### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 10, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10904

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 03- 00752- C V - J - 99 J O H N C . M A R Q U A R D ,
P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 10, 2005) B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e, C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

J ohn C . M a r qua r d appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pet i t i on chal l engi ng hi s dea th sent ence . O n app ea l , M ar qu ar d argues pri m ar i l y that h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in v a r io u s w a y s d u r in g th e p e n a lty p h a s e o f h is tri al . A ft erre vi ew and o ra l ar gu m ent , w e a ff i rm M ar qu ar d’ s dea th sent ence . I . B AC KG RO UN D A . M u rd er of S tace y W i l l et s M a r qua r d w a s c onvi c t e d of f i r s t - de gr e e m ur de ra nd s e nt e nc e d t o de a th f or the 19 91 m urder of hi s gi rl fr i end, S t ac ey W i l l et s. A ft erW i l l et s’ s r em ai ns w er e di sc ov er ed by hu nt er s i n the w oo ds, M ar qu ar d and codefendantM i chae l A bshi re w e r e a r r e s t e d, a nd both c onf e s s e d. T he f

a c t s r e l a t i ng t o the m ur de r , a s r e c i t e d by th e F l o ri d a S u p rem e C o u rt , are as fo l l o w s:

John M a r qua r d, M i ke A bs hi r e , a nd the vi c t i m , S t a c e y W i l l e t s, de c i de d t o m o v e from N or th C a r ol i na t o F l or i da i n J une 1991 us i ng S t a c e y ’ s car an d s ha r i ng e xpe ns e s . P r i ort o l e a vi ng, M a r qua r d a nd A bs hi r e d i s c u s s e d k i l l i n g St a c e y f o r h e r c a r a n d mo n e y , a n d d u r i ng a s to p in S o u th C a r o lin a M a r q u a r d to ld A b s h ir e th a t h e w a s g o in g to k ill her because he w as t i re d o f a rgui ng w i th h er. In S t . A ug ust i ne, M ar qu ar d and A bshi re form ul at ed a pl ott o ki l l S t ac ey thatni gh taf t er l u ri n g h er i n t o th e w o o d s. M a r qua r d a nd A bs hi r e i nvi t e d S t a c e y t o a tt e nd a part y, dr ove her to a d es ert ed ar ea , and w al ked h eri nt o the w oo ds. M ar qu ar d grabbed h erfr om behi nd , st abbed h er , threw her t o t he grou nd , and sat on her back. S he w as st i l l brea thi ng , so M ar qu ar d h el d h erhead un der the ra i nw at erthathad ac cu m u l at ed i n a pu dd l e unt i l she s t op ped brea thi ng . W hen h erbo dy co n v u lsed, he hel d h erhead un derw at er agai n. A bshi re th en stab b ed her and the tw o tri ed t o d ec api t at e her . M a rq u ard w a s a r r e s t e d a nd c onf e s s e d, s a y i ng he r e m e m be r e d w a l ki ngIn his confession to the police, Ma rquard confe ssed that he a nd Abshire took Willets out 1 into th ewo od s, but c laime d n o memor y of theac tual murde r. Hestate d th at a ft e r t hey g ot o ut in the woods, the ne x t thing he knew, Will ets was f ace -down on the ground and Ma rquard was over her w ith a knife in his hand, both of them bloodied. 3 in to th e w o o d s w ith S ta c e y a n d s ta n d in g o v e rh e rb o d y w ith a k n if e in han d . A bs hi r e t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l , gi vi ng a de t a i l e d a c c ountof the m urder. M a r qua r d v. S t a t e , 641 S o. 2d 54, 55- 56 ( F l a . 1994) . M a r qua r d w a s c onvi c t e d of fi rst -d eg ree m u rd er an d arm ed ro b b ery. B . G u i l t P h as e of

T r i al A ttri al , M ar qu ar d con t ended t hathe w as pres entfor the m urder of S t ac ey W i l l e t s , buttha tc ode f

e nda ntA bs hi r e , a nd notM a r qua r d, a c tua l l y i ni t i a t e d a nd
com m i tt ed the m urder. A bshi re , on the ot her hand, t es t i fi ed thati tw as M ar qu ar d 1
w h o p la n n e d to k ill a n d u ltim a te ly d id k ill W ille ts . A b s h ir e te s tif

ie d th a t M a r q u a r d f

ir s t m e n tio n e d k illin g W ille ts in S o u th C ar ol i na, atthe fi rs tst op on thei r tri p. S om e l ug gage had fal l en off the ca r, w here M a r q u a r d h a d tie d it d o w n , a n d M a r q u a r d a n d W ille ts f o u g h t o v e rth e in c id e n t. M arq u ard th en d i scu ssed w i th A b sh i re k i l l i n g W i l l et s, as fo l l o w s: [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ] : W he r e i s the f i r s tpl a c e tha ty ou s t oppe d? [ A B S H I R E ] : W e s t oppe d a ta . . . l i ke a c onve ni e nc e st or e / ga s s t a t i on i n S ou th C ar ol i na w hen t he se a bags thatw er e on t he trunk fe l l off. [ S T A T E A T T O R N E Y ] : O ka y . A nd w a s . . . a ny thi ng unus ua l oc c ur there ? [A B S H IR E ] : O ther than t he se a bags, ye s, si r. [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ]: O k a y . E x p la in to th e ju r y w h a t th a t is . . . .4

[ A B S H I R E ] : O ka y . I de c i de d I w a s goi ng t o t i e t h e stu ff dow n on the tru n k , b e c a u s e J o h n h a d tie d it d o w n b e f o r e a n d it c a m e lo o s e . S o h im a nd S t a c y [ s i c ] w e nti ns i de the s t or e t o ge tdr i nks an d us e the bathroo m , you k no w . A nd S t ac y [ si c] ca m e outand asked m e i f I w an t ed som e thi ng t o dr i nk, a nd s he w e ntba c k i n t o ge tm e s om e thi ng w hi l e J oh n cam e out . A nd he . . . se e, I w as go in g to d ri ve fr om there , a nd he t ol d m e I s houl d f i nd a . . . l i ke af

arm ro ad o ff t h e s i de of f the road and – l i ke a hun t i ng road or som eth in g
– an d go back i n there a n d , y o u k n o w , f

in d l i k e a . . . a lo n e ly s p o t lik e , a n d h e w a s g o in g to ki l l S t ac y [ si c] and l ea ve her there . [S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ] : D i d h e say w h y? [A BS H I RE ] : H e w a s t i r e d o f a r gu i ng a nd e ve r y thi ng . The y – they a r g u e d a b o u t th e s tu f

f b e i n g t i e d o n th e tru n k a n d th a t h e d i d n ’ t d o a good j ob a nd i tha d f

a l l e n of f , a nd he di dn’ tl i ke tha ta nd i tw a s j us t– A bshi re t es t i fi ed thatM ar qu ar d agai n d i sc usse d k i l l i ng W i l l et s a ft erthey
a r r iv e d in S t. A u g u s tin e a n d M a r q u a r d a n d W ille ts h a d a n a r g u m e n t a b o u t th e ir
s e a r c h f o rjo b s . W ille ts s ta y e d b a c k in th e m o te l r o o m th e th r e e s h a r e d w h ile M a r qua r d a nd A bs hi r e w e ntoutt o l ook f orj obs a nd t o l ook f

ora r oom i n a boa r di ng hous e . W he n M a r qua r d a nd A bs hi r e s poke t o the pr opr i e t orof the b o a r d in g h o u s e , M a r q u a r d to ld h e rth a t it w o u ld ju s t b e M a r q u a r d a n d A b s h ir e . W he n A bs hi r e que s t i one d M a r qua r d a boutW i l l e t s , M a r qua r d i ndi c a t e d tha the i nt ended t o k i l l her, and t he tw o then d i sc usse d h ow they w ou l d k i l l her: [S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ] : O kay. W el l , di d y ou ever qu es t i on M r. M a r qua r d a boutw hy he s a i d i tw oul d j us tbe y ou tw o? [ AB S HI R E ] : Wh e n we g o ti n th e c a rl a t e r , I a s k e d h i m, y o u k n o w, “ W h a ta r e we g o i n g t o t e l l M i s s Ro s a a b o u tSt a c y [ s i c ] ?” A nd he sa i d that– you kn ow , he agai n b roug htup ki l l i ng her. [ ST A TE A TT O RN EY ] : O ka y . I ne e d y ou t o t e l l the j ury e xa c t l y w ha t w a s s a i d, t o the be s tof

y ourr e c ol l e c t i on.5

[ A B S H I R E ]: A c tu a lly s ta r te d p la n n in g o n w h a t to d o a n d . . . [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ]: B y s a y in g w h a t? [ A B S H I R E ] : B y . . . s a i d tha tw e ’ r e goi ng t o t a ke he rs om e pl a c e , f i nd o n e o f th em li tt le lo n ely ro ad s j u st li k e b ef o re , an d p re fe ra b ly . . . i t’ s lik e u s u a lly w h e n y o u c r o s s o v e ra r iv e r , th e r e ’s lik e a n a c c e s s r o a d to getun derneath the bri dg e f or fi sherm en, a n d he sa i d there w as a r i ver dow n St a t e Roa d 1 6, I thi nk , a nd w e ’ r e go i ng t o g o the r e a nd t a ke he r back there and t el l her there ’ s aparty goi ng on back there . [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ]: D id y o u c o m e u p w ith s o m e id e a s o n h o w to d o th is , a s w e ll? [ A B S H I R E ] : Y e s , s i r . W e di d. [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ]: O k a y . W h a t d id y o u s u g g e s t? [A B S H IR E ] : P re tty m u ch a b as i c c on se nsus. I c ou l dn ’ tre al l y s ay w ho tho ug htof w hatpa rtic ul arthi ng . I m ea n, i t ’ s l i ke a . . . a genera l s c e na r i o, y ou k n o w , go ba c k i nt o s om e w oods s om e w he r e , I m e a n, because there ’ s agu y w e knew w ho di d i texac t l y thatw ay before – o r , I k n e w . I ’ m n o ts u r e i f J o h n k n o w s h i m. [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ] : S o i s i t– i s i ta que s t i on- a nd- a ns w e rpe r i od – [A B S H IR E ] : Y es , si r. [ S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ] : – ora r e y ou both c om i ng up w i th i de a s a nd – [A B S H IR E ]: Y es . I m ea n i ti sn’ tre al l y a nythi ng . I m ea n, I w as w o r r i e d ; b u t it s till w a s n ’t r e a lly a s e r io u s th in g , y o u k n o w . I m e a n . . . [S T A T E A T T O RN E Y ] : B utyou w er e bot h t al ki ng abou tki l l i ng her. [A B S H IR E ] : Y es , si r. A cc ordi ng t o A bshi re ’ s t es t i m on y, w hen h e a nd M ar qu ar d arr i ved b ac k at th e m o te l, th e y to ld W ille ts th e r e w a s g o in g to b e a p a r ty th a t n ig h t a n d w h e r e it
w as go i ng t o b e, and t he three began g ett i ng re ady t o g o t o the party. A ft er d r in k in g a b e e r , M a r q u a r d , A b s h ir e , a n d W ille ts d r o v e o u t H ig h w a y 1 6 , w ith M a r qua r d a tthe w he e l . A bs hi r e t e s t i f i e d tha the a nd M a r qua r d l ooke d f ora br i dge
w ith w a te rb e c a u s e th e y h a d d is c u s s e d le a v in g W ille ts ’s r e m a in s w h e r e th e y c o u ld6

be de s tr oy e d by a l l i ga t or s . W he n the y f ound a br i dge ove rw a t e r , the y gotouta nd f ol l ow e d a tr a i l thr ough the w oods w i th W i l l e t s w a l ki ng be tw e e n M a r qua r d a nd A b s h ir e . T h e y w e r e u n ab le to f in d a tr a il to th e w a te rth e y h a d h o p e d f o r , b u t it
w a s r a in in g h a r d a n d th e g r o u n d w a s v e ry w e t, w ith s h in
- d e e p w a te rin s o m e p a r ts . T h e th ree o f th em d eci d ed i tw as n o tw o rth w al k i n g th ro u g h th e th i ck , w ettrai l s, and d ec i ded t o turn b ac k. W hen A bshi re ca m e t o a cl ea ri ng i n the w oo ds, he heard
a m u ffl ed scream an d tu rn ed aro u n d t o see M arq u ard m u rd er W i l l et s: [ A B S H I R E ] : . . . J ohn ha d S t a c y [ s i c ] f r om be hi nd a nd w a s l i ke bac ki ng up, ke e pi ng he rf e e tof f the gr ound, a nd s he w a s s truggl i ng a nd s t i l l s c r eam i ng. A nd the n I s a w hi s ha nd c om e up, a nd I s a w the kni f e i n hi s ha nd, a nd I s a w hi m s t ab h er at l ea s tonc e . I don’ tknow how ma n y o th e r t i me s . I s a w h i m s t a b h e r o n e t i me . A nd t he n he threw he r o n th e groun d i n the m i dd l e of the cl ea ri ng and saton her back, pretty m u ch l oo ked ather, and t hen h e s aw she w as st i l l al i ve. A nd the w at er w as , y o u k n o w , pretty dee p; so he . . . he hel d h erhead unde rw a t e rt i l l s he qui tbr e a thi ng. T h e n h e h a n d e d m e th e k n if e , a n d I w a s h e d th e b lo o d o f f it. A nd h e s a tth e r e j u s tl o o k i n g a th e r . A n d th e n s h e j e r k e d l i k e , y ou k n o w , lik e
– l i k e a g a s p o rs o m e th in g , a n d I th o u g h t s h e w a s s till a l i ve . A nd he puthe rh ea d unde rw a t e ra ga i n a nd, y ou know , m a de s u r e . T h e n h e t o l d m e t o s ta b h e r . S h e w a s a lr e a d y d e a d , b u t h e to ld m e t o st ab her. S o I di d. A n d I w as hed i toff a nd gave the kn i fe back t o h i m. A b sh ire tes ti fied th at h e th en , at M ar q u ar d ’s d irec ti o n , h ac k ed at W il lets’s
ne c k w i th a s e c ond kni f e . M a r qua r d the n tr i e d t o di g a hol e t o bur y W i l l e t s ’ s body b u t g a v e u p b e c a u s e th e r e w e r e to o m a n y r o o ts .Ab sh irewa s trie d s epa rate ly, c onvic te d, and

sentenc e d tode ath. Th eF lorida Sup reme 2 Court subsequently

reversed Abshire ’s conviction and vacate d his death sentenc e bec ause, duringAbshire’ s trial, the assistant state attorney indicated that hesought to ex clude women from the jury

solely based on g ender . Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542, 544-45 (F la. 1994). On rema nd, Abshire wa s sentence d to life imprisonment. Marquard v. State, 850 So. 2d 417, 422 (F la. 2002). 7 A bs hi r e t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe m ot i va t i on f orki l l i ng W i l l e t s w a s f

orhe rc a ra nd the r e m a i ni ng $150 s he ha d a tthe t i m e of the ki l l i ng. A f

t e rki l l i ng he r , the y w e nt th r o u g h h e rp o c k e ts , to o k s o m e m o n e y a n d a k n if e , a n d r e tu r n e d to th e m o te l to sh o w er an d w ash th ei r b l o o d y cl o th es. A tthe c l os e of

the tr i a l , the j ur y una ni m ous l y f ound M a r qua r d gui l ty of one c o u n t o f f ir s t- d e g r e e m u r d e ra n d o n e c o u n t o f a r m e d r o b b e r y w ith a d e a d ly
w e apon. 2 C . E v i d en ce a t P en a l ty P h a se D u r in g M a r q u a r d ’s p e n a lty p h a s e , th e S ta te p r e s e n te d N o r th C a r o lin a p a r o le
o f f ic e rP a tr ic ia R a w ls , w h o te s tif ie d th a t M a r q u a r d w a s o n p a r o le in N o r th C a r o l i n a a tth e t i m e o f

th e k i l l i n g , a s t a tu t o r y a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o ru n d e rF l o r i d a l a w. T o e s t a bl i s h m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s , the de f

e ns e c ouns e l pr e s e nt e d t e s t i m ony fr om D r. H arry K rop, a l i ce nsed F l ori da psyc ho l og i stw i th a w ea l th o f e xp er i ence in th e f ie ld o f f o r e n s ic p s y c h o lo g y . B e c a u s e D r . K r o p w a s th e d e f e n s e ’s o n ly
m i t i gat i on w i tness , w e out l i ne D r. K rop’ s t es t i m on y i n d et ai l . D r. K rop h ad previ ou sl y e val uat ed 47 2 p eopl e w ho had b ee n charged w i th fi rs t -degree m urder8

and h ad t es t i fi ed abou tforty- fi ve t i m es i n the penal ty phase of fi rs t -degree m urder tr i a l s , ge ne r a l l y a s a de f e ns e w i tne s s buton s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons a s a c ons ul t a ntt o the S t at e. D r . K r op s a w M a r qua r d on tw o di f f e r e ntoc c a s i ons , a tw hi c h t i m e s he i nt e r vi e w e d M a r qua r d a nd a l s o pe r f or m e d a ba tt e r y of

pe r s ona l i ty a nd
n eu ro p sych o l o g y t est s. D r. K ro p al so rev i ew ed M arq u ard ’ s p sych i atri c reco rd s, ps y c hi a tr i c hos pi t a l r e c or ds , s oc i a l s e r vi c e r e c or ds , a nd r e c or ds f r om va r i ous fa ci l i t i es i n w hi ch M ar qu ar d res i ded as aj uv eni l e. In addi t i on , D r. K rop revi ew ed
va r i ous de pos i t i ons a nd pol i c e r e c or ds r e l a t i ng t o the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on a nd i nt e r vi e w e d M a r qua r d’ s m othe ra nd f a the rby t e l e phone . D r . K r op t e s t i f i e d tha the to o k all th es e m ater ials in to co n sid er atio n in fo rm in g an o p in io n as to M ar q u ar d ’s
m e n ta l s ta tu s . B a s e d on hi s i nt e r vi e w s w i th M a r qua r d, hi s r e vi e w of the r e l e va ntr e c or ds
a n d d e p o s itio n s , a n d h is in te r v ie w s w ith f a m ily m e m b e r s , D r . K r o p te s tif ie d in det ai l abou tM ar qu ar d’ s dys funct i on al fa m i l y; al coho l i c a nd abusi ve m other;
a bus i ve a nd di s t a ntf

a the r ; a nd de pr i ve d a nd tr oubl e d c hi l dhood. D r . K r op r e vi e w e d how M a r qua r d ha d a n uns t a bl e f a m i l y l i f e a nd ha d be e n de pr i ve d of the
e m o tio n a l c a r e a n d s u p p o r t h e s h o u ld h a v e r e c e iv e d . D r. K rop st art ed w i th M ar qu ar d’ s dys funct i on al fa m i l y a s e ar l y a s w hen9

M a r qua r d w a s a ge s i x, a nd de s c r i be d hi s pa r e nt s ’ di vor c e a nd phy s i c a l a bus e of M a r qua r d: I w o u l d h av e t o s a y tha tI gue s s the m os ts i gni f i c a nta s pe c tof hi s bac kg roun d i s w hatw e r ef ert o a s a d ys funct i on al fa m i l y. M r. M ar q uard’ s par ent s s epar at ed and/ or di vo rc ed soon af t erw hen h e w as ra the r y ou ng , s ome w he r e a r ou nd s i x or s e ve n y e a r s ol d. A t tha tt i m e, and d ependi ng on w ho I t al ked t o i n t erm s o f th e m other or f ather, ba s i c a l l y , i tw a s a ve r y bi tt e rdi vor c e , a nd a s a r e s ul tof the c us t ody b a ttle , M r . M a r q u a r d , th e d e f e n d a n t, s ta y e d in th e c u s to d y o f h is m other, w here as hi s tw o sist er s w enti nt o the cust od y of hi s f ather. Ac c o r d i n g t o h i s f

a th e r , t h e r e a s o n th a th e o b t a i n e d c u s t o d y o f th e two d a u g h t e r s wa s b e c a u s e th e m o th e rwa s p h y s i c a l l y a b u s i v e o f t h e two gi r l s . A c c or di ng t o the m othe r , the f a the rw a s phy s i c a l l y a bus i ve of he ra nd a l s o M r . M a r qua r d. M r . M a r qua r d ba s i c a l l y r e port s t h a the w as p h ysi cal l y ab u sed b y b o th o f h i s p aren t s. T he m other a dm i t s a nd the re cords docum entthatthe m other ha s a hi s t or y of

a l c ohol a bus e a nd ha s be e n treat ed as a n i npa t i e ntf or h er al co h o l p ro b l em s. A s a r e s ul tof

hi s pa r e nt s ’ s e pa r a t i on, M a r qua r d di d nots e e hi s f a the rf or m a ny y e a r s a nd di d notha ve a r e l a t i ons hi p w i th hi s f a the rdur i ng c hi l dhood a nd adol es ce nce. D r. K rop o pi ned i tw as very i m po rt antfor M ar qu ar d t o h ave a r e la tio n s h ip w ith h is f

a th e rd u r in g th is p e r io d : A tthe t i m e tha tthe y w e r e s e pa r a t e d , acco rd i ng t o the f a the r , he w a s no t abl e t o f

i nd J ohn f

orc l os e t o f

ourorf i ve y e a r s , tha the di d not h av e an y co n t actw i th h i s so n fo r fo u r o r fi v e years. T he m other i nd i ca tes

– w hen I as ked h erw hy John di d n otse e h is f a th e rf o rf o u ro rf iv e y e a r s , s h e i n d ic a te d th a t J o h n e s s e n tia lly d id no tw antt o see hi s f

ather a nd because he w as af ra i d o f hi s f

ather. S o both pa r e nt s ba s i c a l l y bl a m e the ot he rf orw hy J ohn w a s not i nv ol ved in any w ay w i th the fa ther f or a s i gn i fi ca ntperi od of hi s l i fe . I tw a s the pe r i od of

hi s l i f e i n t e rm s o f h i s c hi l dhood, a s w e l l a s the10

a r e a goi ng thr ough pube r ty , a t i m e w he n I thi nk i t ’ s v ery i m por t a ntf or a s on t o b e w i th h i s f

ather. B uti n any event , w hat everthe fa ct s w er e, he di d n othave a re l at i on shi p w i th h i s f ather. D r . K r op a l s o de s c r i be d how e a c h of M a r qua r d’ s pa r e nt s a l i e na t e d M a r qua r d f r om th e o th e rp a r e n t:

A ft ert al ki ng t o the m other a nd fa ther, i t b ecam e c l ea r thatthere w e r e a b e h a v io rp a tte r n o n b o t h o f th e irp a r ts w h ic h w e n o w r e f e rto a s P a r e n ta l A lie n a tio n S y n d r o m e . I t’s e s s e n tia lly w h e n o n e p a r e n t, us ua l l y the c us t odi a l pa r e nt , doe s thi ngs ors a y s thi ngs t o t h e c hi l d or i n f r ontof the c hi l d w hi c h a tt em p t s, ei the rc ons c i ous l y or un consci ou sl y, t o ali en ate t he chi l d from the ot her pare nt . A tthat ti m e p er io d , I d o n ’tb eliev e th er e w a s te rm in o lo g y f o r th at; b u t i t’ s b een a fai rl y co m m o n p h en o m en o n fo r sev eral years. D r . K r op de s c r i be d how M a r qua r d be ga n dr i nki ng a nd us i ng drugs a ta r ound e i ght or ni ne ye ar s of a ge:

B a s i c a l l y , a l s o j us ts t a y i ng w i th the c hi l dhood, i tw a s a tthe t i m e pe r i od w he n the pa r e nt s w e r e s e pa r a t e d tha tJ ohn s t a r t e d ge tt i ng i nt o a ddi t i o n al t ro u bl e . H e i ndi c a t e s tha the a c tua l l y s t a r t e d dr i nki ng w h en h e w as ei gh tye ar s ol d – no tre gu l ar l y a tthatt i m e; bu the st art ed us i ng drugs a nd a l c o h o l so m ew he r e a r ound e i ghtorni ne y e a r s ol d. A nd a ts om e poi nt , of

c o u rse, tha tc ont i nue d a nd be c a m e he a vy a nd m ore r egul ar . D r. K ro p al so reco u n t ed h o w M arq u ard rep o rt ed th ath e w as sex u al l y ab u sed as a c h ild b y a n e ig h b o r :

J ohn a l s o r e por t s t h atw he n he w a s f i ve ors i x y e a r s ol d tha the w a s s e xua l l y a bus e d by a n a dul t ne i ghbor . H e s a i d tha tt h e ab u se c o n s is te d o f

f r e q u e n t a n a l s e x . H e in d ic a te d th a t h e n e v e rto ld h is m other or hi s f

ather of thi s s exual abuse, bu tthathe has i nform ed s o m e m e n ta l- h e a lth c o u n s e lo r s a b o u t th e a b u s e .Dr. Krop testified that Marqua rd wa s sent to a boys’ home 3 beca use he w as havingdifficulty in terms of adjusting to living with his mother a nd he wa s startingto get into trouble in terms of having behavior problems, and he was sent to a boy s’ hom e where he stayed for . . . he was 11 year s old at the time, and he stayed in this boy s’ home for 18 months.

11 D uri ng thatt i m e per i od , al so, as I i nd i ca t ed, he w as no tal l ow ed t o see h i s fath er; b u tal so b ecau se th e s ist ers, h i s tw o o l d er si st ers, w entw i th the fa ther, he had n o con t ac tw ith h is sist er s duri ng that tim e p e r i o d , an d acco rd i n g t o h i s fath er, h e . . . Jo h n w as cl o se t o h is s i s t e r s pr i ort o tha ts e pa r a t i on. T h a t’s in a n u ts h e ll w h a t o c c u r r e d w h e n J o h n w a s a c h ild in t e r m s of the pa r e nt a l s i tua t i on. I n e s s e nc e , D r . K r op de s c r i be d M a r qua r d a s ha vi ng a bus i ve pa r e nt s a nd ha vi ng be e n pe r haps s e xua l l y a bus e d, w i th the r e s ul ttha tM a r qua r d w a s dr i nki ng a nd
u s in g d ru g s b y a g e e ig h t o rn in e . D r . K r op the n t e s t i f

i e d a boutM a r qua r d’ s tr a ns i e nta dol e s c e nc e , i n w hi c h he
w a s the n s e pa r a t e d f

r om hi s f a m i l y a nd pl a c e d i n boy s ’ hom e s , f os t e rc a r e , a nd a st at e hospi t al . A tage e l even, M ar qu ar d w as se ntt o a bo ys ’ ho m e, w here he st ay ed f ore i ght e e n m onths . D r . K r op t e s t i f i e d tha t“ [ a ] c c or di ng t o the r e c or ds a tthe 3 b o y s ’ h o m e , h e w a s d o in g r e la tiv e ly w e ll a n d w a s m a k in g s o m e p r o g r e s s u n til
ar ou nd the 15 th- or 16 th-m on th p er i od , atw hi ch t i m e he had a hom e . . . vi si t . ” A f t e rhi s hom e vi s i tw i th hi s s i s t e r s , w ho r e por t e dl y w e r e i n a m ot or c y c l e ga ng, M a r qua r d “ r e gr e s s e d a nd c a m e ba c k i ndi c a t i ng t a l ki ng a boutm or e vi ol e ntty pe of th in g s, talk in g ab o u t w ea p o n s.” A cc o rd in g to th e b o ys ’ h o m e r ec o rd s, M ar q u ar d ’s12

n ew i n t eresti n v i o l en ce w as b ecau se o f h i s asso ci at i o n w i th h i s si st ers. D r. K rop further e xp l ai ned t he negat i ve i m pactM ar qu ar d’ s m other
c ont i nue d t o ha ve on M a r qua r d. D ur i ng M a r qua r d’ s t i m e i n the boy s ’ hom e , the
r e c o r d s s u g g e s tth a tth e mo th e rw a s t e l l i n g M a r q u a r d d u r i n g s o me o f th e h o me vi s i t s tha ts he w oul d w e l c om e M a r qua r d ba c k hom e w i th the m . A c c or di ng t o the
r e c or ds , “ [ w ] he n [ M a r qua r d] w oul d c om e ba c k, tha tw oul d be hi s e xpe c t a t i on, w hen h e c am e bac k t o the bo ys ’ ho m e. ” H ow ever , “ w hen t he bo ys ’ ho m e s t af f
a s k e d th e mo th e rt o c o me i n a n d me e tw i th th e m a n d t a l k a b o u th e rt a k i n g h o me [M ar qu ar d] , she w ou l d n otshow up for the m ee t i ng s. ” T here w er e r egul ar prom i se s m ade, bu tthen n o fol l ow -throu gh on the partof M ar qu ar d’ s m other. A f te rM a r q u a r d g o t b a c k to th e b o y s ’ h o m e f o llo w in g h is v is it w ith h is si st er s, the bo ys ’ ho m e s t af f f el tthey c ou l d n o l on ger tre athi m and t hathe needed
m o r e in te n s iv e w o r k . T h e b o y s ’ h o m e th e n r e f e r r e d M a r q u a r d to a “th e r ap e u tic f o s te r - c a r e s itu a tio n ,” w h ic h is a f a m ily s p e c if

ic a lly tr a in e d in w o r k in g w ith
e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d c h ild r e n . A cc ordi ng t o D r. K rop, M ar qu ar d w enti nt o thatsy st em for abo utfi ft ee n m onths , w he n he w a s a r ound a ge thi r t e e n t o f ourt e e n. A tthe e nd of

tha tt i m e , the fath er t o o k M arq u ard h o m e w i th h i m fo r ab o u ttw o years. D ur i ng tha ttw o- y e a rpe r i od w i th hi s f a the r , M a r qua r d w a s a boutf i f t e e n a nd13

s i xt e e n a nd w a s a ga i n ha vi ng di f f i c ul ty a dj us t i ng. H e ha d di f f i c ul ty i n s c hool a nd
e xhi bi t e d be ha vi orpr obl e m s , a tw hi c h t i m e he w a s r e f e r r e d t o a gr oup hom e f or em o t i o n al l y d i stu rb ed ad o l escen t s. M arq u ard st ayed i n th atg ro u p h o m e fo r j u sta sh o rtp eri o d o f t i m e b ecau se h is p r o b le m s w e r e to o s e r io u s . T h e g r o u p h o m e r e f e r r e d M a r q u a r d to a s ta te ho spi t al , w here he st ay ed for s i xt ee n m on ths. M ar qu ar d w as i n a st at e hospi t al at
a ge s s i xt e e n a nd s e ve nt e e n. A f te rM a r q u a r d w a s r e le a s e d a t a b o u t a g e s e v e n te e n f r o m th a t s ta te h o s p ita l, i tw as det erm i ned t hathi s f am i l y s i tuat i on w as t oo un st abl e, bu tbecause of hi s a ge, h e c o u ld n o t b e p la c e d b a c k in a f o s te rc a r e s itu a tio n . A s a r e s u lt, h e liv e d o n h is
ow n the r e a f

t e r . A c c or di ng t o D r . K r op, f r om tha tt i m e on, M a r qua r d “ l i ve d i n a tra nsi enttype of e xi st ence i n t erm s of m ov i ng ar ou nd fr om on e pl ac e t o ano ther, h a v in g d if

f ic u lty a d ju s tin g a n d h a v in g a n y ty p e o f s ta b le e n v ir o n m e n t.” D r. K rop al so sum m ar i ze d the re sul t s of the m ostre ce nteval uat i on , w hi ch
w as i n N orth C ar ol i na i n 1 98 9. A l tho ug h al l profes si on al s r ec om m ended t hat M ar qu ar d n ee ded st abi l i ty, consi st ency and sup po rt , the re cords r ef l ec tthathe w as ne ve ra bl e t o ge ttha te nvi r onm e ntf r om hi s f a m i l y . D r . K r op e xpl a i ne d tha tthe pr of e s s i ona l s a l l “ i ndi c a t e d tha tthe r e j e c t i on tha t[ M a r qua r d] ha d f r om s i gni f

i c a nt o th e r s h a s c o n tr ib u te d to h is d if f ic u ltie s .”14

D r . K r op c onc l ude d tha tthe r e c or ds “ s uppor tthe [ r e por t s of ] i ns t a bi l i ty a nd the dy s f unc t i ona l f

a m i l y uni ta nd s ugge s ttha tm a ny of [ M a r qua r d’ s ] c ur r e nt prob l em s a dj ust i ng t o soci ety a nd funct i on i ng adapt i vel y i n soci ety . . . re l at e bac k t o the i nst abi l i ty, hi s r ej ec t i on and l ow se l f- es t ee m as a r es ul tof the dysf un ct i on al fa m i l y. ” A s are sul tof hi s f am i l y i nst abi l i ty a nd l ac k o f s up ervi si on , M ar qu ar d st art ed dri nk i ng and u si ng drug s a ta very e ar l y a ge. D r. K rop add ed thatM ar qu ar d has ahi st ory of a l coho l and d rug abu se . D r. K rop ess ent i al l y opi ned t hatal l thi s unfortun at e hi st ory, t aken t og ether, ha s r e s ul t e d i n M a r qua r d be i ng “ a s e r i ous l y di s turbe d i ndi vi dua l w i th a num be rof p e r s o n a lity d e f

ic ie n c ie s a n d d e f

e c ts .” A f te rth is d is c u s s io n o f

M a r q u a r d ’s b a c k g r o u n d , D r . K r o p th e n d is c u s s e d h is di a gnos i s . D r . K r op di s c us s e d M a r qua r d’ s hi s t or y of s ubs t a nc e a bus e a nd concl ud ed thatM ar qu ar d d i d n otsuff erfr om si gn i fi ca nti nt el l ec tual or neurol og i ca l d e f ic its : D i a gnos t i c a l l y , l e tm e s a y tha ti n m y t e s t i ng f r om h i m , a l though h e r e p o r ts a n u m b e r o f h e a d in ju r ie s , h e a ls o r e p o rts s o m e b l a c k o u ts a nd ha l l uc i na t i o n . I w o u l d s a y tha tf r om w ha tI c a n t e l l , a l m os ta l l of thos e w e r e r e l a t e d t o dru g . . . drug i nge s t i on a s oppos e d t o a ny ty pe o f p sych o t i c i l l n ess. I d i d a neurop sy chol og i ca l eval uat i on t o d et erm i ne w hether th ere w a s a n y n eu ro l o g i cal o r o rg an i c b asi s fo r so m e o f th ese p ro b l em s , a nd the r e s ul t s w e r e ne ga t i ve . I di d notf i nd a ny neurol og i ca l as pect s . . . as a c on tri bu t i ng fa ct or.15

D r. K rop further not ed thatM ar qu ar d w as a “ fa i rl y bri gh tyoun g m an, ” w i th an IQ i n the a ve r a ge r a nge . D r . K r op thus opi ne d tha t“ i nt e l l e c tua l l y or n e u r o p s y c h o lo g ic a lly , th e r e d o n o t s e e m to b e a n y s ig n if ic a n t p r o b le m s .” D r . K r o p th e n te s tif

ie d th a t w h a t M a r q u a r d p r e s e n te d , f r o m a d ia g n o s tic st andp oi nt , w as a “ nu m ber of di ff er entpers on al i ty probl em s. ” D r. K rop exp l ai ned th a t e v e r y in d iv id u a l d e v e lo p s c e r ta in p e r s o n a lity tr a its , w h ic h a r e tr a c e a b le to ge ne t i c pr e di s pos i t i on a nd a l s o the i ndi vi dua l ’ s e nvi r onm e nta nd upbr i ngi ng a nd val ues i n the ho m e. H e f urther e xp l ai ned t hatas a r es ul tof tho se fa ct ors, there ar e in d iv id u a ls w h o d e v e lo p m a la d ap tiv e p e r s o n a lity tr a its , c a u s in g th e m d if f ic u lty f u n c tio n in g in s o c ie ty . T h is ty p e o f p e r s o n a lity p r o f

ile is c a lle d a “p e r s o n a lity di s or de r , ” a nd the ty pe of pe r s ona l i ty di s or de r“ c a n va r y de pe ndi ng on the part i cul arcr i t er i a thatar e a vai l abl e or thatw e kno w of w i th regard t o that in d iv id u a l in te r m s o f

th e p a r tic u la rp e r s o n a lity .” D r . K r op the n opi ne d tha tM a r qua r d ha d tr a i t s ty pi c a l of m a ny di f

f e r e nt p erso n al i ty d i so rd ers an d th ath e p resen t ed a “ p erso n al i ty d i so rd er n o to th erw i se s p e c if ie d ” a n d a ls o w a s a s u b s ta n c e a b u s e r : H e h a s b e e n d ia g n o s e d w ith d if f e r e n t ty p e s o f

p e r s o n a lity d is o r d e r s in the pa s t . I w o u l d s a y tha tw he n I tr y a nd puta s pe c i f i c di a gnos i s on h im , b e c a u s e h e f

its in to s o m a n y d if f e r e n t c a te g o r ie s a n d h is p erso n al i ty trai t s b asi cal l y are acro ss th e d i fferen tp erso n a lity d ia g n o s e s , I w o u l d h a v e to d ia g n o s e h im a s w h a t w e c a ll a p e r s o n a lity di s or de rnotothe r w i s e s pe c i f i e d; i n o t h er w or ds , the c r i t e r i a a r e f r om16

a c r o s s th e d if

f e r e n t p e r s o n a lity d is o r d e r s a s o p p o s e d to ju s t f ittin g in to o n e p a r tic u la rp e r s o n a lity d is o r d e r . I w o u ld a ls o h a v e to d ia g n o s e h im a s a s u b s ta n c e a b u s e r , b a s e d o n h is h is to r y , b o th r e p o r te d to m e a n d in th e reco rd s. D r . K r op a l s o e l a bor a t e d on the tr a i t s M a r qua r d e xhi bi t e d f r om va r i ous p e r s o n a lity d is o r d e r s , in c lu d in g b o r d e r lin e , e x p lo s iv e , a n d a n tis o c ia l p e r s o n a lity tr a i t s . D r . K r op f

i r s tde s c r i be d the “ bor de r l i ne ” pe r s ona l i ty tr a i t s e xhi bi t e d by M a r q u a r d , s ta tin g th a t in d iv id u a ls w ith b o r d e r lin e tr a its r e a c t to s tr e s s w ith i n ap p ro p ri at e act i n g o u t , t en d t o b e m an i p u l at i v e, an d en g ag e i n “ sel f-i n j u ri o u s, se l f- destruct i ve type of behavi or, oft ent i m es for a tt ent i on -s ee ki ng pu rposes . ” A l th o u g h b o rd erl i n e p erso n al i t i es can en g ag e i n cert ai n “ p sych o t i c-l i k e” b eh av i o rs, D r . K r o p c la r if

ie d th a t th e o n ly e v id e n c e h e h a d o f th a t ty p e o f

b e h a v io rin M arq u ard w as, h e b el i ev ed , th e resu l to f h al l u ci n o g en i c d ru g s. D r . K r o p th e n d e s c r ib e d M a r q u a r d ’s te n d e n c y to r e a c t to s tr e s s w ith di spropo rt i on at e a ng erand v i ol ence , typi ca l of an “ expl osi ve” pers on al i ty di sorder : H e ’s b e en d i ag n o sed i n th e p astas h av i n g ex p l o si v e p erso n al i ty d is o r d e r . T h is is a n in d iv id u a l w h o r e a c ts to s tr e s s in a m a n n e rth a t is t ot a l l y outof

pr opo rt i on t o the gi ve n s i tua t i on. I tm i ghtbe a s i tua t i on tha tm i ghtc r e a t e s om e a nge rorf rus tr a t i on i n a l l of

us ; butthe pe r s on w h o h a s p o o rim p u ls e c o n tr o l a n d lo w f ru s tr a tio n to le r a n c e e s s e n tia lly c a n e x p l o d e a n d , o f

c o u r s e , s o me t i me s e n g a g e i n v i o l e n tb e h a v i o r . So w e have tho se fe atures fr om thattype of per sonal i ty di sorder . D r. K rop further e xp l ai ned t hatM ar qu ar d p re se nt ed ce rt ai n fea tures as soci at ed
w i th a n “ a nt i s oc i a l ” pe r s ona l i ty di s or de r , w hi c h D r . K r op de s c r i be d:17

W e ha ve c e r t a i n f

e a tur es fro m a n a nt i s oc i a l pe r s ona l i ty di s or de r , the i ndi vi dua l w ho doe s notpa r t i c ul a r l y be ne f i tf r om ora p erson w ho d o es n o tp art i cu l arl y l o o k atth e co n seq u en ces o f h i s b eh a v io r , a p e r s o n w h o b a s ic a lly is f a ir ly s e l f is h a n d a p e r s o n w h o e n g a g e s in b eh av i or s tha ta r e a ga i ns tthe va l ue s of s oc i e ty a nd the rul e s of so ci ety. D r. K rop t hen n ot ed thatM ar qu ar d exagg er at ed and even l i ed – for exam pl e, t e l l i ng pe opl e tha the w a s i n the N a vy S e a l s – t o bui l d up hi s s e l f
- e s t e e m . D r . K r op op i ned t hat“ these ki nd of grandi ose, m ani pu l at i ve ki nd s of behavi oral char ac t er i st i cs ar e a l l re fl ec t i ve of a pers on w i th a pers on al i ty di sorderof the nature thatI des cr i bed. ” A ft er D r. K ro p ’ s t est i m o n y ab o u tM arq u ard ’ s b ack g ro u n d an d h i s d i ag n o ses, th e S ta te p r e s e n te d D r . J a c k M e r w in , a n e x p e r t c lin ic a l p s y c h o lo g is t. D r . M e r w in te s tif ie d th a t, b a s e d o n h is r e v ie w o f M a r q u a r d ’s b a c k g r o u n d a n d c o n d u c t, M a r qua r d s uf

f e r e d f r om a nt i s oc i a l pe r s ona l i ty di s or de r , a di s or de rc om m on a m ong i nm at es w ho m he had eval uat ed. D r. M erw i n d i st i ng ui shed a per sonal i ty di sorder
s u c h a s M a r q u a r d ’s f

r o m w h a t is g e n e r a lly c o n s id e r e d “m e n ta l illn e s s ” in th a t a pers on al i ty di sorderi s m ore pers on al i ty- base d and l es s f ocused on the m ent al p r o c e s s . D . S h a ck l i n g D u ri n g th e P en a l ty P h a se O n appe a l , M a r qua r d c ont e nds tha the w a s s ha c kl e d be f or e the j ur y dur i ng s o m e p o r t i o n o f

h i s tr i a l ’ s p e n a l ty p h a s e . T h u s , we e x a m i n e wh a tth e r e c o r d s h o ws18

i n thatre gard. W e c an l ocat e no evi dence i n the re cord show i ng thatM ar qu ar d
w as shac kl ed du ri ng the penal ty phase . A dd i t i on al l y, M ar qu ar d’ s tri al coun se l
ne ve robj e c t e d t o a ny s ha c kl i ng. I n f a c t , thi s C our tdi r e c t e d M a r qua r d t o f i l e r e c or d c i t a t i ons w he r e a ny s ha c kl i ng oc c ur r e d a ttr i a l . I n r e pl y , M a r qua r d r e f e r e nc e d onl y one pl a c e i n the
re cord w here M ar qu ar d app ar ent l y e nt er ed the courtroom w hi l e the j ury w as p resen t , an d th e reco rd o f th e ev en tread s as fo l l o w s: ( I n o p e n c o u r t.) T H E C O U R T : A l l r i ght . W e ’ r e w a i t i ng on M r . M arq ua r d. I thi nk he ha d t o go t o the r e s tr oom . H e ’ l l be ba c k i n a s e c ond. ( D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t.) T H E C O U R T : A ll r ig h t. N o w I w o u ld a s k th a t th e f o llo w i n g p e o p le pl e a s e s t e p do w n a nd r e po r t t o J ud ge W i e nb e r g i n the c ou r tr oom at th e o th e re n d o f

th e h a ll. . . . T he a bove e ve nt s t ook pl a c e dur i ng j ur y - s e l e c t i on pr oc e e di ngs , notdur i ng the penal ty phase . In any e vent , the re cord cont ai ns no evi dence thatM ar qu ar d w as s h a c k le d b e f

o r e th e ju r y . E . Ju r y I n s t r u c t i on s an d R e c om m e n d at i on A ft erhear i ng the abov e e vi dence, the S t at e tri al courti nstruct ed the j ury re gardi ng i t s duty t o rec om m end a se nt ence for M ar qu ar d. T he S t at e tri al court i n stru ct ed th e j u ry t o “ ren d er t o th e C o u rtan ad v i so ry sen t en ce b ased u p o n [i t s] de t e r m i na t i on a s t o i f

s uf f i c i e nta ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s tt o j us t i f y the19

i m p o si t i o n o f d eath p en al ty an d w h eth er su ffi ci en tm i t i g at i n g ci rcu m st an ces ex i st t o o utw ei gh any a gg ra vat i ng ci rc um st ance s f ou nd t o exi st . ” T h e tr ia l c o u r t a ls o in s tru c te d th e ju r y th a t th e a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s it
m i gh tconsi der w er e l i m i t ed t o any of the fol l ow i ng four: (1) the capi t al fe l on y w as c o m m itte d b y a p e r s o n u n d e ra s e n te n c e o f im p r is o n m e n t o rc o m m u n ity c o n tr o l, in c lu d in g p a r o le ; ( 2 ) th e c r im e w a s c o m m itte d w h ile th e d e f e n d a n t w a s e n g a g e d in th e c o mmi s s i o n o f

a r o b b e r y o rw a s c o mmi tt e d f o rf i n a n c i a l g a i n ; ( 3 ) th e c r i me w a s e s pe c i a l l y he i nous , a tr oc i ous , orc rue l ; a nd ( 4) the c r i m e w a s c om m i tt e d i n a col d, ca l cul at ed, and p re m edi t at ed m anner w i tho utany pre t ense of m oral or l egal j us t i f i c a t i on. W i th r e ga r d t o the thi r d pot e nt i a l a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or , the “ he i nous , a tr oc i ous o r cru el ” (“ H A C ”) factor, th e tri al co u rti n stru ct ed as fo l l o w s: “H e in o u s ” m e a n s “e x t r e m e l y w i c k e d o r s h o c k in g ly e v il.” “ A tr oc i ous ” m e a ns “ outr a ge ous l y w i c ke d a nd e vi l . ” “ C rue l ” m e a ns “ de s i gne d t o i nf

l i c ta hi gh de gr e e of

pa i n w i th utt e r i n d i f

f e r e nc e t o or e n jo y m e n t o f

th e s u f f e r in g o f o th e r s .” T he ki n d of

c r i m e i nt e nde d t o be i nc l ude d a s he i nous , a tr oc i ous orc rue l i s one a c c om pa ni e d by a ddi t i o n al a c t s tha ts how tha tthe c r im e w a s c o n s c io u s le s s o rp it i l e s s a n d w a s u n n e c e s s a r ily to r tu r o u s to the vi c t i m . I f

the vi c t i m i n thi s c as e l os tc ons c i ous ne s s , a ny e ve nt w hi ch occurre d aft erun co n sc i ou snes s began cannotbe consi dere d as evi dence of the es peci al l y – es peci al l y w i cked, evi l , at ro cio u s or c ruel na tur e of the c r i m e . A ny e ve nta f t e rthe de a th of

the vi c t i m cannotbe c o n si d e r e d a s e vi de nc e of the e s pe c i a l l y w i c ke d, e vi l , a tr oc i ous or c ru e l n a tu r e o f

th e c r im e . . . .On appe al in this Court, Marquard a rgues that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive in failing 4 to challeng e the HA C instruction on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague, and that there forehis appellate c ounsel could not raisethe issue bec ause trial counsel failed to object and properly preserve theclaim for a

ppellate review. The State, on the other hand, argues that the HAC-constitutional claim was procedurally defa ulted beca

use it was not raised on direc t appeal. L ikewise, the F lorida Supreme Court c oncluded that this HAC-c onstitut ional issue was proce durally

barred bec ause it wa s not raised on dire ct appe al. Marqua rd v. State, 850 So. 2d at 423 n.2. In fac t, Marquard’s trial counse l did object in writing a nd ag ain at trial to the HA C instruction on that basis. On direc t appeal, his appellate c ounsel also argued the same issue under “ Point XI I : Consti tutionality of Section 921.141, F lorida Statutes.” In that XIIsection of appellant’ s initi al brief

, Marqua rd’s a ppellate c ounsel noted that trial counse l had objecte d to the sta nd ard ins tr uc tio ns and

that th eob

je c tio ns had b e e n o verr

ule d a nd state d th at “ Appe lla

nt ag ain asser ts eac h objection to the Standard I nstructions and argues that the trial c ourt’s rulingdenied due proc ess, a f

air trial a nd a re liable sentenc ing recommendation” in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Ei ghte e nth , a

nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndments . I

n s ub se c tio n ( i) , enti tle d “ He ino us , Atroc iou s, or Cruel,”Marqua

rd’s a ppellate c ounsel ag ain explicitl y objected to the HAC instruction as unconstitutionally

vague and a

rbitrar y . Thus, Marqua

rd’s inef fec tive-assistance -of- counsel claim lacks merit. 20 P ri or t o tri al , the defense fi l ed w ri tt en obj ec t i on s t o the st andard j ury i n s tru c t i o n s . I n th o s e wr i tt e n o b j e c t i o n s , th e d e f

e n s e o b j e c t e d t o th e HA C in s tru c tio n o n th e g r o u n d th a t it w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v a g u e in th a t it f a ile d to ge nui ne l y l i m i tthe c l a s s of pe opl e e l i gi bl e f

orthe de a th pe na l ty i n vi ol a t i on of the F i fth , S i x th , E i g h th , an d F o u rt een th A m en d m en t s. A ttri al , th e d efen se al so o b je c te d to th e H A C in s tru c tio n , a g a in o n th e g r o u n d th a t it w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a lly
v a g u e a n d a l s o o n th e g r o u n d th a tth e e v i d e n c e d i d n o ts u p p o r tth e HA C aggravat i ng fa ct or. 4 T r i a l c ouns e l a l s o a s ke d the tr i a l c our t , i f i tove r rul e d the obj e c t i on a nd ga ve the H A C i nstruct i on , t o add on t o the st andard j ury i nstruct i on the l i m i t at i on thatTh etrial c ourt did no t in str uc t th ejur

y on any statutor y mitig atin gfac tor s. 5 21 event s a ft erthe vi ct i m l ostconsci ou snes s or dea th cou l d n otbe consi dere d as
e v id e n c e o f

th e w ic k e d , e v il, a tr o c io u s , o rc ru e l n a tu r e o f th e c r im e , a s f

o llo w s : If the vi ct i m i n thi s c as e l ostconsci ou snes s, any e ventw hi ch occurre d af ter u ncon sc i ou snes s began cannotbe consi dere d as e vi dence [of the] e s pe c i a l l y w i c ke d, e vi l , a tr oc i ous, o rc rue l na tur e of the c r i m e . A ny e ve n t a f t e r th e d e a th o f th e v i c t i m c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s e v i de nc e of the es peci al l y w i cked, evi l , atroci ou s, or cruel natur e of the cr i m e. If you h ave r ea son t o d ou btw hether s om e par t i cul arevento cc u rr ed af t er unc ons c i ous ne s s orde a th, y ou c a nnotc ons i de rtha te ve nti n de c i di ng w hether the S t at e has es t abl i shed thi s a gg ra vat i ng ci rc um st ance . ( Q uot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d. ) A l though ove r rul i ng the obj e c t i on t o the
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i ty o f

th e HA C i n s tru c t i o n , th e tr i a l c o u r td i d g i v e th e f i r s ttwo se nt ence s of thi s r equest ed l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on bu tno tthe l as tse nt ence . T he tri al courtfurther e xp l ai ned (1) thati f the j ury di d n otfi nd that
a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s ju s tif ie d im p o s itio n o f

th e d e a th p e n a lty , it s h o u ld
r e c om m e nd l i f

e i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd ( 2) tha ti f i tdi d f i nd tha tone orm or e s uf f i c i e nt aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s e xi st ed, the j ury then h ad the du ty t o d et erm i ne w hether any m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s e xi st ed thatou tw ei gh ed the aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance or ci rc um st ance s. A s t o p ot ent i al m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s, the tri al court i nstruct ed: “ A m on g the m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s y ou m ay consi der i f e st abl i shed by the e vi de nc e a r e a ny a s pe c t s of the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e rorr e c or d a nd a ny o th e rc ir c u m s ta n c e o f

th e o f f e n s e .” T h e tr ia l c o u r t f u r th e rin s tru c te d th a t w h ile 522

a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s m u s t b e e s ta b lis h e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t,
m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s nee d n otbe. R ather, i ti nstruct ed the j ury: “ If you are re as on abl y c on vi nced thata m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance exi st s, you m ay consi der i tas e s ta b lis h e d .” A ft erthe j ury r et i re d t o d el i bera t e, the defense m ov ed for adi re ct ed se nt ence of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt , a r gui ng tha tthe S t a t e ha d f a i l e d t o pr ove a ggr a va t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u f

f ic ie n t to a llo w a r e a s o n a b le ju r y to r e c o m m e n d a d e a th s e n te n c e . T he tr i a l c our tde ni e d the m ot i on. A f t e rde l i be r a t i ng, the j ur y una ni m ous l y r e c om m e nde d a s e nt e nc e of de a th. T h e d ef en se th en m o v ed fo r a n ew trial, as se rtin g , i n ter a li a, th at M ar q u ar d ’s tr ia l w a s ta in te d b y c u m u la tiv e e r r o r . T h e tr ia l c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n . F. Se nt e nc i ng A tse nt enci ng , the S t at e tri al courtre coun t ed the det ai l s of W i l l et s’ s m urder and M ar qu ar d’ s r ol e i n the m urder, st at i ng thatthere w as ov erw hel m i ng evi dence thatthe i dea of ki l l i ng W i l l et s ori gi nat ed w i th M ar qu ar d. T he tri al courtfoun d t hat th e s e f o u ra g g r a v a t i n g f

a c t o r s w e r e p r o v e d b e y o n d r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t : ( 1 ) th e c r i me w a s c o m m itte d w h ile M a r q u a r d w a s o n p a r o le ; ( 2 ) th e c r im e w a s c o m m itte d w h ile M a r qua r d w a s e nga ge d i n the c om m i s s i on of a r obbe r y orw a s c om m i tt e d f or f i na nc i a l ga i n; ( 3) the c r i m e w a s e s pe c i a l l y he i nous , a tr oc i ous , orc rue l ; a nd ( 4) the23

c r i m e w a s c om m i tt e d i n a c ol d, c a l c ul a t e d, a nd pr e m e di t a t e d m a nne rw i thouta ny p r e te n s e o f

m o r a l o rle g a l ju s tif

ic a tio n . T h e tr ia l c o u r t d e s c r ib e d th e f a c ts s u p p o r tin g e a c h a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r . W ith
r e ga r d t o the H A C a ggr a va t or , the tr i a l c our tr e s t a t e d the i ns truc t i on de f i ni ng the f a c t ora nd the n e xpl a i ne d w hy M a r qua r d’ s c r i m e m e tthi s de f i ni t i on: C h o p p i n g a n d st ab b i n g an d att em p t i n g t o d ro w n a d efen sel ess, uns us p e c t i n g 2 2
- y e a r - o l d w o ma n w i th a Bo w i e k n i f e , a d a g g e ra nd a t t e m p t in g to c u t h e rh e a d o f f w ith a G u r k a h e a d k n if e is e x tr e m e ly w i c ke d a nd s hock i n g l y evi l . S uc h c onduc ti s de s i gne d t o i nf l i c ta hi gh d e g r e e w ith in d if

f e r e n c e to th e s u f

f e r in g o f S ta c e y A n n W ille ts . M ar qu ar d cuther throat , st ab b ed her i n the ches tand at t em pt ed to d r o w n h e ra n d a tte m p te d to b e h e a d h e r . M r . M a r q u a r d th r e w h e rto the grou nd af

t ercutt i ng her throatand st abbi ng her. H e hel d h erfa ce unde rw a t er unt i l s he s t oppe d br e a thi ng. W he n s he s t a r t e d br e a thi ng agai n, he the n h e l d h e rf a c e un de rw a t e run t i l s he f i na l l y s t op ped br e a thi ng. A bshi re st abbed h eratM ar qu ar d’s i nstruct i on . T hen M ar qu ar d s t r u c k th e b a c k o f

h e rn e c k w ith h is G u r k a h e a d k n if e . A b s h ir e d id the sa m e thi ng w i th h i s B ow i e kni fe . S t ac ey di d n otdi e i nst ant l y. S he w as brea thi ng w he n M ar qu ar d f ir s t tr ie d to d r o w n h e r . S h e s ta r te d b r e a th in g a f te rth e f ir s t a tte m p t. M ar qu ar d agai n tri ed t o d row n h er . T h e a tta c k w a s w ith o u t p r o v o c a tio n , a n d s h e v a in ly s o u g h t to d e f e n d h e r s e lf

b y s tru g g lin g . M a r q u a r d h a d o n e h a n d o v e rh e rm o u th a nd a kni f

e i n the othe r h an d cu t t i ng he rthr oa ta nd s t a bbi ng he ri n the c h e s t. A tt e m pt i ng t o dr ow n the vi c t i m i s co m pa r abl e t o s tr a ngul a t i on a n d w o u ld in v o lv e f

o r e k n o w le d g e o f

d e a th , e x tr e m e a n x ie ty o rf e a r . T h e tr ia l c o u r t f

o u n d th a t n o s ta tu to r y m itig a tin g f a c to r s e x is te d . W ith
r e ga r d t o non- s t a tut or y m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s , the tr i a l c our tm a de m i t i ga t i on f i ndi ngs24

th atM arq u ard h ad an u n st ab l e fam i l y l i fe, d i ffi cu l tch i l d h o o d , d i v o rced p aren t s, al coho l i c m other, no em ot i on al supp ort , and a pers on al i ty di sorder , bu tconcl ud ed thatany m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors r el at i ng t o thatbackgrou nd and d i agno si s w er e ov erw hel m ed by the aggravat i ng fa ct ors i n thi s c as e:

T he C ou rtfi nd s th at th e d ef endanthad an u nst abl e f am i l y l i fe a s a chi l d a nd l a c ke d the e m ot i ona l s uppor ta nd c a r e he s houl d ha ve r e c e i ve d. D e f e nd a ntr e por t e d t o D oc t orK r op tha the ha d a num be rof he a d i nj ur i e s . T hos e a r e notdoc um e nt e d, nor d i d D o c t orK r op desc r i be how the y oc c ur r e d, w he n the y oc c ur r e d orthe na tur e of the i nj uri es . S uch t es t i m on y a nd tho se of bl ac ko ut s a s r el at ed t o the j ury by defe nd ant vi a D oct or K rop a re hi gh l y suspec t . T he C o u rt p l ac es v ery l i tt l e w ei g h to n su ch t est i m o n y. D oct or K rop d i agno se d d ef endantas [s i c] a per so n al i ty di sorder no totherw i se spec i fi ed. In ot her w ords, defen d an thas c hara ct er i st i cs w hi ch fi tdi ff

eren t p er sonal i ty di agno se s. T ho se tra i t s a re i napp ropri at ely ac t i ng ou ti n res po nse t o stre ss , bei ng m ani pu l at i ve, se l f- i nj uri ou s, se l f- destruct i ve, engagi ng in at t ent i on -gett i ng behavi or, expl osi ve perso n ali ty, po or i m pu l se cont rol , l ow frustra t i on t ol er ance , fa i l i ng t o l oo k atconsequences o f h is behavi or, basi ca l l y s el fi sh, a l i ar a nd a p e r s o n w h o e n g a g e s i n b e h a v i o r s th a t a r e a g a i n s t th e v a l u e s of soci ety. D o cto r K ro p al so – m ent i on ed al so thatsuch a pers on ca n engage i n p sy chot i c behavi or, b u t th er e’ s no evi dence of such b e h a v io r . D oct or Ja ck M erw i n, an equal l y qu al i fi ed psyc ho l og i st , o p i ned th at the defendantsuff er s f rom an ant i soci al pers on al i ty di sorder , w h i ch affects th ree p ercen to f A m eri can m al es. T he Court f

i nd s tha t the de f

e nd a nt s uf

f e r s f r om e i ther a pers on al i ty di sorderno totherw i se spec i fi ed or an ant i soci al pe r s ona l i ty . T he r e i s notm uc h di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n the tw o. T he C o u rtfurther f

i nd s def endantdi d n othave a s t abl e hom e, butha d di vor c e d pa r e nt s a nd a n a l c ohol i c m o t h erw i th w hom he l i ve d. H e ha d a di f

f i c ul tc hi l dhood. H e m a y ha ve be e n s e xua l l y a bus e d on on e o cc as ion. D ef

endantused vari ou s drugs and al coho l ; ho w ever ,25

th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e u s e o f th o s e h a d a n y th in g w h a ts o e v e rto do w i th the com m i ss i on of the m urder. I n s um m a r y , the f

o u r ag gr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s ove r w he l m the m i t ig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T h e s tr o n g e s t m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e is d e f e n d a n t ’ s d i f

f i c u l tc h i l d h o o d . He d i d n o th a v e a s t a b l e h o m e . He w a s in a g r o u p h o m e , a th e r ap e u tic f o s te r h o m e a n d th e s ta te h o s p ita l. H e l i ved w i th an al coho l i c m other. T he tr i a l c our tthe n r e c ount e d the brut a l , s e ns e l e s s m ur de rof W i l l e t s a nd concl ud ed: “ T he m urder of S t ac ey A nn W i l l et s w as a c ol d-bl oo ded, prem edi t at ed
m u r d e r . T h e d e a th p e n a lty is th e ap p r o p r ia te p u n is h m e n t.” T he tr i a l c our tthe n s e nt e nc e d M a r qua r d t o de a th. G . D i r e c t A p p e al O n di r e c tappe a l t o the F l or i da S upr e m e C our t , M a r qua r d, r e pr e s e nt e d by
ne w c ouns e l , a r gue d tha tthe tr i a l c our te r r e d i n the s e m a tt e r s : ( 1) e xc us i ng f or c a us e a de a th- qua l i f

i e d ve ni r e pe r s on; ( 2) r e f us i ng t o s uppr e s s kni ve s a nd
ca m ou fl age pant s r ec ov er ed fr om hi s r oo m ; (3) perm i tt i ng the S t at e t o i ntrodu ce evi dence thatM ar qu ar d h ad di sc usse d w i th A bshi re ho w t o k i l l peop l e w i th k ni ves a nd how t o m a ke a “ s i l e ntki l l ” ; ( 4) de ny i ng the de f e ns e ’ s r e que s tf

orj udgm e ntof
a c q u itta l o n th e a r m e d r o b b e r y c o u n t; ( 5 ) r e f u s in g to a llo w d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l to
a r gue t o the j ur y c onc e r ni ng the c ons e que nc e s of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt ; ( 6) pe r m i tt i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on i nt o M a r qua r d’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e ; ( 7) in s tru c tin g o n a n d f

in d in g th e a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e o f c o m m is s io n w h ile26

un der ase nt ence of i m pri sonm ent ; (8) gi vi ng the H A C i nstruct i on ; (9) f i nd i ng that the m ur de rw a s f

orpe c uni a r y ga i n; a nd ( 10) f i ndi ng tha tthe m ur de rw a s c ol d,
c a lc u la te d , a n d p r e m e d ita te d . S e e M a r q u a r d v . S ta te , 6 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 6 n .3 . M a r qua r d a l s o a r gue d tha t : ( 11) c um ul a t i ve e r r or s r e qui r e d r e ve r s a l ; a nd ( 12) F l or i da ’ s de a th- pe na l ty s c he m e , i nc l udi ng the s t a nda r d j ur y i ns truc t i ons r e ga r di ng a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s , w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l . S e e i d. M a r qua r d di d notr a i s e a ny s h a c k lin g is s u e o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. T h e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t a f f ir m e d M a r q u a r d ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . M a r qua r d the n f

i l e d a m ot i on f

orr e he a r i ng, w hi c h w a s de ni e d. S e e i d. a t58. T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtl i st ed the tw el ve i ss ues r ai se d b y M ar qu ar d o n d i re ct
ap p e a l, id . a t 5 6 n .3 , b u t d is c u s s e d o n ly s ix o f th o s e is s u e s in s o m e d e ta il. A s to th e r e m a in in g s ix , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t s u m m a r ily a f f ir m e d th e tr ia l c o u r t. I d. a t58 n. 4. A m ong thos e c l a i m s s um m a r i l y a f f i r m e d w e r e M a r qua r d’ s c l a i m s tha tthe tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in in s tru c tin g o n a n d f in d in g th a t th e m u r d e rw a s e s p e c ia lly he i nous , a tr oc i ous , orc rue l a nd tha tthe F l or i da de a th- pe na l ty s c he m e , i nc l udi ng th e H A C a g g r a v a to r , w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l. T h e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t s im p ly
s ta te d “n o e r r o r ” w ith r e g a r d to th e g iv in g o f th e H A C in s tru c tio n , a n d “n o m e r it”
w ith r e g a r d to th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e H A C in s tru c tio n g iv e n . I d .27

M ar qu ar d then fi l ed a pet i t i on for aw ri tof ce rt i orar i i n the U ni t ed S t at es S u p re m e C o u rt, see k in g re v iew o n th e f o ll o w in g b as is: “ T H E T R IA L C O U R T ’S R E S T R I C T I ON OF DE F E NS E C OU NS E L ’ S C L OS I NG AR GU ME NT CONCERNI NG DEFE ND AN T’ S F UTURE DAN GEROUSNESS VI OLATED THE DUE PR OCES S C LAUSE AND RE QU I RE S A NEW TR I AL AS TO P E N A L T Y I N L I G H T O F T H I S C O U R T ’S D E C I S I O N I N S im m o n s v . S o u th C a r ol i na , 512 U . S . __, 129 L . E d. 2d 133, 114 S . C t . __ ( 1994) . ” I n hi s pe t i t i on, M a r q u a r d a r g u e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in r e f u s in g to a llo w d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l to i nform the j ury thatthe courtcoul d sent ence M ar qu ar d t o con se cut i ve l i fe
se nt ence s f

or the arm ed robb ery a nd the m urder, w hi ch w ou l d l i kel y e nsure that M a r qua r d w oul d s pe nd the r e s tof hi s l i f e i n pr i s on. T he S upr e m e C our tde ni e d the pet i t i on . M ar qu ar d v . F l ori da, 51 3 U . S . 11 32 , 11 5 S . C t . 94 6 (19 95 ). H . P os t - c on vi c t i on 3. 850 M ot i on M a r qua r d the n f

i l e d i n the F l or i da c i r c ui tc our ta m ot i on f orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e lie f p u r s u a n t to F lo r id a R u le o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 .8 5 0 , a n d s u b s e q u e n tly
a m e nde d tha tm ot i on. I n the a m e nde d 3. 850 m ot i on, M a r qua r d a s s e r t e d the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s: (1) thathi s tri al coun se l atthe gu i l tph as e of hi s tri al w as i ne f f e c t i ve ; ( 2) tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l a tthe pe na l ty pha s e w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o i nv es t i gat e a nd pres entsuff i ci entm i t i gat i ng evi dence; (3) thathi s tri al coun se lMarqua rd also alleg ed inef

fec tive assistanceof trial counse l as to other jury instructions 6 on oth e r b a se s. 28 w a s i ne f f e c t i ve a tthe pe na l ty pha s e i n f a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o a nd/ orpr e s e r ve va r i ous e r r one ous rul i ngs by the tr i a l c our ta nd va r i ous s t a t e m e nt s by the c our ta nd the prosec ut or; (4) thatthe F l ori da B arR ul es un const i tut i on al l y prohi bi t ed coun se l f r om i nt e r vi e w i ng j ur or s t o de t e r m i ne i f the y f ol l ow e d the s t a tut or y s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s ; ( 5) tha tthe j ur y i ns truc t i ons a s t o a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the H A C i ns truc t i on, w e r e unc ons t i tut i ona l l y va gue , ove rbr oa d, a nd i na c c ur a t e , a nd tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n notobj e c t i ng t o, orpr e s e r vi ng a n obj e c t i on t o, the j ur y i ns truc t i on a s t o the “ c ol d, c a l c ul a t e d, a nd pr e m e di t a t e d” a ggr a va t i ng f a c t oron tha tba s i s ; ( 6) tha te xe c ut i on by e l e c tr oc ut i on i s c rue l a nd unus ua l a nd 6 vi ol at es the U ni t ed S t at es and F l ori da C on st i tut i on s; and (7) thatM ar qu ar d w as una bl e t o pr e pa r e a n a de qua t e 3. 850 m ot i on unt i l he r e c e i ve d c e r t a i n publ i c r e c or ds
a nd w a s a c c or de d t i m e t o r e vi e w the m a nd c onduc ta f ol l ow - up i nve s t i ga t i on. W h ile M a r q u a r d o b

je c te d to th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e H A C in s tru c tio n , h is 3 . 8 5 0 mo t i o n d i d n o ta r g u e th a th i s tr i a l c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o r a i s e th e H A Cc o n s titu tio n a lity is s u e o rw a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to r a is e o rp r e s e r v e it. I n f a c t, the re cord show s M ar qu ar d’ s tri al coun se l di d o bj ec tt o the H A C i nstruct i on as u n c o n s titu tio n a l. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n h i s a me n d e d 3 . 8 5 0 mo t i o n , M a r q u a r d f o rth e f i r s tt i meThe motion sought a n evidentiar

y hearing a s to all the claims asser ted in the 3.850 7 motion , b ut t

hec ourt did no t gra nt t hee vide nti ary

he aringa s to thesh a c klingc laim. 29 r a is e d a s h a c k lin g c la im ( c la im e ig h t) . M a r q u a r d ’s 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n c la im e d th a t h is const i tut i on al ri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen h e w as hand cuff ed i n frontof the j ury “d u r in g h is p e n a lty p h a s e ,” a n d th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to o b je c t to th a t s h a c k lin g . T h u s , M a r q u a r d ’s 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n r a is e d h is s h a c k lin g c la im bo th as asubst ant i ve const i tut i on al cl ai m and as a n i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofc ouns e l c l a i m . A s t o thi s s ha c kl i ng c l a i m , M a r qua r d’ s a m e nde d 3. 850 m ot i on st at es : “ A ft erM r. M ar qu ar d w as foun d g ui l ty of M s. W i l l et s’ m urder, he w as pl a c e d i n ha ndc uf

f s dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e . T he ha ndc uf f s w e r e i n f

ul l vi e w of the j ur y . ” ( E m pha s i s a dde d. ) T he 3. 850 m ot i on c ont a i ne d no c i t a t i ons t o the
r e c or d tha tw oul d s how the s ha c kl i ng oc c ur r e d, a nd M a r qua r d m a de no pr of f e rnor o f f e r e d a n y a f

f i d a v i tr e l a t i n g t o th e s h a c k l i n g c l a i m. T he 3. 85 0 cou rtdet erm i ned t hatM ar qu ar d’ s c l ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of c ouns e l i n the gui l tpha s e a nd i n the pe na l ty pha s e ( s e tf or th i n c l a i m s one a nd tw o, r e s pe c t i ve l y ) w e r e f a c i a l l y s uf

f i c i e nta nd tha ta he a r i ng s houl d be he l d on th o s e c la im s . T h e 3 .8 5 0 c o u r t d e n ie d c la im s th r e e , f o u r , a n d f

iv e a s p r o c e d u r a lly barr ed. T he 3. 85 0 cou rtal so deni ed M ar qu ar d’ s s hackl i ng cl ai m (c l ai m ei gh t ) a s pr oc e dur a l l y ba r r e d. T he 3. 850 c our tde ni e d the r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s ( s i x a nd s e ve n) 7 on the m e r i t s , f

i ndi ng tha tthe F l or i da S upr e m e C our tha d a l r e a dy r e j e c t e d aMarqua rd claimed that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive in: (1) f ailing to que stion 8 prospec tive jurors about the potential emotional impact of the c rime scene photos and the skeletal remains of the victim, which were presente d to them; (2) failing to litigatethe exclusion of the only

prospec tive black juror ; (3) failing to impeac h co-de fenda nt Abshire conc erning statements he g ave thepolice about Ma rquard’s intox ication at the time of themurder a nd about M arqu ard ’ s ro l ei nth ec ri m e , wh i c ha l l e g e dl y w e r ei n c o n s i s t e ntw i thAb s h i r e ’ s tri a lt e s t i m o ny; (4 ) f ailingto c a ll a s a

wi tne ss H ob art

Ha rriso n, a priso n inmatewi th who m Abs hirea lle g e dly discussed the murder; (5) f ailing to obtain a

nd present evidencethat Marqua rd had a history of head injurie s, blackout periods, and memory loss; (6) failingto present evidencethat Marqua rd wa s intoxic ate d at th etim eof themurder; (7 ) f

ailingto obje c t to theint

ro duc tio n o f v ic tim photographs and thecrime sc ene vide o and failing to hire a n expert witness to counter the testimony of Dr. William Maples, a forensic a nthropolog ist who testified for the State a bout the victim’s skeletal remains; and (8) f ailing to c halleng e the voluntariness of Marquard’ s statement to the police and c onsent to a sea rch of his room based on his intox ication or mental condition at the time of the statement. 30 c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to e le c tr o c u tio n ( c la im s ix ) a n d th a t th e p u b lic r e c o r d s in
c l a i m s e ve n ha d a l r e a dy be e n di s c l os e d. M a r q u a r d th e n a g a in a m e n d e d h is 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n to a s s e r t th a t h is d e a th
s e nt e nc e s houl d be va c a t e d ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e ( 1) tha tc od e f e n d a n t A b s h ir e ’s s e n te n c e h a d b e e n r e d u c e d o n r e m a n d to lif e im p r is o n m e n t, and t hu s M ar qu ar d’ s dea th sent ence w as no tprop ort i on al , and (2) thatA bshi re had
a dm i tt e d t o H oba r tH a r r i s on, a n i nm a t e , tha the ha d s t a bbe d S t a c e y W i l l e t s a nd c ut her neck w hi l e s he w as st i l l al i ve. I . H e ar i n g on 3. 850 M ot i on A tthe e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng be f or e the 3. 850 c our ti n N ove m be r1999, M a r qua r d s oughtt o s how , i nt e ra l i a , tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n the gu i l tph as e i n n um er ou s w ay s. M ar qu ar d al so soug htt o est abl i sh thathi s tri al 8Acc ordingto Marquard’s 3.850 counse l, Abshire did not chang e his story until 1999. 9 Abshire’ s death sentence w as vac ated in 1994 and, according to Ma rquard’s counse l, Abshire’s resentencingwas in 1995. Thus, it appea rs that Abshire’ s story

did not chang e until well after he was re sentenc ed to life imprisonment. 31 c ouns e l w a s i na de qua t e i n the pe na l ty pha s e i n f a i l i ng t o pr e s e ntm i t i ga t i on te s tim o n y b e y o n d D r . K r o p ’s te s tim o n y . S p e c if ic a lly , M a r q u a r d a r g u e d th a t h is
c ouns e l s houl d ha ve pr e s e nt e d m or e de t a i l e d t e s t i m ony a bouthi s di f f i c ul ta nd tr oubl e d c hi l dhood a nd the s e xua l a nd phy s i c a l a bus e he s uf f e r e d a nd i t s e f

f e c ton hi s m ent al st at e. M ar qu ar d al so as se rt ed thatcodefendantA bshi re ’ s c hang ed st ory a b o u tth e mu r d e rc o n s t i tu t e d n e w e v i d e n c e th a tw o u l d h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u t c o me o f th e tr ia l, a n d tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to d is c o v e ra n d p r e s e n t it. 9 W e now re vi ew A bshi re ’ s c hang ed st ory duri ng the 3. 85 0 h ea ri ng and t hen proceed t o the t es t i m on y of the w i tness es pres ent ed on the m i t i gat i on i ss ue. 1. A bshi re ’ s c hang ed st ory D uri ng the 3. 85 0 evi dent i ary hea ri ng i n N ov em ber 199 9, M i chae l A bshi re te s tif ie d a b o u t h is h is to r y w ith M a r q u a r d a n d th e e v e n ts th e d a y o f th e m u r d e r . A bshi re t es t i fi ed thathe and M ar qu ar d h abi tut al l y drank beer , consum ed ephedri ne, and sm ok ed m ar i j uana, and t hey a l so occa si on al l y t oo k L S D . A bshi re i ndi c a t e d tha the a nd M a r qua r d both bl a c ke d outa nd ha d m e m or y l os s a tt i m e s due t o thei r a l coho l and d rug u se . In cont ra stt o h i s tri al t es t i m on y, A bshi re i nd i ca t ed thatthe day of the m urder, he and M ar qu ar d w entt o tw o d i ff er entbars before32

r e tu r n i n g t o th e m o t e l a n d g e tt i n g r e a d y t o g o o u t . Atth e f i r s tb a r , th e y d r a n k two b e e r s ; a t th e s e c o n d , th e y d r a n k n u m e r o u s b e e r s , ap p r o x im a te ly o n e e v e r y te n to f i f t e e n m i nut e s f

ora n unc e r t a i n pe r i od of t i m e . A ts om e poi ntdur i ng the ni ght the y a l s o dr a nk the r e m a i ns of a bott l e of

t e qui l a , w hi c h w a s appr oxi m a t e l y f our i nc he s of the bott l e , a nd a l s o i nge s t e d e phe dr i ne . A bs hi r e s t a t e d tha the di d not
re m em ber e xact l y w hathi s t es t i m on y w as attri al or w hy he w ou l d h ave om i tt ed the f a c ttha the a nd M a r qua r d dr a nk m a ny be e r s a nd t e qui l a the da y a nd e ve ni ng of the m urder, bu tthathe w as sure they had do ne so. H ow ever , A bshi re t es t i fi ed that M a r q u a r d , n e v e r th e le s s , w a s a b le to d r iv e th e th r e e o f th e m in to th e w o o d s in in c le m e n t w e a th e rw ith o u t in c id e n t. W i th r e ga r d t o the m ur de r , A bs hi r e t e s t i f i e d tha the s t abbe d W i l l e t s a nd c ut her throatbecause he tho ug htshe w as st i l l al i ve af t erM ar qu ar d h ad st abbed h er , a nd he w a nt e d t o puthe routof he rpa i n. H oba r tH a r r i s on a l s o t e s t i f i e d br i e f l y tha tA bs hi r e c l a i m e d he , a nd not M ar qu ar d, had k i l l ed W i l l et s. H arri son p re vi ou sl y had t es t i fi ed atA bshi re ’ s tri al th a t A b s h ir e to ld h im A b s h ir e c u t W ille ts ’s h e a d o f f a n d le f t a p ie c e o f

s k in to h o ld i ton . H ow ever , H arri son fai l ed t o p rovi de any det ai l s a tthe 19 99 evi dent i ary hear i ng , st at i ng thathe di d n otw antany par tof the ca se . H arri son al so adm i tt ed thathe w as no tpres entatthe cr i m e s ce ne and cou l d n otkn ow w hether A bshi reWood further testified that he did not object to the introduction of the victim’s skele ton 10 beca use he be lieved it was re levant evidence of the knife injuries a

nd an objec tion would not be well-founde d. Wood did notpresent an expert to rebut the testimony of Dr. Ma

ples bec ause he and Pe arlwereof

theview that D r. Ma

ple s w a s “ a s g oo d a s it

g e ts in term s o f f

ore ns ic anthropology

in his testim ony

in his field,” and a

nother e xpert opinion would not have he lped them. Wood did notfile a motion to suppress the evidencerec overe d from Marquard’ s room beca use he did not believehe had grounds. Wood testi fied that hemade the strateg ic dec ision not t o question jurors about the probableemotional impact of the c rime-sc ene evidencebeca use “Ms. Willets was killed very br utally”and

the“ e vide nc ein t

hec a sewa s v e ry

sens iti ve , v e ry

seri ou s, ”and

Woo d f e lt that “ to pla y that up , if

you wi ll, up front, c ould p re

judic ethee ntirepa

ne l, i f you

g ot intoe xac t details about what ha

ppened or how her body was found, that sort of stuff.” 33 t ol d the truth a nd tha tA bs hi r e s e e m e d t o be tr y i ng t o i m pr e s s pe opl e w i th how t o u g h h e w as. G arry W oo d, w ho se rved al on g w i th H ow ar d P ea rl as M ar qu ar d’ s tri al
coun se l , al so t es t i fi ed abou thi s i nv ol vem entw i th M ar qu ar d’ s c as e. P ea rl w as de c e a s e d. W ood w a s a s ke d a boutH oba r tH a r r i s on, a pr i s on i nm a t e w i th w hom A b s h ir e ta lk e d a b o u t th e m u r d e r . W o o d te s tif ie d th a t h e a n d P e a r l m a d e a s tr a te g ic d ec isio n n o t t o ca ll H ar riso n as a w itn es s in th e g u il t p h as e b ec au se H ar riso n ’s
s t a t e m e nt s di d noti ndi c a t e tha tM a r qua r d w a s i nnoc e nt . F ur the r , W ood w oul d not
c a ll h im in e ith e rth e g u ilt o rth e p e n a lty p h a s e b e c a u s e H a r r is o n w a s n o t c r e d ib le
a nd be c a us e W ood be l i e ve d H a r r i s on’ s t e s t i m ony w oul d notc a us e j ur or s t o be
s y m pa the t i c t o e i the rA bs hi r e orM a r qua r d. I n a ddi t i on, W ood a nd P e a r l di d not
w an tt o cal l H arri so n b ecau se th ey co u l d n o tco n tro l h i m as th ei r w i tn ess. 10 2. M i t i gat i on w i tness es34

T h e m ajo rity o f th e tes ti m o n y a t th e 3 .8 5 0 h ea rin g re lated to M ar q u ar d ’s
m i t i gat i on cl ai m . M ar qu ar d con t ends thathi s tri al coun se l shou l d h ave pres ent ed in th e p e n a lty p h a s e th e m itig a tio n e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in th e 3 .8 5 0 h e a r in g . A t th e 3 .8 5 0 h ea rin g , M ar iah H ar re lso n testified th at sh e w as M ar q u ar d ’s f o s te rm o th e rf

o ra p e r io d w h e n h e w a s a b o u t tw e lv e o rth ir te e n y e a r s o ld , a f te rh is
s tin t in a b o y s ’ h o m e . H a r r e ls o n te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s a s h y , b a s h f u l c h ild , w ith
w hom s he ha d no pr obl e m s . S he de s c r i be d M a r qua r d a s a f ol l ow e r , buts t a t e d on
c r os s - e xa m i na t i on tha the w a s ge ne r a l l y a bl e t o m a ke up hi s ow n m i nd a nd

“ m ost l y” se em ed t o k no w the di ff er ence betw ee n w rong and ri gh t . H arre l son h ad the i m pr e s s i on tha tM a r qua r d c oul d notde pe nd on hi s m othe r . H i s f a the rke pt t el l i ng M ar qu ar d thathe w ou l d com e a nd gethi m . A s are sul t , on e ni gh tM ar qu ar d to o k H a r r e ls o n ’s c h ild ’s b ic y c le a n d r o d e ap p r o x im a te ly f if ty - f iv e m ile s to Ja cksonv i l l e, N orth C ar ol i na, w here hi s f ather l i ved. H arre l son w as never c o n ta c te d in c o n n e c tio n w ith M a r q u a r d ’s tr ia l. E r ic W a lle n , a f

r ie n d o f M a r q u a r d ’s , te s tif

ie d th a t M a r q u a r d liv e d w ith W a lle n a n d h is f

a m ily f o rs o m e p e r io d w h e n th e y w e r e s e v e n te e n y e a r s o ld . W a l l e n t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe y dr a nk a l c ohol e ve r y da y a nd ha bi tua l l y c ons um e d a vari ety of drugs, i ncl ud i ng L S D and P C P . W al l en t es t i fi ed thatM ar qu ar d w as s om e w ha t“ w i thdr a w n” a nd “ s pa c e d out ” a tt i m e s . W a l l e n a l s o kne w A bs hi r e , a nd35

had spentt i m e w i th A bshi re i n cou nty j ai l and st at e pri son. H e des cr i bed A bshi re a s “ a ve r y e xpl os i ve pe r s on” w ho w a s j e a l ous i n hi s f r i e nds hi ps a nd di d notl i ke othe rpe opl e t o c om e be tw e e n hi m a nd hi s f r i e nds . A c c or di ng t o W a l l e n, M arq u ard w as n o tan ag g ressi v e p erso n . W al l en w as n o tco n t act ed t o b e a w i tn ess in M a r q u a r d ’s tr ia l a n d w a s in p r is o n a t th e tim e o f th e tr ia l. R ebec caM ar qu ar d H i cks, M ar qu ar d’ s ol destsi st er , then t es t i fi ed abou ther
a nd M a r qua r d’ s c hi l dhood. H i c ks t e s t i f i e d i n de t a i l a boutthe i rm othe r ’ s he a vy dr i nki ng. H i c ks r e m e m be r e d he rm othe r ’ s vi ol e ntbe ha vi ort ow a r d he rbutdi d not
r e m e m be rw he the rhe rm othe ra bus e d M a r qua r d orthe i rothe rs i s t e r . H i c ks
re ca l l ed her m other oft en dri nk i ng al l day unt i l she pas se d o utand al so st at ed that h e rm o th e rc o n s u m e d c o c a in e , m a r iju a n a , a n d h a s h . H e rm o th e rto o k M a r q u a r d to b a r s w ith h e ra n d a ls o c o n s u m e d d ru g s in f r o n t o f h im w h e n h e w a s ap p r o x im a te ly t en ye ar s ol d. A ton e poi ntM ar qu ar d, atage t en, w as t aken t o the ho spi t al af t er t a ki ng qua a l ude s , butthe i rm othe rw a s pa s s e d outa nd di d notknow a boutthe i nci dent . H i cks w as never cont ac t ed by M ar qu ar d’ s tri al coun se l and w as sure that th e i ro th e rs i s t e rA my a l s o h a d n o tb e e n c o n t a c t e d b e c a u s e s h e h a d s p o k e n t o A my a b o u t it. A m y d ie d in 1 9 9 5 . O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , H ic k s a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th e r e w a s a n in c id e n t in
w h ic h M a r q u a r d h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f m o le s tin g th e d a u g h te ro f th e irs is te rA m y .36

W o o d , M a r q u a r d ’s tr ia l c o u n s e l, te s tif ie d th a t h e a n d P e a r l m a d e a s tr a te g ic de c i s i on t o pr e s e nta l l e vi de nc e of M a r qua r d’ s c hi l dhood, e m ot i ona l , a nd subst ance -abu se prob l em s throu gh D r. K rop rather than t hrou gh vari ou s other
w itn e s s e s b e c a u s e th e y w a n te d D r . K r o p to “p u t it in to a m e n ta l h e a lth pe r s pe c t i ve . ” A s a r e s ul tof D r . K r op’ s s pe c i f

i c e xpe r t i s e , D r . K r op w a s i n c ha r ge of the m i t i ga t i on i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr e s e nt a t i on. W i th regard t o h i s f

ai l ure t o con t ac tw i tness es t o d et erm i ne i f M ar qu ar d w as i nt oxi c a t e d w he n he w a s a r r e s t e d, c ons e nt e d t o a s e a r c h, a nd pr ovi de d a s t a t e m e nt to th e p o lic e , W o o d te s tif ie d th a t M a r q u a r d n e v e rto ld h im h e w a s in to x ic a te d . M a r qua r d appa r e nt l y a ts om e poi ntt ol d D r . K r op tha the ha d t a ke n a c i d the da y of the a r r e s t , butW ood t e s t i f i e d tha tthe de f

e ns e t e a m c onc l ude d M a r qua r d w a s not in to x ic a te d a t th e tim e o f th e a r r e s t, a s f

o llo w s : A nd I do r e c a l l e xpl or i ng w i th D r . K r o p fur the ra boutthe r am i fi cat i o n s of

tha ta nd . . . . w e di d notf e e l , H ow a r d P e a r l a nd m ys el f, base d on our i nform at i on i n c on sul t at i on w i th D r. K rop , that e ith e rM r . M a r q u a r d w a s in c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l, in c o m p e te n t to r e nde ra ny s t a t e m e nt s , i ns a ne a tt he t i m e of the of f e ns e ori nc apa bl e of pr ovi di ng a s t a t e m e ntt o the pol i c e ba s e d on a ny a l c ohol ordrug i nge s t i on. D r . M ic h a e l A m ie l, a n e x p e r t in th e f ie ld o f p s y c h ia try , te s tif

ie d a b o u t h is
o p in io n s a b o u t M a r q u a r d ’s s u b s ta n c e a b u s e a n d m e n ta l s ta te . D r . A m ie l m e t w ith M ar q u ar d th re e tim es an d re v iew ed M ar q u ar d ’s h isto ry an d D r. K ro p ’s37

psyc ho l og i ca l t es t i ng of hi m . B as ed on hi s r evi ew , D r. A m i el concl ud ed that M a r q u a r d ’s im p u ls e - c o n tr o l m a y h a v e b e e n m ild ly im p a ir e d a s a r e s u lt o f h is al coho l consum pt i on . B as ed on M ar qu ar d’ s s t at em entthathe coul d n otre m em ber the i nci dentand t hathe zoned o utatt i m es , D r. A m i el w as of the op i ni on that M a r qua r d “ m i ghtha ve ha d s om e ki nd of ps y c hoge ni c a m ne s t i c pe r i od w he r e by he
c oul d notthe r e f

or e r e c a l l w ha tha d t a ke n pl a c e . ” D r . A m i e l t e s t i f i e d tha ts uc h a ps y c hoge ni c a m ne s t i c pe r i od “ s ugge s t s tha tthe e xpe r i e nc e w a s ve r y tr a um a t i c , a nd th e r e f o r e , h e b lo c k e d it o u t.” D r . A m ie l f u r th e rte s tif

ie d th a t M a r q u a r d h a d a w e lldo cum ent ed chroni c depres si ve di sorder , and t hatthe al coho l and d rugs w er e s el fm ed icatio n . D r. A m iel ag re ed w ith D r. K ro p ’s as se ss m en t o f M ar q u ar d ’s pers on al i ty di sorder . D r . B a r r y C r o w n , a n e x p e r t in th e f ie ld o f p s y c h o lo g y , th e n te s tif ie d a b o u t a ba tt e r y of

ne ur ops y c hol ogi c a l t e s t s he a dm i ni s t e r e d on M a r qua r d i n 1997, a tthe
r e que s tof

M a r qua r d’ s 3. 850 c ouns e l . D r . C r ow n t e s t i f i e d tha tD r . K r op ha d not
a dm i ni s t e r e d a ny of

the t e s t s he a dm i ni s t e r e d, w hi c h w e r e f oc us e d m or e on “d if f u s e m a tte r s o f

b r a in d e v e lo p m e n t.” D r . C r o w n te s tif ie d th a t th e te s t r e s u lts
s ugge s t e d tha tM a r qua r d’ s pr obl e m - s ol vi ng a bi l i ty w a s a tthe l e ve l of a pe r s on aged fi ft ee n yea rs and seven m on ths, al tho ug h h i s vocabul ary w as m uch m ore advanced. T he t es tre sul t s s ug gest ed a tho ug htdi sorderand p roce ss i ng defi ci t . D r.38

C r ow n a l s o a dm i ni s t e r e d a pe r s ona l i ty t e s ttha ts ugge s t e d a pa tt e r n of
sc hi zoph re ni a, para no i d type, i n a “ subacut e s t age. ” D r. C row n t es t i fi ed that M a r q u a r d ’s p e r s o n a lity a n d th o u g h t d is o r d e r s a n d d im in is h e d c ap a c ity w o u ld

“ re du ce hi s c apac i ty t o rea son and t o exerci se soun d j ud gm ent , part i cul ar l y w hen h e w a s u n d e rp r e s s u r e .” H is d if f ic u lty in p r o b le m - s o lv in g w o u ld a ls o m a k e h im
m or e l i ke l y t o a c ti m pul s i ve l y . H ow e ve r , D r . C r ow n c l a r i f i e d tha the w a s not d ia g n o s in g M a r q u a r d a s s c h iz o p h r e n ic ; r a th e r , h e w a s s im p ly r e p o r tin g th a t a pers on al i ty t es tM ar qu ar d t oo k sug gest ed sc hi zoph re ni a. D r. C row n further
c la r if ie d th a t h e w a s n o t te s tif y in g th a t M a r q u a r d w a s in s a n e . C hery l F urt i ck t es t i fi ed as an experti n the fi el d o f s oci al w ork. F urt i ck t e s t i f i e d tha tM a r qua r d’ s r e c or ds di d notc ont a i n m a ny s i gni f i c a ntde t a i l s r e ga r di ng M a r q u a r d ’s e x p e r ie n c e s a n d m e n ta l h e a lth . F u r tic k d is c u s s e d M a r q u a r d ’s u n s ta b le chi l dh oo d and adol es ce nce a nd l on g h i st ory of behavi oral prob l em s. S he t es t i fi ed th a t M a r q u a r d a s a c h ild lo o k e d f o rth e a c c e p ta n c e o f

o th e r s a n d d id n o t r e c e iv e it. T he S t at e then p re se nt ed M ar qu ar d’ s f ather, R og erM ar qu ar d. R og er M a r qua r d t e s t i f

i e d tha the di vor c e d M a r qua r d’ s m othe rbe c a us e s he dr a nk a nd abused thei r daugh t er s, bu tthatshe di d n otabuse M ar qu ar d. H e f urther t es t i fi ed tha tM a r qua r d l i ve d w i th hi m f r om a ge f

i f t e e n t o ni ne t e e n e xc e ptf ora n e i ght e e nm o n th s tin t in a h o s p ita l.With reg ard to trial c ounsel’s failure to properly litigate theState’s exclusion of the 11 on ly pros pe c tiv eblac k ju

ro r, the3. 85 0 c ourt

fo und th at th ejuror

wa s c halleng e d a s a

re sult o f his opposition t o the death penalty and not bec ause of

his race , and thus counsel wa s not ineffe ctive for f ailing to objec t. The cour t determined that the crime sc ene vide o and victim’s photograph were admissible evidenc e, and thus there wa s no prejudicefrom counse l’s failureto object, and that th ede c isi on

no t to hirean e xpe rt

wi tne ss to c ounter D r. Ma ple s’ s te stimony

wa s a strate g ic decision and not inef

fec tive assistance . As to Marqua rd’s a ssertion that counsel should have impeache d Abshire with the statements Abshire previously had madeto the police about Marqua rd’s intox ication and their roles in the murder, the 3.850 c ourt found that Abshire ’s prior statements were in fact consistent with his trial testimony . 39 J. D en i al of 3. 85 0 R el i ef A fterth e e v id en ti ar y h ea rin g , th e s tate 3 .8 5 0 co u rt d en ied M ar q u ar d ’s
r e m a i ni ng i ne f

f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m s f

orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f . T he 3 .8 5 0 c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l m a d e r e a s o n a b le , s tr a te g ic d e c is io n s in de c i di ng nott o que s t i on j ur or s a boutthe e m ot i ona l i m pa c tof the c r i m e s c e ne ev i d en ce an d th e v i ct i m ’ s rem ai n s an d n o tt o cal l H o b artH arri so n as a w i tn ess. 11 I n a d d r e s s in g M a r q u a r d ’s a r g u m e n t th a t c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to obt a i n m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e a boutM a r qua r d’ s m e nt a l s t a t e a nd s ubs t a nc e a bus e , the 3. 85 0 cou rtfoun d thatno evi dence w as pres ent ed atthe heari ng thatM ar qu ar d suff er ed fr om any hea d i nj ury, bl ac ko utperi od s, or m em ory l oss. T he courtfurther foun d thatthe evi dence of M ar qu ar d’ s drug and al coho l abuse a nd pastm ent al h e a lth p r o b le m s w e r e in tr o d u c e d a t tr ia l th r o u g h th e te s tim o n y o f D r . K r o p . A s to the a l l e ga t i on tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o e xpa nd upon the i nt oxi c a t i on a nd i ns a ni ty de f e ns e s , the c our tf

ound tha tthe r e w a s ne ve ra nyWith reg ard to the issue of the sea rch a nd Marqua

rd’s statement to the police, the 3.850 12 court found that no evidencewas pre sented that Marquard w as intox icated at the time he consente d to the search and g ave thestatement, or that hesuffered f rom any mental illness that w o u l d r e n d e r h i s c o n s e nti nv o lunt ar

y. 40 e v id e n c e o f

in to x ic a tio n a t th e tim e o f th e c r im e u n til A b s h ir e c a m e u p w ith h is l a t e s tve r s i on of

e ve nt s , a nd tr i a l c ouns e l c oul d notbe f a ul t e d f ornota tt e m pt i ng a defe nse f or w hi ch the fa ctual basi s di d n otexi statthe t i m e. 12 W i th res pectt o the al l egat i on s thattri al coun se l , and D r. K rop, w er e i neff ec t i ve atthe penal ty phase , the 3. 85 0 cou rtfoun d thatno evi dence w as pr e s e nt e d a tthe e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng tha tw oul d ha ve pr e s e nt e d m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s i n the pe na l ty pha s e , a nd tha t“ a l l r e l e va ntm a tt e r s i n m i t i ga t i on w er e i n fac tpres ent ed atthe penal ty phase . ” A s t o M ar qu ar d’ s a ss ert i on thatA bshi re ’ s c hang ed st ory w as “ new evi dence” a nd thattri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o d i sc ov eri t , the court f ound tha t“ thi s i s s i m pl y the l a t e s tve r s i on of the e ve nt s s ur r oundi ng the hom i c i de
w hi ch i s i n d i re ctconfl i ctw i th A bshi re ’ s pri or t es t i m on y a nd other e vi dence pres ent ed atthe D ef

endant ’ s tri al , ” a nd there fore “ there i s no p robabi l i ty there
w o u ld h a v e b e e n a d if

f e r e n t r e s u lt a t tr ia l.” T hu s, the 3. 85 0 cou rtfoun d from the evi dent i ary hea ri ng thattri al coun se l
w a s noti ne f

f e c t i ve i n e i the rj ur y s e l e c t i on, the gui l tpha s e , orthe pe na l ty pha s e ofThe 3.850 c ourt did reserve jurisdiction to rule on Ma rquard’s latest amendment to the 13 3.850 motion, which alleg ed that the de ath sentenc e wa s not proportional bec ause Abshire rec eived a

life sentenc e. Marquard a ppeale d the denial of

his 3.850 moti on, but the Florida Supreme Court tempora

rily relinquished jurisdiction for the solepurpose of allowingthe 3.850 court to enter an order on theproportionality issue. After

reviewingthe re cord, the3.850 court made the f

ollowing f

indings a s to the proportionality issue: The de fenda

nt, J ohn C. Marquard, was, infac t, the dominant person in this entire c ours eof e vents . It w a s John

C. M arq ua rd wh o ma dethede c isi on

tha t th e y sh ould kill S tacey

Wil lets. J ohn Marqua

rd droveWil letts a

nd Abshire to the wooded a rea , were [sic] they

eventually

took her life. Marqua

rd took both individuals through the wo od s to thee ventu a l lo c atio n, were[sic ] hec a us e d th ede ath o f S ta c e y

Willetts . The de fenda

nt, John Ma

rquard, was the individual who had the knife, who cut Stacey Willetts throat, and attempt e d to de c a pit ate her, and wh o then ha nd e d the kn if

eto his co-de fenda

nt[ ] Mi chae l Abshire, and ordere d him to stab the vi ctim. The Court finds that Michae l Abshire had no intention to ki ll the victim, and was mere ly an acc omplice. T h e Court further finds that Abshirewas acting[under] subs tantial domination and extreme duress from the def endant Ma

rquard. The Court fur

ther find s that the[co -]d e fend ant A bs hiresh ow e d c on side ra

bleremor sea ft e r t

hec rime wa s c ommitt e d. Th e Court find s that the tot a lity of thea g gra vatin gc irc ums tanc e s, in the caseof John C . Marqua rd, fa r out weighs the mitigatingcircumstances, whic h were found by the trial and sentencingcourt. TheCourt further finds that based on thetot a lity

of thec irc ums tanc e s in

thi s c a se , that the de fend ant’ s sentenc eof de ath wa s, in f a c t, p ropo rtion a l. Ha vingdenie d all p os t- c onvic tio n re lie f, the3. 85 0 c ourt remand e d th ec a sebac k to the Florida Supreme Court for

further proce eding s. 41 M a r q u a r d ’s tr ia l. 13 K . 3. 850 A p p e al M ar qu ar d app ea l ed the deni al of hi s 3. 85 0 m ot i on for post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef
a n d a ls o f

ile d a p e titio n f

o rw r it o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t. T he 3. 850 appe a l a nd ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on w e r e c ons ol i da t e d i n the F l or i da S u p r e m e C o u r t. In hi s 3. 85 0 app ea l , M ar qu ar d rai se d, i nt eral i a, these cl ai m s a s c l ai m s three , f o u r , s e v e n , a n d n in e :Marq ua rd ’s 3. 85 0 a

pp e a l also raise d s ix oth er c laims , towi t: 14 (1) newly

discovere d evid en ce as to Abshire’s lifesentenc e esta blishes that M arqu ard ’ s s e nt e n c e i s di s p ro p o rt i o n a l ; ( 2 ) n e w l y di s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e r e l at iveto Abshire’ s rec ent testimony require s that Marqua

rd’s sentence beredu ce d ; . . . (5) Marqua rd had ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel at the guilt phase; (6) defense counse l failed to objec t to c omments by the prosecutor and trial judg e which diminished the jury ’s role in sentencing ; . . . ( 8) the ruleprohibiting c ounsel from interviewingthe jurors is unconstitutional; . . . and (10) cumulative error s justify relief . Marqua rd v. State, 850 So. 2d at 423 n.1. The F lorida Supreme Court denied claims sixand eight as proce durally

barred bec ause they

should have be en raised duringthe direc t appeal, id. at 423 n.2, and disposed of theother c laims on the merits. On Marqua

rd’s fir st claim, that Abshire’s lifesentenc e esta blishes that Marquard’s sentenc e wa s disproportionate, the F lorida Supreme Court a ffirme d the trial cour t’s deter mination that Marquard was moreculpable. Id. at 424. As to the sec ond claim, that Abshire’ s latest testimony entitled Marqua

rd to resentencing , the Florida Supreme Court co n cl u d edth atth e n ewt es t i m o ny di d n o ts i gn i fi cant l y

v ary fr o mh i s tri al t es t i m o ny

o r c h an ge thefac t th at Ma

rq ua rd wa s th emorec ulp a

blede fend a

nt, a s f oll ow s: Abshire’ s new testimony

differ s only in two key

aspec ts: (1) he c ontends that he a nd Marqua rd had c onsumed a fair amount of alcohol on the ni ght of the crime; and (2) he states that Stacey

may have still been alive when he cut her neck. Even Abshire ’s mo st recent st or

y reve a ls that de sp iteMa

rq ua rd ’s a lle g e d intoxic atio n, hewa s still able to saf ely drive the c ar through inclement we ather conditions and was a

ble to trek through th e wo o d s and attac k Stacey . Moreover, Abshire ’s testimony does not c ha ng ethefac t th at Ma

rq ua rd wa s c le arly

themorec ulp a

blede fend ant. I d. at 425. In addre ssing c laim five, ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel at the guilt phase, the F lorida Supreme Court agree d with the 3.850 court that the va rious decisions made by

trial counsel were rea sonable, strateg ic dec isions and did not constitute ineff ective a ssistance. I d. at 426-27.
42 ( 3 ) M a r q u a r d h a d 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 a t th e p e n a lty ph ase; (4) he w as deni ed a f ul l and fai r post conv i ct i on evi dent i ary he a r i ng; . . . ( 7) M a r qua r d w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l l y s ha c kl ed d u ri n g the tri al ; . . . [a n d ] ( 9 ) t he j ury i nstruct i on s duri ng the penal ty phase w er e v a g u e o ro v e rb r o a d . . . . M a r qua r d v. S t a t e , 850 S o. 2d a t423 n. 1. 14 I n c l a i m f

our , M a r qua r d a l l e ge d tha the w a s de ni e d a f ul l a nd f a i rhe a r i ng because the 3. 85 0 cou rt(1) r ef used t o p erm i thear sa y e vi dence fr om se vera l43

w i tne s s e s , a nd ( 2) f

a i l e d t o t a ke j udi c i a l not i c e of H oba r tH a r r i s on’ s pr i or t e s t i m ony f

r om A bs hi r e ’ s tr i a l pr oc e e di ng on the gr ound tha tthe pr i ort e s t i m ony w ou l d b e i nadm i ss i bl e. Id. at42 5. T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtaf fi rm ed the tri al
c o u r t’s e v id e n tia r y ru lin g s o n th e s e is s u e s . I d . a t 4 2 5 - 2 6 . A s t o the pe na l ty - pha s e i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c l a i m s ( c l a i m thr e e ) , the F l or i da S upr e m e C our tc onc l ude d tha tM a r qua r d’ s c ouns e l w a s noti ne f f e c t i ve i n de c i di ng n o t to c a ll a s w itn e s s e s H a r r is o n a n d D a v id B la n k s ( a n o th e rin m a te ) . I d . a t 4 2 8
- 2 9 . Itfurther c on cl ud ed thatcoun se l w as no ti neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o cal l w i tness es o th er th an D r. K ro p t o t est i fy ab o u tM arq u ard ’ s ch i l d h o o d an d su b st an ce-ab u se h is to r y , s ta tin g : “A lth o u g h o th e rw itn e s s e s c o u ld h a v e p r o v id e d m o r e d e ta ils
r e l a t i ve t o M a r qua r d’ s e a r l y l i f e , c ouns e l i s notr e qui r e d t o pr e s e ntc um ul a t i ve evi dence. ” I d. at42 9-30 . W i th res pectt o M ar qu ar d’ s a ss ert i on thathi s c ou nsel f a i l e d t o e ns ur e tha the r e c e i ve d a n a de qua t e m e nt a l he a l th e va l ua t i on, the F l or i da S upr e m e C our tnot e d tha tne i the rD r . A m i e l norD r . C r ow n i ndi c a t e d tha tD r . K r op had fai l ed t o g i ve any s peci fi c t es t s, i nt ervi ew s, or ot her procedures . A ft er r e vi e w i ng the t e s t i m ony of D r . A m i e l , D r . C r ow n, a nd C he r y l F ur t i c k, the F l or i da S u p re m e C o u rt co n clu d ed th at su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rted th e 3 .8 5 0 co u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on tha ta l l r e l e va ntm a tt e r s i n m i t i ga t i on w e r e i n f a c tpr e s e nt e d a tthe pe na l ty pha s e . I d. a t430- 31.In his 3.850 appeal, Marquard raised his shac kling c laim both as a substantive 15 constitutional claim and also as a n ineffe ctive-a ssistance-of -counse l claim. However, the F lorida Sup remeCourt

did no t di scus s h is s ub sta

ntivec on sti tution a l c laim. We do not read theFlorida Supreme Court’s opinion as makinga findingin the 3.850 16 appeal that Marquard was shac kled at trial, but instead a s assuming that shacklingoccur red f or purposes of its dec ision. In any event, a ny such factual determination that shacklingoccur red would be cle arly

erroneous and unreasona ble bec ause, a s expl ained e arlier , thereis no evidence in the rec ord that Marquard w as ever shac kled. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 2). Indeed, theFlorida Supreme Court did not point to any evidenc e of shacklingin its opi nion. Havingfound no er

ror, the F lorida Supreme Court also rejec ted as meritless Marquard’s 17 claim of cumulative error. I d. at 423 n.3. 44 A s to c la im s e v e n , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t tr e a te d M a r q u a r d ’s c a s e a s if shac kl i ng had o cc urre d i n the penal ty phase and add re ss ed the i ss ue on l y a s a n i ne f f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m f

orf a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o the s ha c kl i ng. T he 15 F l or i da S upr e m e C our tc onc l ude d tha t“ [ b] e c a us e thi s oc c ur r e d onl y dur i ng the p en al ty p h ase, an d n o tth e g u i l tp h ase, i n o rd er t o sh o w p rej u d i ce, M arq u ard m u st s how tha t‘ the r e i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha t , a bs e nttr i a l c ouns e l ’ s e r r or , the
s e nt e nc e r. . . w oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe ba l a nc e of a ggr a va t i ng a nd m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s di d notw a r r a ntde a th. ’ ” I d. a t431 ( quot i ng C he r r y v. S t a t e , 781 S o. 2d 1040, 1048 ( F l a . 2000) ) . B a s e d on the brut a l f a c t s of the c a s e , the una ni m ous 16 j ur y r e c om m e nda t i on of de a th, a nd the pr e s e nc e of no s t a tut or y a nd m i ni m a l nonst atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s, the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed that M a r qua r d ha d notm e thi s bur de n on the pr e j udi c e pr ong. I d. 17 F i n a l l y , a s t o c l a i m n i n e – th a tth e j u r y i n s tru c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g th e HA C45

i ns truc t i on, dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e w e r e va gue a nd ove rbr oa d – the F l or i da S upr e m e C our tde t e r m i ne d thi s c l a i m w a s pr oc e dur a l l y ba r r e d i n a 3. 850 p r o c e e d in g b e c a u s e it s h o u ld h a v e b e e n r a is e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. I d . a t 4 2 3 n .2 . H ow e ve r , a s not e d e a r l i e r , M a r qua r d’ s c ouns e l di d obj e c tt o the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the H A C i ns truc t i on a ttr i a l , on di r e c tappe a l , a nd i n hi s 3. 850 m ot i on. In hi s s t at e habeas corpus pet i t i on , M ar qu ar d rai se d the fol l ow i ng addi t i on al
c la im s : (1 ) w h eth er n ew ly d isco v er ed ev id en ce d em o n stra tes th a t M ar q u ar d ’s de a th s e nt e nc e i s di s pr opor t i ona l a n d di s pa r a t e ; ( 2) w he the rthe pr os e c ut ori m p r ope r l y i ntr oduc e d nons t a tut or y a ggr a va t or s dur i ng the penal ty phase ; (3) w heth er M ar qu ar d i s e nt i t l ed t o res ent enci ng base d on i m prop er j ury i nstruct i on s; (4) w hether the j ury i nstruct i o n s s hi ft ed th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f to M a r q u a r d ; a n d ( 5 ) w h e th e rh is e x e c u tio n is un const i tut i on al because M ar qu ar d m ay be i ncom pet entatthatt i m e. I d. a t431. T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtsum m ar i l y deni ed the fi rs tcl ai m , w hi ch assert ed th e sam e cl ai m rai sed an d ad d ressed i n M arq u ard ’ s 3 . 8 5 0 m o t i o n , an d al so s um m a r i l y de ni e d c l a i m f i ve a s m ootbe c a us e i tw a s pr e m a tur e l y r a i s e d. I d. a t431
n. 13 . T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed the re m ai ni ng cl ai m s a s m er i t l es s. Id. at 431- 33. M a r qua r d the n f

i l e d i n the F l or i da S upr e m e C our ta m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d . L . S e c t i on 2254 P e t i t i onMarqua rd’s amended § 2254 pe tition raised sevente en claims, but we focus only on the 18 iss ue s add

re sse d in thec e rtif ic ateof a pp e a la bil ity iss ue d b y thi s Co ur t. 46 O n S e pt e m be r23, 2003, M a r qua r d f i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc our ta P e t i t i on f or W r it o f H a b e a s C o rp u s p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , w h ic h h e s u b s e q u e n tly
a m e nde d. M a r qua r d’ s a m e nde d § 2254 pe t i t i on r a i s e d, i nt e ra l i a , the s e c l a i m s : ( 1) thatM ar qu ar d’ s F i fth, S i xth, E i gh th, and F ou rt ee nth A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen t he j ury s aw hi m i n shackl es du ri ng hi s penal ty phase , and t ri al
c ouns e l w a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o the s ha c kl i ng; ( 2) tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o pr e s e ntm i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e a bout M ar qu ar d’ s bac kg roun d i n the penal ty phase ; and (3) thatthe H A C j ury i nstruct i on , am on g o thers , w as un const i tut i on al l y vague and o verbroad, and t hat tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to litig a te a n d p r e s e r v e th is i ss ue. 18 O n A pr i l 5, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d M a r qua r d’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on exce ptfor c ert ai n cl ai m s. O n January 13 , 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtent er ed an order d e n y in g th e r e m a in in g c la im s . A s t o M a r qua r d’ s m i t i ga t i on c l a i m , the di s tr i c tc our tde f e r r e d t o the F l or i da court s’ det erm i nat i on thataddi t i on al m i t i gat i ng evi dence thatcoul d h ave been pr e s e nt e d a boutM a r qua r d’ s c hi l dhood, i n a ddi t i on t o the t e s t i m ony of D r . K r op a b o u t th o s e to p ic s , w a s c u m u la tiv e , a n d th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s s tr a te g ic d e c is io n n o t to47

pres entthatevi dence w as no ti neff ec t i ve. A s t o the al l eged shackl i ng , the di stri ct courtal so concl ud ed thatthe F l ori da S up re m e C ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on that M ar qu ar d w as no tprej ud i ce d b y a ny shac kl i ng i n the penal ty phase of hi s tri al w as a r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w , a n d th u s w a s e n title d to defe re nce. A s t o the H A C
- c ons t i tut i ona l i ty c l a i m , the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha tthe F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c o n s titu tio n a lity is s u e w a s p r o c e d u r a lly ba r r e d be c a us e i ts houl d ha ve be e n r a i s e d on di r e c tappe a l . T he di s tr i c tc our tthus
c o n c l u d e d th a ti tw a s p r e c l u d e d f r o m a d d r e s s i n g th e me r i t s o f th e H A Cconst i tut i on al i ty i ss ue. H ow ever , as no t ed ea rl i er , M ar qu ar d i n fac thad chal l enged th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f

th e H A C in s tru c tio n a t tr ia l, o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, a n d in h is 3. 850 m ot i on. As t o th e i n e f

f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m b a s e d o n th e f a i l u r e t o o b

j e c tt o th e HA C i nstruct i on , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe H A C -i neff ec t i veness i ss ue w as p r o c e d u r a lly b a r r e d b e c a u s e M a r q u a r d d id n o t r a is e it in h is 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n . I t is
c or r e c ttha tM a r qua r d di d notr a i s e thi s H A C
- i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s i s s ue i n hi s 3. 850
m ot i on – i nde e d, hi s c ouns e l ha d obj e c t e d t o the H A C i ns truc t i on a ttr i a l a nd on d ir e c t ap p e a l, s o th e r e w a s n o in e f f e c tiv e n e s s c la im to b e r a is e d . M . C er ti fi cate of A p p eal ab i l i tyThe COA wa s grante d before wereviewed the record and determined that Marquard’ s 19 counsel had objected to the HAC instruction at trial, on direc t appeal, and in the 3.850 motion. 48 T hi s C ou rtgrant ed a C O A on the fol l ow i ng i ss ues: (1) w hether P et i t i on er M a r qua r d’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n he w a s s ha c kl e d i n f r ontof th e ju r y d u r in g h is p e n a lty p h a s e ; ( 2 ) w h e th e rd e f e n s e c o u n s e l w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to p r e s e n t c e r ta in m itig a tio n e v id e n c e d u r in g th e p e n a lty p h a s e ; ( 3 ) w h e th e rd e f

e n s e c o u n s e l w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to chal l enge the const i tut i on al i ty of the “ H ei no us, A troci ou s, and C ruel ” j ury i ns truc t i on r e ga r di ng a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e ; ( 4) t o the 19
e xt e ntthe S t a t e c l a i m s a ny of the a bove thr e e c l a i m s a r e pr oc e dur a l l y ba r r e d,
w he the rthos e thr e e c l a i m s ora ny of the m a r e pr oc e dur a l l y ba r r e d, a nd w hy ; ( 5)
w h a t F lo r id a la w r e q u ir e d a t th e tim e o f d e f e n d a n t’s S ta te c o u r t tr ia l in 1 9 9 1 w ith
re gard t o shackl i ng a def endanti n frontof the j ury, and w hether defe nse c ou nsel
w a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o the de f e nda nt ’ s be i ng s h a c k le d in f

r o n t o f th e ju r y in h is p e n a lty p h a s e ; a n d ( 6 ) to th e e x te n t th e S ta te c la im s th a t is s u e f

iv e a b o v e is p r o c e d u r a lly b a r r e d , w h e th e rth a t is s u e is p ro ced u ral l y b arred , an d w h y. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a nd thi s C our t ’ s r e vi e w of the f i na l s t a t e j udgm e nton M a r q u a r d ’s c la im s a r e p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , a s a m e n d e d b y th e A n ti-49

T e r r o r is m a n d E f

f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( “A E D P A ” ) , P u b .L . N o . 1 0 4
- 1 3 2 . O urr e vi e w i s hi ghl y de f e r e nt i a l . F i r s t , § 2254( e ) ( 1) e s t a bl i s he s the f o l l o wi n g s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w f o rf a c tu a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s m a d e b y a s t a t e c o u r t : “ [ A] de t e r m i na t i on of

a f a c tua l i s s ue m a de by a S t a t e c our ts ha l l be pr e s um e d t o be
c or r e c t . T he appl i c a nts ha l l ha ve the bur de n of r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of
c or r e c tne s s by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( e ) ( 1) ; R obi ns on v. M oo re , 30 0 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 42 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). S ec on d, § 2 25 4(d) al l ow s f eder al h a b e a s r e lie f

to b e g r a n te d f

o ra c la im a d

ju d ic a te d o n th e m e r its in s ta te c o u r t o n ly i f the s t a t e c our ta dj udi c a t i on “ ( 1) r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i on tha tw a s c ontr a r y t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as de t e r m i ne d by the S upr e m e C our tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or( 2) r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i on tha tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s ona bl e de t e r m i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the
e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ng. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) ; R obi ns on, 3 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 2
- 4 3 . A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h as n o ted , A E D P A “m o d ified a f ed er al h ab ea s c o u rt’s rol e i n revi ew i ng st at e pri soner app l i ca t i on s i n o rdert o p re ventfe dera l habeas

‘ r e tr i a l s ’ a nd t o e ns ur e tha ts t a t e - c our tc onvi c t i ons a r e gi ve n e f f e c tt o the e xt e nt pos s i bl e unde rl a w . ” B e l l v. C one , 535 U . S . 685, 693, 122 S . C t . 1843, 1849 (200 2) (c i t i ng W i l l i am s v. T ay l or, 52 9 U . S . 36 2, 40 3-04 , 12 0 S . C t . 14 95 (200 0));50

R o b in s o n , 3 0 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 3 .

III. M IT IG A T IN G E V ID E N C E C L A IM M a r qua r d f

i r s ta s s e r t s tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y i ne f f e c t i ve in f a ilin g to p r e s e n t in th e p e n a lty p h a s e c e r ta in m itig a tio n e v id e n c e r e la tin g to M arq u ard ’ s ch i l d h o o d an d h i s m en t al an d em o t i o n al tro u b l es. S p eci fi cal l y, M arq u ard co n t en d s th ath i s tri al co u n sel d i d n o tread th e h o sto f rel ev an treco rd s, i n cl u d i n g sch o o l , p ri so n , an d co u n sel i n g reco rd s an d m en t al h eal th ev al u at i o n s, a va i l a bl e f

orr e vi e w , a nd i ns t e a d s i m pl y f or w a r de d thos e r e c or ds on t o D r . K r op for hi s r evi ew . A s are sul t , M ar qu ar d argues, coun se l fa i l ed t o con t ac tw i tness es w ho coul d and shou l d h ave been ca l l ed t o t es t i fy attri al , and t ho se w i tness es w er e notpr e s e nt e d unt i l hi s 3. 850 he a r i ng. W e r evi ew the F l ori da court s’ l egal concl usi on s t o d et erm i ne i f they w er e cont ra ry t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). W e thu s r evi ew the l egal pri nci pl es thatgo vern M a r q u a r d ’ s c l a i m. A . G o v ern i n g l eg a l p ri n ci p l es

“ I ti s w e l l e s t a bl i s he d tha tthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n S tr i c kl a nd [ v. W as hi ng t on , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 10 4 S . C t . 20 52 (198 4)] i s the ‘ cont rol l i ng l egal
a uthor i ty ’ t o be appl i e d t o i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m s . ” R obi ns on v.51

M oor e , 300 F . 3d 1320, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 6 1 2 0 S . C t. 1 4 9 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . T o p r e v a il, a p e titio n e r“m u s t s h o w b o th i nc om pe t e nc e a nd pr e

j udi c e . ” C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3d 1305, 1312 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T he st andard go verni ng coun se l ’ s per form ance i s “ re as on abl enes s und er p r e v a ilin g p r o f

e s s io n a l n o r m s .” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 .

“ T he purpos e of

i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s r e vi e w i s nott o gr a de c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e , ” but t o de t e r m i ne w he the rtha tpe r f or m a nc e f

e l l w i thi n the br oa d r a nge “ of w ha tm i ght be a r e a s ona bl e appr oa c h a ttr i a l . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1313. “ T o s t a t e the obvi ous : the tr i a l l a w y e r s , i n e ve r y c a s e , c oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng m or e or s o m e th in g d if

f e r e n t. S o , o m is s io n s a r e in e v itab le . B u t, th e is s u e is n o t w h a t is p o s s ib le o r‘w h a t is p ru d e n t o rap p r o p r ia te , b u t o n ly w h a t is c o n s titu tio n a lly
c om pe l l e d. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng B ur ge rv. K e m p, 483 U . S . 776, 107 S . C t . 3114, 3126 (198 7)). T he bu rden of persuas i on i s on the pet i t i on ert o p rove by a prepond er ance of the e vi de nc e tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e . I d. a t1313- 14.

“ Judi ci al sc rut i ny of coun se l ’ s per form ance m ustbe hi gh l y def er ent i al . ” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . “T h e r e a r e c o u n tle s s w a y s to pr ovi de e f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e i n a ny c a s e , ” i d. , a nd “ i tdoe s notf ol l ow tha ta ny c ouns e l w ho t a ke s a n appr oa c h w e w oul d notha ve c hos e n i s gui l ty of r e nde r i ng52

i neff ec t i ve as si st ance , ” W at er s v. T ho m as , 46 F . 3d 15 06 , 15 22 (11t h C i r. 19 95 ) ( en ba nc ) . “ N ordoe s the f

a c ttha ta pa r t i c ul a rde f

e ns e ul t i m a t e l y pr ove d t o be
u n su cc es sf

u l d em o n stra te in ef

fe ctiv en es s.” C h an d ler, 2 1 8 F .3 d at 1 3 1 4 . R ath er , “ a c our tm us ti ndul ge a s tr ong pr e s um pt i on tha tc ouns e l ’ s c onduc tf a l l s w i thi n the
w i d e ran g e o f reaso n ab l e p ro fessi o n al assi st an ce; th ati s, th e d efen d an tm u st ove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on tha t , unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , the c ha l l e nge d a c t i on m ig h t b e c o n s id e r e d s o u n d tr ia l s tr a te g y .” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t.
a t 2 0 6 5 ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ B ]e c a u s e c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t is p r e s u m e d r e a s o n a b le , f

o ra p e titio n e rto s h o w th a t th e c o n d u c t w a s u n r e a s o n a b le , a pe t i t i one rm us te s t a bl i s h tha tno c om pe t e ntc ouns e l w oul d ha ve t a ke n the a c t i on tha thi s c ouns e l di d t a ke . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1315. G i ve n thi s s tr ong p re su m p ti o n in fa v o r o f c o m p eten ce , th is C o u rt h as re co g n ized th at th e p etit io n er ’s bu rden of persuas i on i s aheavy one, and “ the ca se s i n w hi ch habeas pet i t i on er s c an p ro p erl y p rev ai l are few an d far b etw een . ” Id . at1 3 1 5 , 1 3 1 3 (q u o t at i o n m ark s, ci t at i on , and p un ctuat i on om i tt ed). I n r e vi e w i ng c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e , w e m us t“ e l i m i na t e the di s t or t i ng e f f e c t s of hi nds i ght ” a nd “ e va l ua t e the c onduc tf r om c ouns e l ’ s pe r s pe c t i ve a tthe tim e .” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 . F o re x a m p le , “[ i]t is
c o m m o n p r a c tic e f

o rp e titio n e r s a tta c k in g th e ird e a th s e n te n c e s to s u b m it a f f id a v its53

fr om w i tness es w ho sa y they c ou l d h ave s up pl i ed addi t i on al m i t i gat i ng [] evi dence, ha d the y be e n c a l l e d or. . . ha d the y be e n a s ke d the r i ghtque s t i ons . ” W a t e r s , 46 F . 3d at15 13 -14. H ow ever , “ [t ] he m er e f ac tthatother w i tness es m i gh thave been avai l abl e or thatother t es t i m on y m i gh thave been el i ci t ed fr om tho se w ho t es t i fi ed i s nota s uf

f i c i e ntgr ound t o pr ove i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s of

c ouns e l . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). W i th regard t o the pres ent at i on of m i t i gat i ng evi dence, thi s C ou rthas
e xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ c ] ouns e l i s notr e qui r e d t o pr e s e nte ve r y nonf r i vol ous de f

e ns e ; nor i s c ou nsel re qu i re d t o p re se ntal l m i t i gat i on evi dence, even i f the addi t i on al
m i t i gat i on evi dence w ou l d n othave been i ncom pat i bl e w i th cou nsel ’ s s tra t egy. ” C hand l er , 21 8 F . 3d at13 19 ; se e W at er s, 46 F . 3d at15 11 (“ O ur deci si on s a re i nc ons i s t e ntw i th a ny not i on tha tc ouns e l m us tpr e s e nta l l a va i l a bl e m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e e vi de nc e . ” ) . I nde e d, the r e i s no a bs ol ut e duty t o i ntr oduc e m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e a ta l l . C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1319. A s f o rth e s e c o n d p r o n g , “[ a ] p e titio n e r ’s b u r d e n o f e s ta b lis h in g th a t h is l aw ye r’ s def

i ci entperf

orm ance prej ud i ce d h i s c as e i s hi gh . ” R ob i nson , 30 0 F . 3d at 1343- 44 ( quot a t i on m a r ks , c i t a t i on, a nd punc tua t i on om i tt e d) . “ U nde rthe pr e j udi c e pr ong of

S tr i c kl a nd, i ti s note nough f orthe de f

e nda ntt o s how tha tthe
e r r or s ha d s om e c onc e i va bl e e f f e c ton the out c om e of

the pr oc e e di ng. ” G r a y s on v.54

T hom ps on, 257 F . 3d 1194, 1225 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . R a th e r , th e p e titio n e r“m u s t s h o w th a t th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t, b u t f

o rc o u n s e l’s u n p r o f

e s s io n a l e r r o r s , th e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld ha ve be e n di f

f e r e nt . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1312- 13 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt ed). B . “ C o n tra ry to ” C l a u se H e r e , w e e a s i l y c onc l ude tha tthe F l or i da S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on on the
m i t i gat i on -e vi dence-i neff ec t i veness cl ai m w as no t“ cont ra ry t o” cl ea rl y e st abl i shed f e de r a l l a w . “ U nde rthe ‘ c ontr a r y t o’ c l a us e , a f e de r a l ha be a s c our tm a y gr a ntthe
w r i ti f the s t a t e c our ta r r i ve s a ta c onc l us i on oppos i t e t o tha tr e a c he d by [ the S u p r e m e C o u r t] o n a q u e s tio n o f la w o rif th e s ta te c o u r t d e c id e s a c a s e d if f e r e n tly tha n thi s C our tha s on a s e tof m a t e r i a l l y i ndi s t i ngui s ha bl e f a c t s . ” W i l l i a m s , 529 U . S . a t412- 13, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1523. “ T he ‘ c ontr a r y t o’ c l a us e i n § 2254( d) ( 1)
s ugge s t s tha tthe s t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on m us tbe s ubs t a nt i a l l y di f f e r e ntf r om the
r e l e va ntS upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt . ” R obi ns on, 300 F . 3d a t1344 ( quot a t i on m a r ks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). “ A l tho ug h a st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on thatappl i es a rul e that
c ontr a di c t s the gove r ni ng S upr e m e C our tl a w i s ‘ c ontr a r y , ’ a s t a t e c our tde c i s i on tha tappl i e s the c or r e c tl e ga l rul e ba s e d on S upr e m e C our tl a w t o the f a c t s of the pet i t i on er ’ s c as e w ou l d n otfi tw i thi n the ‘ cont ra ry t o’ cl ause even i f the fe dera l55

c our tm i ghtha ve r e a c he d a di f f e r e ntr e s ul tr e l y i ng on the s a m e l a w . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtar t i cul at ed the prop ergo verni ng l egal pri nci pl es i n a ddr e s s i ng M a r qua r d’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , i n a ddr e s s i ng M a r q u a r d ’s 3 .8 5 0 in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s c la im , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t n o te d th a t, pur s ua ntt o S tr i c kl a nd, a de f e nda nts e e ki ng t o e s t a bl i s h a c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve assi st an ce o f co u n sel m u stp ro v e tw o el em en t s:

“ F i rs t , the de fe nd antm ustshow thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as de f i c i e nt . T hi s r e qui r e s s how i n g t h at c ouns e l m a de e r r or s s o s e r i ous tha tc ouns e l w a s notf unc t i oni ng a s the “ co u n sel ” gua r a nt e e d the d efen d an tb y th e S i x th A m en d m en t . S eco n d , th e d efen d an tm u st s h o w th a t th e d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e p r e

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . T h is r e qui r e s sh o w i ng tha tc ouns e l ’ s e r r or s w e r e s o s e r i ous a s t o de pr i ve t h e d efen da nt of a f

a i r tr i a l , a tr i a l w hos e r e s ul t i s r e l i a bl e . U nl e s s a de f e nda ntm a kes b o th s how i ngs , i tc a nnotbe s a i d tha tthe c onvi c t i on .

. . r e s ul t e d fro m a br e a kdow n i n the a dve r s a r y pr oc e s s tha tr e nde r s the re sul tun re l i abl e. ” M a r qua r d v. S t a t e , 850 S o. 2d 417, 426 ( F l a . 2003) ( quot i ng V a l l e v. S t a t e , 778 S o. 2 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 5 (F l a. 2 0 0 1 )) (o th er ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). M arq u ard d o es n o tci t e an y case i n w hi c h the S upr e m e C our tw a s f a c e d w i th m a t e r i a l l y i ndi s t i ngui s ha bl e f a c t s a nd
re ac hed a deci si on di ff

er entthan t hatre ac hed b y the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rthere ; n o ra r e w e a w a r e o f

a n y s u c h c a s e . T h u s , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n is
n o t“ c o n tr a r y t o ” c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l l a w. C . “ U n rea so n a b l e a p p l i ca ti o n ” C l a u se56

W e nextaddres s w hether the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i nv ol ved an

“ un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on ” of f eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the U ni t ed S t at es S upr e m e C our t . T he S upr e m e C our tha s c l a r i f i e d tha tthi s a na l y s i s i s a n obj e c t i ve o n e , a n d th a t “a n u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n is d if f e r e n t f r o m a n in c o r r e c t o n e .” B e ll
v. C on e, 53 5 U . S . 68 5, 69 4, 12 2 S . C t . 18 43 , 18 50 (200 2). F urther, “ a f eder al h a b e a s c o u r t m a y n o t is s u e a w r it u n d e rth e u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n c la u s e s im p ly because thatcourtconcl ud es i n i t s i nd ependentj ud gm entthatthe re l evantst at ecourtdeci si on appl i ed cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw erroneou sl y or i ncorrec t l y. ” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . O n app ea l i n thi s C ou rt , M ar qu ar d argues thathi s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o con t ac tand i nt ervi ew se vera l w i tness es , i ncl ud i ng m em bers of M ar qu ar d’ s f

am i l y, w ho t es t i fi ed athi s 3. 85 0 h ea ri ng abou thi s troub l ed chi l dh oo d, al coho l - a nd subst ance -abu se prob l em s, and o ther psy chol og i ca l pr obl e m s . M a r qua r d a r gue s tha ttr i a l c ouns e l i m pr ope r l y r e l i e d e xc l us i ve l y on the t e s t i m ony of

D r . K r op a s t o thos e m a tt e r s , a nd tha ti f the w i tne s s e s c a l l e d a tthe 3. 85 0 h ea ri ng had t es t i fi ed i n h i s penal ty phase , the ou t com e w ou l d h ave been d if f e r e n t. W i th r e ga r d t o thi s c l a i m , the F l or i da 3. 850 c our tc onc l ude d tha tthe t e s t i m ony pr e s e nt e d i n tha the a r i ng di d nots uppor tM a r qua r d’ s a s s e r t i on tha tthe57

t es t i m on y w ou l d h ave a ff ec t ed hi s penal ty phase . S peci fi ca l l y, the 3. 85 0 cou rt fo u n d as fo l l o w s: C on tra ry t o the al l egat i on s i n t he M otio n , n o evi dence w as pres ent ed tha tthe D e f

e nda nts uf

f e r s f r om a ny hi s t o ry o f he a d i nj ur i e s , bl a c kout peri o ds , orm e m or y l os s . T he e vi de nc e w a s c l e a rtha tthe de f e nda nt s u f f e r s f r o m a h is to ry o f d ru g a n d a lc o h o l a b u s e , w h ic h w a s , in f a c t, e nt e r e d i nt o e vi de nc e pur s ua ntt o t e s t i m ony of D r . K r op. T he ev i d en ce o f th e D efen d a n t’s p astm en t al h eal th p ro b l em s w ere al so in tr o d u c e d p u r s u a n t to te s tim o n y o f D r . K r o p . . . .

. . . .

. . . C ontr a r y t o t h e a l l e ga t i ons i n the M ot i on, R oge rM a r qua r d, the D e f e nda nt ’ s f

a the r , t e s t i f

i e d tha tt h e D e f

e nda nt ’ s m othe rw a s not an al coho l i c w hen t he defendantw as bo rn an d thatfa m i l y l i fe w as r e l a t i ve l y nor m a l unt i l the D e f en d antw a s appr oxi m a t e l y f i ve y e a r s of a ge . A ttha tt i m e the D e f e n d an t ’ s m o the rbe c a m e a n a l c ohol i c a nd the part i es di vo rc ed. T he D ef endant ’ s s i st ert es t i fi ed th at th e m other w as a b u si v e t o he r , butne ve rt o the D e f e nda nt . T he D e f

e nda nt ’ s s e c ond s i s t e r , A my , i s d e c e a s e d a t th i s t i me a n d tr i a l c o u n s e l c a n n otbe f a ul t e d f orf a i l i ng t o c a l l he rdur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng pha s e . T he e v id e n c e i s c l e a rth a t if A m y h a d b e e n c a lle d a s a w itn e s s , s h e w o u ld ha ve ha d t o t e s t i f

y c onc e r ni ng the D e f e nda nt ’ s convi c t i on f or m ol e s t i n g he rc hi l d. N o e vi de nc e w a s pr e s e nt e d of a ny i nf or m a t i on w h ic h w o u ld h a v e p r e s e n te d m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th e p e n a lty ph as e. C ontr a r y t o the a l l e ga t i ons i n t h e M ot i on f orP os tC onvi c t i on R el i ef , no evi dence w as pres ent ed t o sho w th at Jo hn M ar qu ar d w as ev er sex u al l y m o l est ed as a ch i ld e ith er ath o m e o r b y n ei g h b o rs. T h ere w as no e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng tha tthe D efen d an t ’ s m o th er ev er ab u sed h i m , ei th er p h ysi cal l y o r m en t al l y. T he D efen da ntne ve rpr ovi de d tr i a l c ouns e l w i th the na m e s of a ny w itn e s s e s in m itig a tio n . T r ia l c o u n s e l c a n n o t b e f a u lte d f o rf a il i n g to ca l l w i tness es w ho se nam es are n o t di sc l osed by the D ef endant . Jones v. S t at e, 52 8 S o. 2d 11 71 , 11 73 (F l a. 19 88 ) a nd H i gh sm i th v . S t at e, 61 7 S o. 2d 82 5, 82 6 (F l a. 1stD C A 19 93 ). T he F l or i da S upr e m e C our ta f f i r m e d the f

i ndi ngs a nd c onc l us i ons of the58

3. 850 c our t , c onc l udi ng tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s m e r e l y c um ul a t i ve t o the t e s t i m ony o f D r . K r o p , a n d th u s th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n n o t to p r e s e n t th e e v id e n c e d id
no tconst i tut e i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance : D r . K r op t est i fi ed r e l a t i ve t o M a r qua r d’ s hi s t or y of drug us e a nd chi l dh oo d abu se and i nform ed the j ury as t o the ef fe ct s of thi s h is t ory on M a r qua r d’ s pr e s e nts t a t e o f m i nd. T he j ur y thus kne w of M a r qua r d’ s drug a ddi c t i on, tha ti tbe ga n a ta n e a r l y a ge, an d t h athe ha d a de pr i ve d c hi l dhood. A l though o t h er w i tne s s e s c oul d ha ve pr ovi de d m or e de t a i l s r e l a t i ve t o M a r qua r d’ s e a r l y l i f e , c ouns e l i s not r e qui r e d t o pr e s e ntc um ul a t i ve e vi de nc e . A cco rd i ngl y , w e do notf i nd th a t M a r q u a r d ’s c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in h is r e p r e s e n ta tio n . M a r q u a r d , 8 5 0 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 9
- 3 0 ( f o o tn o te s o m itte d ) . T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on on thi s i ss ue do es no ti nv ol ve an unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of f e de r a l l a w . F i r s t , the 3. 850 t e s t i m ony doe s not e s t a bl i s h a ny s t a tut or y m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or . T he onl y s t a tut or y f a c t ora r gue d a ta l l by M a r qua r d i s : “ T he c api t a l f e l ony w a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e the de f e nda ntw a s unde rthe in f lu e n c e o f e x tr e m e m e n ta l o re m o tio n a l d is tu rb a n c e .” F la . S ta t. § 9 2 1 .1 4 1 ( 6 ) ( b ) . M a r qua r d s e e m s t o a r gue tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o pr e s e nt addi t i on al evi dence t o sup po rtthi s s t atut ory m i t i gat i ng fa ct or; ho w ever , M ar qu ar d fa i l s t o est abl i sh thatany s uch add i t i on al evi dence exi st s. Indeed, w e s ee no other
e vi de nc e i n the 3. 850 tr a ns c r i pt , ore l s e w he r e i n the r e c or d, tha tw oul d s uppor tthe st atut ory m i t i gat i ng fa ct or. W e thu s r ej ec tM ar qu ar d’ s c l ai m thathi s c ou nsel w asMarq ua rd a lso se e ms t o a

rguethat trial c ouns e l f

aile d toc on du c t a

re a so na ble 20 investigation to uncover evidencesupporting this statutory mitigatingfac tor. However, the Supreme Court has c learly stated that “Strickland doe s not requirecounsel to investig ate every conce ivable line of mitig atingevidenc e no matter how unlikely

the ef fort would be to a ssist the defendant at sentencing .” Wigg ins v. Sm ith, 539 U.S. 510, 533, 123 S . Ct. 2527, 2541 (2003). Rather, a decision not to investigate further is reviewed f or “reasona

bleness in all the circumstances.”I d. at 521(quotation marks a nd citation omitted). Marqua rd’s trial c ounsel presented, through Dr. Krop, voluminous and detailed evidence about Marqua

rd’s c hildhood, substance abuse , and mental a nd emotional state, and Ma rquard has pre sented no evidencesug g estingthat a fur ther or dif

ferent investig ation was wa rra nted. Under these c ircumstance s, there is no evidenceto sugg est that the investig ation conducte d by Marq ua rd ’s c ouns e l w a s unre a so na ble . In a ny e vent, e ven a ssumin gthat trial c ouns e l erre d in no t inve sti g atin gfu

rt her, Marq ua rd ha s p re sente d n o evide nc ethat su c h a n inve sti g atio n w ould have y ielded helpf

ul miti g atingevidenc e, and thus hehas failed to establish prejudice
. 59 i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o p re se ntaddi t i on al evi dence about thi s f ac t or. 20 S e c ond, none of

the ne w m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e a f f e c t s the f oura ggr a va t i ng fact o rs p resen t ed t o th e j u ry. T h e j u ry w as i n stru ct ed o n fo u r ag g rav at i n g fact o rs: ( 1) the c api t a l f

e l ony w a s c om m i tt e d by a pe r s on unde ra s e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e nt orC om m uni ty C ontr ol , i nc l udi ng pa r ol e ; ( 2) the c r i m e w a s c om m i tt e d w hi l e he
w a s e nga ge d i n the c om m i s s i on of a r obbe r y orw a s c om m i tt e d f orf i na nc i a l ga i n; (3) the cr i m e w as es peci al l y hei no us, atroci ou s, or cruel ; and (4) the cr i m e w as c om m i tt e d i n a c ol d, c a l c ul a t e d, a nd pr e m e di t a t e d m a nne rw i thouta ny pr e t e ns e of
m o r a l o rle g a l ju s tif

ic a tio n . T h e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in th e 3 .8 5 0 h e a r in g s im p ly of f e r e d m or e de t a i l s a boutM a r qua r d’ s tr oubl e d c hi l dhood, s ubs t a nc e a bus e , a nd
e m o tio n a l a n d m e n ta l p r o b le m s . T h e e v id e n c e d id n o t r e la te to h is a c tio n s o rs ta te o f m in d a t th e tim e o f

th e m u r d e r , a n d th u s d o e s n o t a lte ra n y o f th e s e f a c to r s . M ar qu ar d d oes notar gu e otherw i se .At oral a rgument Marqua

rd’s c ounsel pointed out that Dr. Krop testified that Marqua rd 21 was re fer red f rom the boys’ home to a “ thera peutic” f oster home a

nd indicated that Ma

rquard had in fact been place d in such a foster home. In her te stimony at the 3.850 hea

ring , however, Mariah H arrelson, Marqua rd’s foster mother when he lef t the boys’ home, testified that her 60 T hi rd, the new m i t i gat i on evi dence does notaf fe ctany of the no nst atut ory m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s appl i c a bl e he r e . A s not e d by the 3. 850 c our ta nd F l or i da S up re m e C ou rt , D r. K rop t es t i fi ed ext ensi vel y a ttri al abou tM ar qu ar d’ s depri ved
a n d d if f ic u lt c h ild h o o d , h is h is to r y o f s u b s ta n c e a b u s e , a n d h is p e r s o n a lity di sorder s. T he se nt enci ng courtattri al foun d o n thatbasi s thatM ar qu ar d “ had an
u n s ta b le f

a m ily lif e a s a c h ild a n d la c k e d th e e m o tio n a l s u p p o r t a n d c a r e h e s h o u ld h a v e r e c e iv e d ,” a n d th a t M a r q u a r d h a d a “d if f ic u lt c h ild h o o d ,” a n a lc o h o lic
m othe r , us e d va r i ous drugs a nd s uf f e r e d f r om pe r s ona l i ty di s or de r s . T he
s e n te n c in g c o u r t f

u r th e rs ta te d th a t “[ t]h e s tr o n g e s t m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e is de f e nda nt ’ s di f

f i c ul tc hi l dhood. H e di d notha ve a s t a bl e hom e . H e w a s i n a gr oup h o m e , a th e r ap e u tic f

o s te rh o m e , a n d th e s ta te h o s p ita l. H e liv e d w ith a n a lc o h o lic
m other. ” H ow ever , the se nt enci ng courtfurther c on cl ud ed thatthe aggravat i ng fa ct ors ove r w he l m e d the m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s . T he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe 3. 850 he a r i ng s i m pl y a dde d unne c e s s a r y de t a i l a boutthe s e s a m e i s s ue s , w hi c h w e r e a l r e a dy
a de qua t e l y e s t a bl i s he d by D r . K r op’ s t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l a nd a c know l e dge d by the
s e nt e nc i ng c our t . T he r e i s no r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha ta dde d de t a i l s a bout 21home was not a “therapeutic”foster homebut was just a “regular foster home.”Marqua rd argues that the jury

was led by

Dr. Krop to believe that Ma rquard had re ceive d cer

tain thera py that he did not actually

rec eive a nd that he wa s prejudice d by this mi sinformation. Even if the jurors might have misunderstood this minor point, Marquard w as thirteen or fourteen at that time, and we c annot conc eive of any way in which this miss tatement could have af fec ted Marqua rd’s sentence. 61 M ar qu ar d’ s troub l ed chi l dh oo d and subst ance abuse – w hi ch the se nt enci ng court c l e a r l y r e c ogni z e d i n i m pos i ng a de a th s e nt e nc e – w oul d ha ve ha d a ny e f f e c ton the
s e nt e nc e . A c c or di ngl y , the ne w m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e of f e r e d a tthe 3. 850 he a r i ng w as cum ul at i ve, and t ri al coun se l w as no ti neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o p re se nti t . S ee V a n P oy c k v. F l or i da D e p’ t . of C or r s . , 290 F . 3d 1318, 1324 n. 7 ( 11th C i r . 2002) (“ A pet i t i on erca nn otes t abl i sh i neff ec t i ve as si st ance by i dent i fy i ng addi t i on al
e v id e n c e th a t c o u ld h a v e b e e n p r e s e n te d w h e n th a t e v id e n c e is m e r e ly
c u m u la tiv e .” ) . In addi t i on , as the 3. 85 0 cou rtno t ed, the pres ent at i on of ce rt ai n w i tness es w oul d ha ve i nvol ve d pr e s e nt a t i on of e vi de nc e da m a gi ng t o M a r qua r d. F or e x a m p le , h a d M a r q u a r d ’s s is te rA m y b e e n c a lle d u p o n to te s tif y a b o u t th e ir upbr i ngi ng, s he l i ke l y w oul d ha ve t e s t i f i e d a boutM a r qua r d’ s c onvi c t i on f or m o le s tin g h e rc h ild . U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s de c i s i on t o pr e s e ntm i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng M a r qua r d’ s c hi l dhood, s ubs t a nc e a bus e , a nd e m ot i ona l a nd
m e nt a l pr obl e m s thr ough D r . K r op r a the rtha n thr ough the othe rw i tne s s e s w ho62

t e s t i f i e d a tthe 3. 850 he a r i ng i s a c l a s s i c e xa m pl e of a s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on nott o be
s e c ond- gue s s e d by thi s C our t . S e e C onkl i n v. S c hof i e l d, 366 F . 3d 1191, 1204 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( “ ‘ W hi c h w i tne s s e s , i f a ny , t o c a l l , a nd w he n t o c a l l the m , i s the
e pi t om e of

a s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on, a nd i ti s one tha tw e w i l l s e l dom , i f e ve r , s e c ond gue s s . ’ ” ) ( quot i ng W a t e r s , 46 F . 3d a t1512) . T hi s t a c t i c a l de c i s i on c a nnotbe
c o n s i d e r e d i 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 . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e Fl o r i d a Su p r e me C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n M a r qua r d’ s 3. 850 appe a l tha the f a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a s t o ori n r e ga r d t o the m i t i ga t i on e vi de nc e di d noti nvol ve a n u n r e a s o n a b l e ap p l i c a t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w. I V . S H A C K L I N G C L A I MS O n appe a l , M a r qua r d ne xtr a i s e s a due pr oc e s s c l a i m ba s e d on hi s be i ng hand cuff ed before the j ury i n the penal ty phase and an i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofc ouns e l c l a i m ba s e d on hi s tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s f a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o thi s s ha c kl i ng dur i ng th e p e n a lty p h a s e . T h u s , M a r q u a r d r a is e s b o th a s u b s ta n tiv e c o n s titu tio n a l c la im
a n d a n i 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 b a s e d o n s h a c k l i n g ( th e “ I A Cs ha c kl i ng” c l a i m ) , w hi c h w e a ddr e s s i n tur n. A . D u e P r o c e s s C la im 1. N o E vi dence of S hackl i ng i n the R ec ord A s not e d e a r l i e r , thi s C our tor de r e d s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f s s e tt i ng f

or th the63

f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rM a r q u a r d ’s s h a c k lin g c la im s , in c lu d in g c ita tio n s to th e r e c o r d . T he gove r nm e nt ’ s br i e f s ubm i t s tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l r e c or d c ont a i ns no e vi de nc e or i ndi c a t i on of

M a r qua r d’ s e ve rbe i ng s ha c kl e d a ta ny t i m e dur i ng the tr i a l . T he g o v e r n m e n t e m p h a s iz e s th a t M a r q u a r d a ls o p r e s e n te d n o a f f id a v it o rp r o f

f e rin h is st at e post -c on vi ct i on proceedi ng s a s t o h i s e ver bei ng shac kl ed du ri ng the tri al . In
re spon se , M ar qu ar d’ s bri ef prov i des onl y one ci t at i on i n the st at e tri al re cord w here he al l eges shac kl i ng occurre d d uri ng the tri al . A s not ed ea rl i er , M ar qu ar d’ s r ec ord
c ita tio n is to th e ju r y - s e le c tio n p r o c e e d in g s in th e g u ilt p h a s e , n o t in th e p e n a lty ph as e. E ven as t o j ury s el ec t i on du ri ng the gu i l tph as e, the re cord ci t at i on , gi ven b y M a r q u a r d a n d q u o te d e a r lie r , a ls o d o e s n o t s h o w th a t M a r q u a r d w a s s h a c k le d in th e p resen ce o f th e j u ry. A tthe ou t se t , w e thu s c on cl ud e thatthere i s no evi dence i n thi s r ec ord t hat M a r q u a r d w a s e v e rs h a c k le d b e f o r e th e ju r y d u r in g th e p e n a lty p h a s e . A c c o r d in g ly , M a r q u a r d ’s d u e p r o c e s s c la im b a s e d o n s h a c k lin g d u r in g th e p e n a lty p h a s e is w ith o u t m e r it. B e f or e l e a vi ng thi s e vi de nt i a r y m a tt e r , w e do not e tha tM a r qua r d’ s 3. 850
m ot i on as ked for an evi dent i ary hea ri ng on al l cl ai m s, w hi ch neces sa ri l y i ncl ud ed hi s s hackl i ng cl ai m . T he 3. 85 0 cou rtgrant ed M ar qu ar d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng as t o hi s i ne f

f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m ba s e d on i ns uf f i c i e ntm i t i ga t i ngIn his direct examination of Marqua rd’s trial c ounsel, Marqua rd’s 3.850 c ounsel 22 prof fere d q ue sti on s a bo ut t ri a l c ouns e l no t hiringa

jur y c on sulta nt f or vo ir direa ft e r t

heState objected that the questions wereoutside the scope of the 3.850 motion: T H E CO URT : I don’t believe that there w a s any a ll e g ati o n th at counsel wa s ineffe ctive duringvoir dire.

. . . . [3.850 C OUNSEL ]: Judg e, may Iproff er thequestion for the record? [TH E CO URT]: Prof fer i t. [ B Y3 . 8 5 0 C O U

N S E L] Q: Did you hire a

jury consultant in this case to he lp with jury selec tion? A: No. Q: Di d you

haveany dis c us sio n withMr . Pe arla bo ut t hat? A: No. [THE STATE] : I s that the end of theproff er? [3.8 50 CO UN SEL ]: Ye s. 64 e v i d e n c e i n th e p e n a l ty p h a s e b u tn o ta s t o h i s d u e p r o c e s s o rI A C- s h a c k l i n g c l a i ms base d o n shackl i ng i n the penal ty phase . H ow ever , no evi dent i ary hea ri ng w as n e c e s s a r y f

o rM a r q u a r d to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e o f s h a c k lin g b e f

o r e th e 3 .8 5 0 c o u r t. T he shac kl i ng al l egedl y happened t o M ar qu ar d h i m se l f, and t hu s hi s 3. 85 0 cou nsel
ea si l y c ou l d h ave f

i l ed an aff

i davi tfr om M ar qu ar d att es t i ng t o thatef fe ct . In
a ddi t i on, dur i ng the e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng on M a r qua r d’ s m i t i ga t i on c l a i m s , the 3 .8 5 0 c o u r t a ls o a llo w e d M a r q u a r d ’s c o u n s e l to m a k e a p r o f f e ra s to a s e p a r a te c la im b a s e d o n a lle g e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e d u r in g v o ird ir e . I n c o n tr a s t, 22 M ar qu ar d and hi s c ou nsel never as ked t o m ake aproffe r, no r m ade aproffe r, s t a t i ng w he n, w he r e , a nd f orhow l ong he w a s a l l e ge dl y s ha c kl e d dur i ng the penal ty phase . Indeed, M ar qu ar d’ s 3. 85 0 cou nsel ca l l ed M ar qu ar d’ s f orm ertri al att orney a s aw i tness du ri ng the 3. 85 0 evi dent i ary hea ri ng , bu tnever as ked65

M ar qu ar d’ s f

orm ertri al att orney w hether M ar qu ar d w as shac kl ed before the j ury d u r in g th e p e n a lty p h a s e . T h u s , M a r q u a r d a n d h is 3 .8 5 0 c o u n s e l h a d a m p le op po rtun i ty t o p re se ntan af fi davi t , or atl ea sta proff er , thatM ar qu ar d w as s ha c kl e d, butf

a i l e d t o de ve l op a ny ty pe of f a c tua l pr e di c a t e f

orhi s s ha c kl i ng c la im s in h is p o s t- c o n v ic tio n s ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s . A l t e r na t i ve l y , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tM a r qua r d w a s ha ndc uf f e d a ts om e poi nt b e f o r e th e ju r y in th e p e n a lty p h a s e , h is d u e p r o c e s s c la im b a s e d o n s h a c k lin g is p r o c e d u r a lly b a r r e d f

o rth e r e a s o n s e x p la in e d b e lo w . 2 . P r o c e d u r a l B a ra s to D u e P r o c e s s C la im T he 3. 85 0 cou rtconcl ud ed thatM ar qu ar d’ s s ub st ant i ve shac kl i ng cl ai m w as procedural l y barre d u nd erF l ori da l aw because i t“ has bee n o r s ho ul d h ave been
ra i se d” on di re ctappeal . R evi ew i ng the st at e c ou rtre cord, w e f i nd thatM ar qu ar d di d n otra i se the subst ant i ve shac kl i ng i ss ue i n the st at e tri al courtor on di re ct
appe a l . R a the r , M a r qua r d f i r s tr a i s e d hi s s ubs t a nt i ve s ha c kl i ng c l a i m i n hi s 3. 850
m ot i on . B ec ause M ar qu ar d’ s s hackl i ng cl ai m w as no tra i se d attri al or on di re ct appeal , w e c on cl ud e thatthe st at e 3. 85 0 cou rt ’ s proce du ra l -bardet erm i nat i on un der F l ori da l aw re st s on an i nd ependentand adequ at e s t at e groun d thatprec l ud es f e de r a l ha be a s c ons i de r a t i on of thi s i s s ue . S e e L e C r oy v. F l a . D e pt . of C or r s . , 421The only causecited by

Marqua rd for the failure to raisethe substantive shac kling 23 claim at trial is the alleg ed inef fec tive-assistance -of- counsel c laim, which claim, as e xplained be low , lac ks meri t a s w e ll. Thus , M arq ua rd ha s f aile d toe sta

bli shc a us efo r his f

ailureto raise thi s su bs tantivesh a c klingiss uein t heF lorida

statec ourt s. Th eSup remeCourt

in D e c k c a

uti on e d th at th is “ c on sti tution a l re quire ment, ho wever, is 24 not absolute” but “[i] t permits a judg e, in the exerc ise of his or her discretion, to take account of sp e c ial c irc ums tanc e s, inc ludingse c urity c on c e rn s, that ma

y c a ll f or sh a c kling .”De c k, 12 5 S. Ct. at 2014-15. The de termination of whe ther shac kling is wa rra nted “must be c ase spe cific” and “should re flec t particular concerns, say

special security

needs or esca pe risks, re lated to the defendant or trial.”I d. at 2015. 66 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 60 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). 23 3 . N o n - r e tr o a c tiv ity o f

D e c k v . M is s o u r i E ve n i f M a r qua r d’ s s ubs t a nt i ve s ha c kl i ng c l a i m i s notpr oc e dur a l l y ba r r e d, M ar qu ar d h as fa i l ed t o est abl i sh that , atthe t i m e of hi s tri al i n 1 99 3, the al l eged
s ha c kl i ng dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e vi ol a t e d hi s f e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s t o due p r o c e s s . In ar gu i ng thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed i n the penal ty phase , M a r qua r d r e l i e s on the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our t ’ s r e c e ntde c i s i on i n D e c k v. M i ss ou ri , 12 5 S . C t . 20 07 , 20 14 -15 (20 05 ). T he S up re m e C ou rti n D ec k
a nnounc e d thi s ne w c ons t i tut i ona l rul e of c r i m i na l pr oc e dur e : tha tr out i ne s ha c kl i ng dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e of a c api t a l tr i a l , w i thouta c a s e - s pe c i f i c f i ndi ng th a t s e c u r ity n e e d s ju s tif y th e s h a c k lin g , v io la te s a d e f e n d a n t’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts unl e s s the s t a t e s how s be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe s ha c kl i ng di d not
c o n tr ib u te to th e v e r d ic t. 2467

T he pr obl e m f

orM a r qua r d i s tha tD e c k e s t a bl i s he s a ne w rul e tha tdoe s not
appl y r e tr oa c t i ve l y t o M a r qua r d’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on. S e e T ur ne rv. C r os by , 339 F . 3d 1247, 1282- 83 ( 11th C i r . 2003) , c e r t . de ni e d, 541 U . S . 1034, 124 S . C t . 2104 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; T e a g u e v . L a n e , 4 8 9 U .S . 2 8 8 , 3 1 0
- 3 1 3 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 1 0 6 0 , 1 0 7 5 - 7 7 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . U nde rT e a gue , “ a c a s e a nnounc e s a ne w rul e w he n i tbr e a ks ne w gr ound or i m pos e s a ne w obl i ga t i on on the S t a t e s orthe F e de r a l G ove r nm e nt[ or ] . . . i f the
r e s ul tw a s notdi c t a t e d by pr e c e de nte xi s t i ng a tthe t i m e the de f e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on b e c a m e f in a l.” 4 8 9 U .S . a t 3 0 1 , 1 0 9 S . C t. a t 1 0 7 0 ; T u r n e r , 3 3 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 . S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t a s to s h a c k lin g p r io rto D e c k d id n o t in v o lv e th e p e n a lty p h a s e o f a c ap ita l tr ia l. R a th e r , p r io rS u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t a s to s h a c k lin g in the pres ence of a j ury i nv ol ved o nl y s hackl i ng before a det erm i nat i on of gu i l t . S ee H o lb r o o k v . F ly n n , 4 7 5 U .S . 5 6 0 , 5 6 8
- 6 9 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 5 - 4 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , I llin o is
v. A l l e n, 397 U . S . 337, 343- 344, 90 S . C t . 1057 ( 1970) ) . I n f a c t , unt i l D e c k, the S upr e m e C our tha d nota ddr e s s e d a ta l l the ve r y di f f e r e nti s s ue of

s ha c kl i ng dur i ng the penal ty phase of a c api t al tri al w here the defendanthas a l re ady bee n con vi ct ed of a s e r i ous , vi ol e ntc r i m e by the j ur y . W hi l e the S upr e m e C our t ’ s pr i orpr e c e de nt
r e ga r di ng s ha c kl i ng be f or e a gui l ty de t e r m i na t i on “ m a y ha ve be e n a ha rbi nge r ” of the D e c k de c i s i on, pr i orpr e c e de ntdi d notdi c t a t e the appl i c a t i on of tha tpr e c e de nt t o the penal ty phase af

t era c api t al conv i ct i on by the j ury. S ee T urner, 33 9 F . 3d atF ur therm ore , th ere a so ningsu pp or tin gthepre -c onvic tio n p re c e dent did n ot dic tateits 25 application to the penalty phase of a ca pital trial. Where a de fenda nt is handcuff

ed bef ore the jury , the paramount constitutional concer n expressed by

prior pre cedent is that the sight of the defendant shac kled could under mine the pre sumption of innocenceby convey ing theimpression that the def

endant is dang erous. SeeHolbrook, 475 U.S. at 568-69, 106 S. Ct. 1340. In the penalty phase of a ca pital case , the def

endant’ s guilt of a serious, violent crime has alre ady been established. Thus, the main reasoningof the SupremeCourt’s pre- conviction pre cedent did not dictate the penalty-phaserule e stablished in Deck. 68 1284- 85 ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n R i ng v. A r i z ona , 536 U .S . 5 8 4 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 2 4 2 8 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , in w h ic h it e x te n d e d to c ap ita l c a s e s th e ru le pr e vi ous l y a nnounc e d i n A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 (200 0), w as a new rul e) . 25 I n a ddi t i on, ne i the rof

T e a gue ’ s tw o na r r ow e xc e pt i ons t o the ge ne r a l rul e of
no n-re troac t i vi ty app l i es here . U nd erT ea gu e, “ [a ] new rul e s ho ul d b e app l i ed
re troac t i vel y onl y i f i t(1) ‘ pl ac es ce rt ai n k i nd s of pri m ary pri vat e i nd i vi du al
c onduc tbe y ond the pow e rof the c r i m i na l l a w - m a ki ng a uthor i ty t o pr os c r i be , ’ or ( 2) ‘ r e qui r e s the obs e r va nc e of thos e pr oc e dur e s tha t. . . a r e i m pl i c i ti n the c onc e pt of ordered l i berty. ’ ” M cC oy v. U ni t ed S t at es , 26 6 F . 3d 12 45 , 12 55 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g T e a g u e , 4 8 9 U .S . a t 3 0 7 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 1 0 6 0 ) . T he f i r s te xc e pt i on i s i nappl i c a bl e be c a us e D e c k’ s ne w rul e doe s not

“ narr ow the sc op e of acr i m i nal st atut e by i nt erpret i ng i t s t erm s” or “ pl ac e p a r tic u la rc o n d u c t o rp e r s o n s c o v e r e d b y th e s ta tu te b e y o n d th e S ta te ’s p o w e rto p u n ish ,” b u t rath erre g u lates “o n ly th e m an n ero f d eter m in in g ” th e d ef en d an t’ sCe rt ain n e w s ub sta ntiverule s th at na

rrowthesc op eof

a c rimin a l st atut e“ a

pp ly 26 retroactively

beca use they nece ssarily

car ry a significant risk that a

defendant stands convicte d of an ac t th at th elaw doe s n ot m akec rimin a l or fac e s a punis hment t

hat th elaw c ann ot impo se upon him.” Schriro, 124 S. Ct. at 2522-23 (quotation marks a nd citations omitt ed). N ew r ules of proce dure, on theother ha nd, g enerally

do not apply

retroactively

beca use “[t] hey

do not prod uc ea c la ss o f p e rs on s c onvic te d o f c on du c t th elaw doe s n ot m akec rimin a l, b ut m e re ly raise the possibility

that someone c onvicted with the use of the invalidated procedure might have be en acquitted other

wise.” Id. at 2523. 69 se nt ence . S chri ro v. S um m er l i n, 12 4 S . C t . 25 19 , 25 22 -23 (20 04 ). D ec k’ s new 26 rul e i s c l ea rl y one of procedure ra ther than sub st ance . T he s e c ond e xc e pt i on i s a l s o notm e tbe c a us e D e c k’ s ne w rul e i s notone of th o se “ w at ersh ed ru l es o f cri m i n al p ro ced u re i m p l i cat i n g th e fu n d am en t al fai rn ess a nd a c c ur a c y of

c r i m i na l pr oc e e di ngs . ” S c hr i r o, 124 S . C t . a t2523 ( quot a t i on m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . “T h a t a n e w p r o c e d u r a l ru le is ‘f u n d a m e n ta l’ in
s om e a bs tr a c ts e ns e i s note nough; the rul e m us tbe one w i thoutw hi c h the l i ke l i hood of

a n a c c ur a t e c onvi c t i on i s s e r i ous l y di m i ni s he d. ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks
a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I nde e d, the S upr e m e C our tha s e xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ t ] hi s c l a s s of
rul e s i s e xtr e m e l y na r r ow , a nd i ti s unl i ke l y tha ta ny ha s y e tt o e m e r ge . ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks, ci t at i on s, and p un ctuat i on om i tt ed). D ec k’ s new rul e – thatrout i ne shac kl i ng du ri ng the penal ty phase of a
c api t a l tr i a l , w i thouta c a s e s pe c i f i c f i ndi ng tha ts e c ur i ty ne e ds r e qui r e s ha c kl i ng, v io la te s d u e p r o c e s s u n le s s th e s ta te s h o w s it d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e v e r d ic t – is in d is p u ta b ly im p o r ta n t f o rd e f e n d a n ts . H o w e v e r , D e c k ’s n e w c o n s titu tio n a l ru le is70

no tabsol ut e, and a defendantm ay be shac kl ed before the j ury i f the tri al court det erm i nes thatse curi ty nee ds or ot her f ac t ors s o d i ct at e. A cc ordi ng l y, the abse nce of the D ec k rul e does notca stse ri ou s dou bton the ac cura cy or fund am ent al f a i r ne s s of

the pr oc e e di ngs , a nd thus doe s notf a l l w i thi n the na r r ow e xc e pt i on f or w at er shed procedural rul es . A s are sul t , D ec k’ s new rul e f or the penal ty phase of a
capi t al tri al do es no tappl y r etroac t i vel y t o M ar qu ar d’ s c as e. T here fore , M ar qu ar d h a s n o t s h o w n th a t a n y a s s u m e d s h a c k lin g d u r in g th e p e n a lty p h a s e v io la te d h is f e de r a l due pr oc e s s r i ght s i n 1993. B . I A C - s h a c klin g C la im A s f or M ar qu ar d’ s I A C -s hackl i ng cl ai m , M ar qu ar d argues thathi s tri al
coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o o bj ec tt o h i s bei ng shac kl ed before the j ury dur i ng the pe na l ty pha s e . M a r qua r d r a i s e d the I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m i n hi s 3. 850
mo t i o n a n d i n h i s ap p e a l o f th e d e n i a l o f

h i s 3 . 8 5 0 mo t i o n . Th e Fl o r i d a Su p r e me C o u r t a f f ir m e d th e d e n ia l o f

M a r q u a r d ’s I A C
- s h a c k lin g c la im in h is 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n . I n M a r qua r d’ s 3. 850 appe a l , the F l or i da S upr e m e C our tdi d notm e nt i on the pe r f or m a nc e pr ong ora ny e vi de nc e of s ha c kl i ng. M a r qua r d v. S t a t e , 850 S o. 2d 417, 431 ( F l a . 2002) . R a the r , the F l or i da S upr e m e C our trul e d on onl y the pr e j udi c e pr ong of

M a r qua r d’ s I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m . I d. A s to th e p r e

ju d ic e p r o n g , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t “in71

o r d e rto s h o w p r e

ju d ic e , M a r q u a r d m u s t s h o w th a t ‘th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i ty tha t , a bs e nttr i a l c ouns e l ’ s e r r or , the s e nt e nc e r. . . w oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe ba l a nc e of a ggr a va t i ng a nd m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s di d not
w a r r a n t d e a th .’” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n c o n c l u d i n g th a tM a r q u a r d h a d n o tme tth i s s t a n d a r d , th e Fl o r i d a Su p r e me C o u r t e m p h a s iz e d th a t: ( 1 ) “M a r q u a r d c o ld ly a n d c a r e f u lly p la n n e d to m u r d e rh is gi rl fr i end b ec ause he w as t i re d o f herbi cker i ng and w ant ed her ca r a nd m on ey ”; (2) “ [h] e m ade up a st ory t o ent i ce her i nt o the w oo ds, st abbed h er , drow ned h er , di re ct ed hi s f

ri end t o st ab her, and t hen t ri ed t o d ec api t at e her ”; (3) “ [a ] ft ershe w as de a d, he s e a r c he d he rpoc ke t s f orm one y a nd c a rke y s a nd di vi de d he rpos s e s s i ons w i th hi s c ode f

e nda nt ” ; ( 4) “ [ t ] he j ur y una ni m ous l y r e c om m e nde d a s e nt e nc e of de a th” ; a nd ( 5) the tr i a l c our ti m pos e d the de a th s e nt e nc e “ a f t e rf i ndi ng f our aggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s, no st atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s, and m i ni m al
no nst atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s. ” I d. T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rt s pe c i f i c a l l y c onc l ude d tha t“ the r e i s no r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tbutf orthe
s ha c kl i ng of

[ M a r qua r d] , the s e nt e nc e rw oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe de f e nda nt di d notde s e r ve a de a th s e nt e nc e . ” I d. U n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e – a b ru ta l, p r e m e d ita te d m u r d e r , a u n an im o u s ju ry re co m m en d atio n o f a d ea th se n ten ce , an d a s en ten cin g ju d g e’s72

fi nd i ng of four aggravat i ng and n o st atut ory m i t i gat i ng evi dence – w e c anno tsa y th at th e F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt’s d ec isio n o n th e p re ju d ice p ro n g o f M ar q u ar d ’s I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m i s c ontr a r y t o ori nvol ve s a n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of fed eral l aw o r i n v o l v es an u n reaso n ab l e d et erm i n at i o n o f fact s. F u rth er m o re , D ec k d o es n o t u n d er m in e th e F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i on on M a r qua r d’ s I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m orhe l p hi s I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m f or s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . F ir s t, a s e x p la in e d a b o v e , D e c k d o e s n o t ap p ly r e tr o a c tiv e ly to M a r qua r d’ s c a s e . S e c ond, M a r qua r d’ s tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s not i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o c ont e m pl a t e D e c k. S e e S pa z i a no v. S i ngl e t a r y , 36 F . 3d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( “W e h a v e h e ld m a n y tim e s th a t ‘[ r ]e a s o n a b ly
e f f e c t i ve r e pr e s e nt a t i on c a nnota nd doe s noti nc l ude a r e qui r e m e ntt o m a ke
ar gu m ent s bas ed on predi ct i on s of how the l aw m ay devel op . ’ ”) (c i t at i on s t o three othe rE l e ve nth C i r c ui tde c i s i ons om i tt e d) ; T hom ps on v. W a i nw r i ght , 787 F . 2d 14 47 , 14 59 n. 8 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ) ( “ [D ] ef endant s a re no tent i t l ed t o an at t orney capabl e of f

ores ee i ng the future devel op m entof const i tut i on al l aw . ”) . T hi r d, D e c k di d noti nvol ve a n I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w but i nst ea d i nv ol ved a di re ctappeal w here tri al coun se l obj ec t ed t o shackl i ng before the j ury. W hi l e D ec k shi ft ed the bu rden t o the st at e on d i re ctappeal t o p rove that
r o u tin e s h a c k lin g w ith o u t a s p e c if ic
- n e e d s in q u iry d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e v e r d ic t,Th eUnite d St ate s Su pre meCourt

ha s d e fine d “re a so na

bleprob a bil ity”a s “ a

prob a bil ity 27 su ff ic ient to und e rminec on fi denc ein t heoutc ome .”Stric kla

nd , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4, 10 4 S. Ct. 2052. 73 D ec k d i d n otaddres s, m uch l es s a l t er , the bu rden and d i ff er entre qu i re d p re

j ud i ce s how i ng on M a r qua r d’ s I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m . A f t e rD e c k, M a r qua r d s t i l l ha s the bur de n i n hi s I A C
- s ha c kl i ng c l a i m t o e s t a bl i s h a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf or h is tr ia l c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to o b

je c t to s h a c k lin g , th e r e s u lt o f h is s e n te n c in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t. S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2052, 2068 ( 1984) ( hol di ng tha tt o e s t a bl i s h aS i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on a d ef en d an t m u st sh o w a “re as o n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at, b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s un profes si on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent ”) . 27 T h u s , in th is c a s e , M a r q u a r d s till m u s t s h o w a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t,
a bs e nthi s be i ng s ha c kl e d, the s e nt e nc e rw oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe ba l a nc e of
a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s a nd m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s di d notw a r r a ntde a th a nd w oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l i f

e s e nt e nc e . S e e S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t695, 104 S . C t . a t2069 ( “W h e n a d e f

e n d a n t c h a lle n g e s a d e a th s e n te n c e s u c h a s th e o n e a t is s u e in th is case, th e q u est i o n i s w h eth er th ere i s a reaso n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty th at , ab sen terro rs, the s e nt e nc e r– i nc l udi ng a n appe l l a t e c our t , t o the e xt e nti ti nde pe nde nt l y r e w e i ghs the e vi de nc e – w oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe ba l a nc e of a ggr a va t i ng a nd
m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s di d notw a r r a ntde a th. ” ) ; C ha ndl e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 218When a def endant is shac kled without the trial court’ s makinga factual inquiry into the 28 nece ssity of the shac kles, the F lorida Supreme Court a ppear s to follow the same a pproac h: that is, such a shac kling c laim timely raised on direct a

ppeal may

war rant a new trial unless the g ov e rnment s ho wsthee rror wa s h arm le ss, but po st- c onvic tio n IAC c laims ba se d o n f ailureto ob je c t to sh a c klingat trial dono t w arrant a new tri a l unle ss t

hede fend ant s ho ws “ ‘t

hat th e reis a rea sonable proba

bility that, absent trial c ounsel’s er ror, the sentencer . . . would haveconclude d that the balanc e of ag gravating a nd mitigatingcircumstances did not war rant de ath.’”Compare Marqua rd v. State, 850 So.2d 417, 431 (Fla . 2002) (quotingCherry v. State, 781 So. 2d 1040, 1048 (F la. 2000)) w ith Bryant v. State of F la., 785 So.2d 422, 429 (Fla . 2001) (a pplying harmless-error

standard to a

shacklingclaim re

jected by trial court a

nd raised on direct a

ppeal) , and B ello v. State of F la., 547 So.2d 914, 918 (Fla . 1989) (same). 74 F . 3d 1305, 1312- 13 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed); E arhartv. John son, 13 2 F . 3d 10 62 , 10 67 (5th C i r. 19 98 ) ( concl ud i ng that even i f c ou nsel ’ s f

ai l ure t o o bt ai n exp ertt es t i m on y w ou l d h ave m andat ed re vers al
o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, th e d e f e n d a n t s till m u s t s h o w th a t th e e x p e r t’s te s tim o n y w o u ld have al t er ed the ou t com e of the tri al i n o rdert o succe ed on an i neff ec t i vea s s is ta n c e c la im f

o rf a ilu r e to c a ll th e e x p e r t) . M a r qua r d’ s bur de n of

e s t a bl i s hi ng thi s s e c ond pr ong i s “ hi gh. ” R obi ns on v. M o o r e , 3 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 4 3
- 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A g a in , g iv e n th e b ru ta l, pr e m e di t a t e d m ur de r , the una ni m ous j ur y r e c om m e nda t i on of de a th, a nd the f

our a g g r a v a t i n g a n d n o mi t i g a t i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f th i s c a s e , th e Fl o r i d a Su p r e me C o u r t’s d e c is io n th a t M a r q u a r d h a s n o t m e t th is b u r d e n is n o t a n u n r e a s o n a b le
ap p l i c a t i o n o f

f e d e r a l l a w a s t o th e s e c o n d p r o n g o f h i s I A C- s h a c k l i n g c l a i m. 28 M ar qu ar d’ s f

ai l ure t o sho w a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thathi s notbei ng shac kl ed du ri ng the penal ty phase w ou l d h ave a l t er ed the ou t com e of hi s s ent enci ng i s f at alOn appe al, Marqua rd also argues that trial counse l failed adequate ly to challeng e the 29 fac tual predic ate f

or this ag gravating f

actor beca use counse l did not properly impeach the witnesses ag ainst Marqua rd. Marqaurd also argues that new ly discovere d evidenc e demonstrates that Ma rq ua rd wa s intoxic ate d at th etim eof themurder, and

thu s did n ot h avethere quisi te int e nt to killthevic tim . The seiss ue s areoutsi dethesc op eof theCO A gra

nte d b y thi s Co ur t, and thu s w edo no t add

re ss t hem. 75 t o h i s h a b e a s I A C- s h a c k l i n g c l a i m. V . H A C IN S T R U C T IO N C L A IM O n ap p e a l, M a r q u a r d n e x t a r g u e s th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in fa i l i ng t o o bj ec tt o the H A C j ury i nstruct i on on the grou nd thatthe i nstruct i on w as unc ons t i tut i ona l l y va gue a nd i n f a i l i ng t o pr e s e r ve tha tobj e c t i on. T hi s a r gum e nt 29 i s m i s gui de d, a s M a r qua r d’ s tr i a l c ouns e l r a i s e d the i s s ue a ttr i a l a nd pr e s e r ve d the is s u e f o rap p e a l. I nde e d, M a r qua r d’ s tr i a l c ouns e l obj e c t e d i n w r i t i ng t o the H A C i ns truc t i on o n th e g r o u n d th a t it w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v a g u e . T r ia l c o u n s e l th e n a g a in obj e c t e d a ttr i a l , a r gui ng tha tthe H A C i ns truc t i on w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l l y va gue and fai l ed genu i nel y t o l i m i tthe cl as s of c as es t o w hi ch i tappl i ed. T ri al coun se l
a ls o a s k e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t, if it d e c id e d to g iv e th e in s tru c tio n a n y w a y , f u r th e rto in s tru c t th e ju r y th a t a n y e v e n t th a t o c c u r r e d a f te ru n c o n s c io u s n e s s b e g a n o rd e a th
o c c u r r e d c o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e r e d a s e v id e n c e o f th e e s p e c ia lly w ic k e d , e v il,
a tr oc i ous , c rue l na tur e of the c r i m e . T he tr i a l c ourtde ni e d the obj e c t i on t o the
c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

the i ns truc t i on butdi d gi ve the a ddi t i ona l l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i onWe note that in addition to the standard HAC instruction, the trial c ourt did add on 30 some limit ing la

nguag e at the request of Ma rquard’s counse l. 76 s u g g e s te d b y M a r q u a r d ’s tr ia l c o u n s e l. O n d irec t ap p ea l, ap p ellate co u n se l ag ain ch allen g ed th e H A C in stru ctio n ’s const i tut i on al i ty. S peci fi ca l l y, i n M ar qu ar d’ s bri ef un der “ P oi ntX II : C on st i tut i on al i ty of S ec t i on 92 1. 14 1, F l ori da S t atut es , ” M ar qu ar d’ s c ou nsel no t ed tha ttr i a l c ouns e l ha d obj e c t e d t o the s t a nda r d i ns truc t i ons a nd tha tthe obj e c t i ons had b ee n o verrul ed. T he H A C i nstruct i on w as cl ea rl y partof the st andard i ns truc t i ons . F ur the r , M a r qua r d’ s br i e f on di r e c tappe a l s t a t e d tha t“ A ppe l l a nt 30 agai n ass ert s e ac h o bj ec t i on t o the S t andard Instruct i on s a nd ar gu es thatthe tri al
c our t ’ s rul i ng de ni e d due pr oc e s s , a f a i rtr i a l a nd a r e l i a bl e s e nt e nc i ng r e c o m m e n d a tio n ” in v io la tio n o f th e F if th , S ix th , E ig h te e n th , a n d F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n ts . I n s u b s e c tio n ( i) , e n title d “H e in o u s , A tr o c io u s , o rC ru e l,” M ar qu ar d’ s c ou nsel agai n exp l i ci t l y obj ec t ed t o the H A C i nstruct i on as u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v a g u e a n d a rb itr a r y . T h e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t a d d r e s s e d th is is s u e a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t it la c k e d m e r it. M a r q u a r d v . S ta te , 6 4 1 S o .2 d 5 4 , 5 8 n .4 ( F la . 1 9 9 4 ) . N otw i ths t a ndi ng tha tboth tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l r a i s e d the i s s ue of the
c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

the H A C i ns truc t i on a nd the F l or i da S upr e m e C our tde ni e d theAs noted ea rlier, Ma rquard’s 3.850 motion did not raise an HAC-ine ffe ctive-a ssistance- 31 of-c ounsel claim. Thus, the district cour t corre ctly

conclude d that the HAC ineffectivea ssi sta nc e -o f- c ouns e l c laim i s p ro c e durally de fa ult e d. It a

pp e ars Ma

rq ua rd raise d th at HAC
ineffe ctiveness c laim in his § 2254 petit ion beca use the F lorida Supreme Court in the 3.850 appeal concluded, albeit wrong ly , that this HAC-constitutional claim was proce durally barred as it w a s n ot raise d o n dire c t a pp e a l. 77 c la im o n th e m e r its o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d in its 3. 85 0 o pi ni on thatthe i ss ue w as procedural l y barre d b ec ause i tshou l d h ave been
r a is e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. M a r q u a r d v . S ta te , 8 5 0 S o . 2 d 4 1 7 , 4 2 3 n .2 ( F la . 2 0 0 2 ) . O n app ea l , M ar qu ar d d oes notchal l enge thi s c on cl usi on , bu tar gu es i nst ea d that tr i a l c o u n s e l w a s i n e f

f e c t i v e i n f

a i l i n g p r o p e r l y t o r a i s e a n d p r e s e r v e th e H A Cc ons t i tut i ona l i ty i s s ue . B e c a us e both tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l r a i s e d the i s s ue and t he F l ori da court s a dd re ss ed i ton the m er i t s, thi s i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofc o u n s e l a r g u m e n t la c k s m e r it. 31 E ve n i f c ouns e l di d nota de qua t e l y obj e c ta ttr i a l a nd on di r e c tappe a l , the H A C i ns truc t i on i s notunc ons t i tut i ona l i n a ny e ve nt . T hus , M a r qua r d c a nnots how th a th e w a s p r e

j u d i c e d b y a n y f

a i l u r e b y c o u n s e l t o r a i s e o rp r e s e r v e th i s H A Cc o n s titu tio n a lity is s u e . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t th e w o r d s “e s p e c ia lly h ei n o u s, atro ci o u s, o r cru el , ” w h en u sed al o n e as an ag g rav at i n g fact o r, are so v a g u e a s t o o f

f e n d th e Ei g h th A me n d me n t . Se e M a y n a r d v . Ca r tr i g h t , 4 8 6 U . S. 35 6, 36 5, 10 8 S . C t . 18 53 (198 8); B ra dl ey v. N agl e, 21 2 F . 3d 55 9, 57 0 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). “ T hu s, i n o rdert o app l y thataggravat i ng fa ct or i n a const i tut i on al m anner,T h etri a lc o urtg av eth ef o l l o w i n gHA C i n s tr

u c t i o nt o th ej ur

y: 32 “He inous” means “ extremely wicked or

sh o ck i n gly

evil.” “Atrocious” mea ns “outrag eously

wicked a nd evil.” “Crue l” m eans “designed to inflict a high degree of pain with utter indifferenc e to or enjoy ment of the suff

eringof others.” Th ekin d o f cri me in tend e d tobeinc lude d a s h e ino us , atroc iou s o r cru e l is one ac companied by

additional acts that show that the crime wa s consciousless or pitile ss a nd wa s unn e c e ssa

ri ly tor turou s to the vic tim . I f the vic tim in thi s c a selos t consciousness, a

ny event whic h occur

red a fter unc onsciousness beg an ca nnot be considere d as evidence of the espe cially

– espec ially wicked, evil, atroc ious or crue l nature of the c rime. Any

event a fter thedeath of

the victim cannot be c onsidered a s evidenc e of theespec ially wicked, evil, atrocious or c ruel nature of thecrime . . . .

78 the s e nt e nc i ng c our tm us tgi ve a l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on t o the j ur y . ” B r a dl e y , 212 F .3 d a t 5 7 0 . U n d e rth is C o u r t’s p r e c e d e n t, a “c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e ‘e s p e c ia lly hei no us, atroci ou s or c ruel ’ aggravat i ng fa ct or m ustsa t i sf y athree partt es t . ” L in d s e y v . T h ig p e n , 8 7 5 F .2 d 1 5 0 9 , 1 5 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . “F ir s t, th e ap p e lla te c o u r ts o f th e s ta te m u s t h a v e n a r r o w e d th e m e a n in g o f th e w o r d s b y c o n s is te n tly l i m i t i n g th ei r ap p l i cat i o n t o a rel at i v el y n arro w cl ass o f cases, so th atth ei r u se i nform s the se nt ence r of w hati tm ustfi nd before i ti m po se s the death p enal ty. ” L i nd se y, 87 5 F . 2d at15 14 (quo t at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T hi s C ou rt al read y h as est ab l i sh ed th at“ F l o ri d a h as su ffi ci en t l y l i m i t ed i t s ‘ h ei n o u s, atro ci o u s, orc rue l ’ a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e t o pa s s c ons t i tut i ona l s c rut i ny . ” S c ottv. 32 S i ngl e t a r y , 38 F . 3d 1547, 1554 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on o m i tt ed ); S co ttv . D u g g er, 8 9 1 F . 2 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 6 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ); see al so B rad l ey,Marq ua rd se e ms t o a

rguethat th etrial c ourt

wa s re quire d toins tr

uc t th ejur

y that it mus t 33 find that the def

endant “ intended” to inflict unne cessa ry torture to the victim. Marqua rd cites no prec edent that would requiresuch an instruc tion. As discussed, under this Court’s pre cedent, the HA C in str

uc tio n g iven b y

thetrial c ourt

wa s c on sti tution a l. Spe c if ic a lly, th estatesentenc ingc ourt at trial st ate d a s f

oll ow s: 34 Chopp ing a nd stabbingand attemptingto drown a de fense less, unsuspecting22-yearold w o ma n w it h a B o w ie kn if

e , a d a g g e r an d att e mp tin g to c ut h e r h e a d off with a Gurka head knife is e x tremely wicked and shocking ly evil. Such conduct is designed to inflict a high degreewith indifference to the suf fering of Stacey Ann Will ets. Marqua rd cut her throat, stabbe d her in the chest and attempted to drown her and attempted to behead her. Mr. Marqua rd threwher to the ground af ter cutting her thro atan d

s t ab b in g h er . He h el d

h er fa ce un d er

wat er unt i l s h e s t o p p edb re ath i n g. When s hesta

rt e d b re athinga g ain, hethen h e ld h e r fac eun der w ater u nti l sh efinally s t o p p edb re ath i n g. Abshire stabbe d h er at Marqua rd’s instruction. Then Ma rquard struck the bac k o f h e r n e c k w ithhis Gurka he a d k nif e . Abs hiredid

thesame th ingwi th his Bow ie knife. Sta c e y did no t di eins tantly . Sh e wa s bre athing wh e n Ma rq ua rd firs t trie d to drown h e r. Shesta

rt e d b re athi ng aft e r t

hefirs t attempt . M arq

ua rd a g ain t ri e d to drown her. Th eattac k wa s with out pro vo c atio n, and sh evainly

sought to d e fend

hers e lf by strug g ling. Marqua

rd had one hand over her

mouth and a knifein the other ha nd c uttingher t

hroa t and sta bb ingher in th ec he st. Atte mpting to drown the vic tim is c omp ara ble to strangulatio n an d wo uld 79 21 2 F . 3d at57 0-71 (c on cl ud i ng thatsi m i l ari nstruct i on on A l abam a H A C st atut ory aggravat i ng fa ct or w as suff i ci ent l y l i m i t i ng as t o b e c on st i tut i on al ). 33 S ec on d, “ the se nt enci ng courtm usthave m ade e i ther a n exp l i ci tfi nd i ng that the c r i m e w a s ‘ e s pe c i a l l y he i nous , a tr oc i ous orc rue l ’ ora n e xpl i c i tf i ndi ng tha tthe
c r im e e x h ib ite d th e n a r r o w in g c h a r a c te r is tic s ” im p le m e n te d b y th e s ta te c o u r ts . L i nd se y, 87 5 F . 2d at15 14 ; B ra dl ey , 21 2 F . 3d at57 0. H er e, the se nt enci ng court
m a de s uc h e xpl i c i tf

i ndi ngs a nd de t a i l e d the a c t s s uppor t i ng the H A C a ggr a va t i ng fa ct or. 34involve foreknowledg e of de ath, extreme anxiety or fe ar. Be causewe c onclude that Ma rquard’s trial counse l was not ineff ective a nd that there 35 was no error

on this iss ue, weneed not de termine whether a ny such er ror would beprejudicial or harmless. We do note, however, that the sentenc ing c ourt found thre e other ag gravating f

actor s as we ll as the HAC factor. 80 T hi rd, the se nt ence r’ s c on cl usi on as t o st ep tw o “ m ustno thave subv ert ed the na r r ow i ng f

unc t i on of

thos e w or ds by obs c ur i ng the bounda r i e s of the c l a s s of
c a s e s t o w hi c h the y appl y . ” L i nds e y , 875 F . 2d a t1514; B r a dl e y , 212 F . 3d a t570- 71 . In ot her w ords, t o revers e und erst ep three , thi s C ou rtw ou l d h ave t o fi nd that th e F lo r id a c o u r ts ’ d e te r m in a tio n th a t M a r q u a r d ’s c o n d u c t w a s “u n n e c e s s a r ily t orturou s t o the vi ct i m ” w as cl ea rl y e rr on eous. B ra dl ey , 21 2 F . 3d at57 1. G i ven the e vi de nc e i n thi s c a s e tha tM a r qua r d s t a bbe d the vi c t i m , thr e w he rt o the gr ound, tr ie d to d r o w n h e r , a n d h a c k e d a t h e rn e c k w ith a k n if e , a n d th a t s h e d id n o t d ie im m ed iately b u t tried to stru g g le, w e c an n o t co n clu d e th at th e s tate co u rt’s d et erm i n at i o n w as cl earl y erro n eo u s. 35 A c c o r d in g ly , to th e e x te n t th e s u b s ta n tiv e H A C is s u e is p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th is C o u rt as p ar t o f th e p re

ju d ice p ro n g , w e c o n clu d e th at th e F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i on – tha tthe H A C c ons t i tut i ona l i ty c l a i m l a c ks m e r i t– w a s notc ontr a r y t o, a n d d id n o t in v o lv e a n u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . V I . CONCL US I ON F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d M a r qur a d’ s 2881

U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n , a n d w e a f f ir m th a t d e n ia l. AF F I RME D.