FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 2, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 49 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 7- cv -0 01 46 -TJC
DAVID WYATT JONES,
Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY G ENERAL, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es .PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Dav idWy at t J on es is a Fl or id a in m at e se nt en cedto de at h wh o s eek s a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y to ap pe al th e d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as
co rp us . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. J on es ha s fa il edto m ak e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . W e d en y hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity . I. BACKG ROUND A jury co nv ic te d J on es of t he rob be ry , ki dn ap pi ng , andm ur de r of Lori McR ae. Jo ne s v . Sta te (Jo ne s I) , 74 8 S o. 2 d 1 01 2, 1 01 6 (F la . 19 99 ). The ev id en ce attri al pro ve d tha t J on es ab du ct edMcR ae fr om a pa rk in g l otearl y

on th e m orni ng of Jan ua ry 31 , 19 95 , st ran gl edhe r to de at h, an d, o ve r th e n ex t t wo d ay s, at te m pt ed

m or e th an 10 0 t im es to wit hdraw cas h fr om sev eral au to m at edtel le r m ach in es
us in g M cRa e’s ba nkcard . Jo ne s n et te d $ 60 0. Id . The p ol ic e arr es te d J on es on Feb ru ary 1 b ecau se he was driv in g M cRa e’s Ch ev y Bla zer n ear atel le r m ach in e th atth ey ha d b een m on it or in g. Id

. Twent y da y s l at er, J on es co nf

es se d t o
m ur de rin g M cRa e an d d ire ct edpo li ce t o t he fie ldin whi ch he ha d dum pe d h er bo dy. Id

. At t he pe na lt y

ph as e, Jo ne s p res en te d m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Jo ne s p res en te d la y an d e xp erttes ti m on y

reg ard in g h is ad di ct io n t o c rackco cai ne an d h ow t hi s

2ad di ct io n a ffec te d h is bra in an d b eh av io r. Jo ne s v . Sta te (Jo ne s II ), 94 9 S o. 2 d

10 21 , 10 26 (Fl a. 20 06 ). He als o o ffer edtes ti m on y reg ard in g h is ch il dh oo d a ndhi s adul t l ife be fo re h e b eg anab us in g c rackco cai ne . Id. The jury reco m

m en de d asen te nc e o f de at h b y a vo te of n in e to th ree, an d th e tr ia l co urt ac cep te d the reco m m en da ti on . Id. The t ria l co ur t fo un d fo ur ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces : J on es co m m it te d t he m

ur de r du rin g t he co ur se of a
ro bb ery an d k id napp in g; Jo ne s h ada pr io r co nv ic ti on of avi ol en t fe lo ny (m ur de r); th e m ur de r was esp eci al ly hei no us , atr oc io us , or c ru el ; an d J on es co m m it te d t he

m ur de r to av oi d arres t. Id . at 1 02 6 n .2. The t ria l co ur t al so fou ndan d g av e so m e weig htto two st atut ory

m it ig at or s: Jo ne s’s ab il ity to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of hi s co nduc t was subs tant ia ll y im pa ire d, an d J on es co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r whi le
un de r th e in flu en ce o f ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce. Id . The t ria l
co urt al so acco rd edso m e wei gh t t o t hr ee n on st atut ory m it ig at or s: Jo ne s was ad di ct edto crac k c oc ai ne ; J on es was t he fat he r of a te en ag e so n, an d h e was a ha rd
worke r who pro vi de d fo r hi s fa m il y when he was n otab us in g d ru gs ; an d re co rd s of Jo ne s’s i nc arce rat io n a fte r hi s arres t fo r th e m ur de r of McR ae p ro ve d t ha t h e ha d s uf fere d a“ps y ch ot ic ep is od e.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. Jo ne s ra is ednu m ero us arg um en ts inhi s d ire ctap pe al , on ly one of wh ic h i s rel ev an t t o h is ap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y : J on es arg ue d t ha t t he 3“pr os ecu ti on in tro du cedirr el ev an t ev id en ce s ug ge st in g t ha t [h e] harb or eda raci al

pr ejud ic e ag ai ns t Afri can -Am eri can s.” Jo ne s I, 7 48 So . 2dat 1 02 2. J on es arg ue d th atth e tr ia l ju dg e sh ou ldno t h av e p erm it te d Det ect iv e Parke r to tes ti fy th at , in a po st -arr es t i nt erv ie w, Jo ne s ex pl ai ne d s ev eral scr at ch es on hi s fa ce b y st at in g t ha t he ha d b een rob be d b y

two “ ni gg ers .” Id

. Jo ne s al so arg ue d t ha t t he tri al jud ge sh ou ldno t h av e p erm it te d two wi tn es se s, wh o t es ti fie d t ha t J on es ap pr oa ch ed th em ab ou t h av in g M cRa e’s Bl azercle an edin th e d ay s af te r th e ab du ct io n, t o id en ti fy Jo ne s b y a di st in ct iv e sp id er web tat to o o n h is elb ow. J on es co nt en de d th atth e juro rs wou ldass oc ia te hi s t at to o wi th whi te supr em aci stact iv it y . Id. at 10 23 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re jecte d a ll of J on es ’s arg um en ts in a th or ou gh op in io n. InJu ne 20 01 , Jo ne s fi le d am ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0 a ndarg ue d n um ero us gro un ds forrel ie f, an d th ree o f th e arg um en ts th atJo ne s ra is edin hi s m ot io n a re re le va ntto th is ap pe al

. Fi rs t, J on es arg ue d tha t h is tri al att orne y s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o th e p res en ta ti on of e vi de nc e an d a rg um en t t ha t h e se xu al ly ass au lt edMcR ae be fo re k il li ng he r. Jo ne s co nt en de d t ha t t hi s ev id en ce was in ad m is si bl e b ecau se th e st at e d idno t ch arg e a s ex ua l as saul t. Seco nd , Jo ne s ar gu edth athi s t ria l at to rn ey s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o t he ev id en ce t ha t s ug ge st edth at 4he ha d araci al bi as . Thi rd , Jo ne s ar gu edth athi s at to rn ey s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r

fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. In s up po rt o f hi s t hi rdcla im , Jo ne s o ffer edth e te st im on y of Dr. J on at ha n Li pm an , an e xp ertin
ne ur op ha rm aco lo gy. Dr. Lip m an ex am in edJo ne s af te r Jo ne s’s t ria l an d c on cl ud ed th atJo ne s was “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly vul ne rab le to ex pe rie nc in g the ps y ch os is pr oduc in g e ffec t o f co cai ne an d o th er s ti m ul an ts ” an d tha t J on es ’s abu se of c rack
co cai ne m ay

ha ve ag gr av at edanun de rlyin g “ ps y ch os is sp ectru m di so rd er” t ha t
was “pr ob ab ly sch iz oa ffec ti ve .” The t ria l co ur t re jecte d e ach of J on es ’s cla im s o n th e m eri ts
. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t af firm edin an ot he r th or ou gh op in io n. Jo ne s II , 94 9 S o. 2 d 1 02 1. InMarc h 2 00 7, J on es fil eda pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us in th e di st ric t co urt. Jo ne s al le ge d fi fte en gro un ds forrel ie f, two of wh ic h wer e cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f tr ia l an d app el la te co un se l wi th m ul ti pl e su bp art s. Th e di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he pe ti ti on . Jo ne s v . McNei l, No . 3: 07 -cv -1 46 -J -3 2 (M .D. Fl a. Mar . 9, 2 01 0) . The d is tri ctco ur t al so de ni edJo ne s a c ert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity . Id.

II . STANDARD F OR GRANTI NG A CERTI FICATE OF

APPEALABI LI TY

5Thi s C ou rt wi ll is su e a ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y “ on ly if th e ap pl ic an t h as
m ad e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ). “ A pet it io ne r sa ti sf ie s t hi s s ta nd ardby dem on st rat in g t ha t ju ris ts of
reas on co ul d d is ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco ur t’s re so lu ti on of h is co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s o r th atjuri st s co ul d c on cl ud e th e is su es pre se nt edare ad equa te to de se rv e
en co ur ag em en t t o p ro ceedfur th er.” Mi ll er-El v. Co ckrel l, 5 37 U.S. 32 2, 3 26 , 12 3 S. Ct . 10 29 , 10 34 (20 03 ). “ Whe re, as he re, t he Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h Pen al ty A ct(‘AE DPA’) app li es , [w] e lo okto th e Dis tri ctCo ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f AEDPA to pe ti ti on er’s co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s an d a skwhet he r th atres ol ut io n was de ba tabl e am on gs t ju ris ts of r eas on .” Lot t v . Att ’y Gen., Fl a., 59 4 F .3d12 96 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. II I. DI SCUSSI ON Jo ne s’s ap pl ic at io n d oe s n otid en ti fy by num be r th e g ro un ds st at edin th e di st ric t co urt ab ou t wh ic h ju ris ts of r eas on co ul d d iff er, b utco ns tru edin th e li gh t of th e rec or d a ndhi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us , cf. Mu rray v. Uni te d St at es , 14 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), Jo ne s’s ap pl ic at io n re qu es ts a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on fou r gr ou nd s. J on es arg ue s, fi rs t, t ha t h is tri al at to rn ey s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r no t o bjec ti ng to ev id en ce an d arg um en t t ha t h e
se xu al ly ass au lt edMcR ae; sec on d, t ha t h is tri al att orne y s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r no t 6tryin g t o e xc lu de ev id en ce t ha t J on es us eda raci al sl urin a po st -arr es t i nt erv ie w

an d h as a ta tt oo of asp id er web th athe says is ass oc ia te d wi th whi te supr em aci st act iv ity ; t hi rd , th atth e st at e em pl oyed a s tra te gy of in

jecti ng race in to hi s t ria l; an d fo urth , th athi s t ria l at to rn ey s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t
m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n e vi de nc e dur in g t he pe na lty ph as e o f hi s t ria l. J on es als o
as se rts th athe “ do es no t wai ve th e ap pe al ab il ity of a ny clai m

rai se d i n t he habe as pr oc eed in g” an d u rg es us to “ is su e a Ce rti fic at e o f App eal ab il it y as t o e ve ry gr ou ndan d c la im

m ad e in th e p ro ceed in g.” W e co nc lu de th atJo ne s h as no t m ad e
a su bs tant ia l s ho win g o f th e d en ia l o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig htas t o a ny of th e fo ur gr ou nd s t ha t h e sp eci fic al ly argu es in hi s ap pl ic at io n a ndth athe ha s wai ve d a ny rig htto a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y as t o a ll ot he r gr ou nd s. A. Grou nd

One: Ine ff ect iv e Ass is ta nc e Regar di ng Evid en ce o f S exu al Ass au lt Jo ne s ar gu es th at“ tri al co un se l s ho ul d h av e o bjec te d t o t he Sta te ’s pr es en ta ti on of e vi de nc e an d arg um en t t ha t h e co m m it te d arap e o r se xu al ba tt ery
on th e v ic ti m .” Jo ne s co nt en ds th atth e lo wer co ur ts “ co nc lu de [d ] th atth e St at e’s

co nduc t was no t o bjec ti on ab le an d t ha t[] es se nt ia ll y di d n otoc cu r.” Jo ne s’s o nl y le ga l ar gu m en t, wh ic h h e d oe s n otsupp or t wi th cit at io ns of aut ho rit y , is a
co nc lu si on : “ Cert ai nl y , reas on ab le juri st s m ig htdi fferon th is is su e.” W e reject th is arg um en t. 7The Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t ru le d t ha t J on es ’s att orne y s m ad e a rea so nabl e

ta ct ic al de ci si on no t t o o bjec t t o t he ev id en ce, b utto arg ue in st eadth atth e
ev id en ce d idno t s up po rt a n i nf eren ce o f a s ex ua l as saul t: J o n e s pr ov id es no supp or t fo r hi s co nt en ti on th at th e St at e ’s pr es en ta ti on of ev id en ce of th e ph y si cal co nd it io n of McR ae’s bo dy was ob jecti on ab le

. Evi de nc e o f th e co nd it io n o f th e v ic ti m ’s bo dy as found by the po li ce was cle arl y

rel ev an t. Fu rth er, [tr ia l co un se l] Bu zzel l te st ifi ed th at de fen se co un se l were a ware th at th e St at e be li ev ed th at th e ev id en ce supp or te d th e in f e r e n c e of a se xu al as saul t an d th at th e de fen s e s t r a t e g y was to ex po se th e weakne ss es i n th e St at e’s th eo ry . On cro ss -ex am in at io n of se ro lo gi st Dian e Han so n, de fen se co un se l el ic it ed te st im on y th at a pr es um pt iv e te st fo r th e pr es en ce of se m en on an area of Jo ne s’ jean s cam e ba ck ne ga ti ve . Defen se co un se l al so el ic it ed te st im on y fro m th e m ed ic al ex am in er th at th e co nd it io n of th e vi ct im ’s cl ot he s su gg es te d th at sh e ha d be en dr ag ge d to th e area whe re she was fo un d, an d te st im on y fro m McR ae’s hus ba nd th at at ti m es McR ae di d no t wear un de rwear wit h he r jean s. Co un se l’s st rat eg ic de ci si on t o r eb ut th e St at e’s su gg es ti on of a po ss ib le se xu al as su al t on cro ss -ex am in at io n, rath er tha n ob ject to th e ev id en ce, can no t be co ns id eredun reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of thi s ca se . In ad di ti on , Jo ne s do es no t id en ti fy sp eci fic al ly whi ch co m m en ts in th e pr os ecu to r’s op e n i ng st at em en ts an d cl os in g arg um en ts were ob jecti on ab le

. W e as su m e Jo ne s is refe rri ng to th e pr os ecu to r’s op en in g st at em en ts reg ard in g th e c o n di ti on of McR ae’s bo dy an d th e cl os in g arg um en t th at McR ae’s sho es m ay ha ve be en off be cau se Jo ne s want ed he r pa nt s of

f. Howev er, th es e co m m en ts were no t im

p r o p e r . By refe rri n g t o th e way in whi ch McR ae’s bo dy was fo un d, th e pr os ecu to r was m erel y ou tl in in g “ wha t he in go od fai th ex pe ct edto be es tabl is he d by th e ev i d e n c e pr es en te d at tri al ,” whi ch is th e pu rp os e of op en in g st at em en ts
. . . . In cl os in g arg um en t, th e pr os ecu to r ap pr op ria te ly po in te d to an in fere nc e th at “ m ay reas on ab ly be dr awn fro m th e ev id e n c e . ” M o r e o ve r, th e pr os ecu to r di d no t te ll th e jury th at McR ae ha d be e n se xu al ly as saul te d. Acco rd in gl y , th e tri al co un se l’s fai lu re to ob ject was

8no t d e f ic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce an d th e tri al co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g th is cl ai m for rel ie f. Jo ne s II , 94 9 S o. 2 d a t 1 03 1– 32 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

. Ju ris ts of r eas on co ul d n otde ba te th e d eci si on of the di st ric t co urt t o d en y rel ie f on th is gro un d. Th e rec or d s up po rts th e fi nd in g t ha t J on es ’s att orne y s m ad e th e ta ct ic al de ci si on de sc rib edby the Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t, an d i t i s n ot de ba tabl e th atth e ru li ng of t ha t co ur t was a reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral law. B. Grou nd

Two : In ef fe ct iv e Ass is ta nc e Regar di ng Evid en ce o f Ra ci al Bia s Inth e la stnu m

be redpa rag rap h o f hi s ap pl ic at io n, J on es ob li qu el y refe ren ces th e arg um en t i n h is pe ti ti on th athi s at to rn ey s wer e in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob

ject t o e vi de nc e th atJo ne s u se d araci al sl urin a po st -arr es t i nt erv ie w
an d h as a ta tt oo th athe says juro rs wou ldass oc ia te wit h wh it e supr em aci st act iv ity . Jo ne s d oe s n otex pl ai n wh y th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t t o d en y rel ie f on th is gro un d i s ar gu ab ly wro ng . W e can no t s ee wh y itis

. As an in it ia l m at te r, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco ur t t ha t J on es is no t pr oc edur al ly barre d fr om rai si ng th is cla im

in fed eral co urt. Onth e ap pe al of t he de ni al of J on es ’s m ot io n u nd er Ru le 3.8 50 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t re jecte d th is cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m as “ pr oc edur al ly barre d”

9be cau se Jo ne s’s “ al le ga ti on of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i s m erel y a va ria nt of th e is su es [of

th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e ev id en ce] rais edon di rectap pe al .” Id . at 10 33 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d idno t em pl oy a sta te pro cedur al rul e to av oi d de ci di ng Jo ne s’s cl ai m

on th e m eri ts ; i t o nl y

de cl in edto reco ns id er i ts pri orrul in g
on anis su e th atitfou ndde te rm in at iv e o f th e cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f
co un se l. See Gros sm an v. Mc Don ou gh , 46 6 F .3d13 25 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The “ refu sa l t o re -ad

jud ic at e th is is su e o n t he m eri ts a se co ndti m e d oe s n otba r fed eral habe as rev ie w.” Green v. Nel so n, 5 95 F.3d12 45 , 12 49 n.1 (11 th Cir

. 20 10 ). On d ire ctap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t h adde ci de d t ha t the tri al co urt di d n oterr i n a dm it ti ng eit he r th e ev id en ce t ha t J on es us eda raci al sl ur(an d t ha t, i f itha d, t he erro r was ha rm le ss ) orth e ev id en ce o f Jo ne s’s s pi de r web tat to o:

In th is cas e th e jury was in fo rm ed th at Jo ne s us ed a r a c i a l s l u r whe n h e fi rs t g av e hi s vers io n of even ts to ex pl ai n th e sc rat ch es on hi s face in an at te m

pt to de ny hi s in vo lv em en t in th e m ur de r. The de te ct iv e di d no t rep eat th e raci al sl ur bu t on ly in di cat ed th a t a r a c ia l sl ur was us ed

. Th eref

or e, in th is cas e we do no t ag ree th at th e co m m en ts co ns ti t u t e d im

pe rm is si bl e ap pe al s to th e bi as es or pr ejud ic es of th e juro rs .

. . . .

. . . [I]n th is ca s e , w e d o no t fin d th at th ere was an y at te m pt to in ject race as an is su e in th e tri al , or an im pe rm is si bl e ap pe al to bi as an d pr ejud ic e. W e fu rth er no te th at Jo ne s was a whi te m al e ch arg ed with m ur de rin g a whi te fem al e. In ad di t i o n , t h e a ctua l raci al sl ur was no t us ed be fo re th e jury an d th e co m m en t was no t rep eat ed or subs eque nt ly 10hi gh il gh te d. Bas ed on th e fo reg oi ng , we fin d th at ev en if th e ad m is si on

of th is refe ren ce to Jo ne s us in g a raci al sl ur was erro r, it was ha r mles s be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Defen da nt al so arg ue s in th is po in t on ap pe al th at th e pr os ecu to r el ic it ed im

pr op erl y pr ejud ic ia l te st im on y th at th e de fen da nt ha d a sp id er web ta tt oo on hi s el bo w, al le ge dl y as so ci at ed wit h w h i t e supr em aci st ga ng act iv it y . Th e on ly ev id en ce reg ard in g th e ta tt oo du rin g th e tri al was el ic it ed f

r o m . . . [two ] wit ne ss es [wh o] t es ti fie d th at th ey no ti ced Jo ne s’ di st in ct i v e sp id er web ta tt oo at th e ti m e th ey en co un te red hi m [wh en he at te m

pt ed to ha ve th e in te rio r of McR ae’s Bl azer cl ean ed ], an d Jo ne s was ask edto di sp la y th is tat to o fo r th e jury. The re was no su gg es ti on ev er m ad e to th e jury by th e St at e th at th e sp id er web ta tt oo was li nk ed to raci sm , an d it was on ly r eferred to be fo re th e jury as a di st in ct iv e ch arac te ris ti c as si st in g th e w i t n es se s in id en ti fyi n g th e de fen da nt
. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d no erro r in th e ad m is si on of t hi s t es ti m on y . Jo ne s I, 7 48 So . 2dat 1 02 3 (c it at io ns om it te d)

. Ju ris ts of r eas on wou ldno t d eb at e th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t t o d en y rel ie f on th is gro un d. Ag ai n t he reco rdsupp or ts th e d es cri pt io n o f th e ev id en ce b y th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, an d i t i s n otde ba tabl e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt
reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. C. Gro un d T

hr ee: Sta te Stra te

gy of Usi ng Race to Inf

la me th e Ju ry Jo ne s ar gu es th atth e “ lo wer co ur ts ha ve no t, i n [h is ] es ti m at io n, pe rs ua si ve ly addres se d [h is ] co nt en ti on th atth e St at e u ti li zedanex pl ic itst rat eg y of see ki ng to in fla m e th e jury for t he pu rp os e o f ob ta in in g t he de ath
reco m m en da ti on .” Jo ne s ci te s t he tes ti m on y reg ard in g h is sp id er web tat to o a nd

11Dete ct iv e Parke r’s te st im on y th atJo ne s u se d araci al sl ur ina po st -arr es t in te rv ie w. He do es no t, h owe ve r, ci te an y leg al au th or it y

in supp ort o f th is arg um en t. J on es ’s app li cat io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity is un cl ear, b utwe
co ns tru e th is arg um en t as refe rri ng to th e cl ai m in hi s p et it io n tha t t he st at e tr ia l
co urt s ho ul d h av e ex cl ud edall ev id en ce o f hi s al le ge d ra ci al bi as . Jo ne s d oe s n ot
ex pl ai n h ow t he in tro du ct io n o f th is ev id en ce v io la te d h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. No re as on ab le juri stco ul d d eb at e th e d eci si on of t he di stric t co ur t t o d en y rel ie f on th is gro un d. In th e d is tri ctco ur t, J on es arg ue d t ha t t he “ Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atris k o f raci al pre jud ic e aff ect in g t he ou tc om e o f a cri m in al jus ti ce p ro ces s i s u na ccep tabl e an d m us t b e g ua rd edag ai ns t” an d c it ed two de ci si on s i n s up po rt o f th atge ne ral pro po si ti on . See Mc Cl es ky v. Kem p, 4 81 U.S. 27 9, 1 07 S. Ct. 1 75 6 (1 98 7) ; Tu rn er v . Murray, 476 U.S. 28 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 68 3 (1 98 6) . Thes e au th or it ie s d o n otev en hi ntth atth e d eci si on of t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt t o d en y

Jo ne s re li ef o n t hi s g ro un d was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law. D. Grou nd

Fou r: Ine ff ect iv e Ass is ta nc e Regar di ng Men ta l Hea lth Mi ti

ga ti on Eviden ce Jo ne s ar gu es th athi s t ria l at to rn ey s wer e in effe ct iv e b ecau se th ey “ sh ou ld ha ve pre se nt edav ai labl e m en ta l-h eal th m it ig at io n.” Jo ne s’s ap pl ic at io n
12su m

m ari zes th e te st im on y

of Dr. Li pm an an d s ta te s tha t “ reas on ab le juri st s co ul d di fferon th e que st io n[ ] of whet he r su ch po werfu l an d e xt en si ve m it ig at io n s ho ul d ha ve be en pre se nt edforth e jury’ s co ns id erat io n.” Jo ne s’s o nl y leg al arg um en t th athi s at to rn ey s p erfo rm edin effe ct iv el y is th atth e Supr em e Co ur t “ ha s rep eat ed ly stat edth at , un de r Hit ch co ck [ v. Du gg er, 4 81 U.S. 39 3, 1 07 S. Ct. 1 82 1 (1 98 7) ,] an d Lo ck et t[ v . Ohi o, 4 38 U.S. 58 6, 9 8 S . Ct. 2 95 4 (1 97 8) ,] th e jury sh ou ldkn ow t he pe rs on th ey are b ei ng ask edto sen te nc e to de ath.” Jo ne s h as no t
es tabl is he d t ha t h e is en ti tl edto a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity on th is gro un d. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t re jecte d t hi s cl ai m

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f
co un se l b ecau se Jo ne s’s at to rn ey s i nv es ti ga te d h is m en ta l h eal th , th ey pre se nt ed
ex pe rt t es ti m on y

reg ard in g h is m en ta l fu nc ti on in g a nddru g a dd ic ti on , andth e tr ia l
co urt fo un d m it ig at io n:

Th i s i s no t a cas e in whi ch tri al co un se l fai le d to co nduc t an y m ea nin gf ul inv es ti ga ti on in to m it ig at io n. Defen se at to rn ey s Bu zzell an d Ch ip pe rfi el d bo th reco un t ed th ei r in ve st ig at io n in to m en ta l he al th m it ig at io n. In de e d, Bu zzel l st at ed th at th e de fen se te am sp en t subs ta nt ia l ti m e on th is is su e. Add it io na ll y , th e tri al reco rd es tabl is he s th at Jo ne s’ m en ta l he al th an d se rio us c o c ai ne ad di ct io n were m ajor th em es in th is cas e. As t h i s C o u r t no te d on di rect ap pe al , co un se l pr es en te d t he tes ti m on y

of two ex pe rts du rin g t he pe na lt y ph as e: Defen se co un se l al so cal le d Drew Edwar ds to te st ify a s an ex pe rt in th e pe na lt y -p ha se pr oc eed in gs . Edw a r d s of fere d hi s te s ti m on y as an ex pe rt reg ard in g th e effe ct of co cai ne on th e br ai n. Edwar ds te st i f i e d th at Jo ne s was a crac k a d di ct , su ffer in g fro m th es e sym pt om s. Edwar ds 13m ad e cl ear th at he di d no t be li ev e ad di ct io n to co cai n e is an ex cu se fo r cri m e, y et he ad m it te d th at a co cai ne ad di ct wou ld su ffer im

pa irment of hi s ab il it y to co nf orm hi s co nduc t to th e requi rem en ts of th e la w. Edwar ds te st ifi ed th at de sp it e hi s ad di ct io n, Jo ne s wou ld ha ve al way s kn own th e d iff eren ce b et ween rig htan d wro ng . Ano th er de fen se ex pe rt te st ifi ed th at Jo ne s ha s an I.Q. of 78 , p la ci ng hi m be twee n th e fif th an d ni nt h pe rcen ti le s of th e po pu la ti on . The ex pe rt t e s ti fie d th at st an da rd iz ed te st s rev e a l e d t ha t Jo ne s ha d li tt le ab il it y to co nt ro l hi s im

pu ls es , bu t ad m it te d th at hi s m ot iv at io n to ge t th e rig ht an swe r du rin g hi s te st in g ap pe ared to “ va ry .” Sh e op i n e d t h a t he was ab le to co nf orm hi s co nduc t to th e requi r e men ts of th e la w, “pr ov id ed he ’s no t im pa ire d in so m e o th er way. ” Jo ne s, 7 48 So . 2dat 1 01 7. A lth ou gh Jo ne s ackno wled ge s th at tri al co un se l did pur sue m enta l he al th m it ig at io n, he arg ue s th at tri al co un s e l d id no t ad equa te ly in ve st ig at e, pr ep are, an d p res en t ev id en ce o n th is is su e. W e d is ag ree. Th is is no t a cas e whe re a m en ta l he al th de fen se was co ns id e r e d a n d th en su m

m a r i ly reject ed

. Rat he r, m en ta l he al th m it ig at io n was vi go ro us ly pu rs ue d, th e jury was in st ru ct ed on st atut ory m it ig at io n, an d th e tri al co urt fo un d m it ig at io n . . . . Acco rd in gl y , tri al co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce reg ard in g th e pr es en ta ti on of m it ig at io n was no t de fic ie nt
. . . . Jo ne s II , 94 9 S o. 2 d a t 1 03 5. The reco rdsupp orts th e d es cri pt io n b y th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t o f th e
m en ta l h eal th de fen se pre se nt edby Jon es ’s att orne y s, an d re as on ab le juri st s wo ul d
no t d eb at e th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t t o d en y rel ie f on th is gro un d. Itis no t de ba tabl e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t re as on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law. 14E. W ai ver of Gro un ds No t Ar

gu ed in th e App li ca ti on Jo ne s h as waiv edth e ri gh t t o acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y onev ery ot he r gr ou ndst at edin th e st at e an d d is tri ctco ur ts . Jo ne s’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e of ap pe al ab il it y

co m pr is es eig htpa ge s, twen ty-fou r nu m be redpa rag rap hs , two
su m m ary ci ta ti on s o f Supr em e Co ur t p rece de nt , andco nc lu so ry st at em en ts li ke ,

“ Cert ai nl y , reas on ab le juri st s m ig htdi fferonth is is su e.” W e h av e o ve rlo ok ed th es e d efi ci en ci es an d c on st ru edJo ne s’s ap pl ic at io n a s ar gu in g s pe ci fic al ly for a cert ifi cat e o n fo ur

of t he gro un ds he st at edin th e st at e an d d is tri ctco urts , bu t we wil l n oten te rta in th e p os si bi li ty of gr an ti ng a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on an y ot he r gr ou ndbe cau se Jo ne s d oe s n otpro vi de fact s, l eg al arg um en ts , or c it at io ns of
au th or it y th atex pl ai n wh y

he is en ti tl edto a cert ifi cat e o n tho se othe r gr ou nd s. W e h av e rep eat ed ly requ ire d l it ig an ts to id en ti fy erro rs an d p ro vi de arg um en ts ab ou t the ir e nt it le m en t t o re li ef. Thi s ru le m ean s t ha t a l it ig an t wh o fai ls in hi s i ni ti al bri ef ev en to all eg e an erro r wai ve s t he rig htto rel ie f ba se d upo n th atall eg at io n. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Mag lu ta , 41 8 F .3d11 66 , 11 85 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). It al so m ean s t ha t we wi ll no t g ran t re li ef b as edup on anall eg at io n rai se d wh ere ali ti ga nt“ fai l[s ] to elabo rat e o r pr ov id e an y cit at io n o f au th or it y

in
supp ort o f th e . . . all eg at io n.” Fla ni ga n’s En te rs ., Inc . v. Fu lt on Co un ty, 24 2 F .3d 97 6, 9 87 n.1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . W e h av e n ottre at edpe ti ti on ers see ki ng writ s o f 15habe as co rp us an y di ffer en tl y

fro m ot he r li ti ga nt s. See Ph il m or e v . McNei l, 5 75 F.3 d 1 25 1, 1 25 9 & n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); I sa acs v. Head , 30 0 F .3d12 32 , 12 53 n.6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)

. Thi s ru le ap pl ie s wi th equa l fo rce t o p et it io ne rs see ki ng a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity . In Pa rd o v . Secre ta ry , Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, we h el d th atbe cau se Pard o h adno t ar gu edth athi s at to rn ey was i ne ffec ti ve for

ag reei ng to try sev eral m

ur de r co un ts ina si ng le tri al in hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity

he ha d “ waiv edth e is su e in th is co ur t.” 5 87 F.3d10 93 , 11 03 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Sev eral of o ursi st er ci rcu it s h av e al so ap pl ie d t hi s ru le ab ou t wai ve r to ap pl ic at io ns forcert ifi cat es of app eal ab il it y . See Ort iz v. Qu art erm an , 50 9 F .3d 21 4, 2 15 (5t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; Un it edSta te s v . Spr in gf ie ld , 33 7 F .3d11 75 , 11 78 (10 th Ci r. 20 03 ); B eat ty v. Uni te d S ta te s, 2 93 F.3d62 7, 6 32 –3 3 (2 d C ir. 2 00 2)

. The rul es an d s ta tu te th atgo ve rn writ s o f habe as co rp us an d c ert ifi cat es of ap pe al ab il ity , as wel l as ou r lo cal rul es , supp or t o urap pl ic at io n o f th e wai ve r ru le in th is set ti ng . By

rul e, in th e d is tri ctco ur t, a p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us
m us t “ sp eci fy

all th e g ro un ds forrel ie f av ai labl e to th e p et it io ne r.” Ru le s Gov ern in g § 22 54 Cas es , Rul e 2 (c). Mo reo ve r, no co ur t m ay is su e a ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity

un le ss “ th e ap pl ic an t h as m ad e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of
a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ” an d t he cert ifi cat e it se lf “ sh al l i nd ic at e whi ch sp eci fic is su e 16oris su es sat is fy ” th atst an da rd . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ), (3 ). W e ag ree wi th th e

Seco ndCir cu itth atth is rul e an d s ta tu te “ co nt em pl at e a s pe ci fic id en ti fic at io n o f th e g ro un ds cla im edto warran t re li ef” i n t he ap pl ic at io n fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity . Beat ty, 29 3 F .3dat 6 32 . Our l oc al rul es als o s up po rt t hi s
co nc lu si on . Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 2 7 re qu ire s tha t ev ery m ot io n

“ st at e wit h p art ic ul ari ty the gro un ds forth e m ot io n . . . an d t he leg al arg um en t
ne ces sa ry to supp ort i t,” Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 2 7( a)(2 )(A), an d o urlo cal rul es id en ti fy
an ap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y as am ot io n. Se e 1 1t h C ir. R . 27

- 1( d) (2 ) (l is ti ng anap pl ic at io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y as am ot io n upo n whi cha si ng le jud ge is au th or iz edto act ). Elev en th Cir cu itRu le 22 -2 , whi ch pr ov id es th atap pl ic at io ns fora cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y m ay be as l on g a s a pr in ci pa l b rie f fi le d i n a n o rd in ary ap pe al , furth er s up po rts requi rin g app li can ts to sp eci fic al ly ide nt ify argu ab ly m eri to rio us is su es an d p ro vi de leg al arg um en ts . See 11 th Cir . R. 22 -2 . Rul e 2 2- 2 p rev en ts li ti ga nt s fr om att rib ut in g abs en t o r
un de ve lo pe d a rg um en ts to a la ckof r oo m to arg ue . W e wil l n otpe rm itJo ne s t o app ly for a ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y wit ho ut id en ti fy in g a ndex pl ai ni ng th e cl ai m s t ha t h e b el ie ve s t o b e arg uabl y m eri to rio us .

“ Req ui rin g t ha t al l cl ai m s b e rai se d . . . is no m or e b ur de ns om e fo r a p et it io ne r reque st in g a[certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y ] th an itis fora pa rty ondi rectrev ie w, 17whe re the waiv er d oc tri ne is rou ti ne ly app li ed .” Brewe r v. Qu art erm an , 47 5 F .3d

25 3, 2 56 (5t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Mor eo ve r, a “pr is on er wh o h as un su cces sf ul ly ten de red
nu m ero us cla im s t o adi stric t co urt wi ll oft en sen si bl y foc us hi s ap pe ll at e eff

orts
on th e o ne or two cl ai m s h e co ns id ers m os t p ro m is in g.” Beat ty, 29 3 F .3dat 6 32
. IV. CONCLUSI ON Jo ne s’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a Cer ti fic at e o f App eal ab il it y is DENIE D
.

18