2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-7-2006 

# S teve ns v . H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-9011 & 04-9013

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S t eve n s v . H orn" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 777. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/777NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 04- 9011 & 04- 9013

________________ ANDR E S T E VE NS v. M A R T IN H O R N , C om m i ssi on er, P enn sy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; C O N N E R B L A I N E , Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atG r eene ; J O SE PH P. M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at Ro c k v i e w, A ppel l ant s i n N o. 04- 9011

________________ A N D RE STEV EN S, A ppel l anti n N o. 04- 9013

v. M A R T IN H O R N , C om m i ssi on er, P enn sy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; C O N N E R B L A I N E , Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atG r eene ; J O SE PH P. M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at R ockvi ew

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 99- cv- 01918) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r thurJ . Schw ab

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y6, 2006 B efore: V A N A N T W E R P E N , A L D ISE R T and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed J ul y7, 2006)W e dis cuss the rel evan tfact s of t he case in the co urse of res olvi ng the p art i es’ 1 ar gum ent s . Fora ful l acc ountof the off ens e and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , the i nt er es t ed r eade r i s r efe rr ed t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s thor ough opi ni on. See St evens v. H orn, 319 F. Supp. 2d 5 9 2 , 6 1 7 (W . D . P a. 20 0 4 ). 2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . I n thi s appea l and cr os s - appea l i n a capi t al cas e, the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a and A ndr e St evens as k us t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s part i al gr antof St evens ’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus . W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ct C ou rti n all res pects . I. S teve n s w as c o n v ict ed at a 1 9 9 3 b en ch tr ial o n tw o co u n ts of first -de g ree m u rde r. 1 A ttr i al , St evens di d notdi s put e thathe s hothi s es tr anged w i fe, B r enda J o St evens , and heracqua i nt ance , M i chae l L ove, ata B eave rC ounty , Penns y l vani a, bar . A j uryw as empanel ed forthe capi t al s ent enci ng phas e. I tunani m ous l yfound the exi s t ence of aggr avat i ng fac t or s , and i tunani m ous l yfound thatthos e aggr avat i ng fac t or s outw ei ghed th e mi t i g a t i n g f

a c t o r s . S t e v e n s wa s s e n t e n c e d t o d e a th . On d i r e c ta p p e a l , th e S u p r e me C our tof Penns y l vani a af fi r m ed. C om m onw eal th v. St evens , 670 A . 2d 623, 627- 28 ( Pa. 1 9 9 6 ).T he C om m onw eal th’ s appea l of the gr antof habe as r el i ef on the W i ther s poon i s s ue 2 w a s d o c k e te d a t C .A . N o . 0 4 -9 0 1 1 . S te v e n s ’s a p p e a l w a s d o c k e te d a t C .A . N o . 0 4 -9 0 1 3 . P re v io u s ly, w e g ra n te d S te v e n s a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility a s to h is g u ilt- p h a s e c la im . S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). 3 S h o rtlyth e re a f

ter , S tev e n s f

iled a p e tit io n p u rsu a n t to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia P o stC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( PC R A ) . T he PC R A courtdeni ed r el i ef. I n aff i r m i ng, the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ts pl i t , 5- 2, on the mer i t s of St evens ’ s cl ai m thattr i al couns el r ender ed i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance atthe gui l tphas e byfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e, devel op, and pr es enta di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e. See C om m onw eal th v. St evens , 739 A . 2d 507, 511- 16 ( Pa. 1999) . U nani m ous l y , the courtr ej ect ed St evens ’ s ar gum entthatcouns el i neff ect i vel yfai l ed t o ar gue thata pot ent i al j ur orw as i m pr oper l yexcl uded under W i ther s poon v. I l l i noi s , 391 U . S. 510, 522 ( 1968) . I d. at520- 21. Sever al m onths l at er , St evens fi l ed hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on. I n the pet i t i on, he ra is e d f o u rt e e n c la im s , in c lu d in g , in tera lia , tha t (a ) c o u n se l in e f f e c tiv e lyf

a iled to form ul at e and pr es s a di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e and ( b) the pot ent i al j ur or ’ s excl us i on cons t i tut ed a W i ther s poon vi ol at i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef on the inef fe cti v en ess c lai m , w h ich w as S teve n s’s o n lyg u il t- p h ase claim . T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed r el i ef on St evens ’ s W i ther s poon cl ai m . St evens v. H orn, 319 F. Supp. 2d 592, 6 1 7 (W .D . P a . 2 0 0 4 ). It d id n o t re a c h S tev e n s’s re m a in in g se n ten c in g c laim s. B o th St evens and the C om m onw eal th t i m el yappea l ed. 2O u r a p p e llate ju risd ictio n lies p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A s w e d isc u ss in d e tail 3 i n the t extw hen nec es s ary , defe r ent i al s t andar ds govern a fe der al habea s court ’ s r evi ew of l egal and fa ctual det erm i nat i ons m ade bys t at e court s . See, e. g. , J acobs v. H orn, 395 F . 3d 92 , 10 0 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). If a l egal quest i on w as l eftun res olved bythe st at e cou rt s, ou r r eview i s de novo . See i d. 4 II. 3 A. S te v e n s a rg u e d in h is h a b e a s p e titio n th a t h is tr ia l a tto rn e y , W a yn e L ip e c k y , E s q ., pr ovi ded cons t i tut i onal l yi nadequa t e r epr es ent at i on byfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e, devel op, and pr es enta di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e. T o es t abl i s h i neff ect i venes s on the partof L ip e c k y , S tev e n s w a s re q u ire d to sh o w b o th th a t (a ) th e a tto rn e yp e rf o rm e d u n re a so n a b ly u n d e r p re v a ili n g p ro f

e ss io n a l n o rm s a n d (b ) th e re e x ists a “ re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty ” th a t, butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , he w oul d nothave be en convi ct ed. See S tr icklan d v . W ash ing ton , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 8 -89 , 6 9 4 (19 8 4 ). St evens or i gi nal l yr et ai ned W endel l Fr eel and, E s q. , t o r epr es enthi m . Fr eel and s ubs equent l yw i thdr ew beca us e of the cos tof hi r i ng m ent al heal th expert s , and the tr i al c o u rt a p p o in te d th e B e a v e r C o u n ty P u b lic D e f e n d e r’ s O f

f ic e to re p re s e n t S te v e n s . L i pecky , r epr es ent i ng thatoffi ce, ul t i m at el yt ook overthe pr i m aryr es pons i bi l i tyfort he cas e. St evens cont ends thatL i peckyfai l ed t o forw ar d cert ai n cat egor i es of evi dence

— a j ournal , St evens ’ s l ett er s t o Fr eel and, hi s compl et e mi l i t aryand empl oym entr ecor ds , and i nform at i on fr om fami l ym ember s abouthi s chi l dhood— t o ps y chi atr i c expe r t s . D ur i ng the s t at e pos t convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs , s ever al expert s opi ned that , had Li peckypr ovi ded5

thi s i nform at i on t o an expe r tpr i ort o tr i al , he w oul d have be en abl e t o s ecur e and pr es ent expertt es t i m onyatthe gui l tphas e thatSt evens s uffe r ed— atthe t i m e of the off ens e— fr om pr ofound neur ops y chol ogi cal ai l m ent s . A m ong otherthi ngs , thes e expe r t s t es t i fi ed thatSt evens s uffe r ed fr om or gani c br ai n damage, ps y chos i s , pr ofoundl ydi s or gani zed thi nki ng, par anoi a, and extr eme depr es s i on. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed the i neff ect i venes s cl ai m , hol di ng that S tev e n s h a d “ n o t p ro v e d , b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , tha t th e re w a s a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i tythatpr es ent at i on of expe r tt es t i m onyconce rni ng [hi s ] ps y chos i s w oul d have s ucce s s ful l ypr event ed the C om m onw eal th fr om pr ovi ng . . . pr emedi t at i on bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” St evens , 739 A . 2d at516. T he courtr el i ed, i n part i cul ar , on the tr i al j udge’ s as s ert i on— w hen s i t t i ng as the PC R A court

— thateven i f he ha d had the bene fi tof a d d iti o n a l tes tim o n yc o n c e rn in g S tev e n s’s n e u ro p sy c h o lo g ica l d e f icie n c ies , h e w o u ld n e v e r th e l e s s h a v e f

o u n d th a tS t e v e n s a c t e d wi th th e s p e c i f i c i n t e n tt o k i l l . I d . Th e P CRA c o u rt e m p h a siz e d , in p a rticu lar , the e v id e n c e in d ica tin g th a t S tev e n s h a d p u rp o se f u lly r etr i eved hi s w eapon f

r om hi s vehi cl e bef

or e r eturni ng t o the bart o att ack Bre nda J o and L ove. I d. O n h a b e a s re v ie w , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d re lie f o n th e in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s c la im . R ecogni zi ng thatthe s t at e court s had notdeci ded w hetherL i pecky ’ s per form ance w as unr eas onabl ydefi ci ent , the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a de novo r evi ew of thati s s ue. See St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at608 ( ci t i ng W i ggi ns v. Sm i th, 539 U . S. 510, 534 ( 2003) ) . T he6

D istric t C o u rt g e n e ra llyf o u n d th a t L ip e c k y ’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s re a so n a b le, a lth o u g h it opt ed nott o deci de w hetherL i peckyper form ed unr eas onabl yi n fai l i ng t o obt ai n and f o rw a rd in f

o rm a tio n f

ro m S te v e n s ’s f

a m ily a b o u t h is lif

e a n d d if f ic u lt c h ild h o o d . St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at613. T u rn in g to th e iss u e o f

p re ju d ice , the D istric t C o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t itw o u ld n o rm a lly o w e d e f

e re n c e to th e P e n n s y lv a n ia s ta te c o u rt s ’ r e s o lu tio n o f th a t is s u e . St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at613- 14. N everthel es s , i tnot ed St evens ’ s ar gum entthatthe P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f th e p re ju d ice iss u e — w h ich se e m e d to re ly on the PC R A j udge’ s s ubj ect i ve obs ervat i ons abouthow he per s onal l yw oul d have v i e we d th e e v i d e n c e o f

n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l a i l me n t s — wa s “ c o n tr a ryt o ” th e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n to n i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . S e e i d . a t6 1 4 ; s e e a l s o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 25 4(d) ( requi ri ng defe rence byhab eas cou rt s t o st at e cou rt s’ l egal conclusi on s unles s theyco n sti tuted an “u n rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n o f” o r w ere “c o n tr aryto” S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece dent ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thati tneed notdeci de w hetherthe ana l y s i s of pr ej udi ce c onduct ed bythe s t at e court s w as “contr aryt o” Str i ckl and bec aus e no pr ej udi ce co u ld b e sh o w n ev en u n d er de novo r evi ew . St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at614. B. A l though t he s ubs t ance of ouranal y s i s i s s om ew hatdi ffe r entthan the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s , w e agr ee thatSt evens cannotpr evai l on hi s i neff ect i venes s cl ai m . I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, w e exe r ci s e ourdi s cr et i on t o deci de the cl ai m s ol el yon the bas i s of theW e d o ag ree w ith m u ch o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s pa rt ial ap p raisal of L ipec k y ’s 4 per form ance . See St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at609- 13. N ot abl y , how ever , w e di s agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s cat egor i cal r ej ect i on of St evens ’ s ar gum entthatL i pecky p e rf o rm e d u n re a so n a b lyb yf a ili n g to f

o rw a rd in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t h is n e u ro p sy c h iatric co n d it ion , p arti cu larl ythe jo u rna l, to the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ow n m en tal h ea lth ex p ert, D r. C hr i s t i ne M art one. D r . M art one t es t i fi ed on pos t convi ct i on r evi ew thati f Li peckyhad br oughtthe i nform at i on, part i cul ar l ythe j ournal , t o heratt ent i on, i tw oul d have pr ofoundl yaff

ect ed the di agnos i s s he pr ovi ded the pr os ecut i on. I ndeed, D r . M art one t es t i fi ed thatthe j ournal s ugges t ed St evens “w as exper i enci ng par anoi d del us i onal id e a tio n p ri o r t o th e s h o o tin g ” a n d w a s a c tu a lly p s y c h o tic a t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n s e . L i pecky , m or eover , t ol d t he PC R A courtthathe had no s tr at egi c r eas on w hat s oeverfor fai l i ng t o gi ve a c opyof the j ournal t o D r . M art one. O bvi ous l y , i f Li peckyhad pr es ent ed evi dence thatw oul d have s haken the C om m onw eal th’ s ow n expert , the cour s e of the pr os ecut i on and tr i al m i ghthave be en much di ffe r ent . See, e. g. , C l abourne v. L ew i s , 64 F .3 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 8 5 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (s tatin g th a t co u n se l co m m itt e d “ e rro r in f a ili n g to pr ovi de the s t at e’ s expert s w i th m at er i al s theyneede d t o devel op an ac cur at e pr ofi l e of [ th e c a p ital d e f

e n d a n t’s] m e n tal h e a lth ” ); se e a lso S tev e n s, 7 3 9 A .2 d a t 5 3 1 (se p a ra te d issen ts of

Ju sti ce s Z ap p ala a n d N igro , rely ing o n L ipec k y ’s fa il u re to p rov ide D r. M arton e w ith relev an t m aterial s). 7 St r i ckl and pr ej udi ce pr ong. See St r i ckl and, 466 U . S. at697 ( “[i ] f i ti s eas i ert o di s pos e of an i neff ect i venes s cl ai m on t he gr ound of l ack of s uffi ci entpr ej udi ce, w hi ch w e expe ct w ill o f ten b e so , tha t co u rse sh o u ld b e f o llo w e d ” ). T h is a p p ro a c h is p a rticu lar ly appr opr i at e i n t hi s cas e bec aus e ( a) the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdi d notpas s on t he re a so n a b len e ss o f

L ip e c k y ’s p e rf

o rm a n c e a n d (b ) th e D istric t C o u rt itse lf o p ted n o t to d ec ide s o m e a sp ec ts of

S teve n s’s claim that L ipec k yu n rea so n ab lyfa il ed to f o rw ard evidence to the p sy chiatri c exp ert s. 4 I n fi ndi ng thatSt evens had notdemonstr at ed a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyof pr ej udi ce u n d er S tr icklan d , the D istri ct C o u rtreli ed o n tw o them es. F ir st, the D istri ct C o u rt8

c o n c lu d e d th a t S tev e n s h a d n o t su f f icie n tlyp o in ted to th e e x iste n c e o f a n ya d m iss ib le e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld h a v e b e e n d e v e lo p e d if c o u n se l h a d p ro v id e d b e tter in f o rm a tio n to the ps y chi atr i c expe r t s . Second, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatther e w as s uch “overw hel m i ng evi dence of s peci fi c i nt ent ” thatSt evens s i m pl ycoul d notdemonstr at e a re a s o n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t L ip e c k y ’s f a ilu re s h a d a lte re d th e o u tc o m e o f th e g u ilt p h a s e . O f thes e tw o gr ounds , the s econd i s m or e per s uas i ve. “I n Penns y l vani a, di m i ni s hed capaci ty‘ i s an extr emel yl i m i t ed def ens e, w hi ch r equi r es ext ens i ve ps y chi atr i c t es t i m onyes t abl i s hi ng a def endants uffe r ed fr om one or m or e ment al di s or der s w hi ch pr event ed hi m fr om form ul at i ng the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l . ’ ” J acobs v. H orn, 395 F. 3d 92, 105 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng C om m onw eal th v. C uevas , 832 A . 2d 388, 393 ( Pa. 2003) ) . I n t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s vi ew , St evens poi nt ed on pos t convi ct i on r evi ew t o t oo l i t t l e evi dence s ugges t i ng he s uffe r ed fr om ps y chol ogi cal dis orders that m i gh thav e preven t ed the form ulat i on of the speci fi c i ntentt o k i l l . S t even s, 319 F. Supp. 2d at614- 16 & n. 18. Speci fi cal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tbel i eved the pos t convi ct i on t es t i m onyof St evens ’ s expert s had bee n t oo focus ed on w hattheym i ght have be en abl e t o t el l the j uryatthe s ent enci ng phas e ( and notfocus ed enough on w hat theycoul d have s ai d atthe gui l tphas e) . See i d. I n thi s r egar d, the D i s tr i ctC our ts tr es s ed th a tDr . Ro d n e yAl t ma n “ n e v e rs t a t e d ( a n d i n f a c twa s n e v e ra s k e d b yS t e v e n s ’ [ s ] P CRAIn its a n a ly sis o f th e S trick lan d p re

ju d ice p ro n g , the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d id 5 notr el yon thi s thi nki ng. See St evens , 739 A . 2d at515- 16. A ccor di ngl y , ther e i s no i s s ue of l egal defe r ence as t o t hi s . See s upr a n. 3. A s not ed bel ow , ther e is an i s s ue of defe r ence as t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve r es ol ut i on of the pr ej udi ce pr ong. D r . M art one w as the C om m onw eal th’ s expertatthe t i m e of the gui l tphas e. See 6 s u p ra n .4 . T h e re a f

te r, s h e w a s h ir e d b yS te v e n s . 9 cou nsel ) that . . . he w ou l d h ave b een ab l e t o tes t i fyatthe g uil tph ase that St even s’ [s] i m pai rm ent s aff

ect ed hi s abi l i tyt o form ul at e the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l . ” I d. at615. 5 It is tru e th a t D r. A ltm a n ’s te stim o n yf o c u se d lar g e lyo n w h a t ev id e n c e h e w o u ld have be en abl e t o pr es entatthe pena l typhas e i f ful l erneur ops y chol ogi cal t es t i ng had b e e n c o n d u c ted p rio r to trial. T h a t sa id , D r. A ltm a n e x p re ss lytes tifie d , w ith th e b e n e f it of the i nform at i on avai l abl e on pos t convi ct i on r evi ew , that

— atthe t i m e of the off ens e— S t even s w as l i kelypsy cho t i c, parano i d, schi zop hreni c, and exh i bit ed a “thou gh tprocess di s or der . ” D r . R al ph E . L andef el d’ s t es t i m onyw as s i m i l ar . N ot abl y , D r . C hr i s t i ne M art one s peci fi cal l yopi ned thats he bel i eved St evens ’ s ps y chos i s w as s er i ous enough thathe w as unabl e t o form the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l . I ndeed, as St evens s tr es s es , eac h of 6 hi s thr ee pr i m aryexpert s agr eed thathe s uffe r ed fr om pr ofound neur ops y chol ogi cal ai l m ent s atthe t i m e of the cr i m e. A l though m uch of the expe r t s ’ pos t convi ct i on t es t i m onyw as focus ed on w hattheym i ghthave of fer ed atthe pena l typhas e as m i t i gat i on evi dence , thi s s ame t es t i m onyw as s eemi ngl yof the type thatPenns y l vani a court s have f o u n d to b e re le v a n t a n d a d m is s ib le a s to th e q u e s tio n o f d im in is h e d c a p a c ity. S e e , e .g ., J acobs , 395 F. 3d at105; s ee a l s o C om m onw eal th v. L egg, 711 A . 2d 430, 433 ( Pa. 1998)In h is b rie f s, a n d e c h o in g Ju stic e Z a p p a la’ s d iss e n t o n P C R A a p p e a l in sta te c o u rt, 7 St evens t akes i s s ue w i th t he ent i r e i dea of r el y i ng on pr oof of s peci fi c i nt ent . I ti s cl ear fr om Z ett l emoy er , how ever , thatw e can cons i derevi dence of s peci fi c i nt entw hen determ i ning w hetheran att orney ’s fai l ure t o p rove a d i m i nis hed capac i tydefe nse cons t i tut ed i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance . See Zet t l emoy er , 923 F. 2d at297. 10 ( s tr es s i ng thatevi dence of cogni t i ve di s or der s aff ect i ng the def

endant ’ s abi l i tyt o act d eli b era tel yo r pe rm issi v elyw as a d m issi b le). M or e convi nci ng i s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve pr ej udi ce- pr ong concl us i on, that the ev i den ce present ed at tri al w as so ove rw helm i ng that St even s could no test abli sh a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t an o b jec tiv e trier -o f

-f a c t, ev e n o n e p re se n ted w ith a f u ll di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e s uppor t ed byexpertt es t i m ony , w oul d have f ound hi m not gui l ty . See St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at616- 17. I n Z ett l emoy erv. Ful comer , 923 F. 2d 2 8 4 , 2 9 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), w e c o n c lu d e d th a t— e v e n if it w e re a s s u m e d , d u b ita n te , thatt he att orneyi n thatcapi t al cas e per form ed unr eas onabl ybyfai l i ng t o obt ai n and pr es ent evi dence i n s uppor tof a di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e— the habe as pet i t i onercoul d not es t abl i s h St r i ckl and pr ej udi ce i n t he fa ce of “compel l i ng uncontr overt ed evi dence ” es t abl i s hi ng an i nt entt o ki l l . I n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s vi ew , the evi dence agai ns tSt evens 7 w as anal og ou s:

St evens admi t t ed dur i ng the gui l tphas e of hi s tr i al thathe l eft A rm a n d o ' s b a r th e n ig h t o f th e m u rd e rs, re triev e d h is g u n f ro m h is car , cocke d i tthr ee t i m es , and then r eent er ed the bar . H e s t ood near th e d a n c e f

lo o r a n d w a ite d f

o r L o v e a n d h is w if

e to f in is h d a n c in g . W hen theyw al ked aw ayfr om eac h other , he appr oache d hi s w i fe, pr es s ed the gun t o the bac k of herhead a nd s hother . H e then turned to L o v e — w h o h a d ra ise d h is a rm s in th e a ir— a n d sh o t h im tw ice in11 r api d s ucce s s i on. H e s hotL ove s ever al m or e t i m es w hi l e Love l ay on the fl oor , i ncl udi ng an i nt ent i onal s hott o hi s s cr otum ar ea. A ft er s hoot i ng L ove, he then r efoc us ed on hi s w i fe, w ho l ayl i fel es s on the fl oor . H e s hotheragai n i n the hea d and he a dm i t t ed thathe had i nt ent i onal l yai m ed atherback. S teve n s, 3 1 9 F . S u p p . 2 d at 61 6 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). T h e P e n n s yl v a n i a S u p r e m e C o u r tp r o v i d e d a s i m i l a rs u m m a ry o f th e t e s t i m o n y: [T]he r e w as t es t i m onythat , on the eve ni ng of the murde r s , A ppel l ant b e c a m e v e ry a n g ry w h e n h e s a w B re n d a J o d a n c in g w ith L o v e . A ppel l ants l amm ed hi s for earm s on the barand s t ood and s t ar ed at L ove and Bre nda J o and then l eftthe bar . H e r etr i eved hi s gun fr om benea th the s eatof hi s vehi cl e and r eturned t o the bar . A ppel l ant w a lk e d to w a rd th e tab le a re a , p u lled th e g u n f ro m u n d e rn e a th h is j acke t , r ai s ed i t , butthen l ow er ed i tt o hi s s i de and w ai t ed unt i l L ove and B r enda J o w er e fi ni s hed danc i ng. W hen theyl eftthe danc e fl oor , A ppel l antcocke d the gun and w i thouthes i t at i on w al ked up b e h in d B re n d a J o a n d s h o t h e r i n th e b a c k o f th e h e a d a t c lo s e ra n g e . H e then turned t o L ove and s hothi m tw i ce r api dl yi n s ucce s s i on, and fi r ed atL ove s ever al t i m es w hi l e he l ayon the fl oor , i ncl udi ng an i nt ent i onal s hotthr ough the s cr otum ar ea. A ppel l antfi r ed a l as ts hot atB r enda J o, hi t t i ng heragai n i n the hea d. A ppel l anthad fi r ed a t otal of ten shots .T h e P C R A co u rtreli ed o n a sim il ar su m m aryo f e v en ts. N o tably , the P C R A co u rt 8 s peci fi cal l ym ade thi s fi ndi ng:

D ur i ng A ppel l ant ’ s l as ts epar at i on fr om hi s w i fe, he had gone out w i th hi s br other - i n- l aw i n the s um m erpr i ort o the s hoot i ngs . A tthat t i m e, A ppel l antpul l ed a gun outof hi s j acke tand t ol d hi s br other - i nl aw thathe w as goi ng t o ki l l hi s s i s t erand a c op. T he gun he ha d s how n w as the s ame as the murde rw eapon. T hatcourtal s o s tr es s ed thatSt evens ’ s gun had t o be coc ked bef or e i tcoul d be fi r ed. 12 St evens , 739 A . 2d at516. T he Supr eme C our toffe r ed thi s r ecount i ng i n the cour s e of 8 expr es s l yagr eei ng w i th the PC R A courtw hen i thel d that , even i n the fa ce of a d im in ish e d c a p a c ityd e f e n se f u llysu p p lem e n ted w ith a p p ro p ria te e x p e rt tes tim o n y , it

“ w o u ld still h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t [ S tev e n s] h a d th e c a p a c ityto f o rm th e sp e c if

ic in ten t to ki l l . ” I d. St evens ar gues that( i ) the tr i al ( and PC R A ) j udge err ed w hen he r el i ed on w hat hi s ow n per s onal vi ew of a f ul l y - s uppor t ed di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e w oul d have be en and ( i i ) the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our texac erbat ed thi s err orbydefe rr i ng t o the tr i al ju d g e ’s s u b

jec tiv e v iew s. T h is is a f a ir p o in t. C o u rts h a v e g e n e ra llyin d ica ted th a t a d e te rm in a tio n o f

S tr ic k la n d p re

ju d ic e s h o u ld b e th e re s u lt o f a n o b je c tiv e a n a lysis (i .e ., how an obj ect i ve dec i s i onm akerw oul d have a ct ed i f couns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s had notoccurr ed) . See St r i ckl and, 466 U . S. at695 ( s t at i ng thatthe i nqui ryi nt o pr ej udi ce doe s “notdepend on the i di os yncr aci es of the part i cul ardeci s i onm aker ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. M or an, 393 F. 3d 1, 11 n. 6 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ; M i l l erv. A ngl i ker , 848 F. 2d 1312, 1 3 2 3 (2d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ).St evens t es t i fi ed thathe ei therthoughtors ai d, “y ou’ l l f— no m or e” a s he fi r ed the 9 part i ng s hotatL ove. 13 H o w e v e r, ev e n if

th e a p p ro a c h tak e n b yth e sta te c o u rts w a s “ c o n tra ryto ”

— o r, at a m inim u m , an “u n rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n ” o f— S tr icklan d , see 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d), m aki ng defe r ence t o the s t at e court s i nappr opr i at e, St evens s t i l l cannotpr evai l . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, even unde ra de novo r evi ew , St evens cannotes t abl i s h a re a s o n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t a n o b je c tiv e tr ie r- o f

-f a c t w o u ld h a v e f

o u n d h im n o t g u ilty. St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at614. A s i n Z ett l emoy er , the evi dence thatSt evens form ed, and ac t ed upon, the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l w as t oo s tr ong. St evens di d nots i m pl yerupt in to v io len c e w h e n h e sa w B re n d a Jo a n d L o v e d a n c in g a t a b a r. In ste a d , h e w e n t to h is vehi cl e, l ocat ed hi s w eapon unde r neath a s eat , and coc ked i tthr ee t i m es . H e r eent er ed the bar , pul l ed the gun fr om underneath hi s coat , poi nt ed the w eapon a tthe ce i l i ng and then l ow er ed i t . H e w ai t ed unt i l B r enda J o and Love fi ni s hed danc i ng. T hes e eve nt s evi nce a r eal del i ber at enes s , and— s i gni fi cant l y— theyi ndi cat e thatSt evens act ed af t erhavi ng a m o m e n t to re f

lec t. W hen B r enda J o and Love fi ni s hed thei rdance , St evens agai n cocke d the gun; he th e n q u ic k ly ap p ro a c h e d B re n d a J o a n d s h o t h e r i n c lo s e ra n g e in th e b a c k o f th e h e a d . S t e v e n s tu rn e d t o L o v e , wh o s e a r ms we r e i n th e a i r . He s h o tL o v e two o rth r e e t i me s . He then fi r ed s ever al m or e t i m es atL ove, w i th the l as ts hotbei ng an i nt ent i onal s hotatthe m an’ s gr oi n. A gai n, thes e eve nt s evi nce s peci fi c i nt ent . N ot abl y , St evens had t o cock

914

the gun bef

or e fi r i ng i t . H e fi r ed fi r s ton B r enda J o, then turned t o L ove. T he pl ace m ent of hi s fi nal s hotatL ove w as obvi ous l ypurpos eful . A ft erSt evens s hotL ove, he foc us ed att ent i on agai n on B r enda J o, w ho w as l i fel es s on the fl oor . St evens s hotheragai n, havi ng— acc or di ng t o hi s ow n t es t i m ony— i nt ent i onal l yai m ed atherhead. A s w i th t he pr i orevent s , thes e fi nal event s , t oo, s ugges tr eal i nt ent . G i ven thi s overw hel m i ng evi dence of del i ber at enes s and purpos eful nes s , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded that St evens di d notes t abl i s h a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythathe w oul d have be en found not gui l tyi f he ha d been a bl e t o pr es entbett ert es t i m onyfr om ps y chi atr i c expe r t s . T he e v id e n c e o f

h is o w n c rim e , inc lu d in g th e e v id e n c e h e g a v e a t th e g u iltp h a se , b e tra yh is cl ai m thathe ac t ed w i thoutanys peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l . Z ett l emoy er , 923 F. 2d at297. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, S tev e n s h a s n o t es tab lish e d a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t, bu t f

o r c o u n se l’s p o ss ib le e rro rs in f a ili n g to f

o rw a rd e v id e n c e to th e p sy c h iatric expert s , he w oul d nothave be en convi ct ed. E ven a di m i ni s hed capaci tydefe ns e thatw as ful l ys uppl ement ed byexpertt es t i m onyw oul d have be en fa t al l yunderm i ned bythe evi dence , i nher enti n t he eve nt s of the murde r s , thatSt evens act ed w i th the s peci fi c i nt ent to k ill . III . A. D ur i ng voi rdi r e pr i ort o t he s ent enci ng phas e, the fol l ow i ng col l oquyoccurr ed betw een pot ent i al j ur orN ancyH art l i ng and the j udge:15 Ju d g e : D o y o u h a v e a n o p in io n a b o u t th e d e a th p e n a ltyw h ich w o u ld pr eventy ou fr om fol l ow i ng the C our t ’ s i ns truct i ons as t o w hat penal tys houl d be i m pos ed? N a n c y H a r t l i n g : I d o n ’ tb e l i e v e i n th e d e a th p e n a l ty. Ju d g e : V e ryw e ll. P rose cu tor: C h all en g e f o r ca u se, Y o u r H o n o r. J udge: V eryw el l . Y ou ar e exc us ed, thank y ou. S tev e n s’s a tto rn e yd id n o t o b jec t to th e e x c lu sio n o r se e k in a n yw a yto re h a b ili tate H art l i ng. St evens ar gued i n hi s habea s pet i t i on thatthe r emoval of H art l i ng vi ol at ed W i ther s poon. I n W i ther s poon, the Supr eme C our thel d thata mem berof a j urypanel m aynotbe excus ed forcaus e s i m pl yfor“voi c[i ng] gener al obj ect i ons t o the dea th penal tyor e x p re s s [ in g ] c o n s c ie n tio u s o r r e lig io u s s c ru p le s a g a in s t its in f lic tio n .” 3 9 1 U .S . a t 5 2 2 . O therw i s e, a def

endant ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rand i m part i al j uryw oul d be vi ol at ed. See Sz uc ho n v . Leh man, 27 3 F. 3d 29 9, 32 7 ( 3d Ci r . 20 01 ) . I n W a i nwr i gh tv. W i t t , 46 9 U. S. 412, 424 ( 1985) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) , the C our tcl ar i fi ed thatthe p r o p e rs t a n d a r d f

o rd e t e r mi n i n g a Wi th e r s p o o n v i o l a t i o n “ i s wh e th e rth e j u r o r ’ s v i e ws w o u ld p re v e n t o r su b sta n tiallyim p a ir th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

h is d u ties a s a ju ro r in acc or dance w i th hi s i ns truct i ons and hi s oath. ” Thi s s t andar d does notr equi r e, as footnot es i n W i ther s poon i t s el f i nt i m at ed, thata j ur or ’ s bi as agai ns tthe dea th penal tybe sh o w n w ith “ u n m ista k a b le c lar ity .” Id . T h is is s o b e c a u se “ m a n yv e n ire m e n sim p lyT h e D istric t C o u rt q u e stio n e d w h e th e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(2 ) a lso p layed a p a rt in 10 f e d e ra l h a b e a s re v ie w o f a W ith e rs p o o n c la im . S te v e n s , 3 1 9 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 9 9 & n .4 . T hatpr ovi s i on— w hi ch as ks w hethera s t at e court ’ s adj udi cat i on “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s ”— i s partof a l ar gers ect i on thati ns truct s fede r al habea s court s t o gi ve def er ence t o the l egal

c o n c lu sio n s o f

sta te c o u rts. A lth o u g h th is c o u rt m e n tio n e d § 2 2 5 4 (d )(2 ) in b o ilerp late in its o p in io n in M art i ni , s ee 348 F. 3d at363, i t s actual anal y s i s of M art i ni ’ s W i ther s poon cl ai m r evol ved p rim a rilya ro u n d § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 ), w h ich g o v e rn s th e d e f e re n c e th a t m u st b e g iv e n to sta te court s ’ fi ndi ngs of fa ct . See i d. T hi s us e of § 2254( e) ( 1) m akes s ens e bec aus e bi ndi ng pr ece denthol ds thata pot ent i al j ur or ’ s bi as i s a ques t i on of f act . Szuchon, 273 F. 3d at 327. I n anyevent , i f a f eder al habea s courtdet erm i nes thata s t at e court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng of j ur orbi as has been pr oper l yr ebutt ed under§ 2254( e) ( 1) , i tfol l ow s thatanyr es ul t i ng l egal concl us i on bythe s t at e courtw as bas ed “on a n unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa cts” u n d er § 2 2 5 4 (d)(2 ). 16 cannotbe as ked enough que s t i ons t o r eac h the poi ntw her e thei rbi as has been made

‘ unm i s t akabl ycl ear . ’ ” I d. at424- 25. I ti s enough t o j us t i fyan exc us al thatthe tr i al j udge b e “ lef t w ith th e d e f

in ite im p re ss io n th a t a p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r w o u ld b e u n a b le to f a ith f u lly and i m part i al l yapp l ythe law . ” Id. at42 6. A tri al j ud ge’s fi nd i ng un der this st and ard i s a fac tual det erm i nat i on, and i ti s ther efor e ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s under28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 ). M a rtin i v . H e n d ric k s, 3 4 8 F .3 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), ce rt. d e n ied , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 0 2 5 (2 0 0 4 ). T h is re c o g n ize s th a t a tria l ju d g e is in th e b e st p o sitio n to 10 j udge the cr edi bi l i tyand demeanorof pot ent i al j ur or s dur i ng voi rdi r e. W i t t , 469 U . S. at 428; Szuchon, 273 F. 3d at328. W hen the i s s ue w as r ai s ed on s t at e pos t convi ct i on r evi ew , the tr i al j udge s ai d he had “no s peci fi c r ecol l ect i on of M r s . H art l i ng. ” N everthel es s , he thoughtther e musthave been s om ethi ng aboutH art l i ng’ s demeanorthatw as “emphat i c and c l ear l yconvey ed herI n the s t at e court s , as w el l as i n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, St evens pr es ent ed both a 11 W ith e rsp o o n c laim a n d a re late d in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim (i.e., tha t co u n se l in e f f e c tiv e ly fai l ed t o obj ectt o t he exc l us i on of H art l i ng) . I n i t s deci s i on deny i ng r el i ef, the P enn sy l van i a S up rem e C ou rton l yadd res sed t he q uest i on of ineffecti ven ess. S t even s, 7 3 9 A .2 d a t 5 2 1 . B e c a u s e it h e ld th a t S te v e n s ’s h a d n o t e s ta b lis h e d a n yp re ju d ic e , s e e id ., thatcourtpr obabl ydi d nots ee a nyneed t o s epar at el yaddr es s St evens ’ s under l y i ng W i ther s poon cl ai m . I ti s cl ear , how ever , thatSt evens fai r l ypr es ent ed the W i ther s poon i s s ue t o the s t at e court s . See O ’ Sul l i van v. B oer ckel , 526 U . S. 838, 844 ( 1999) ( not i ng that the ex hau st i on rul e on l yrequi res hab eas pet i t i on ers t o h ave g i ven the st at e cou rt s a “ f a iro p p o rt u n ity” to c o n s id e r t h e irc la im s ). 17 unw i l l i ngnes s t o compl yw i th the court ’ s i ns truct i ons . ” H e not ed thathe had a s ked other p o ten tial ju ro rs w h e th e r th e yw o u ld b e a b le to se t as id e th e ir o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th p en alty . In a ff

irm ing the d en ial o f p o stco n v ict ion reli ef , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt a lso n o ted th a t th e trial ju d g e h a d a sk e d “ m o st o th e r p o ten tial ju ro rs” w h e th e r th e yw o u ld be abl e t o s etas i de thei rper s onal opi ni ons aboutthe dea th penal ty . St evens , 739 A . 2d at 5 2 1 . It th e re f

o re “ a c c e p t[ e d ] th e sta tem e n t o f th e trial c o u rt . . . tha t it s d e c isio n n o t to conductfur theri nqui r yw i th r es pectt o [H art l i ng] w as bas ed on i t s as s es s m entof her demeanor . ” I d. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , how ever , found a s tr ai ght forw ar d vi ol at i on of W i ther s poon. St evens , 319 F. Supp. 2d at604. 11 B. A s det ai l ed above , the tr i al j udge— act i ng on the pr os ecut or ’ s obj ect i on— excus ed H a rt lin g f

o r c a u s e a f

te r s h e s im p ly ex p re s s e d h e r p e rs o n a l o p p o s itio n to th e d e a th p e n a lty. N o fol l ow - up ques t i oni ng ens ued t o det erm i ne w hetherH art l i ng coul d, des pi t e her q u alm s ab o u t th e d ea th p en alty , set aside h er v iew s an d fo ll o w the tri al co u rt ’sSect i on 2254( e) ( 1) s t at es the s t andar d byw hi ch a s t at e court ’ s fi ndi ng of fa cti s t o be 12 eval uat ed. T he s t atut e’ s us e of the t erm “bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence ” does not p lac e a b u rd e n o n th e h a b e a s p e tit io n to p re se n t new e v id e n c e c a stin g d o u b t o n th e sta te f in d in g ; itis s u f

f icie n t th a t th e f

e d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rt c o n c lu d e th a t th e f in d in g o f th e sta te court , gi ven the evi dence befor e thatcourt , w as cl ear l yand convi nci ngl yw r ong. See, e.g., W igg ins, 53 9 U . S . at 52 8 (ap p ly ing the s tand ard in this fa sh ion ). 18 instruction s an d the law . A s the C o m m o n w ea lth ap p ea rs t o rec o g n ize, i f w e w ere conduct i ng de novo re v iew , w e w o u ld h a v e to f in d a W ith e rsp o o n v io latio n . In d e e d , in Szuchon, conduct i ng de novo r evi ew , w e found a W i ther s poon vi ol at i on i n an i nt er change thatw as , i f anythi ng, s l i ght l ym or e expa ns i ve than the col l oquyher e. See Szuchon, 273 F. 3d at329. S z u c h o n w a s g o v e rn e d b ya les s d e f e re n tial sta n d a rd o f

re v iew . U n d e r th e p re se n t, m or e def er ent i al r egi m e, the s t at e court s ’ fi ndi ng thatH art l i ng w as bi as ed aga i ns tthe death penal tyi s pr es um ed t o be corr ect , and St evens bear s “the bur den of r ebutt i ng the pr es um pt i on . . . bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 1) . W e agr ee 12 w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatSt evens m etthatbur den her e. A s not ed, and as i n Szuchon, th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r— h e re , H a rtling

— in d ica ted n o m o re th a n th a t sh e o p p o se d th e d e a th penal ty . B eca us e the tr i al j udge di d notfol l ow up H art l i ng’ s s i ngl e s t at ementw i th any fol l ow - up ques t i oni ng, ther e i s s i m pl yno t angi bl e evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe fi ndi ng of the s t at e court s . I n the abs ence of any evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe s t at e court s ’ fi ndi ng, i tm us tbe true thatSt evens has es t abl i s hed, bythe r equi s i t e cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence , thatH art l i ng w as r emoved forcaus e on a “ br oaderbas i s than19

i na bi l i tyt o f

ol l ow t he l a w ora bi de by[h e r ] oa th [ a s a j ur or ] . ” A da ms v . Tex . , 44 8 U. S. 3 8 , 4 8 (1 9 8 0 ); se e a lso G ra yv . M iss ., 4 8 1 U .S . 6 4 8 , 6 5 2 n .3 (1 9 8 7 ) (“ [ a ] m o tio n to excus e a ve ni r e mem berforcaus e of c our s e mustbe s uppor t ed bys peci fi ed ca us es or re a so n s th a t d e m o n stra te, a s a m a tter o f law , the v e n ire m e m b e r is n o t q u a lifie d to s erve”) . I ndeed, the r ecor d s uppor t s buta s i ngl e conc l us i on— thatH art l i ng w as r emoved m ere lyb ec au se sh e e x p resse d o p p o sit ion to the d ea th p en alty . T h is violated S teve n s’s r i ghtt o a fa i rand i m part i al j ury . W i ther s poon, 391 U . S. at522. I n r ej ect i ng St evens ’ s W i ther s poon cl ai m , the s t at e court s r el i ed on the tr i al j udge’ s s t at ementthat , al though he coul d notr emem berthe i nt er change w i th H art l i ng, he m us thave be en r el y i ng on s om ethi ng emphat i c i n herdemeanor . St evens , 739 A . 2d at 5 2 1 . A tr ia l ju d g e is c e rt a in ly en title d to re ly o n a p o te n tia l ju ro r’ s d e m e a n o r. S e e , e .g ., W itt , 4 6 9 U .S . at 4 3 4 . H o w e v e r, th e d isp o sitiv e q u e stio n u n d e r W ith e rsp o o n a n d its progen yi s “not w hethera revi ew i ng cou rtm i gh tdis agree w i th the tri al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng s, b u t w h e th e r th o se f

in d in g s a re f

a irlysu p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd .” Id . A s w e in d ica ted in Szuchon, the tr i al j udge— w hen ques t i oni ng a pot ent i al j ur or— has an obl i gat i on “t o m ake a r ecor d of [a ny ] bi as ” s how n bythe j ur or . 273 F. 3d at328 ( ci t i ng G r ay ) . B yr el y i ng on su p p o sit ion that there m u st ha v e b ee n so m ethin g “e m p h ati c” ab o u t H artl ing ’s de m ea n o r, the s t at e court s fai l ed t o heed the Supr eme C our t ’ s rul e thatfi ndi ngs of bi as m us tbe “fa i r l ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. ” W i t t , 469 U . S. at434.20

Forthatm att er , even i f w e ac cept ed the tr i al j udge’ s s uppos i t i on thathe r el i ed on s om ethi ng emphat i c i n H art l i ng’ s demeanor , the r es ul tw oul d be no di ffe r ent . E ven if H art l i ng e m

p h a tica lly sta ted th a t sh e d id n o t “b e liev e in ” th e d e a th p e n a lty , all th a t co u ld re a so n a b lyb e in f

e rre d is th a t h e r m o ra l o p p o sitio n to c a p ital p u n ish m e n t w a s s tro n g ly fel t . Supr eme C our tpr ece dentm akes cl ear , how ever , thatthe true ques t i on w as w hether H art l i ng w oul d have be en abl e t o s etas i de her“cons ci ent i ous orr el i gi ous s crupl es a g a in st” th e d e a th p e n a lty , W ith e rsp o o n , 3 9 1 U .S . at 5 2 2 , an d “ f a ith f u llya n d im p a rtially appl ythe l aw . ” W i t t , 469 U . S. at426. T hatH art l i ng’ s “cons ci ent i ous orr el i gi ous s crupl es ” w er e s tr ongl yfel ts ay s r emar kabl yl i t t l e aboutw hethers he coul d fol l ow the tr i al c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s. S e e L o c k h a rt v . M c C re e , 4 7 6 U .S . 1 6 2 , 1 7 6 (1 9 8 6 ) (“ [ i]t is i m por t antt o r emem berthatnotal l w ho oppos e the dea th penal tyar e s ubj ectt o r emoval forcaus e i n capi t al cas es ; thos e w ho fi r m l ybel i eve thatthe dea th penal tyi s unj us tm ay n ev erthe less serv e a s juro rs i n ca p it al ca ses s o lon g as th eystat e c learlythat theyare w i l l i ng t o tem po rar i l ysetasi de thei r ow n b el i efs i n d eference t o the rule of l aw ”); see al so S z u c h o n , 2 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 3 1 (h o ld in g th a t th e f a c t th a t a p o ten tial ju ro r d id n o t “b e liev e ” in the dea th penal tyw as “byno m eans the equi val entof bei ng unw i l l i ng t o i m pos e i t ”) . T he s t at e court s had no bas i s forconcl udi ng thatH art l i ng’ s “vi ew s w oul d [have ] pr event [ed] o r su b sta n tiallyim p a ir[ e d ] th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

[ h e r] d u ties a s a ju ro r in a c c o rd a n c e w ith [her ] i ns truct i ons and [he r ] oath. ” W i t t , 469 U . S. at424.S tev e n s d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t a W ith e rsp o o n v io latio n o c c u rre d a s to P e rro tt. H e re is 13 th e in ter c h a n g e b e tw e e n th e trial ju d g e a n d P e rro tt:

Ju d g e : D o y o u h a v e a n o p in io n a b o u t th e d e a th p e n a ltyw h ich w o u ld pr eventy ou fr om fol l ow i ng the C our t ’ s i ns truct i ons as t o w hat penal tys houl d be i m pos ed? J a m e s P e r r o t t : Y e s , I a m o p p o s e d t o th e d e a th p e n a l ty. Ju d g e : V e ryw e ll. Pr os ecut or : E xer ci s e a c hal l enge f orcaus e. J udge: Y ou ar e exc us ed then, M r . Perr ot t . T hank y ou. 21 I n r ej ect i ng St evens ’ s W i ther s poon cl ai m , the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tr el i ed on the fa ctthatthe tr i al j udge as ked “mostotherpot ent i al j ur or s ” w hetherthey“w oul d be abl e t o s etas i de . . . per s onal opi ni on[s ] of the dea th penal tyand fol l ow the i ns truct i ons of the court . ” St evens , 739 A . 2d at521. T he C om m onw eal th does notpr es s thi s ar gum ent i n i t s br i ef t o us . Forthatm att er , the part i es have nots ubm i t t ed a c om pl et e tr ans cr i ptof the v o ird ir e. O u r rev iew o f th e p arti al reco rd o f v o ird ir e p rov ided to the D istri ct C o u rt in d ica tes , h o w e v e r, th a t o n lya f e w p o ten tial ju ro rs w e re a c tu a llysim ilarlysitu a ted to H artl ing . O f th o se f

ew p o tential juro rs, p erh ap s sev en , w h o resp o n d ed to the jud g e’s openi ng ques t i on aboutthe dea th penal tyw i th an ans w ers ugges t i ng oppos i t i on t o the death penal ty , the tr i al j udge fa i l ed tw i ce— i n the ca s e of both H art l i ng and a pr os pect i ve j ur ornamed Ja m es L . Per r ot t

— t o conductanycol l oquyw hat s oevert o det erm i ne 13 w hetherthe veni r e mem ber s w oul d be abl e t o s etas i de thei rm or al di ffi cul t i es w i th capi t al22

puni s hm ent . T he fa ctthatthe tr i al j udge conduc t ed a pr opercol l oquyi n the r emai ni ng handful of s i m i l ari ns t ance s , then, i s of l i t t l e per s uas i ve val ue. T he r emai ni ng i ns t ance s do notcompri s e a s i gni fi cantnum ber

— or , forthatm att er , a l ar ge enough pe r cent age of the s i m i l ars i tuat i ons . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnoteas i l yattr i but e the abs ence of the pr opercol l oquyi n H art l i ng’ s cas e t o s om ethi ng unr emem ber ed abouther demeanor . I ndeed, i tm aybe not ew or thythatH art l i ng w as the fi r s tpot ent i al j ur or , and the onl yj ur ort o do s o on the fi r s tdayof voi rdi r e, w ho t ol d the tr i al j udge thats he had m o ral qu alm s ab o u t th e d ea th p en alty . T h is m aysu g g est, if an ything , that the tri al j u d g e’s fai l ur e t o conductpr operfol l ow - up ques t i oni ng w as an over s i ght , al though one of cons t i tut i onal pr opor t i ons . T he tr i al j udge mays i m pl yhave noty etw el l - thoughtouthow h e w o u ld h a n d le a p o ten tial ju ro r w h o e x p re ss e d m o ra l o p p o sitio n to c a p ital p u n ish m e n t. In it s b ri ef

, the C o m m o n w ea lth fo cu ses o u r att en ti o n o n att o rne yL ipec k y ’s fa il u re t o obj ectt o H art l i ng’ s r emoval . A ccor di ng t o thi s ar gum ent , couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ect su g g e sts th a t H a rtling w a s s o o b v io u slya d a m a n t ab o u t h e r o p p o sitio n to th e d e a th p e n a lty th a t ev e ry o n e — p ro se c u tio n , d e f e n se , an d trial ju d g e — c o u ld se e th e re w a s n o p o in t in a sk in g h e r a n yf

u rth e r q u e stio n s. S e e id . In su p p o rt, th e C o m m o n w e a lth c ites th is p a ss a g e f

ro m W itt : T hus , w hat everambi gui ty[m aybe found] i n thi s r ecor d, w e thi nk thatthe tr i al court , ai ded as i tundoubt edl yw as byi t s as s es s m entof [the pr os pect i ve j ur or ’ s ] demeanor , w as ent i t l ed t o r es ol ve i ti n favor of the St at e. W e not e i n addi t i on thatr es pondent ' s couns el chos e not t o ques t i on [the pr os pect i ve j ur or ] hi m s el f, ort o obj ectt o the tr i al court ' s excus i ng herforcaus e. T hi s ques t i oni ng m i ghthave r es ol ved23 anyper cei ved ambi gui t i es i n the ques t i ons ; i t s abs ence i s al l the m o r e c o n s p i c u o u s b e c a u s e c o u n s e l d i d o b j e c tt o th e tr i a l c o u r t 's excus i ng otherveni r emen l at eron dur i ng the voi rdi r e. I ndeed, fr om w hatappea r s on the r ecor d i ts eems thatatthe t i m e [the pr os pect i ve j ur or ] w as excus ed no one i n the courtr oom ques t i oned the fa ctthat herbel i efs pr event ed herfr om s i t t i ng. T he r eas ons forthi s , al though n o t cr y sta l cle a r f

ro m th e p rin ted re c o rd , m a yw e ll h a v e b e e n re a d ily appar entt o thos e vi ew i ng [the pr os pect i ve j ur or ] as s he ans w er ed the qu est i on s. W i t t , 469 U . S. at434- 35. I n the C om m onw eal th’ s vi ew , the fa ctthatL i peckydi d not obj ectshou l d si m i l arl ybe read as supp ortfor the tr i al j ud ge’s s up po si t i on that he m ust have r el i ed on s om ethi ng i n H art l i ng’ s demeanor . W e ca nnotagr ee. W i t tand St evens ’ s cas e ar e qui t e di ffe r ent . Fi r s tand for emost , i n W i t t , the tr i al j udge conduc t ed s om e fol l ow - up ques t i oni ng of the pr os pect i ve j ur orw ho i ndi cat ed that s he had pe r s onal r es ervat i ons aboutthe dea th penal ty . I d. at415- 16. I ndeed, the tr i al jud g e w en t on to sp ec ifi ca ll yask the p rosp ec ti v e juro r b o th w h e th e r h e r v iew s w o u ld “i nt er fer e w i th [her ] s i t t i ng as a j ur or ” and w h e th e r th o se v iew s w o u ld im p a ir h e r a b ili ty t o “j udg[e] the gui l tori nnocenc e of the D efe ndant . ” I d. at416. R emar kabl y , s he a n sw e re d y e s to b o th q u e stio n s. Id . A c c o rd in g ly , w h e n th e S u p re m e C o u rt w ro te in W itt thatthe tr i al j udge’ s as s es s m entof the pot ent i al j ur or ’ s demeanorcoul d be us ed t o r es ol ve “a m b igu ity ” in th e re co rd, th e C o u rtw as re fe rri n g to p o ssible am b igu ityin the juro r’s sta tem e n ts a b o u t w h e th e r sh e w o u ld b e a b le, n o tw ith sta n d in g h e r v iew s o n th e d e a th penal ty , t o fol l ow the tr i al court ’ s i ns truct i ons . I n otherw or ds , the tr i al j udge w as ent i t l ed24

to u se th e p o ten tial ju ro r’s d e m e a n o r to re so lv e th e re lev a n t q u e stio n — w h e th e r sh e c o u ld f o l l o w th e l a w. H ere, bycon tras t , the tr i al j ud ge n ever foll ow ed u p o n H art l i ng ’s i ni t i als t at ement th a t sh e o p p o se d c a p ital p u n ish m e n t. U n d e r W ith e rsp o o n a n d its p ro g e n y , inc lu d in g W itt , thatw as err or . See W i ther s poon, 391 U . S. at522; W i t t , 469 U . S. at422 ( i ndi cat i ng t hat the k eyq u esti o n is w h ethe r th e v en ir e m em b er w o u ld “re fu se[ ] t o fo ll o w the s tatu tory s cheme” contr ol l i ng w hen the dea th penal tys houl d be gi ven) . A s not ed above , the fa ct th a t n o f o llo w -u p q u e stio n in g w a s u til ize d m e a n s th a t th e trial ju d g e w a s a b le to c o m p ile n o re c o rd c o n c e rn in g w h e th e r H a rtling w a s f a tallyb ias e d a g a in st im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th penal ty . See Szuchon, 273 F. 3d at328; s ee a l s o W i t t , 469 U . S. at423 ( not i ng thati ti s t he a d v e rs a ry se e k in g e x c lu s io n [ i.e ., h e re , th e C o m m o n w e a lth ] w h o “ m u s t d e m o n s tr a te . . . thatthe pot ent i al j ur orl acks i m part i al i ty ”) . M or eover , and s i gni fi cant l yforpr es ent p u rp o se s, th e f

a c t th a t n o f

o llo w -u p q u e stio n in g o c c u rre d a lso m e a n s th a t n o a m b ig u ity exi s t ed i n H art l i ng’ s ans w er s as t o the r el evantques t i on— w hethers he coul d fol l ow t he tr i al j udge’ s i ns truct i ons . A ft eral l , as not ed, even i f H art l i ng emphat i cal l ys t at ed thats he w as oppos ed t o capi t al puni s hm ent , w hethers he coul d neverthel es s fol l ow the l aw pos ed a s epar at e ques t i on. See Lockhar t , 476 U . S. at176. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e H art l i ng w as n e v e r a sk e d a b o u t h e r w ill in g n e ss a n d a b ili tyto f o llo w th e law , the trial ju d g e in S tev e n s’s c a se — u n lik e th e trial ju d g e in W itt

— w as noti n a pos i t i on t o eval uat e and25

f a c to r in h e r d e m e a n o r w h e n a n sw e rin g th e re lev a n t q u e stio n . T h e q u o tatio n f ro m W ittis n o ta s a t i s f

a c t o r yr e b u t t a l t o S t e v e n s ’ s W i th e r s p o o n c l a i m. B eca us e H art l i ng w as r emoved fr om the veni r e on the s ol e bas i s of hers t at ement th a t sh e o p p o se d c a p ital p u n ish m e n t, S tev e n s w a s d e n ied h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to a f a ir and i m part i al j ury . W i ther s poon, 391 U . S. at522. T he tr i al j udge di d nothave e nough i nform at i on befor e hi m t o concl ude thats he “w oul d be unabl e t o fai thful l yand i m part i al l yappl ythe l aw . ” W i t t , 469 U . S. at426. T he s t at e court s ’ fi ndi ng of bi as w as n o t su p p o rte d b ya n yth in g m o re th a n sp e c u latio n a n d , ac c o rd in g ly , S tev e n s m e t h is bur den of s how i ng the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on bythe r equi s i t e cl earand convi nci ng ev iden ce . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1). I V. Forthe r eas ons det ai l ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yr efus ed t o gr anthabea s r el i ef on S t even s’ s cl ai m that hi s at t orneyrendered i neff ect i ve assi st ance a tthe g uil tph ase (C . A . N o . 0 4 -90 1 3 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s co rrectl yaw ard ed reli ef o n S teve n s’s W ith ersp o o n claim , h o w ev er (C . A . N o . 0 4 -90 1 1 ). W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j ud gm ent i n all res pects .