth e r tes tified th a t D o ss a lso h a d e x h ib ited sig n ifica n t d e fic its w ith re g a rd to funct i on al acade m i cs, w ork, and com m un i cat i on . M oreove r, G ran t con cl ud ed thatD oss
s uf f er ed f r om or gani c br ai n dys f unct i on, w hi ch coul d have be en i m pacted b y the hea d i nj ur i es . G r antt es t i f

i ed: I m pai r ed br ai n. H e has pr obl ems w i th att ent i on, pr obl ems w i th conce ntr at i on. H e has nys t agmus, m ovi ng of the eye s . H e has a thi n l i p, pecul i ari ty of the nos e, w hi ch i s typi cal i n peopl e thatha ve f et al a l cohol s yndr om e. H e has – he h a s c o n c re te th in k in g . H e h a s p ro b lem s w ith m e m o ry , p ro b lem s w ith – h is r eas oni ng w as concr et e. ¶100. Sum m er s al s o t es t i f i ed thatD os s has si gn i fi cant defi ci t s i n adapt i ve f unct i oni ng. Speci f i cal l y, Sum m er s s ai d: W el l , i n m y opi ni on, f

i r s tof al l , i f you l ook atcomm uni cat i on i s s ues f or on e, he cert ai nly has adap t i ve d efi ci t s i n co m m un i cat i on pri m ari l y b ecause num berone, h e is i natt ent i ve. N um bertw o, he i s i m pul s i ve. N um berthr ee, h e is m istru stfu l. N u m b e r fo u r, h e h a s d iffic u lty p ro c e ss in g . N u m b e r fiv e , h is gener al fund of

know l edge i s poor . N um bers i x, he has di f f i cul ty w i th abs tr act thi nki ng. N um bers even, his m emory i s poor , part i cul ar l y hi s w or ki ng m emory. If y o u g a v e h im a p ro b lem tha t i n v o lv e d h is re m e m b e ri n g a c e rta in amount , amount of

i nf or m at i on thathe c oul d l at eron us e t o r endera dec i s i on, h e w a sn ’t a b le to d o th a t. A n d h is, h is g e n e ra l – a n d th e n h e w o u ld ru sh in to s ol ut i ons very f

as tw i thoutr eal l y gi vi ng a l otof thoughtt o i t . S o he w as – he wa s v e r y d i f

f i c u l tf o rme t o u n d e r s t a n d h i m.

### 64 A n d so fin a lly I h a d to ju st fin a lly sa y w a it a m in u te . O k a y . T h is is w h at w e are h ere fo r. T h is i s w h at I w an t yo u to foc u s o n . T h is i s w h at w e a re g o in g to talk a b o u t. A n d so h e h a s s ig n ifica n t p ro b lem s a s it re late s to comm uni cat i on. H e t hi nks nobody l oves hi m . H e thi nks nobody car es about h im . H e th in k s th a t – ¶101. Sum m er s al so tes t i fi ed t hat D os s had s i gni f i cantdef i ci t s i n aca demi c f

unct i oni ng, ab str ac t r ea so n ing , soc ial sk il ls, an d interpe rson al relat ion s, an d that thes e d eficien cies w ere
r el at ed t o hi s s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng. Q
. L etm e as k you thi s . D o the – you m ent i oned i n yourr eports om e ar eas of l i m i t at i ons and adapt i ve f unct i oni ng. D o you, you bel i eve thos e s t em fr om and ar e r el at ed t o the s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng thatw as al r eady di s cus s ed? A
. A bs ol ut el y. I m ean – s ee, i tdoes n’ tm att eri f youri ntel l ectual f unct i oni ng i s l ow beca us e you have head tr auma ort oxi ci ty t o yourbr ai n or i f youri nt el l ectual f

unct i oni ng i s l ow beca use you l i ved i n an i m pover i s hed envi r onm ent . T he end r es ul ti s s t i l l the s ame. B uti n m y opi ni on, you know , A nthony has had s o m uch, s o m any pr obl em s , s o m any i s s ues t o hi s br ai n. I m ean he has had – I m ean number one, he s t art ed outw i th a mom w ho w as dr i nki ng every day. T hen num ber tw o, s he w as ki cked i n the abdomen w hen s he w as pr egnantt o the poi ntthat sh e b led so m u c h th a t sh e h a d to g o to th e h o sp ital. N um berthr ee, w hen A nthony w as a l i t t l e boy t hen he had l ead t oxi ci ty. T hen af t erthathe had meas l es attw o. A nd then af t erthathe deve l oped m u lti p le h e a d tra u m a - b a se b a ll b a ts, stic k s, h it i n th e h e a d w ith a p isto l. So, you know , w hen you getthr ough l ooki ng atal l thos e di f f er ent i s s ues then – now , i n addi t i on t o t hat , you al s o have the ps ycho- s oci al i s s ues th a t a ff e c t th e b ra in
. ¶102. L ot t t es t i f

i ed that he di d not us e a s t andar di zed t es t t o m eas ur e adapt i ve f unct i oni ng, butthathe r evi ew ed G r ant ’ s r eport , w hi ch w as bas ed on a s t andar di zed t est . L ot tf ur ther test if ied th at i t i s v ery h ard to as sess w h at so m eo n e’s a d ap ti v e fu n cti o n ing w as tw en ty y ea rs ago. Lot t di s c ou nt e d the u s e o f the s t a nd a r di z e d t e s tb e c a us e h e s a i d the r e h a ve bee n no
s tu d ie s th a t n o rm th e te s t f o r p e o p le o n d e a th ro w .

### 65

¶ 1 0 3
. M o s ts i g n i f

i c a n t l y , L o t tt e s t i f

i e d th a th e r e l i e s o n th e t e n t h e d i t i o n o f t h e AAMR d e fi n itio n , b u t n o t in th is c a s e . Q
. I w antt o s how you t he book, 10th edi t i on of the book cal l ed Mental R e ta rd a tio n , D e

fin iti o n , C la ss ifi c a tio n , A ss ista n c e a n d Su p p o rt by the A m e ric a n A ss o c iatio n o f M e n tal R e tar d a tio n . A re y o u fa m ili a r w ith th is book? A
. Y es. Q
. O kay. I s i ta book thatyou r el y on? A
. Y es. Q
. O kay. I w antt o s how you a page , ei ght , i t ’ s cal l ed A s s um pt i on 1 and ju st a c o u p le o f se n ten c e s. A n d I w a n t to a sk y o u a b o u t it. L im itatio n s in p re se n t fu n c tio n in g m u st b e c o n sid e re d w ith in th e c o n tex t o f c o m m u n ity envi r onm ent s typi cal of the i nd i vi dual ’ s age, peer s and cul tur e. T hi s m eans the s tand ard s a g ains t w h ich the ind ividu al’s fun cti o n ing m u st be m ea su red are typi cal l y comm uni ty- bas ed envi r onm ent s , notenvi r onm ent s thatar e i s ol at ed ors egr egat ed by abi l i ty. D oes n’ tthats ugges tthati ti s unnece s s ary t o nor m a t es tf ors om eone i n an envi r onm entthati s i s ol at ed ors egr egat ed l i ke a pr i s on? A
. W e ll, y o u w o u ld n o rm it
. W h e n y o u s a y it’ s u n n e c e s s a ry to n o rm it, I am n ot s ur e w hatyou m ean by notneede d. W e, w e, w e ce r t ai nl y r el y on nor m s . T hati s the w ay w e i nt erpr etm eas ur es . Itw oul d notbe appr opr i at e f or us t o us e any t es tthathad notbeen a dequat el y nor m ed. Q
. R ig h t. A
. So I ’ m nots ur e exa ct l y w her e you ar e goi ng w i th thatques t i on. Q
. I n yourr eport , att he bot t om of Page 31, t he very l as tpar agr aph, you, you, you s ay thatther e i s s t andar di zed a s s es s m enti nter es t s – as s es s m ent i ns trum ent s f

orm easur i ng ad apt i ve f unct i oni ng. A nd then you go on t o s ay s uch i ns trum ent s have notbeen s t andar di zed f orus e w i th of

f ender s w ho have been i ncar cer at ed f

ora numberof

year s , par t i cul ar l y thos e on dea th r ow . T hen y o u g o o n to say th at ad m inistrati o n of a st an d ard ized instrum en t t o m ea su re adap t i ve skil l s w i th a d eat h row i nm at e w ou l d y i el d inval i d resul t s. B u t give n w h at th e – w h at th e A A M R say s ab o u t th e n ee d to m ea su re s om eone i n t erm s of

the comm uni ty at - l ar ge r atherthan s egr egat ed ori s ol at ed envi r onm ent , can’ ta t es tl i ke thi s yi el d val i d r es ul t s even though i thas not b e e n s t a n d a r d i z e d f

o ru s e wi th p e o p l e o n d e a th r o w? A
. I tw oul d cert ai nl y be pos s i bl e i f you had ade quat e meas ur es her e and adeq uate pop ulat i on forus t o look at. I ti s very di ff i cult , I think, t o take a t est lik e th is a n d to g o in to d e a th ro w a n d a sk so m e o n e th e re q u e stio n s a b o u t a def endant ’ s behavi or . A nd they, they don’ th ave acce s s . T hey have l i m i t ed access on d eat h row t o these ki nd s of act i vit i es and b ehav i ors.

### 66 A r e w e as s es s i ng at20? A r e w e as s es s i ng thei rdef i ci t s pr i ort o the age of 18? I thi nk thati s the i s s ue here. W hatdo they l ook l i ke pr i ort o 18? T hat ’ s , that ’ s the cr i t er i a. T hey have t o m eetthi s def i ci t– thes e def

i ci tar eas p rio r to th e a g e o f 1 8 . N o w , it still re m a in s d iffic u lt. I th in k it i s q u e stio n a b le as t o w hetheror notw e can do thatand how adequa t el y and corr ect l y w e ca n d o th a t.

. . . Q
. B u t th e fa c t th a t – I m e a n th e fa c t th a t itw a s n o t n o rm e d o n th e p e o p le on death r ow i s notby i t s el f i m por t antgi ven the f

actthati thas been norm ed w i th the gener al popul at i on, w hi ch i s w hatthe A A M R s ays i s i m por t ant ; i s that c o rre c t? A
. I thi nk you ar e corr ecti n thata t estcan be appr opr i at e. Fori ns t ance , the IQ t estthat w e al l use, i tw asn’tnorm ed on deat h row i nm at es and w e use thatr out i nel y. I t ’ s though ho w ad equat e thatm eas ur e i s i n col l ect i ng or obt ai ni ng i nf

or m at i on t hatyou ar e l ooki ng for
. A n IQ t es tt hatw e us e f orthe inm ates o n d ea th ro w is the sa m e IQ test I us e in d isab il ity ev alua ti o n s ev ery day
. T here i s no ta speci fi c setof no rm s fortho se I Q , I Q r esul t s that I getj ust fordeath r ow i nm at es. Q
. O kay. A
. O k a y . I u n d e rsta n d th a t, an d I a g re e w ith y o u . T h e p ro b lem th o u g h is g e ttin g re lia b le d a ta . . . . T her e ar e a numberof

t es t s thatw e w oul d us e thathave be en norm ed e lse w h e re th a t ar e n ’t n o rm e d fo r d e a th ro w in m a tes , a n u m b e r o f th e m . It i s j us tt aki ng thatdat a thatw e obt ai ned f orthi s i ns trum entand t hen i nt erpr et i ng i t . I thi nk thatr emai ns a bi g pr obl em i n thi s ar ea. ¶1 0 4
. L o tt ac k n o w ledg ed that D o ss’ h ist o ry is sign if ican t for sev era l ri sk fac tors that are
corr el at ed w i th the deve l opm entof m ent al r et ar dat i on, i ncl udi ng c hi l dhood abus e; abus e of the mot herdur i ng pr egnanc y; s oci al a nd c ul tur al depr i vat i on dur i ng i nf ancy, chi l dhood, and i nto adolescence; the ingest i on of l ead p ai nt; neg l ect ; po ssi ble m al nu tri t i on ; head i njur i es; and l i m i t at i ons i n f

unct i onal aca demi cs . H ow ever , L ot tdi s m i s s ed thes e f act or s a s notr el at ed t o D os s ’ m ent al r et ar dat i on. Q
. N o w , yo u said th at on th e su rface M r. D o ss’s hist o ry m igh t see m to s ugges the has dem ons tr at ed l i m i t at i ons i n some ar eas of adapt i ve s ki l l s i n the comm uni ty, i
. e. , f

unct i onal aca demi cs , w or k, s el f di r ect i on, heal th and s af ety. N ow , i f thes e thi ngs w er e notr el at ed t o m ent al r et ar dat i on, w hatw er e t hey caus ed by?

### 67

A
. B y g row ing u p in an en v ir o n m en t w h ere o n e isn ’tsu p erv ised , o n e isn ’t m oni t or ed, one i s n’ tnur tur ed, a l otof negl ectand pos s i bl e abus e. ¶ 1 0 5 . L o tt a c k n o w led g e d th a t lim itatio n s in th e se a d a p tiv e sk ill s, e v e n in a p e rso n w h o is notm ent al l y r et ar ded, s ubs t ant i al l y i m pacta per s on and can af f ectj udgm ent . L ot tt es t i f i ed thatm os tof

the bas i s f

orf i ndi ng thatD os s w as notr et ar ded ca m e f r om unver i f

i ed or unexpl ai ned i nf

orm at i on p rovi ded by D os s . L ot ts ai d thats om e of the i nf or m at i on w as

“ c o rro b o ra te d in p a rt b y fa m ily a b o u t h is a b ili ty to m a in tain in d e p e n d e n t o r c lo se to i nd epen den tl i ving, dev el op m ental l y speak i ng , earl y o n. ” L ottspeci fi cal l y m enti on ed D oss hel pi ng hi s m otherw hen he w as ei ghtorni ne yea r s ol d. S adi e al s o t es t i f i ed thatD os s and hi s br otherhad hel ped her
. H ow ever , the r ecor d does notes t abl i s h thatD os s di d anythi ng
su b sta n tial to h e lp h is m o th e r o r a n y th in g th a t w o u ld e sta b lish th a t h e h a d n o d e fic ien c ies in adapt i ve s ki l l s bef

or e age ei ght een. ¶ 1 0 6
. M a c V a u g h ’s tes tim o n y w a s sim ilar to L o tt’s. M a c V a u g h d ism iss e d D o ss ’ d e fic its in the ad apti ve areas of f

un ct i on al academ i cs and w ork becau se “w e had eno ug h d at a t o sug gest thathi s a ppar entde f

i ci t s i n thos e ar eas w er e due t o hi s pe r s onal i ty a t tr i but es, his var i ous be ha vi or a l p r ob l e ms, s ub s t a nc e a bu s e a nd o the rf a c t or s tha tt og e the rwe woul d c ons i der
m al adapt i ve beha vi or , notadapt i ve d efi ci tthe w ay a ment al r et ar dat i on di agnos i s r equi r es

. . . . ” M ac V au g h also d iscu ssed D o ss’ ap p are n t abili ty to w o rk a s a d rug d ea ler. H o w ev er, t es t i m ony attr i al es t abl i s hed thatD os s w as m er el y fol l ow i ng i ns truct i ons of other s and w as of t en as s i s t ed by hi s br other
. M acV augh al s o o f f er ed the f

ol l ow i ng t es t i m ony on t he conf us i on r egar di ng t he r el at i ons hi p of adapt i ve def

i ci t s t o the s i gni f

i canti nt el l ectual im p a irm e n t:

### 68 Sur e . W e a s c l i ni c i a ns , thi nk , o ra tl e a s to n ou rs e r vi ce, m aybe I s houl dn’ ts peak f

orm y co l l eagues and s houl d l i m i tthi s t o m y ow n opi ni on aboutt hi s , re al l y i nt erpr ett he def i ni t i on of m ent al re t ar dat i on thatcons i s t s of the tw o pr ongs of

i nt el l ectua l i mpai rmenta nda dapt i ve f un c t i oni ng i m pai r m ent a s b e in g m o re th a n ju st c o e x istin g . I m e a n th e re h a s to b e so m e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th o se d o m a in s o f im p a irm e n t. A nd r eal l y the, t he vi ew thatw e have t aken i n thi s i n or dert o help us under s t and thi s bett erbeca us e i ti s so di f f i cul tt o ass es s , part i cul ar l y s om eone w ho has a hi s t ory l i ke M r . D os s , w ho on the s ur f ace m ay l ook l i ke they have s om e of thes e adapt i ve def

i ci t s butw i th f

ur thera nal ys i s ther e ar e r eas ons w hy thatm i ghtbett erexpl ai n w hy they l ook thatw ay hi s t or i cal l y. T h e issu e is w h ethe r or n o t th ese d eficit s in a d ap ti v e fu n cti o n ing are due t o the s i gni f

i cant l y s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng. T hi s i s an i s s ue thati s ve r y c ontr over s i al
. I tha s notbe en expl i ci t l y c l eari n any of the maj or d o c u m e n ts th a t w e re ly o n in d o in g o u r e v a lu a tio n s . . . . T her e i s no nat i onal conse ns us aboutw hatthe i nt erpr et at i on i s about that, w h at th e a p p roa ch is to the asse ssm en t on that p o int an d that ev alua tors d o lots of d if

feren t th in g s. It is v ery v ariab le i n term s o f ho w y o u are appr oachi ng t he i s s ue. A r e the def i ci t s s uppos ed t o be due t o the i nt el l ectual d e fic its, o r d o th e y ju st s o m e h o w c o e x ist? My o w n v i e w o n th a ti s t h e r e a s o n w h y i ti s n o tc l e a ri n th e A A MR def i ni t i on orD SM def

i ni t i on i s beca us e w hen thes e def i ni t i ons w er e w r i t t en, i tw as i m pos s i bl e t o ant i ci pat e thatt hese d efi ni t i ons w oul d be underthe m i cr os cope i n a dea th p enal ty cas e one da y beca us e thes e w er e w r i t t en pr eAtkins s o ther e w as no r eas on t o m ake thatexpl i ci t l y cl eart hatthe i nt el l ectual d e fic its a re m o re th a n re late d to th e a d a p tiv e d e fic its, th a t th e a d a p tiv e d e fic its shou l d b e du e t o the i ntel l ectual def i ci t s. Forexampl e, i f

s om ebody i s l eavi ng the s t ove on i s i tbeca us e they have s uch a s ever e mem ory i m pai r m entbeca us e they f or gott o turn i tof

f ? N ow , that i s an exa m pl e of

s el f
- car e adapt i ve def

i ci ttha ti s due t o a s i gni f i cant i nt el l ectual def

i ci t . W her eas i f

s om ebody has a n i nt el l ectual de f i ci tbut , you know , does n’ ts how s om e r el at ed adapt i ve def i ci t s r el at ed t o the i nt el l ectual i m pa i r ment s the n I qu e s t i on w he the rtha ti s a c tua l l y a da pt i ve f un c t i oni ng defi ci t s. ¶107. T he t es t i m ony of both Lot ta nd M acV augh w as s i m i l art o the W hi t f i el d r eport , w hi ch
sa id , in p a rt: O n t he s ur f

a c e , M r . D os s ’ hi s t ory mi gh ts e e m t o s ug ge s ttha the ha s d e m o n stra ted lim itatio n s in so m e a re a s o f a d a p tiv e sk ill s in th e c o m m u n ity (i
. e., fun cti o n al ac ad em ics, w o rk, self- d ir ec ti o n , he alth , an d safe ty). H o w ev er, it i s o u r o p in io n th a t th e se ap p a re n t diffic u lti e s m a y b e b e tter e x p lain e d b y h is

### Records indic ate Dos s pa ss ed Pre- Algebra wit h Support , whi ch a

pparently c onsi sted 22 

### of two separat e cl as se s, including one with indivi dual iz ed as si st anc e by a s pec ia l e ducati on te ac her . Dos s f

ai le d Introduction to High Sc hool Engl is h, Ge neralSci enc e, Art , and Physi ca l Educ ation. 69 hi s t ory of

ne gl ect , a bus e and m al adapt i ve behavi or s , s i nce they di d notappea r t o st em fr om severe i ntel l ectual def i ci t s. ¶108. T he W hi t f

i el d r eportal s o s ai d: Iti s noted that M r. D oss [si c] hi st ory i s si gn i fi cant f or several ri sk f ac t or s tha ta r e c orr e l a t e d w i th the d e ve l op mento f men t a l r e t a r da t i on . For exampl e, dur i ng he rpr egnanc y w i th M r . D os s , M s . D os s r eport edly abu s ed al cohol r egul ar l y, w as pr es cri bed val i um ( ant i
- anxi ety m edi cat i on) , w as “ki cked” i n the s t om ach .
. . l eadi ng t o bl ood l os s and hos pi t al att ent i on, and report edly con tract ed a v enereal dis ease du ri ng pregna ncy . M r. D oss al so r eport edl y t es t ed pos i t i ve f orl ead poi s oni ng due t o e xpos ur e t o chi ppi ng pai nt a s a c hi l d. M or e ov e r , M r . Dos s r e po r t e d ( a nd med i c a l r e c or ds c onf i r m ) t hat he als o h as had m ult i ple head inj uri es over the y ears . ¶109. T he r eport then di s count s thes e r i s k f act or s f or m ent al r et ar dat i on bas ed on the pr i or p sy ch o log ical ev alua ti o n s at th e ag e o f fi ft ee n a n d o n a n inth-g rad e c lass ran k ing
. H o w ev er, the r eportpre vi ous l y acknow l edged thatD os s had s cor ed i n the bor der l i ne ment al l y r et ar ded
r ange a s an adol es cent . Fur ther , as s t at ed pr evi ous l y her ei n, D os s w as nevereval uat ed as an
a d o les c e n t fo r th e p u rp o se o f d e te rm in in g w h e th e r h e w a s m e n tally re tar d e d p u rsu a n t to Atkins . M oreove r, w hil e D oss w as r ank ed 6 81 ou tof 8 5 0 stud ents , the repo rtal so acknow l edges thatD os s pas s ed onl y one outof f i ve s ubj ect s t hatyear , w hi l e f ai l i ng the other s. 22 ¶ 1 1 0
. T h e W h itfield re p o rt fu rth e r sa id th a t d e sp ite D o ss ’ IQ , h is “ a p p a re n t d iffic u lti e s [in adap t i ve s ki l l s ] m ay be be t t erexpl ai ned by hi s hi s t ory of negl ect , abus e, and mal adapt i ve behavi or s , s i nce they d id n o t a p p ea r to stem fro m sev er e in tell ec tu a l de fi cits .” (E m p h a sis

### Th e Wh itfield rep ort f urth erstates th e “op inio n is limitedbya lack o f availab le 23 

### record s related to Mr. Doss’ scho ol histo ry andother prio r intellectual assessments, as w ell as obst ac le s e ncount er ed whe n atte mpting to as se ss adaptivefunctioning in indivi dual s who hav e beenondeathrowfor anexten dedperio d o f time.” 70 ad de d. ) The r e po r ta l s o s a i d tha t“ the r e wer e n o da t a tha ts ug ge s t e d M r . Dos s ha s ever demonstr at ed s i gni f

i cant def i ci t s i n adap t i ve f

unct i oni ng du e t o t he ef f ect s of s ubaverage i nt e l l e c t ualf

unc t i oni ng . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) H ow ever , ther e i s no r equi r ementi n the

23 d e fin iti o n s s e t o u t p re v io u sly h e re in th a t th e d e fic its in a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g m u st b e “ d u e to the ef f ect s of s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng, ” much l es s thatthe adapt i ve def i ci t s “s t em fr o m s e v e re in te lle c tu a l d e fi c its .” ¶111. T he A A M R def i ni t i on f orm ent al ret ardat i on , as set o ut previ ou s l y her ei n, s t at es “s i gni f i cant l y s ubaver age i ntel l ectual f unct i oni ng, exi s t i ng concurr ent l y w i th r el at ed lim ita tio n s in tw o o r m o re ” a d a p tiv e -s k ill a re a s . Atkins , 536 U
. S. at308. T he A m er i can P sy c h iatric A ss o c iatio n ’s d e fin iti o n , als o s e t o u t p re v io u sly h e re in , sta tes “ sig n ifica n tly
s ubaver age ge ner al i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng . . . thati s accompani ed by si gni f i cantl i m i t at i ons in ad a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g in a t l e a st tw o ” o f th e sk ill ar e a s . Id
. A l s o, as not ed pr evi ous l y,
a c c o rd in g to th e D ia g n o stic a n d S tatistic a l M a n u a l o f M e n tal D iso rd e rs, " it i s p o ss ib le to d iag n o se M e n tal R e tar d a tio n in in d iv id u a ls w ith IQ ' s b e tw e e n 7 0 a n d 7 5 w h o e x h ib it
s i gni f i c a ntd e f i c i t s i n a da pt i ve b e ha vi or . Conve r s e l y, M e nt a l Ret a r da t i on woul d no tbe di agnos ed i n an i ndi vi dual w i th an I Q l ow erthan 70 i f ther e ar e no s i gni f

i cantdef i ci t s or im p a ir m e n ts in a d a p tiv e fu n c tio n in g .” ¶112. I n Ri v e r a v. Q uarter m an , 505 F. 3d 349 ( 5th C i r . 2007) , the Fi f th C i r cui t C our tof A ppeal s uphel d t he f

eder al di s tr i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng r egar di ng r el at ed l i m i t at i ons i n adapt i ve

### 71

f unct i oni ng des pi t e the S t at e’ s ar gum entthatR i ver a’ s adapt i ve def i ci t s m ay have been attr i but abl e t o hi s abus e of i nhal ant s and nott o hi s m ent al r et ar dat i on. I n not i ng thatt he di s tr i ctcourthad ac know l edged thatR i ver a’ s adapt i ve def i ci t s w ere j us tas l i kel y t o have b e e n c a u se d b y h is lo n g -te rm d ru g a b u se a s h is d im in ish e d in te lle c tu a l ca p a c ity , the F ifth C i r cui tC our ts ai d:

W e r e a d t h i s q u o t e c h a r i t a b l y , i n s u p p o r to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o wn rul i ng . T he d i stri ctcou rtw as l i kely di st i ng uis hing on l y b et w een eti ologi es, r emar ki ng tha ts ome o f t he de f i c i t s w e r e c a us e d b y men t a l r e t a r da t i on f r om i nh al ants , and som e w ere caused by m ental ret ardat i on fr om otherfact ors. R et ardat i on has, as t he exp ert s i n this case al l agreed, a nu m ber of et i ologi es. R i vera , 5 0 5 F . 3 d a t36 3
. Th e Co u r tth e n q u o t e d th e a p p l i c a b l e l a n g u a g e f r o m Atkins , as f ol l ow s : “M ent al R et ar dat i on has m any di f f er entet i ol ogi es and may be seen as a f i nal
comm on pathw ay of

var i ous pat hol ogi cal proc es s es t hataf f ectthe f unct i oni ng of

the ce nt r al
nervous s ys t em. ” Atkins , 536 U
. S. at308 n. 3. ¶113. C l ear l y, m ent al r et ar dat i on i s : 1) s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng; 2) acc om pani ed by r el at ed ors i gni f

i cantl i m i t at i ons i n tw o adapt i ve- s ki l l ar eas ; and 3) m ani f es t ed bef or e age ei ght een. D os s ha s s i gni f i cant l y 1) s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng; 2) acc om pani ed by
r el at ed ors i gni f

i cantl i m i t at i ons i n tw o a dapt i ve- s ki l l a r eas ; a nd 3) i tmani f es t ed pr i ort o age ei ght een. T her ef

or e, the i nes capa bl e concl us i on i s thatD os s i s ment al l y r et ar ded. U ndert he appl i cabl e l aw an d base d on t he f act s of thi s cas e, i tw oul d be i l l ogi cal t o r eac h any other concl us i on. ¶114. M or eover , the St at e’ s expert s t es t i f i ed thatD os s w as e val uat ed underthe ni nth edi t i on of the A A M R pur s uantt o A t kins, an d that they w ere u n d er th e m ist ak en b eli ef tha t th ey w ere
r equi r ed t o us e thi s ol derdef i ni t i on of adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng ra thert han thatcont ai ned i n t he

### 72

t enth edi t i on f

r om 2002, w hi ch t hey use d i n t hei rre s pect i ve cl i ni cal pr act i ces . M acV augh fu rth e r a d m itt e d th a t u sin g th e m o re c u rre n t ten th e d iti o n to e v a lu a te D o ss “c o u ld p o ss ib ly change t he di a gn os i s be c a us e the a s s e s s mentof a da pt i ve s ki l l de f

i c i t s w ou l d, w ou l d l ook di f f er entbeca us e the def

i ni t i on forthem i s di f

f er entconce ptual l y. ” Ther ef or e, even though the maj or i ty f

i nds thatther e w as i ns uf f i ci entevi dence to s uppor ta f i ndi ng of

m ent al
r et ar dat i on, thi s m att ers t i l l s ho ul d be r emanded f oran addi t i onal evi dent i ary hear i ng t o al l ow the St at e’ s expert s the oppor tuni ty t o re - eval uat e D os s purs uantt o t he curr entdef i ni t i on of adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng. ¶ 1 1 5 . B e c a u se I w o u ld fin d th a t th e re is su ffic ien t e v id e n c e to e sta b lish th a t D o ss is m e n tally
re ta rd e d o r, i n th e a lte rn a tiv e , th a t h e s h o u ld b e re -e v a lu a te d p u rs u a n t to th e te n th e d itio n , I
re s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. KI TC HENS , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.