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 4 - DR- 0 1 2 9 0 - S CT KEVI N SCO TT

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 23/ 1998 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H L
. T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AM E S W. CR AI G J EA N E A
. TH O M A S ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL B Y : M A R V IN L . W H IT E , J R
. LAU REN CE Y
. M ELLEN 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 DI S P OS I T I ON: P E T I T I ON F OR P OS T
- CO NVI CT I ON RE L I E F I S GR ANT E D I N P AR T AND D E N I E D I N PA R T - 10/ 05/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:
PROCEDU RAL H I S TORY AND S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶1. K evi n Scot t ( Scot t ) and L er oy L ynch confr ont ed s eventy - four

- y ear - ol d R i char d L ee i n t he ca rpor tof hi s hom e. W hen L ee’ s w i fe, L ur l i ne, hear d voi ces , s he opene d t he doorof th e ir h o m e a n d sh o ts w e re f ire d a t h e r. S h e w a s a b le to sla m th e d o o r a n d in iti a te a c a ll t o

### 2

th e p o lice . L e e w a s s h o t, an d S c o tt fle d th e s c e n e in L e e ’s c a r. L e e late r d ied f ro m h is

w o u n d s. W h e n h e w a s c a u g h t, S c o tt co n f e ss e d to th e sh o o tin g , b u t h e late r re c a n ted . S c o tt
c la im e d th a t L yn c h w a s th e s h o o te r, a n d h e h a d f le d in th e c a r o n ly af

te r L yn c h s h o t L e e . ¶2. Scot tw as char ged w it h the ca p it al m ur derof Lee, w i t h t he under l y i ng fel ony of

r obbery . Scot t w as al s o char ged w i t h aggr avat ed as s aul t of Lurl i ne. Scot tw as convi ct ed of bot h char ges and, aft era s epar at e s ent enci ng hear i ng, w as s ent ence d t o death fort he ca pi t al

m ur derand t en y ear s on t he aggr avat ed ass aul t char ge. T hi s C our taff i r m ed the convi ct i on
a n d s e n te n c e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. S c o tt v. S ta te , 878 So. 2d 933 ( M i s s . 2004)
. Scot tnow fi l es t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o rp o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f i n w h i c h h e r a i s e s t w e l v e c l a i m s f o rr e l i e f
. We gr antt hi s appl i cat i on for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n par t and deny i t i n par t
. T he s ol e i s s ue of

w hetherScot ti s m ent al l yr et ar dat i on i s r emanded t o t he t r i al cour t for an evi dent i aryhear i ng. A l l ot heri s s ues r ai s ed byScot ton pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef a r e deni ed. E ac h issue r ai s ed by Scot ti s addr es s ed. A N A L Y S IS I . M ent al ret ardat i on ¶3. Scot t ar gues t hat he i s m ent al l y r et ar ded, and t her efor e, he s houl d not be ex ec u te d 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) and Ch a se v . S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1013 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 4)
. Scot tas s er t s t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a ment al

r et ar dat i on ev al uat i on byt he tr i al cour t
. Scot t ’ s appl i cat i on i s l engthyon t he ment al retarda ti o n issue , cit ing p rob lem s at an d fro m b irth, a fa m il yh ist o ryo f m en tal il lnes s, y ea rs

### 3

s penti n s peci al educa t i on, and numer ous as s es s m ent and func t i oni ng t es t s . Scot ti ncl udes t w o aff i davi t s byexpert s , D r . L
. M ul r y T et l ow and D r . M ar c Zi m m er m an, i n hi s appl i cat i on
on pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w hi ch s t at e t hat t her e i s a r eas onabl e bas i s t o bel i eve t hat u pon f u rth e r te stin g S c o tt w o u ld b e f o u n d to b e m e n tallyre tar d e d . S c o tt also in c lu d e s a f f id a v its fr om t eac her s , fami l y , and fr i end s o n t he s ubj ectof Scot t ’ s defi ci enci es i n adapt i ve fu n cti o n ing
. In D ec em b er, 20 0 5 , S co ttw as g ran ted lea v e f o r an ev alua tio n b yD r. Z i m m er m an. A ft era batt er yof t es t s , D r . Z i m m er m an opi ned thatScot ti s m ent al l yr et ar ded

as t hat t er m i s defi 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 ( A A M R ) and the D iagn o sti c a n d S tat ist ical M an u al, fo u rt h ed it ion (D S M -IV -T R ). ¶4
. O n d ir ec t ap p ea l, this C o u rt fo u n d that there w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce in the rec o rd t o r emand fora hea r i ng on t he i s s ue o f m en tal retar dat i on, ora Ch ase h e a ri n g . Chase v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d at1028- 29. I n S c o tt , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d a t 9 4 8 , t h i s Co u r te x p l a i n e d h o w Ch ase
a p p lied in th is c a se :

I n r es pons e t o Atkins , w e r ece nt l yhanded dow n Ch a se v . S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1013, ( M i s s . 2004) , i n w hi ch w e s etfor t h t he cr i t er i a and pr ocedur e t o be us ed both i n appl y i ng for , and conduc t i ng, a hea r i ng fora det er m i nat i on of me n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n . Fo r c r i mi n a l d e f e n d a n t s who f

i l e a p p l i c a t i o ns for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef s ubs equentt o Ch ase , a defenda ntm us tpr ovi de " an aff i davi tfr om atl eas tone expe rt
. . . w ho opi nes , t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of cert ai nty , t hat: (1) t he d efen dan thas a com bined Int el l i gen ce Q uo t i ent ( "I Q ") o f 7 5 o r be lo w , a n d ; (2 ) i n th e o p in io n o f th e e x p e rt, th e re is a re a so n a b le b a sis to b e liev e th a t, up o n f

u rth e r te stin g , the d e f

e n d a n t w ill b e f

o u n d to b e m e n tally r et ar ded, as defi ned [i n t he Ch ase op i nion]. " Id
. S c o tt, 878 So. 2d at948. I n Ch ase , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 2 9 , this C o u rt h e ld :

### 4

W i t h t he s ol e exc ept i on di s cus s ed bel ow , no defe ndantm aybe gr ant ed a h e a rin g o n th e iss u e o f

E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p ro tec tio n f ro m e x e c u tio n , d u e to al l eged ment al r et ar dat i on unl es s , pr i ort o t he expi r at i on of t he dea dl i ne s etby t he t r i al cour tforfi l i ng m ot i ons , t he defen d an t sha l l have f i l ed w i t h t he tr i al cour ta mot i on, s eeki ng s uch hea r i ng. T he defenda ntm us tat t ach t o t he mot i on an af fi dav i tfrom atl east on e exp ert , qu al i fi ed as d escr i bed abo ve, w ho op i nes, t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of cert ai nt y , t hat : ( 1) th e d ef en danthas a combi ned I nt el l i gence Q uot i ent( "IQ ") o f 75 orbel ow , and; ( 2) i n t he opi ni on of t he expert , t her e i s a r eas onabl e bas i s t o bel i eve that , u pon fur t hert es t i ng, t he defe ndantw i l l be found t o be ment al l yr et ar ded, as defi ned her ei n. Ch ase , 873 So. 2d at 1029. H ow ever , appl y i ng Ch ase in S co tt ’s direc t app ea l, this C o u rt sta ted th e f

o llo w in g : T hus , on t he re cor d befor e us, Scot t has not es t abl i s hed t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o an [sic] Ch ase h e a rin g . H o w e v e r, sh o u ld S c o tt p ro v id e th e a p p ro p ria te a f f id a v it w hi ch compl i es w i t h t he r equi r ement s s etfor t h i n Ch ase a s a n a ttac h m e n t to an ap p li ca ti o n fo r po st co n v ict ion reli ef , p u rsua n t to th e M issi ssipp i U n ifo rm Post
- C onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef A ct , M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 99- 39- 1 et s eq. , he coul d be ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng as pr ovi ded i n Ch ase . S c o tt, 878 So. 2d at948. ¶5. T he St at e count er s t hat w hi l e Scot t has now pr es ent ed s uch aff i davi t s , i t di s put es t he fi nd i ng s and m et ho ds of D r. Z i m m erm an and point s ou t t he D r. Z i m m erm an f a iled to admi ni s t ert he M i nnes ot a M ul t i phas i c Per s onal i t yI nvent or yI I ( M M PI
- I I )
. Scot tar gues t hat t he M M P I- II i s not an app ropri at e t estfor i nd ivi du al s w i t h m ental ret ardat i on . S cottal so not es i n hi s r ebut t al t hatD r . Z i m m er m an has expl ai ned w hy the M M PI
- I I t es tw oul d be of “q u esti o n ab le va lue” b ec au se S co ttis un ab le t o rea d b ey o n d a third-g rad e leve l. H o w ev er, t hi s C our thas notdi s r egar ded t he M M PI
- I I t es t
. T he M M PI
- I I t es ti s r equi r ed pr i ort o an

### Sc ott a l l e ge s that Mi t c he l l part i c ipat e d i n the c a s e fr om i ndi c tm e nt i n 1996, thr ough 1 

### the e nd of tr i a li n Oc t obe r 1998. He r

part i c ipat i on i nc lude d, but wa s n ot l i m i t e d t o, re spon ding to defense m otions, s ub m itti ng disc ov er y disc losure s, condu cting d ir ec t ex am in atio no f

w itn esses at trial an dd eliv erin g clo sin g arg um ent. 5 adj udi cat i on on a cl ai m of m ent al r et ar dat i on pur s uantt o Atkins and Ch ase . See Jor dan , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 0 ; Ch ase , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 2 9
. ¶ 6
. W e fi nd t hat Scot t ’ s pos t - c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n wi t h i t s a c c o mpa n y i n g a p p l i c a t i on pr ovi ded t he aff

i davi t s t hi s C our tdeemed nece s s aryt o w arr anta Ch ase hear i ng on t he i s s ue of m ent al r et ar dat i on. Scot thas pr ovi ded the nec es s aryi nfor m at i on s peci fi ed i n Ch ase for

a re m a n d b y th is C o u rt to th e trial c o u rt f o r m e n tal re tar d a tio n h e a rin g . H o w e v e r, p rio r to an adj udi cat i on on t he ment al r et ar dat i on i s s ue, Scot t m us t obt ai n a M M PI
- I I t es t
. T her efor e, t hi s i s s ue s houl d be r emanded t o t he B ol i varC ount yC i r cui tC our tfora ment al r et ar dat i on hear i ng. II. P rosecu ti on ’s con fl i ct of i n teres t ¶ 7
. B re n d a F
. M it c h e ll , a n a ss ista n t d istric t atto rn e yin B o liv a r C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, par t i ci pat ed i n Scot t ’s p ros ecut i on. T w o and a ha l f y ear s pr i ort o Scot t ’ s capi t al m ur der 1 trial, M itch e ll w o rk e d a s a n a tto rn e ya t N o rth M iss iss ip p i R u ra l L e g a l S e rv ice s. W h ile empl oy ed w i t h L egal s er vi ces , M i t chel l r epr es ented Scot tata hea r i ng befor e an admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge a tt he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on. A tt he t i m e of the s oci al

se c u rityh e a rin g , S c o tt w a s 1 5 -y e a rs o ld . H e w a s d e c lar e d m e n tally r e ta rd e d a n d m e n tally di s abl ed and a w ar ded s uppl ement al s ecur i t yi ncome.

### 6

¶8. Scot tas s er t s M i t chel l ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n hi s pr os ecut i on w as an i m per m i s s i bl e confl i ct of i nt er es t w her e t he cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on w as s ubs t ant i al l yr el at ed t o t he pr i orci vi l s ui tand

w her e M i t chel l us ed conf i dent i al i nfor m at i on gai ned thr ough herpr i orr epr es ent at i on of S c o tt. G ra

y v . S ta te , 469 So. 2d 1252, 1254 ( M i s s . 1985) ; S h a rp lin v . S ta te , 330 So. 2d 591, 5 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 7 6 ). ¶9. Sco tta s s e rt s t he s oci al s ecur i t ypr ocee di ngs conce r ned hi s m ent al capa ci t y , w hi ch w as
a c e n tra l issu e a t h is m u r d e r tria l. S c o tt cla im s th a t as h is a tto rn e yin th e so c ial s e c u rity proceed i ng s, M i t chell had access t o hi s con fi den t i al fi l es, recor ds, m ental health ev al uati on s,
a n d m e d ica l re p o rts, a s w e ll as , ac c e ss to h is m o th e r, au n t, an d o th e r f a m ilym e m b e rs. S c o tt
as s er t s M i t chel l had an ongoi ng obl i gat i on t o m ai nt ai n t he confi dent i al i t yof at t or ney - cl i ent pr i vi l e g e . Sc o t ta l s o p o i n t s o u tt h a t , a s h i s a d v o c a t e , M i t c h e l l a r g u e d Sc o t ts u f f e r e d f r om
m ent al r et ar dat i on. ¶10. Scot t as s er t s t hat t he St at e cannot s how t hat M i t chel l had abs ol ut el y no par t i ci pat i on in th e c a se , d iv u lg e d n o c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a tio n , an d n o tifie d th e d e f e n se p ro m p tlyo f

th is

c o n f lict. ¶ 1 1
. S c o tt a rg u e s th is c la im is p ro p e rly ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e in th e p e tit io n f o r p o stc o n v ictio n re lief

w h e re th e c o n f

lict w a s f irst d isc o v e re d b y p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u n se l in A p ril, 2 0 0 5 . S c o tt a ss e rts th e c o n f lict e n tit les h im to re lief w h e re th is C o u rt h a s o rd e re d n e w trials in c a s e s in v o lv in g le s s e r s e n te n c e s f o r s u c h c o n f

lic ts
. See Gray , 4 6 9 S o. 2d at1255; S h a rp lin , 3 3 0 S o .2 d a t 5 9 6 ; A ldr i dge , 5 8 3 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). S e e als o W il kins v.

### S co tt p o i n t s o ut inh is reb uttal th at w h ile th e 1 9 9 2 R eg io nO n e M en tal H ealth 2 

### C en ter rep o rt w a s ap art o f th e ev id en ce at trial, M itch ell’s rep resen tatio no f S co tt (d o cum en ts relatedto th e S S Ap ro ceed in g s) w ere n o t p art o f th e reco rdat trial. 7 B ow ers ox , 9 3 3 F . S u p p . 1 4 9 6 (W .D . M o . 1 9 9 6 ), af f ’ d, 1 4 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 6 ( 8 C i r . 1 9 9 8 )
. L a s t l y, th Scot t ar gues t hat t he pr os ecut i on’ s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e t hi s confl i ct i s a vi ol at i on of B r ady v. Mar y land , 3 7 3 U
. S
. 8 3 , 8 7 , 8 3 S
. C t. 1 1 9 4 , 1 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 2 1 5 (19 6 3 ). ¶12. T he St at e ar gues t hi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed pur s uant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 1) beca us e i tw as notr ai s ed att r i al oron di r ectappea l
. T he S tat e asse rt s, t oo, t hat fai l ur e t o m ove forM i t chel l ’ s di s qual i fi cat i on act s as w ai ver . T h e S tat e not es t her e w as test im o n yat t ri al r e g a rd in g S co tt ’s t esti n g fo r soc ial sec u ri tyd isab il ityan d arg u es S co tt ’s

a ss e rtio n th a t M itch e ll’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e S o c ial S e c u rityA d m in ist r a tio n p ro c e e d in g is

new l ydi s cover ed i s i ncr edi bl e. 2 ¶13. T he St at e ar gues t hat Scot t has fai l ed t o s how a s ubs t ant i al r el at i ons hi p betw een the tw o re p re se n tatio n s an d h a s f a iled to sh o w d isc lo su re o f c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a tio n . T h e S tate
a ls o p o in ts o u t th a t, a t th e tim e o f S c o tt’ s p ro s e c u tio n , 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) , had not been deci ded. A s s uch, nei t herM i t chel l nor t he di s t r i ctat t or neyhad anyr eas on not t o s eek t he deat h penal t ybas ed on ment al r et ar dat i on. ¶14
. M i ss. C od e A nn . S ect i on 99 -39-21(1) pr ov i des: Fai l ur e bya pr i s onert o r ai s e obj ect i ons , defe ns es , cl ai m s , ques t i ons , i s s ues or err or s ei theri n fac torl aw w hi ch w er e ca pabl e of de t er m i nat i on att r i al and/ or o n di r ectappea l , r egar dl es s of w hethers uch ar e bas ed on the l aw s and the C o n stitu tio n o f th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i o r o f th e U n ited S tate s, sh a ll co n stitu te

### 8

a w ai vert her eof a nd s hal l b e proc edur al l ybarr ed, butt he courtm ayupon a sh o w ing o f c au se a n d ac tual p rejud ice g ran t r eli ef fro m the w aive r. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hatScot tdi d n o t r ai s e thi s i s s ue on hi s di r ectappea l and i s now p r o c e d u r a l l yb a r r e d p u r s u a n tt o M i s s . Co d e An n . S e c t i o n 9 9
- 3 9
- 2 1 ( 1 )
. T h a tb e i n g s a i d , we
w i l l now exami ne the mer i t s of t he ca s e. ¶15. I n Ca rr v . S ta te , 873 So. 2d 991, 997 ( M i s s . 2004) , t hi s C our thel d: T he purpos e o f pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs i s t o br i ng for w ar d fac t s t o t he tr ia l c o u rt th a t w e re n o t k n o w n a t th e tim e o f th e ju d g m e n t. W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 669 So. 2 d 4 4 , 5 2 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 6 )
. Th e p r o c e d u r e i s l i mi t e d t o t h o s e f a c t s a nd m at t er s w hi ch coul d notors houl d not have been br ought at t r i al or on di r ect a p p e a l. Id
. ; M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 9 9 -39 -1 to -29 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 & S u p p . 2 0 0 3 ). I f new l ydi s cover ed evi dence w oul d l i kel ypr oduce a di ffe r ent r es ul torver di ct and t he pr oponents how s t hatt he evi dence w as "di s cover ed s i nce t he tr i al , t hat i tcoul d nothave be en di s cover ed bef o re the t r i al byt he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence , t hati t i s m at er i al t o t he i s s ue, and thati ti s notm er el ycumul at i ve, o r i m p e a c h in g " th e n s u c h e v id e n c e w a rr a n ts a n e w tr ia l. O rm o n d v . S ta te , 599 S o . 2 d 9 5 1 , 9 6 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶16. Fur t her , i n Carr , t hi s C our thel d: T o s ucce ed on a mot i on for a new t r i al bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , t he pet i t i onerm us tpr ove t hatnew evi den ce h as bee n di s cover ed s i nce the cl os e of t r i al and t hat i t coul d nothave be en di s cover ed thr ough due di l i gence b e f o re th e tr ia l b e g a n . Me e k s v . S ta te , 781 So. 2d 109, 112 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng S m ith v . S ta te , 4 9 2 So
. 2 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 3 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 6 ) )
. I n a d d i t i o n, t he pet i t i onerm us ts how t hatt he new l ydi s cover ed evi den c e wi l l p r o b a b l ypr oduce a d if f e re n t r e s u lt o r i n d u c e a d if f e re n t v e rd ic t, if

a n e w tr ia l is g ra n te d
. Id
. T h is re q u ire s a sh o w in g th a t th e e v id e n c e is m a ter ial a n d is n o t m e re ly cumul at i ve ori m peac hi ng. n3 Id
. 867 So. 2d at 203- 04. Si nce M i t chel l ’ s pr i or r epr es ent at i on i s not new lyd isco ver ed in f o rm a tio n , this iss u e is n o t p r o p e r f o r p o st c o n v ictio n re lief. H o w e v e r, th is C o u rt w ill

r evi s i tt hi s i s s ue under an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar gum ent w hi ch w i l l be di s cus s ed

### 9

i n I s s ue I V of t hi s opi ni on. T r i al couns el knew of M i t chel l ’ s r epr es ent at i on and chos e not to f ile a m o tio n to d isq u a lifyM itch e ll. ¶17
. S cottcl ai m s t hat hi s new cou nsel o n p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e lief learn ed o f M it ch ell ’s

r epr es ent at i on of hi m on a soci al s ecur i t y m at t er . I t i s cl ear t hat Scot t ’ s couns el att r i al w as
aw ar e of M i t chel l ’ s r epr es ent at i on at t r i al
. A n e- m ai l fr om Scot t ’ s t r i al couns el , R aym ond W o n g , to p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef co u n sel i n d icated that h is tri al l aw y er k n ew ab o u t M it ch ell ’s for m err epr es ent at i on of Scot t
. T he e- m ai l s t at ed: M s. B re n d a M itch e ll w a s w ith R u ra l L e g a l S e rv ice s a t th e tim e o f K e v in S c o tt get t i ng hi s di s abi l i t ychec k ( SSI c heck - bas i s : l earni ng di s abi l i t y ) w hi ch w as I b e lie v e 4 o r 5 y e a rs b e f o re th e m u rd e r o f R ic h a rd L e e . A t th e tim e o f tr ia l, I w as aw ar e of

t he ab ov e fact b u t d i d not f i l e any m ot i on s i nce s he w as nei t hert he l ead a t t or neynoras s i s t i ng t he St at e i n pr os ecut i on of Scot t ’ s cas e; I t hi nk t he att or ney s fort he pr os ecut i on w ere L au ren ce Y
. M el l en ( D A ) and G lenn R o ssi ( A D A ). (Em ph asi s add ed). N otw i t hst and i ng t his i nfo rm at i on and as m enti on ed abov e, S cott a lso

n e v e r f iled a m o tio n to d isq u a lifyM itch e ll. ¶18
. In addit i on , S cott c a n n o t m a k e a c laim t hat this i nfo rm at i on i s new l y dis cove r ed evi dence as i tw as know n t o Scot t
. Scot tal s o had a n expertt es t i fyand us e the t es t i ng i nfo rm at i on perform ed fo r S o c ial S e c u rityd isa b ili tyq u a lific a tio n d u ri ng the sentenci ng ph ase
o f th e trial. ¶ 1 9
. F u rt h e r, a t th e tim e o f S c o tt’ s 1 9 9 8 tr ia l, A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S
. 3 0 4 , h a d y e t to b e d ec ided , an d there fo re, the re w as n o p roh ibit ion ag ains t ex ec u ti o n o f ind ividu als that w ere
m ent al l yr et ar ded. T he pr os ecut i on had no r eas on at t he t i m e of Scot t ’ s 1998 t r i al not t o s eek

### 10

th e d e a th p e n a lty sin c e m e n tal reta rd a tio n h a d n o im p a c t o n a p ro se c u to r se e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h is C o u rt f

in d s th is iss u e to b e p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d a n d w ith o u t m e rit. III . Rope rv . Sim m ons ¶20
. S c ott argues t hat at t he t i m e t he m urder w as com m i t t ed, he w as si x da y s p a st h is ei ght eenth bi r t hday
. H ow ever , he ar g u es t hathi s l evel of m atur i t yfr om a cogni t i ve and b e h a v io ra l sta n d p o in t w a s c lo se r to th a t o f a tw e lv e -y e a r o ld
. S c o tt a rg u e s th is is demonst r at e d t h r o u g h h i s s c h o o l g r a d e s , St a n f o r d Ach i e v e me n tTe s ts c o r e s , I Q t e s t s a nd

s peci al educa t i on cl as s as s i gnm ent
. Scot tal s o poi nt s t o t he opi nion s o f D rs. T et l ow and Z i m m er m an on hi s l ow funct i oni ng and cogni t i ve l evel
. H e concl udes t hat hi s death s ent ence i s uncons t i tut i onal pur s uantt o Rope rv . Sim m ons , 543 U
. S. 551, 125 S. C t
. 1183, 161 L
. E d. 2 d 1 (20 0 5 ). ¶21. T he St at e ar gues t hat Scot t is n o t en ti t l ed t o r el i ef on t hi s i s s ue, not i ng t hat he w as ei ght een- y ear s ol d att he t i m e of the murde r . T h e S tat e also poi nt s outt hatt hi s C our thas str i ct l yappl i ed R operw ith re g a rd to a g e lim ita tio n s a n d d e a th s e n te n c e s . See Jor dan v. S ta te, 9 1 8 S o . 2 d 6 3 6 , 6 5 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Ho d g e s v . S ta te , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 7 3 0 , 7 6 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶22. I n r eal i t y , t hi s cl ai m i s an ext ens i on of Scot t ’ s ar gum entt hathe i s m ent al l yr et ar ded

as di s cus s ed i n I s s ue I. E s s ent i al l y , Scot ti s as ki ng t hi s C our tt o bl end the Atkins and R oper opi ni ons , w her e Atkins addr es s es t he l es s ercul pabi l i t yof a ment al l yr et ar ded off enderand R operad d resse s the lesser c u lpab il ityo f a juv en il e o ff en d er. ¶23. T hi s C our ti n Jor dan , hel d:

### 11

I n cons i der i ng death penal t ycas es vi a di r ectappea l and pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ocee di ngs , w e appl y t he C ons t i tut i on of t he U ni t ed St at es , t he C ons t i tut i on and l aw s of t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , and ca s e l aw as handed dow n byt he U nit ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rtand t his C ou rt
. O f cou rs e, w e al so l oo k to fede r al cour tdeci s i ons fr om t hi s St at e and f eder al and s t at e courtcas es fr om o u rs i s t e rs t a t e s f

o rp e r s u a s i v e g u i d a n c e . On t h i s n o t e , h o we v e r , we unhes i t at i ngl ya c k n o w l edge the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ' s r ece ntdeci s i on i n Rope rv . Sim m ons , 5 4 3 U. S. [ s i c ] , 5 4 3 U. S. 5 5 1 , 1 2 5 S. C t
. 1183, 16 1 L. E d. 2 d 1 ( M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) , whe r e t h e Cou r ti n a 5
- 4 d e c i s i o n d e c l a r e d t h at death penal t yi m pos i t i on upon offe nder s w ho w er e under t he age of 18 w hen th e c rim e s w e re c o m m itt e d w a s v io lativ e o f th e E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s t o our fe d era l cons t i tut i on. I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, t he sharpl ydivi ded C ou rtrel i ed in parton nati on al and i nternati on a l stud i es, covena nt s and t r eat i es . Such r el i ance gener at ed s cathi ng di s s ent s fr om J us t i ce O ' C onnorand J us t i ce Sca l i a, w i t h C hi ef J us t i ce R ehnqui s t and J us t i ce Thom as j oi n i n g J u s t i c e Sc a l i a ' s d i s s e n t
. Howev e r , i n o u rc a s e t o d a y , we n o t e t hat J or dan' s dat e of bi r t h i s D ece m ber25, 1976, and the dat e of thes e murde r s w as O c t o b e r5 , 1 9 9 5
. I n a s m u c h a s J o r d a n w a s 1 8 ye a r s o f a g e - a n d o n l y 8 1 d a ys aw ay fro m hi s 19t h bi r t hday- att he t i m e of the brut al m ur der s of Tony R ober t s and 2- y earol d C oder a B r adl ey , w e decl i ne t o r el yon i nt ernat i onal law s, c o v e n a n ts a n d tre a ties in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d e a th p e n a ltyis appr opr i at e. Jor dan , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 6 5 6
. See al s o Hodges , 912 So. 2d at760 (R operdo es notappl yt o t he i m po si t i on of a d e a th se n tence w here defen dan tw as overe ig h tee n , n o r is th e se n ten c e in

v iolati o n o f th e E igh th an d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts)
. ¶24. T he r ecor d i s cl ear t hat Scot t w as s i x day s pas t hi s ei ght eenth bi r thday at t he t i m e at th e tim e o f

th e c rim e . T h e re f

o re , h e w a s o v e r th e a g e o f e ig h tee n a lb e it b ya sm a ll m a rg in of t i m e. T hi s C our thas u p h eld d ea t h s ent ence s w hen the def endantw as overt he age of

e ig h te e n a t th e tim e o f

th e c ri m e . Jor dan , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 6 5 6 ; Hodges , 912 So. 2d at76 0. Scot tw as undoubt edl yovert he age of ei ght een att he t i m e of hi s cr i m es ; t her efor e, pur s uant t o R oper , the im p o sitio n o f S c o tt’s d e a th se n ten c e is a p p ro p ria te in th is c a se . T h is iss u e is

### 12

w ith o u t m e rit. IV . In e ffe c tiv e A ss ista n c e o f C o u n se l ¶25. Scot t w as r epr es ent ed at t r i al byW ong. O n pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, Scot ti s r epr es ent ed byJ ames W
. C r ai g and J eane A
. T hom as . Scot tar gues tha tW ong pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve
a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l o n n u m e ro u s o c c a sio n s d u rin g th e g u ilt a n d se n ten c in g p h a se s o f h is t r i al
. I n D a v is v . S ta te , 897 So. 2d 960, 964- 64 ( M i s s . 2004) , a pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef c as e, th is C o u rt se t f

o rth th e sta n d a rd o f

re v iew f o r in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. T he s t andar d fordet er m i ni ng i f a de fenda ntr ece i ved e ff ec ti ve as s i s t ance of cou ns el i s w el l es t abl i s hed. "The benc hm ar k forj udgi ng anycl ai m of i neff ect i venes s [of c ouns el ] m us tbe w hethercouns el ' s conducts o under m i ned t he pr operfunct i oni ng of t he adve r s ar i al pr oces s t hatt he t r i al cannotbe r el i ed on as h aving produ ced a j ustres ult
. " Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 6 8 6 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ). A d e f e n d a n t m u st d e m o n stra te t hathi s at t or ney ' s act i ons w er e def i ci entand thatt he def

i ci encypr ej udi ced the d e f e n s e o f th e c a s e . Id . a t 6 8 7
. "U n les s a d e f e n d a n t m a k e s b o th sh o w in g s, it c a n n o t b e s a i d t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i o n o rd e a t h s e n t e n c e r e s u l t e d f r o m a b r e a k d o wn i n t he adv ers ary process that renders t he res ult un rel i able. " S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984) , ci t i ng Str i ckland v. W as hington , 46 6 U. S. at687. T he foc us of t he i nqui r ym us tbe w hethercouns el ' s as s i stan ce w as re a s o n a b le c o n s id e ri n g a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Id
. For Scot t t o pr evai l on hi s cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve ass i s t ance , he i s r equi r ed t o demonst r at e t hat

couns el ’ s per for m ance w as defi ci entand thatt he def i ci encypr ej udi ce d the d ef ens e of the

c a s e . Str i c kl

and , 466 U
. S. at686. a) f ai l i ng t o devel op and pres ent evi de nce of m ent al r e t ar dat i on a nd ot he r m i t i ga t i ng e vi denc e dur i ng t he sentenc i n g p h ase ¶26. Scot tar gues t hatW ong fai l ed t o under t ake a n yi n v e s t i g a t i on w hat s oeverform or e than

### S

ee a lso W

ig gin s v. S m ith , 539 U .S . 510, 123 S. Ct
. 2527, 156 L. Ed. 2d 471 3 

### (200 3), where the U .S. S up re m e C ourt fo un d ineff ec ti ve as si st ance wh er e the attorney fail ed to prop erly

invest igat e and p re se n te d o nly a pre -s ente ncing report and socia l s er vice s reco rd s. 13 one y earaft eracc ept i ng t he ca s e. H e ar gues t hatW ong fai l ed t o hi r e a pr operi nves t i gat or and t h a tW o n g o n l ys p o k e t o o n e wi t n e s s , Sc o t t ’ s moth e r , r e g a r d i n g p o s s i b l e mi t i gat i on. S cottcl ai m s that W on g’s pr esent at i on of li t t l e o r n o m i t i gati ng evidence sat i sfi ed the fi rs t pr ong of Str i c kl

and
. D o ss v . S ta te , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); B u r n s v . S ta te, 813 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); D a v is v . S ta te , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). 3 ¶27. Scot t al s o ar gues t hat t he pre j udi ce pr ong of Str i c kl

and w a s m e t w h e re th e f a ilu re to conduct adequa t e i nves t i gat i on pr event ed the j ur yfr om hear i ng evi dence of Scot t ’ s m ent al

r et ar dat i on, ot herm ent al pr obl ems, l earni ng di s abi l i t i es , s oci al i nt er act i ons , l i fes t y le, and

o ther m it igating p rob lem s. S co tt ’s a p p li ca ti o n inclu d ed af fid av it s fro m so m e o f the ju rors
s t at i ng t hathad t heyknow n of t hes e pr obl ems, i t w oul d have had an i m pacton t hei rdeci s i on. ¶28. T he St at e ar gues t hat , contr aryt o w hatScot tnow al l eges , hi s t r i al couns el di d pr es ent t es t i m onyon m ent al r et ar dat i on. D r . T et l ow t es t i fi ed dur i ng t he pena l t yphas e. Fur t her , t he St a t e a s s e r t s t h a tSc o t t ’ s t r i a l was p r e-A tkins so th e re w a s n o re a so n f o r c o u n se l to in v e s tig a te o r p re s e n t m o re e v id e n c e o f m e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n . ¶29. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat W ong pr es ent ed evi dence of Scot t ’ s m ent al r et ar dat i on t o t he juryin the s en tenc ing p h ase o f th e tri al. D r. T etl o w , S co tt ’s ex p ert, test ifi ed ab o u t Sc o tt ’s

m en tal retarda ti o n an d the v ariou s tests th at in d icated S co tt ’s I.Q
. leve ls. D r. L o tt , the S tat e’s

### 14

ex p ert, also test ifi ed ab o u t Sc o tt ’s retarda ti o n leve l and I. Q
. T h e m ajorit yo p inion in S co tt ’s d ire c t ap p e a l als o d isc u ss e d m u c h o f th e tes tim o n yp ro v id e d b yth e se e x p e rts a t trial, in c lu d in g S c o tt’ s te s ts f ro m 1 9 9 2 u s e d in h is s o c ia l s e c u ri ty ap p lic a tio n . See S c o tt v . S ta te , 878 So. 2d at945- 48. Fur t her , Scot t ’ s m ot herw as al s o ques t i oned re gar di ng Scot t ’ s m ent al

re ta rd a tio n . A s p re v io u s ly d is c u s s e d , in 1 9 9 8 w h e n th is c a s e w a s tr ie d , Atkins had notbeen deci ded byt he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t
. W e fi nd t hatScot t ’ s t r i al couns el pl ace d t he iss u e o f S c o tt’s m e n tal reta rd a tio n b e f o re th e ju ry f

o r p u rp o se s o f

m iti g a tio n . T h is iss u e is

w ith o u t m e rit.

b) f ai l i ng t o adequate l y prepare t he def ens e expert ¶30
. S im ilar to Is sue IV (a) abo ve, S cottargues that tri al cou nsel fai l ed to adeq uate ly prepare his exp ert , D r. T et l ow , for t ri al by fai l i ng t o provi de r el evan t i nfo rm at i on for h is eval uat i on of Scot t
. T he St at e ar gues t hatD r . T et l ow w as a w el l

- quali fi ed and s eas oned exp ertw i t ness w ho has t est i fi ed i n a nu m ber of ot her cases. D r. T et l ow w as gi ven full access t o Scot tforeval uat i on. ¶31. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat D r . T et l ow t es ti fied i n t he s ent enci ng phas e on t he i s s ue of Scot t ’ s m ent al abi l i t i es . T he di r ect appea l i n t hi s cas e s etfor t h i n gr eatdet ai l t he evi dence p re s e n t e d t o th e ju ry o n th e is s u e o f S c o tt’ s m e n ta l a b iliti e s . S c o tt , 878 So. 2d at945- 48. H er e, t he j ur yhear d evi dence on t he i s s ue of ment al r et ar dat i on i ncl udi ng D r . T at t l e’s

o p in io n . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

c) f ai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e and di s cover M i t chel l ’ s conf l i ct

### A B A G u id elin es f o r Ap p o in tm en t an dP erf o rm an ce o f

D ef en se C o un sel inD eath 4 

### P en alty C ases, S ectio n1 1 .4 .1 an d1 1 .4 .2
. S ee a lso W ig gin s v. S m ith , 5 3 9 U .S . at 5 2 4
. 15 ¶32. Scot tar gues t hatW ong’ s fai l ur e t o obt ai n evi dence orr ecor ds form i t i gat i on r es ul t ed i n hi s fai l ur e t o di s cover M i t chel l ’ s confl i ct
. A l t ernat i vel y , Scot tar gues t hati f W ong knew

o f th is c o n f

lic t, h is f a ilu re to ra is e it a t tr ia l c o n s titu te s in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. ¶ 3 3
. T hi s C our t r ev i e wed t h i s c l a i m i n I s s u e I I a b o v e a n d d e t e r mi n e d t h a tn o confl i ct
e x ist e d
. S c o tt cla im s th a t W o n g w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ilu re to d isc o v e r th a t M itch e ll

r epr es ent ed Scot ti n a pr i ors oci al s ecur i t y pr ocee di ng. T hi s i s fl at w r ong, as demonst r at ed b ythe e x ce rpt fro m W o n g ’s e-m ail to p o st- co n v ictio n re lief c o u n sel d iscu ssed in Issu e II. A s s t at ed i n hi s e- m ai l , W ong cl ear l yknew aboutM i t chel l ’ s r epr es ent ati o n fort he s oci al

s ecur i t ym at t er and di d not r ai s e t he i s s ue or choos e not fi l e a m ot i on t o di s qual i fy
. W ong
m ay have chos en t o not pur s ue t hi s act i on fort r i al s t r at egyr eas ons . Fur t her , i n 1998, W ong di d nothave the bene fi tof t he Atkins and Ch ase deci s i ons w hi ch w er e deci ded i n 2002 and 2004, r es pect i vel y . B ot h D r . T et l ow and D r . L ot tr efe r r ed t o t he 1992 t es tus ed fora s oci al

s ecur i t yappl i cat i on and t es t i fi ed aboutScot t ’ s I
. Q
. l evel s i n r egar d t o m ent al r et ar dat i on b e f o re th e ju ry . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

d ) fa ili n g to a d e q u a te ly p r e p a r e fo r tr ia l ¶34. A s he di d i n I s s ue I V ( a) , Scot t poi nt s t o t he A B A G ui del i nes and as s er t s t hatW ong 4 fai l ed t o adequa t el ypr epar e a d efe ns e. Scot tas s er t s t hatW ong m etw i t h hi m onl yt hr ee ti m es, t w ice b ef

o re tri al an d o n ce o n the d ay o f t ri al. S co tt arg u es t h at tho se m ee ti n g s w ere

### 16

br i ef. H e al s o cl ai m s t hatW ong cal l ed hi m as a w i t nes s w i t houtanyadvanc e pr epar at i on. H e ar gues t hats uch fa i l ur e t o pr epar e hi m fort r i al w as i neff ect i ve. ¶ 3 5
. T h e S tate n o tes th a t W o n g is a n e x p e rie n c e d d e f e n se a tto rn e y a n d th a t h is tim e sh e e ts in d ica ted th a t h e sp e n d a d e q u a te tim e in ter v iew in g S c o tt an d p re p a rin g f o r tria l. T h e S tate
a ls o a s s e rt s th a t W o n g m e t w ith S c o tt o n s e v e n o c c a s io n s . ¶36. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hatW ong, Scot t ’ s t r i al at t or neym etw i t h hi m . W ong al s o w or ked on Scot t ’ s t r i al m or e than 300 hour s as evi dence d in p eti ti on forpaym ents ubm i t t ed t o t he trial c o u rt. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

e ) pr e s e nt i ng a de f

ac t o gui l t y pl e a i n hi s ope ni n g rem ar ks by i nf orm ing t he j ury t hat t he m urder occ urred duri ng a robbery i n w hi ch Scot t part i ci pat ed ¶37. T hi s ar gum ent goes t o W ong’ s openi ng s t at ement i n w hi ch he expl ai ns t hatt he ki l l i ng of Lee occurr ed dur i ng a r obber y i n w hi ch Scot t part i ci pat ed. Scot t ar gues t hathe i n no w ay in d ica ted th a t h e w ish e d to c h a n g e h is n o t g u iltyp le a a n d th a t W o n g ’s s tip u latio n to th is el ement of t he cha r ge i s t he func t i onal equi val entof a gui l t ypl ea. ¶38. O n di r ect appea l , Scot t r ai s ed t hi s i s s ue as a cl ai m t hat t he t r i al cour t s houl d have s ua
s p o n t e o r d e r e d a mi s t r i a l a n d a s a n a l mo s ti n d i r e c ti n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. O n th e m e rits o f

th e c laim , this C o u rt f

o u n d n o e rro r, f

in d in g th a t th e re m a rk s w e re e n tirely

co n sist en t w ith the testi m o n yp rov ided b yS co tto n d ir ec t exa m ination and w i th S co tt ’s t h eo ry
o f d e f e n s e . S c o tt , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 3 -5 7 . T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t S c o tt ca n n o t d e m o n stra te

### 17

p r e j u d i c e , a s r e q u i r e d b y Str i c kl and , w h e re th is C o u rt h a s alre a d y f o u n d th e u n d e rly in g c laim to b e w ith o u t m e rit. ¶39. W e fi nd t hat t he m er i t of t hi s cl ai m has al r eady been deci ded, t her efor e, Scot tcannot
s at i s fy t he pre

j udi ce pr ong of Str i c kl

and o n t h i s s u b

- i s s u e o f

t h e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

f ) f ai l i ng t o adequate l y devel op and presen t evi dence c onc e r ni ng t he l ac k of a v al i d Mir anda w ai ver ¶ 4 0
. S c o tt h a d a su p p re ss io n h e a rin g f o r sta tem e n ts th a t h e m a d e to p o lice w h ile in th e ir

cus t ody
. Scot tar gues t hat hi s couns el , W ong, fai l ed t o i nfor m t he tr i al cour tof hi s m ent al

re tar d at i on du ri ng a supp res si on heari ng . S cottal so argues t hat had W on g b rough tth is i nfor m at i on t o the t r i al cour t ’ s at t ent i on, t he s t at ement s w oul d l i kel yhave be en s uppr es s ed. H ow ever , t he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat W ong ar gued S cot t ’ s al l eged m ent al r et ar dat i on t o t he t r i al

c o u rt. T h e m o tio n to su p p re ss , file d w ith a n d h e a rd b yth e trial c o u rt, state d in p a rt: 10. T he defe ndant s uffe r s fr om m ent al r et ar dat i on i n w hi ch hi s I
. Q
. r ange is be tw ee n 6 0 -70 an d d u e t o this m en tal retarda ti o n su ch p erso n s d esire to p le a s e a u th o ri tie s . . . W ong al s o fi l ed a num ber of not i ces of s uppl ement al di s cover i es w i t h t he tr i al cour tw hi ch in c lu d e d w itn e ss e s, S c o tt’s R e g io n O n e M e n tal H e a lth C e n ter R e c o rd , th e C o a h o m a C o u n ty H ig h S c h o o l re c o rd s, a n d D r. T a ttl e ’s r a w tes t d a ta. T h e trial c o u rt m a d e its ru lin g a f ter a ll of t hi s addi t i onal i nform at i on w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he tr i al cour t
. C l ear l y , t he i s s ue of ment al

re tar d a tio n w a s ra ise d b y W o n g ’s su p p re ss io n m o tio n h e a rd b yth e trial c o u rt. T h is iss u e is

w ith o u t m e rit.

### 18 g) f ai l i ng t o s t ri ke j urors duri ng voi r di re ¶ 4 1
. D u rin g v o ir d ire , tw o ju ro rs, J u ro r N o s . 5 8 a n d 5 9 in d ic a te d th a t th e y w o u ld aut om at icall y v o t e fort he dea t h penal t y . Scot tar gues t hatW ong s houl d have e l i ci t ed addi t i onal voi rdi r e t es t i m onyas t o t hes e tw o j ur or s and/ ort hos e juro rs s houl d have be en stric k e n . In ste a d , w h e n a sk e d b yth e trial c o u rt to p ro v id e a list o f a ll j u ro rs w h o w o u ld aut om at i cal l y vot e for t he deat h penal t y , W ong al l ow ed t he S t at e t o pr ovi de t hat l i s tt o t he

cour t
. T he St at e’ s l i s tdi d noti ncl ude J ur or s N os . 58 and 59 and, t her efor e, Scot tar gues t hat t hes e tw o w er e nots ubj ectt o fur t hervoi rdi r e ques t i oni ng. ¶42. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat W ong di d ques t i on J ur or s N os . 58 and 59. D ur i ng voi rdi r e, W ong ques t i oned the j ur or s on t he i m pos i t i on of t he dea t h penal t y . I ni t i al l y , J ur or s 58 and 59 i ndi cat ed thatt heyw oul d vot e fort he dea t h penal t y . J ur or 58 s at on t he j ur y , and J ur or N o. 59 w as an al t er nat e. H o w ev er, w hen ques t i oned fur t herbyW ong, bot h i ndi cat ed that th e yw o u ld c o n sid e r m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e w h e n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r to im p o se a life o r d e a th sent ence. Th e record r efl ect s W on g’s quest i on i ng as fol l ow s: B yM r . W ong: N ow , i f y ou w i l l r emai n s t andi ng, t he next t w o ques t i ons

ar e t o y o u . I f

y o u d o n ’ tu n d e r s t a n d , p l e a s e r a i s e y our hand. Si nce y ou ar e fort he dea t h penal t y , y ou ar e i n t he penal t yphas e forthi s capi t al m ur der, w oul d y ou aut om at i cal l yvot e fort h e d eath penal t y ? Y ou w oul d? T hat ’ s j ur or s N o. 54, 55, 56, and 59. T hen w e have N o. 58. (JU R O R S N o . 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 8 , A N D 5 9 R A IS E H A N D S ). B yM r. W o n g : O k a y . T h is is th e las t q u e stio n . Y o u a re in th e p e n a lty

phas e and y ou ar e a j ur or , w oul d y ou cons i derm i t i gat i on

### 19 evi dence i r r el evant i n y our deci s i on t o det er m i ne l i fe or death i n t hi s t r i al ? I f y ou cons i deri ti r r el evant , r ai s e y our hand. O kay , J ur or s N o. 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62 di d not r ai s e t hei rhands
. T hank y ou. C l ear l y , W ong i nqui r ed w hethert hese jur or s coul d cons i derm i t i gat i ng evi dence w hen

c o n s id e ri n g w h e th e r to im p o s e th e d e a th p e n a lty. See W e lch e r v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 719, 768- 6 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

h ) fail ing to c o m p ete n tl y p re p a re th e a p p ell a te b rief ¶43
. W on g request ed several extensi on s of t i m e i n w hich t o fi l e t he app eal bri ef. H e al so
o b t a i n e d t h e h e l p o f

a n o t h e ra t t o r n e y, K a r l K e ys . S c o t ta r g u e s t h a t W o n g g a v e K e ys in su f f icie n t ti m e to p re p a re th e a p p e llate b rie f a n d th a t W o n g f

iled a “ d ra f

t” b rie f to a v o id

sa n c tio n s th re a ten e d b yth is C o u rt. ¶44. T he St at e poi nt s out tha t the b ri ef w as ei ght y - s i x pages and i ncl uded t w enty - fi ve i s s ues . K ey s w as i nvol ved as ear l yas A pr i l , 2001, and s enta dr aftbr i ef t o W o n g on Nov e mbe r 2 0 , 2 0 0 2
. Th e St a t e a l s o n o t e s th a t Sc o t t f a i l s t o p o i n t t o a s i n g l e c l a i m t hat he

c o n te n d s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n ra is e d o n a p p e a l b u t w a s n o t. ¶45. I n Scot t ’ s di r ect appea l , t hi s C our t cons i der ed overt w enty - fi ve w el l

- br i efe d i s s ues by bot h t h e d e f

e n s e a n d p r o s e c u t i o n . Th e a p p e a l r e s u l t e d i n a l e n g t h ys e v e n t y - f i v e p a ge
o p inion
. T h e a ff

idav ito f K arl K ey s stated th at the b ri ef w as “ inad eq u ate” ; ho w ev er, th ere
w as no s peci fi c ci t e t o anyi s s ue thatw as notr ai s ed on di r ectappea l t hats houl d have be en an i s s u e fort hi s C our t
. T her e i s no evi dence t hatW ong di d notpr epar e an a dequat e br i ef. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 20

V . I m proper A ggravat i ng C i rcum s t ance ¶46
. T he aggravati ng ci rcum st ance, t hat the cap i t al off ense w as com m i t t ed fo r the pu rpose of avoi di ng l aw ful ar r es t , w as pr es ent ed t o t he j ur y i n connec t i on w i t h t he fa ct s t hatScot tand hi s acc om pl i ce l eft t he sce ne of the murde r . Scot tar gues t hatappl i cat i on of t hi s aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance w as i m pr oper . H e ar gues t hatfl eei ng t he s cene of t he cr i m e s houl d not t ransl at e t o the use of the agg ravat i ng ci rcum st ance o f avo i ding l aw ful arres t
. S cottal so argues t hat i f t he p ros e c u tio n ’s case w as corr ectt hen L url i ne, L ee’s w i fe, t he o ne w i t ness
w ho rem ai ned al i ve coul d and di d eventual l yt es t i fyagai ns thi m . Scot tconcl udes t hat

a p p ly in g th e a v o id in g law f u l ar re st a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e in th is m a n n e r w o u ld a llo w it t o be found i n anyci r cumst ance w her e a de fenda ntl eave s t he s cene of t he cr i m e. ¶ 4 7
. T h e S tate n o tes th a t th is i ss u e w a s ra ise d o n d ire c t a p p e a l an d is th e re f o re p ro c e d u ra lly barr ed pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 3)
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99-39
- 21( 3) provides: T h e d o c trin e o f

re s ju d ica ta s h a ll ap p lyto a ll i ss u e s , b o th f a c tu a l an d leg a l, d e c id e d a t trial a n d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. W e a g re e . T h is is s u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. S c o tt , 878 So. 2d at979- 81. V I. T rial C o u rt’s F a il u re to A cc ep t the J u ry ’s In it ial V er d ict ¶4 8
. A t the en d o f the p en alt y p h ase , the j u ry d eli b era ted an d return ed to inf o rm the c o u rt t hatt hei rver di ctw as notunani m ous . A ft er ques t i oni ng and admoni s hi ng t he j ur yt o go back and tr yt o r eac h a unani m ous ver di ct , t he j ur yr etur ned w i t h a dea t h s ent ence . Scot tar gues

### 21

t hati tw as er r orfor t he t r i al cour tt o conveyt o t he j ur yt hatt heym us tr eac h an unani m ous
v e rd ic t. L ow enf

i eld v. P hel

ps , 4 8 4 U
. S
. 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 , 1 0 8 S
. C t. 5 4 6 , 9 8 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 6 8 (19 8 8 ). ¶49. Scot t ar gues t hat i t w as l at e eveni ng on a Fr i day w her e t he j ur y had been s eques t er ed for the en ti re tr i al
. H e i ncl udes aff i davi t s fr om j ur or s s t at i ng t heyfel tpr es s ur ed byot her ju ro rs to c h a n g e th e ir v o tes a n d /o r th a t th e yw e re c o n c e rn e d th e yw o u ld b e se q u e ste re d a ll

w eeke nd ot herw i s e. Scot tar gues t he tr i al cour t w as r equi r ed as a m at t er of l aw t o s ent ence h im to lif

e in p ri s o n a f

te r t h e ju ry r e tu rn e d w ith its in itia l v e rd ic t. B u l lin gton v. M

issouri , 4 5 1 U
. S
. 4 3 0 , 1 0 1 S
. C t. 1 8 5 2 , 6 8 L
. E d
. 2 d 2 7 0 (19 8 1 ). ¶ 5 0
. T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t th is iss u e w a s ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l an d is n o w p ro c e d u ra lly b a rred pu rs uan tt o M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-39-21 (3)
. W e agree. T his i ssue i s procedu ral ly b a rr e d
. S c o tt , 878 So. 2d at985- 89; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 3) ( “The doct r i ne of r es j udi cat a s hal l appl yt o al l i s s ues , bot h fac tual and l egal , deci ded at tr i al and on di r ect ap p ea l”). V II. Ju ry Instructi on s ¶ 5 1
. S c o tt ra ise s a n u m b e r of iss u e s c o n c e rn in g th e ju ryin stru c tio n s p ro v id e d a t h is tria l, as fol l ow s: a) l e s s e r - i nc l ude d of f e ns e i ns t r uc t i on ¶52. Scot tas s er t s t hatt he j ur ys houl d have be en gi ven a l es s er - i ncl uded off ens e i ns t ruct i on
w h ere the e v iden ce su p p o rt ed a lesse r-i n clud ed o ff en se o f m u rde r rather tha n ca p it al m u rde r. T hi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed on di r ectappea l and i s now pr ocedur al l ybarr ed.

### 22 b ) ju r y sh o u ld h a v e b e e n in str u c te d o n th e w e ig h t it sh o u ld aff ord the i n terroga ti on al s tat em en ts ¶53. Scot tas s er t s t hatt he j ur ys houl d have be en ins tr u cted o f it s ri g h t to as s es s t he

cr edi bi l i t y of t he st at ement s m ade t o pol i ce a ft erhi s arr es t
. T hi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed on di r ect appea l and i s pr ocedur al l ybarr ed.

c) jury shoul d have been i nst ruct ed on t he cre di bi l i t y of ey ew i tnesses ¶54. L ur l i ne, L ee’ s w i fe, i dent i fi ed Scot tas t he one w ho s hot her hus band. Scot tar gues t hathi s i dent i fi cat i on w as bas ed on al l egedl ys eei ng hi m foronl ya fe w s econds t he dayof t he i nci dent
. A ddi t i onal l y , Scot tnot es t hatt hi s i s a cr os s - r aci al i dent i fi cat i on and shoul d be vi ew ed w i t h s kept i ci s m . T hi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed on di r ectappea l and i s pr ocedur al l ybar r ed.

d) t he j ury s houl d h a v e been i nst ruct ed t hat f ai l i ng t o s t op L eroy L y nch f

rom ki l l i ng L ee i s not m urder ¶55. Scot t as s er t s t hat fai l i ng t o gi ve an i ns t ruct i on t hat gui l t by as s oci at i on al one does not in d ica te a c rim in a l ac t w a s e rro r. T h is iss u e w a s ra ise d o n d ire c t a p p e a l a n d is p ro c e d u ra lly barr ed.

e ) t he s e nt e nc i ng i ns t r uc t i ons do not s uf f i c i e nt l y d efi ne m i t i gat i on ¶ 5 6
. S c o tt arg u e s th a t P enr y v. Johnson , 532 U
. S. 782, 121 S. C t
. 1910, 150 L
. E d. 2d 9 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , r e q u i r e s a j u r yb e g i v e n i n s t ru c t i o n s o n t h e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f f o rmi t i g a t i o n . He

ar gues t he i ns t ruct i on pr ovi ded t hi s j ur yfai l s t o s t at e pr eci s el yw hati s m eantbym i t i gat i on evi dence
. T hi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed on di r ectappea l and i s pr ocedur al l ybarr ed.

### Th es e two jurors were previously disc usse d i n I ss ue IV(g). Th at is su e a ls o had 5 

### ex cerp ts f ro m th e v o ir d ire w h ereinth e d ef en se co un sel qu estio n ed th ese p ro sp ectiv e j uro rs. 23 V I I I . E rroneous St ri ki ng of P ros pect i ve Jurors ¶57. Scot t ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t i m per m i s s i bl y s t ruck a pr os pect i ve j ur or , J ur orN o. 49,

w ho s t at ed t hat s he coul d conform her conduct w i t h t he l aw . Scot tal s o ar gues t hatt he t r i al

cour tfai l ed t o s t r i ke pr os pect i ve j ur or s , J ur or s N o. 58 and 59, w ho s t at ed thatt heycoul d not

c o n f o r m th e i rc o n d u c tt o t h e l a w. ¶58. Pr os pect i ve J ur orN o. 49 w as s t ruck bythe tr i al cour tforcaus e bec aus e s he i ndi cat ed to d ef en se c o u n sel that sh e w as o p p o sed to the d ea th p en alt y . S co tt arg u es that the tri al co u rt h a d a d u tyto a sk q u e stio n s a n d to e x p lo re th e d e p th s o f th e ju ro r’s c o n v ictio n s a s to th e d e a th p e n a lty. W

a in w r ig h t v . W

itt, 4 6 9 U
. S
. 4 1 2 , 4 2 3 , 1 0 5 S
. C t. 8 4 4 , 8 3 L
. E d
. 2 d 8 4 1 (19 8 5 ). T h is iss u e is p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d f o r f a ilu re to ra ise th e iss u e a t trial o r o n d ire c t ap p e a l. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 1)
. T ur ni ng t o t he mer i t s , J ur orN o. 49 cl ear l yi ndi cat ed t hat

s he coul d not vot e for t he death penal t y i n any event ; and ther efor e, herabi l i t yt o fol l ow t he l aw and i ns t ruct i ons of t he courtw as s ubs t ant i al l yi m pai r ed. T her e w as no err ori n excl udi ng this j u ror. ¶5 9
. F u rt h er, Sc o ttargu es th at Ju rors N o s. 5 8 an d 5 9 stat ed they w o u ld au tom ati ca ll y return
a ver di ctof dea t h. Scot tar gues t hat t hes e t w o j ur or s s houl d have be en exc us ed ort hatt he 5
t r i a l c o u r ts h o u l d h a v e ma d e a d e t a i l i n q u i r y i n t o wh e t h e r t h e s e j u r o r s wo u l d f o l l o w t h e l a w. W ith e rs p o o n v . Illin o is , 3 9 1 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 1 9 , 8 8 S . C t. 17 7 0 , 2 0 L . E d . 2 d 7 7 6 (1 9 6 8 ). T h is

### 24

i ssue i s procedu ral l ybarr ed fo r fai l ure t o rai se the is su e a t trial or on d i rectapp eal
. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -21 (1). ¶60
. T urni ng t o the m eri t s, t his i ssue w as previ ou sl ydis cussed i n I ssue IV (g) , on e of t hese prospecti ve jur ors actuall ysaton t he jur yand the o t her w as an al t e rn a te. A g a in , defe nse
couns el ques t i oned t hes e j ur or s fur t her , as ki ng i f t heyw oul d cons i derm i t i gati ng evi dence

a n d b o th sa id th a t th e yw o u ld . S c o tt n o w a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d a r e sp o n sib ili tyto furt her que st i on and , po ssi bly , excu se t hese t w o jur ors. H e argues t hat fai l ure to do so
re s u lte d in a n in a d e q u a te v o ird ir e . Mo rg a n v . Illin o is , 504 U
. S. 719, 112 S. C t
. 2222, 119 L . E d . 2 d 4 9 2 (1 9 9 2 ); W ithe rs po on, 3 9 1 U
. S
. a t 5 1 9
. A s to Ju rors N o s. 5 8 an d 5 9 , there

w er e fol l ow up ques t i ons w hi ch i ndi cat ed that thes e j ur or s coul d and w oul d cons i der

m i t i gat i ng evi dence i n t hei rs ent enci ng d ec isi o n , di s cus s ed i n I s s ue I V ( g)
. T her efor e, t he trial c o u rt w a s n o t re q u ire d to strik e th e se ju ro rs. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I X. I m proper Mir anda W ai ver ¶61. O n t he dayof hi s ar r es t , Scot t m ade t w o s t at ement s t o l aw enfor cement , one at4: 45 p . m . an d an o ther at 7 :05 p . m . P o rt ion s o f b o th interrog ati o n s w ere rec o rde d , an d b o th w ere tra n sc rib e d . A c c o rd in g to th e tra n sc rip t o f th e 4 :4 5 p .m . sta tem e n t, w h e n S c o tt i s a s k e d if he under s t ood hi s r i ght s r es ponded, “H ow l ong w i l l a l aw y er t ake.
. . y ou gi ve?” I n r es pons e, t he off i ceragai n as ked i f Scot tunder s t ood hi s r i ght s . Scot tr es ponded, “y es.” In t he 4: 45 p. m . s t at ement , Scot t deni ed any i nvol vement i n L ee’ s m ur der
. T he def ens e fi l ed a mot i on to suppr es s bot h s t at ement s on t he bas i s t hatt heyw er e i nvol unt ar i l ygi ven. Scot tas s er t ed

### As not e d above , the tr ans c r ipt of the he ar i ng he l d on Apr i l 30, 1998, i nc lude s the 6 

### tr i a lc ourt ’ s fi ndi ng on whe the r Sc ott i nvoke d hi s r i ght t o c ouns e l
. A c opy of thi s tr ans c r ipt is in clu d edas E x h ib it 1 to S co tt’s reb uttal. 25 t hat , aft erbei ng r ead hi s r i ght s dur i ng t he fi r s ti nt err ogat i on, he as ked foran att or neyand w as i gnor ed. ¶62. A tt he hea r i ng of t hatm ot i on, t he tr i al cour tas ked t o l i s t en t o t he t ape rec o rdin g of S c o tt’s 4 :4 5 p .m . s tate m e n t. A f ter listen in g se v e ra l tim e s, th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t it coul d n o t u n d erst and w hatScot ts ai d and, s ubs equent l y , hel d t hatScot tdi d notm ake a d e m a n d f

o ra n a t t o r n e y. ¶63
. S cottargues t hat he i nv ok ed h i s r i gh t t o cou nsel foll ow i ng t he reading of his Mir anda rig h ts, b u t th a t h is re q u e st f o r a n a tto rn e yw a s ig n o re d . H e a rg u e s th a t itw a s u n re a so n a b le f o rt h e p o l i c e o f

f i c e rt o c o n t i n u i n g q u e s t i o n i n g h i m a f t e rh e h a d r e q u e s t e d a n a t t o r n e y. Fur t her m or e, Scot tar gues t hatbeca us e he i s m ent al l y r et ar ded he w as unabl e t o under s t and the m ea n ing o f h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts an d the c o n seq u en ce s ass o ciated w ith a w aive r. ¶64. T he St at e as s ert s that this c lai m w as n o t r ai s ed on di r ectappea l and i s now pr ocedur al l ybar r ed pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21(1). W i t houtw ai vi ng t he pr ocedur al bar , t he St at e ar gues t hatScot t i s not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on t hi s cl ai m w her e he ha s p r o v i d e d n o r e c o r d t o s u p p o r th i s c l a i m. 6 ¶ 6 5
. W e f

in d th a t th e iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d f o r f a ilu re to ra ise it o n d ire c t ap p e a l. W ith o u t w a iv in g th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r, w e w ill b rie f lye x a m in e th e m e rits o f S c o tt’s a rg u m e n t. S c o t th a d a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g f o rs t a t e m e n t s t h a th e m a d e t o p o l i c e w h i l e i n t h e i rc u s t o d y.

### 26

Scot tar gues t hathi s couns el , W ong, fai l ed t o i nfor m t he tr i al cour tof hi s m ent al r et ar dat i on dur i ng t he s uppr es s i on hear i ng. Scot tal s o ar gues t hathad W ong br oughtt hi s i nfor m at i on t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s at t ent i on, t he s t at ement s w oul d l i kel yhave be en s uppr es s ed. ¶ 6 6
. H o w e v e r, th e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t W o n g a rg u e d S c o tt’s a lleg e d m e n tal re tar d a tio n to th e trial c o u rt. T h e m o tio n to su p p re ss , f iled w ith a n d h e a rd b yth e trial c o u rt, state d in p a rt: 10. T he def

endants uffe r s fr om m ent al r et ar dat i on i n w hi ch hi s I
. Q
. r ange is be tw ee n 6 0 -70 an d d u e to this m en tal retarda ti o n su ch p erso n s d esire to p le a s e a u th o ri tie s . . . I n addi t i on, t he m ot i on r efe r ence d Scot t ’ s al l eged f ai l ur e t o vol unt ar i l yw ai ve hi s r i ght s . T he

m o tio n a lso sta ted in p a rt: 1 1
. T h e sta tem e n ts m a d e to law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs w h ile K e v in S c o tt w as I c u s t o d y wer e n o t ‘ t h e p r o d u c t o f a n e s s e n t i a l l y f r ee a nd uncons t r ai ned choi ce byi t s m aker
. ’ [ci t ati on om i t t ed] B eca us e the s t at ement s w er e notm ade vol unt ar i ly , admi s s i on of t he s t at ement s at t r i al w oul d vi ol at e the def endant ’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw guar ant eed byt he Four t eenth A m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. W ong al s o fi l ed a numberof not i ces of suppl ement al di s cover i es w i t h t he tr i al cour tw hi ch in c lu d e d w itn e ss e s, S c o tt’s R e g io n O n e M e n tal H e a lth C e n ter R e c o rd , the C o a h o m a C o u n ty H i gh School r ecor ds , and D r . T at t l e’ s r aw test d at a. T hi s addi t i onal i nfor m at i on w as pr ovi ded t o t he tr i al cour tpr i ort o t he rul i ng. T hi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed and w i t hout

m e rit. X. P ros ecut i on E rror

### 27

¶ 6 7
. T h is c laim g o e s to th e p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t in w h ich h e m a d e re f e re n c e s to
s cr i ptur e and t o “the A l m i ght y . ” Scot tar gues t hatt hi s C our thas hel d t hatt he pr os ecut i on
m aynotr eques tt he j ur yt o r etur n a par t i cul ar ver di ct for any r eas on ot hert han the l aw and th e e v id e n c e . G r i

f f in v. State, 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 4 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); W illia m s v . S ta te, 522 So. 2d 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); W e lls v . S ta te, 4 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); F u lg h a m v . S ta te, 386 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). ¶68. T he St at e as s er t s t hat t hi s cl ai m i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed purs uant M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 3) w her e i t w as addr es s ed on di r ectappea l
. W e agr ee. Si nce thi s i s s ue w as r ai s ed on di r ectappea l , i ti s pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. XI. R ace ¶ 6 9
. S c o tt a rg u e s th a t M iss iss ip p i’s d e a th p e n a lt y s c h e m e is u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se it oper at es on t he bas i s of r ace . H e ci t es s t at i s t i cs w hi ch i ndi cat e t hat bl ack defe ndant s char ged

w ith k ill in g w h ite v ict im s a re 8 0 0 % m o re lik e lyto re c e iv e th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h e S tate
a rg u e s th a t th is iss u e w a s ra ise d o n d ire c t a p p e a l an d is n o w p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d p u rsu a n t to M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (3 ). W e a g re e . S in c e th is i ss u e w a s ra ise d o n d ire c t a p p e a l, i t i s pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. XII . C um ul at i ve E rror s ¶70. I n Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 3 0 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 4 ), th is C o u rth eld “[ a]s pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed undert he i n d ivi dual pr opos i t i ons , no r ever s i bl e err orw as comm i t t ed i n t he t r i al of t hi s cas e. W e fi nd no ‘ nearerr or s ’ i n ei t herphas e of thi s t r i al , s o w e fi nd no

### 28

cumul at i ve err or . ” I n G ra y v . S ta te , 887 So. 2d 158, 172- 73 ( M i s s . 2004 ) , a pos t - convi ct i on
cas e, t hi s C our thel d: N ext, G rayargu es gene ri cal l yt hat the all eged preceding err ors, t aken as a w h o le, d ep ri v ed h im o f a fa irtr ial
. T h is C o u rth as p rev iou slyh eld th at "w h ere t her e i s ' no r ever sible erro r i n anypar t , . . . t her e i s no r ever s i bl e err ort o t he w ho l e. " B

y ro m v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 847 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 3 ) (quot i ng McFee v . S ta te , 511 So. 2d 130, 136 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. Si nce G r ayhas noty ets how n any act ual error by t he t ri al cou rt , t here can be no cum ulat i ve ef fect and no adv ers e im p a c t u p o n h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to f a ir trial. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. G r ay , 887 So. 2d at172- 73. ¶71. I n N

ix o n v . S ta te , 641 So. 2d 751, 755- 56 ( M i s s . 1994) , a pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef cas e, t hi s C our tcons i der ed t he i s s ue of c um ul at i ve err or . T hi s C our thel d: T hi s C our ti s now as ked t o det erm ine w hethert he cumul at i ve ef fec tof any di s cover ed err or s or"ne ar - er r or s " c ons t i tut ed a vi ol at i on of N i xon' s r i ghtt o a f a irtr ia l. See, e. g. , S trin g e r v . S ta te , 5 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 9 4 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ) (d e a th s e n t e n c e v a c a t e d i n v i e w o f n u m e r o u s " n e a r - e r r o r s " w h i c h v io la te d d e f e n d a n t's ri g h t to a f

a ir tr ia l)
. N ix o n ra is e d th is is s u e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. N ix o n v . S ta te , 533 So. 2d 1078, 1102 ( M i s s . 1987) , cert den. 490 U
. S. 1102, 109 S. C t
. 2458, 104 L
. Ed
. 2 d 1 0 1 2 ( 1 9 8 9 )
. Th i s Cou r t h a s a g a i n e x a mi n e d t h e r e c o r d and d e te rm in e d th a t N ix o n re c e iv e d a f a ir tr ia l- -a lb e it n o t a p e rf e c t o n e . See Sand v . S ta te , 467 So. 2d 907, 911 ( M i s s . 1985) ( "A l t hough t hi s defe ndant di d not re c e iv e a p e rf

e c t trial, itw a s a f

a ir trial."); s ee al

s o Str inger , 500 So. 2d at947 ("T h ere h as n ev er b ee n a p erf ec t tri al. " (R
. N
. L ee , P
. J. , d issen ti n g )). In su m , this C o u rt h o ld s th a t th e c o n ten tio n p re se n te d th ro u g h th is iss u e is d e v o id o f

m e rit. N i xon , 641 So. 2d at755- 56. ¶72. Scot t r ai s es a cumul at i ve err orcl ai m on pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. Scot t al s o r ai s ed the is s u e o f c u m u la tiv e e rr o r i n h is d ir e c t a p p e a l. S c o tt , 878 So. 2d at997- 98. T hi s C our tfound no cumul at i ve err or i n Scot t ’ s di r ect appea l t o m er i tr ever s al of t he convi ct i on ors ent ence .

### 29

Id
. T o t he ext en t tha t a nyi s s ues r ai s ed byScot ton pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef a r e the s ame as t hos e r ai s ed i n hi s di r ectappea l , t hi s C our tfi nds t hat thes e i s s ues ar e pr ocedur al l ybar r ed. B y ro m v . S ta te , 9 2 7 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 2 9 (M iss
. 2 0 0 6 ). A s to th e n e w iss u e s ra is e d o n p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef byScot t and pr evi ous l y addr es s ed by t hi s C our t i n t hi s opi ni on, Scot thas f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te a n ye rr o r w ith th e s e n e w c la im s . G r ay , 8 8 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 7 2 -7 3 ; N i xon , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d a t 7 5 5 -5 6 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶73. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , t he pet i t i on for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s gr ant ed i n par t and deni ed i n par t
. T hi s C our t gr ant s Scot t ’ s pet i t i on forpos tconvi ct i on r el i ef on the s ol e i s s ue
o f m e n tal re tar d a tio n a n d re m a n d s th is iss u e to th e C irc u it C o u rt o f B o liv a r C o u n ty to conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng on the m ent al r et ar dat i on i s s ue pur s uantt o t he gui del i nes expr es s ed byt hi s C our ti n Ch ase . T h e p e tit io n is d e n ied a s to a ll o th e r iss u e s ra ise d in Scot t ’ s pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. ¶ 7 4
. P ETI TI O N FO R PO ST- CO NV I CT I O N R ELI EF I S GR AN TED I N P ART AND DENI ED I N PART. SM I TH , C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RANDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. DI AZ AND GRAV ES , J J . , CO NCUR I N P ART AND DI S S EN T I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.