F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT MAY 1, 2 012 JO HN LEY [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 72 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 02 60 -TJC -J RK

JASON DEMETRIUS S TEPHENS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 1, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ja so n Dem etriu s St ep he ns , a Flo rid a p ris on er o n d eat h ro w, app eal s fr om

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us , bro ug ht pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. St ep he ns fir starg ue s t ha t the tri al co urt erredin
se nt en ci ng hi m

to de ath b ecau se hi s s en te nc e is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly di sp ro po rti on at e p ur su an t t o t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t an d t he Supr em e Co urt juri sp ru de nc e la idou t i nEnmu nd v. Flo ri da , 45 8 U.S. 7 82 (19 82 ) an dTis on v. Ari zo na , 48 1 U.S. 1 37 (19 87 ). Ste ph en s al so cla im s t ha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e atth e g ui ltph as e an d a t the pe na lt y ph as e, an d t ha t the tri al co urt erred in de nyin g h is cla im

th attri al co un se l was op erat in g u nd er a co nf li ctof i nt eres t b y de le ga ti ng th e p rimary

res po ns ib il it y

forli ti ga ti ng Ste ph en s’ cas e to co un se l fo r St ep he ns ’ co -d efen dant . I. Ba ckgr ou nd The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s umm ari zedth e fac ts of t hi s ca se as f ol lo ws: The ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f gu il t i n t hi s ca se sh ows St ep he ns bro ke in to Ro be rt S pa rro w, Jr.’s h ou se on Ju ne 2, 1 99 7, at ap pr ox im at el y

2 p .m ., whi le a nu m

be r of pe op le were p res en t. He ro bb edth e p eo pl e th ere andki dn ap pe d ach il d. Th ere wer e th ree o r fo urothe r pe op le with S te ph en s atth e ti m e h e co m m it te d t he se cri m es . Howev er, St ep he ns refu se d t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he au th or it ie s in th ei r effo rts to id en ti fy th e o th er i nd iv idua ls . One o f th e in di vi du al s, Ho race Cu m m in gs (Cu m

m in gs ), tu rn edhi m se lf i nt o t he po li ce an d was tri edwith S te ph en s. Th e o th er two i nd iv idua ls were ne ve r ap pr eh en de d. St ep he ns tes ti fie d a t tria l tha t Cu m m in gs an d t he

2ot he r un id en ti fie d i nd iv idua ls wentto th e h ou se to bu y dru gs an d were u naware o f hi s p la n t o ro b t he oc cupa nt s. The re were eig htey ewit ne ss es inth e h ou se who tes ti fie d a t tri al . W hi le so m e o f th e d et ai ls of t he ey ewit ne ss ’ acco un ts va rie d, th ey all subs ta nt ia ll y

ag reedwith the fol lo win g s umm ary of ev en ts . St ep he ns en te redth e h ou se fir st , carrying a ni ne m il li m et er au to m at ic gu n. He was st an di ng ne xtto Ro be rt S pa rro w, III (Sp arro w III), wh o was th ree years andfou r m on th s o ld . Upo n s eei ng th e g un , th e ch il d’s m ot he r, Co ns ue lo Bro wn, p hysic al ly con fro nt edSte ph en s. St ep he ns hi t h er wi th th e g un on th e b rid ge of h er n os e. Ms . Bro wn fe ll to th e gr ou ndan d h er n os e b eg anto bl eed . Ste ph en s ejec te d abu ll eton to th e fl oo r an d i nf

orm edth e o ccupa nt s t ha t the gu n was lo ad ed . He to ld th em th athe want ed“ m on ey

an d wee d.” He demand edfro m Ro be rt Sp arro w, Jr. (Sp arro w Jr.) t he ke y s t o abl ue car l oc at edou ts id e th e ho us e. Sp arro w Jr. t ol d S te ph en s t he ke y s wer e wit h s om eo ne who was no t p res en t atth e h ou se . The reaf te r, two ot he r in di vi du al s en te redth e h ou se . One o f th e in di vi du al s was Cu m

m in gs , bu t the ot he r in di vi du al was n ev er id en ti fie d. St ep he ns m ad e al l the oc cupa nt s l ie do wn o n t he flo oras he sea rch edth ei r po ck et s fo r va lu ab le s. Th e uni de nt ifi edin di vi du al , refe rredto as P la ts or Dre ds be cau se of t he way he wore hi s h ai r, he ld th e o ccupa nt s o f th e h ou se on th e fl oo r atgu np oi ntwhi le Ste ph en s lo cat eda se cu redroo m

wher e h e co ul d p utth em . There was s om e te st im on y th atSp arro w III s ai d h e was be in g c ho ke d, b utitwas un cl ear f ro m th e rec or d wh o was ch ok in g h im . Afterin sp ect in g t he ho us e, St ep he ns de te rm in edth e b athr oo m was t he m os t s ecu re lo cat io n t o p uthi s h os ta ge s, an d h e o rd eredsi x o f th em , in cl ud in g si x- y ear- ol d Kah ari Grah am , to crawl to th e b athr oo m . Spa rro w III was ke ptsep arat e fro m

th e o th ers . Man y of t he ey ewit ne ss es tes ti fie d tha t St ep he ns sh owe d h is ID an d s ai d h e was tak in g S pa rro w III wit h h im as i ns ur an ce. Sp arro w Jr. te st ifi edSte ph en s ag reedhe wou ldlea ve th e ch il d a t the co rn er i f he was no t fo ll owe d. St ep he ns als o t es ti fie d h e ag reedto lea ve th e ch il d

3so m ewh ere, b uthe di d n otkn ow wh atlo cat io n t he ch il d’s fa th er h ad

refe rredto in hi s t es ti m on y . Afte r th e o ccupant s h adbe ensec ur edinth e b athr oo m , Spa rro w Jr .’ s h al f-b ro th er, Dav idCo bb (Co bb ), an d h is fri en d, Ro de ric k Gardne r (Gard ne r), arr iv edat t he ho us e. Upo n e nt ry , th ey to o wer e ro bb edan d fo rcedto crawl to th e b athr oo m . One o f th e it em s St ep he ns to okfro m

Gardne r was hi s ca r ke y s. Gard ne r was dri vi ng hi s m ot he r’s da rkgre enKia, wh ic h h adrol l-d ownwin do ws an d p ul lup lo ck s. Th ere was tes ti m on y th atSp arro w III h adrid de n i n t he Kia th e d ay be fo re h e was ki ll ed . On tha t d ay , he h adbe ensco ld edfor ro ll in g d own th e win do ws an d t ry in g t o o pe n t he car d oo r whi le it was m ov in g. Th e rec or d d idno t re fle ctth atSte ph en s h adan y way of kn owi ng whet he r th e ch il d was cap ab le of r ol li ng do wn t he win do ws orop en in g t he car d oo r. Whe n S te ph en s ex it edth e h ou se with t he ch il d, the othe r in di vi du al s wh o S te ph en s t es ti fie d h adon ly gon e to th e h ou se to bu y drug s, were sea te d i n t he bl ackcar the y ha d d riv ento th e sc en e. St ep he ns tes ti fie d t he ot he r in di vi du al s wav edhi m away fro m th e bl ackcar b ecau se he ha d t he ch il d. St ep he ns th enord eredth e b oy to ge t i nt o t he Kia. Bo th cars pu ll edaway fro m th e h ou se , with t he Kia fo ll owi ng th e b la ckcar. Aft er driv in g e ig htten th s o f a m il e, bo th cars pu ll edov er i n ares id en ti al ne ig hb orho od . It was ap pr ox im at el y 2: 30 p.m . The Ki a was park edon th e si de of t he st reetwitho utth e b en efi t of an y sh ad e. The ou ts id e te m

pe ratur e was ap pr ox im at el y 82 de gr ees an d s un ny. T he win do ws i n t he car wer e ro ll edup an d a ll of t he do or s were cl os ed . At 9 :2 5 p .m ., th e d arkgre enKia was fou nd . Spa rro w III was de ad , hi s b od y

lying face do wn i n t he pa ss en ge r’s se atwith h is feetan gl edto wardth e st eeri ng whee l. Th e St at e arg ue d S te ph en s su ffo cat edSp arro w III b efo re l eav in g t he car. St ep he ns tes ti fie d t he bo y was a li ve when he lef

t h im inth e car . The m ed ic al ex am in er, Bo ni faci o F lo ro , M.D., tes ti fie d t ha t i n hi s ex pe rt m ed ic al op in io n R ob ertSp arro w, III h adpro babl y di edof as ph yxi at io n. Ho wev er, h e co ul d n otco nc lu si ve ly rule ou t hypert he rm iaas t he cau se of d eat h. He p rimaril y rel ie d upo n m

ul ti pl e
4“pe te ch ia e” i n the face an d e y e li ni ng as a n i nd ic at io n o f

as ph yxi at io n. He al so no te d t he re was a sm al l fo ur -m il li m et er s crat ch on th e b ackof t he ch il d’s n eck . Dr. Flo ro co nc lu de d t hi s s crat ch was pr ob ab ly caus edby a fin ge rn ai l. Dr. Fl or o t es ti fie d t he ch il d’s l owe r li p was bru is ed , in di cat in g h e h adbe ensu ffo cat ed . Dr. Flo ro als o rel ie d upo n t he lac k o f fi ng erp rin ts or o th er ev id en ce s ho win g t he ch il d t rie d t o ro ll do wn t he win do w or o pe n t he do orinco nc lu di ng it was m or e li ke ly tha t Sp arro w III d ie d fr om asp hyxi at io n t ha n hypert he rm ia
. St ev enFran k Du nt on , M.D., tes ti fie d o n t he de fen da nt ’s beh al f. Afte r rev ie win g Dr. Fl or o’s re po rt, h e co nc lu de d S pa rro w III d ie d fro m hypert he rm ia . Dr. Dun to n re li edup onth e fac t tha t the re were ve ry few si gn s o f as ph yxi at io n. Ho wev er, h e d idadm itasp hyxi at io n can ne ve r be co nc lu si ve ly rule d o utbe cau se itcanleave no si gn s at au to ps y . Dr. Dun to n a dm it te d h y pe rth erm iaby its el f sh ou ldno t caus e pe te ch ia e, whe reas asp hyxi at io n c ou ld . Howev er, h e wen t o n t o ex pl ai n t ha t g rav it y

wil l p ul l the bl oo d d own to th e lo wes t p oi ntof th e b od y when th e h eartst op s p um pi ng , cau si ng th e b lo odto po ol to su ch a de gr ee tha t v enul es rup tu re re su lt in g i n p et ech ia e. He at tri bu te d t he di sc ol or at io n o f th e ch il d’s l ip s t o the ti ss ue s dry in g o ut aft er d eath. Th eref

or e, he co nc lu de d Dr. Fl or o e rredinrel y in g o n the pe te ch ia e to di ag no se th e ch il d’s d eat h a s b ei ng cau se d b y as ph yxi at io n. Bas edup onth es e fac ts th e jury con cl ud edSte ph en s was gu il ty of fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r. The v erd ic t fo rm

di d n otde li ne at e b etween fir st -d eg ree p rem ed it at edm ur de r an d fi rs t-d eg ree f

el on y m ur de r. St ep he ns v. St at e , 78 7 S o. 2 d 7 47 , 75 0- 52 (Fl a. 20 01 ) (p er cu ria m) ( St ep he ns I ) (fo ot no te s o m it te d) . Step he ns was c on vi ct edof o ne co un t o f arm edrob be ry an d
on e co un t o f fi rs t d eg ree m ur de r. The ju ry

reco m m en de d b y

a ni ne to th ree v ot e th atSte ph en s b e se nt en cedto de ath fo r th e m ur de r of Ro be rt S pa rro w III. Id

. at

575 2. In acco rd an ce wi thth e jury’ s re co m m en da ti on , th e tr ia l co urt s en te nc ed St ep he ns to de ath fo r th e fi rs t d eg ree m ur de r ch arg e. Ste ph en s h adpre vi ou sl y pl edgu il ty to s ev eral ot he r co un ts , an d t he tri al jud ge sen te nc edhi m to 1
acco m panyin g c on se cu ti ve an d c on cu rren t t erm s o f li fe o n t he rob be ry an d ki dn ap in g c ou nt s. Id . at 7 52 -5 3. On d ire ctap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re jecte d S te ph en s’ arg um en ts , in cl ud in g h is arg um en t tha t h is sen te nc e was un la wfu l u nd er Tiso n an d Enmu nd , an d a ffi rm edSte ph en s’ con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . Id

. at 7 53 . Step he ns
subs eque nt ly file d ape ti ti on forwritof c ert io rari whi ch was d en ie d. St ep he ns v. Flo ri da , 53 4 U.S. 1 02 5 (2 00 1)
. Ther eaft er, St ep he ns fil eda po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n i n t he st at e ci rcu it
co urt, an d a fte r anev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e st at e co urt d en ie d re li ef. St ep he ns ap pe al edan d s im

ul ta ne ou sl y

fil eda st at e h ab eas pe ti ti on to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. OnNov em

be r 15 , 20 07 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e d en ia l o f po st co nv ic ti onrel ie f an d d en ie d t he habe as pe ti ti on . St ep he ns v. St at e , 97 5 S o. 2 d 40 5 (F la . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m) ( St ep he ns II ). Ste ph en s fi le d afed eral habe as pe ti ti on whi ch was d en ie d o n M arch 17 , 20 11
. Prior to trial, Stephens pled guilty to one count of a

rmed kidnaping , three counts of 1 arme d robber

y , two counts of attempted r obbery , one count of arme d burg lary

and one c ount of ag grava ted batter y . 6II . Stan da rd o f Rev ie w

Thi s ap pe al is go ve rn edby 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 , as a m en de d b y th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6. Be cau se Ste ph en s’s cl ai m s wer e ad

jud ic at edon th e m eri ts inhi s s ta te pro ceed in gs , § 2 25 4( d) all ows fed eral habe as rel ie f on ly if th e st at e co urt ad jud ic at io n (1 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry to , or i nv ol ve d a n un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2) res ul te d in a de ci si on th atwas b as edon anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fact s i n l ig htof the ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on de
no vo . Har re ll

v. But te rw or th , 25 1 F .3d92 6, 9 30 (11 thCir . 20 01 ) (p er cu ria m).

II I. Di sc us si on A. Propo rti on al ity St ep he ns arg ue s tha t h is de ath s en te nc e is di sp ro po rti on at e u nd er the Eig ht h Am en dm en t b ecau se , at t ria l, the pro se cu ti on was n otrequi redto pro ve th athe in te nt io na ll y

ki ll edth e v ic ti m . Rath er, St ep he ns was c on vi ct edof f irs t d eg ree fel on y m ur de r. The C ru el an d Un us ua l Pu ni sh m en ts Claus e o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t i s d ire ct ed , inpa rt, “ ‘agai ns t al l p un is hm en ts whi ch by the ir e xc es si ve le ng th or s ev eri ty are gre at ly dis pr op orti on edto th e o ffen se s ch arg ed .’ ” Enmu nd , 45 8 U.S. at78 8 (quo ti ng W eems v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 7 U.S. 3 49 , 37 1 (1 91 0) ). In

7Enmu nd , th e Supr em e Co urt o ve rtu rn eda de fen da nt ’s dea th sen te nc e fo r fel on y

m ur de r be cau se , inth atcas e, th ere was “no fin di ng of a n i nt en t t o k il l.” Enmu nd , 45 8 U.S. at79 5. In Tiso n , ho wev er, the Supr em e Co urt qua li fie d t hi s h ol di ng , in di cat in g tha t a d eat h s en te nc e fo r fel on y m ur de r can be su st ai ne d wh ere t he re i s

“ m ajorpa rti ci pa ti onin th e fel on y co m m it te d, co m

bi ne d wi th reck le ss in di ffer en ce to hu m anli fe.” Tiso n , 48 1 U.S. at15 8. Th e Tiso n co urt em ph as iz edth at“ [a] cri ti cal face t o f th e in di vi du al iz edde te rm in at io n o f cu lp ab il ity requi redincap it al
cas es is th e m en ta l s ta te with wh ic h t he de fen da ntco m m it s t he cri m e.” 4 81 U.S. at 15 6. Th us , th e rel ev an t que st io n b efo re u s i s wh ethe r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s fin di ng th atSte ph en s ac te d wi th th e m en ta l s ta te , andlev el of i nv ol ve m en t requi redby Enmu nd

an d Tiso n , was co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. At th e p en al ty pha se of S te ph en s’ tri al , th e tr ia l ju dg e subm it te d aform to th e jury requ iri ng itto an swe r, by way of a dv is ory

sen te nc e, whe th er St ep he ns ki ll edth e v ic ti m , or a tt em pt edto ki ll th e v ic ti m , or i nt en de d th atth e v ic ti m

be ki ll ed , or t ha t h e p la y eda si gn ifi can t ro le inth e un de rlyin g fe lo ny andact edwith re ck le ss in di ffer en ce t o h um anli fe. The jury an swe redth e que st io n i n t he affi rm at iv e, an d was als o p ol le d fo ll owi ng th e an no un cem en t o f th e v erd ic t. Inacco rd an ce wi th th e jury’ s d et erm in at io n a nd
reco m m en da ti on , th e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edSte ph en s t o d eat h o n t he fir stde gr ee 8m

ur de r co un t. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the tri al co urt’s jury in st ru ct io ns m ad e cl ear t ha t the jury co ul d n otco ns id er the de ath p en al ty as a po ss ib le pu ni sh m en t u nl es s i t u na ni m ou sl y fou nd , beyon d areas on ab le do ub t, tha t St ep he ns ki ll edth e v ic ti m , att em pt edto ki ll th e v ic ti m , in te nd edth e v ic ti m to be ki ll edor p lay eda si gn ifi can t ro le inth e u nd erl y in g fe lo ny andact edwith a reck le ss in di ffer en ce t o h um anli fe. The tri al co urt’s i nt erro ga to ry , whi ch m irr or ed th e la ng ua ge of Tiso n , was s pe ci fic al ly ans weredinth e aff irmativ e b y

th e jury. W e th eref

or e can no t fi ndth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral law was un reas on ab le inth is cas e. B. Ine ffec tiv e Ass is ta nce a t the G ui lt Pha se St ep he ns ne xtarg ue s t ha t dur in g t he gu il t p ha se of tria l, h is tri al co un se l
was in effe ct iv e fo r: ( 1) advi si ng Ste ph en s t o p le adgu il ty prio r to tri al to th e
un de rlyin g fe lo ny (arm edki dn ap in g) of t he fel on y m ur de r ch arg e; (2) advi si ng St ep he ns to pl eadgu il ty prio r to tri al to th e arm edrob be ry of De rri ckDix on–wh en Dix ontes ti fie d a t tria l tha t h e h adno t b een rob be d– an d the n fa il in g t o fi le a
m ot io n t o wi th dr aw th atgu il ty ple a whe n t he pro se cu ti on adm it te d t hi s t es ti m on y sh ou ldha ve res ul te d i n adi rect edve rd ic t; (3) fai li ng to pe rs on al ly atte ndke y de po si ti on s, i ns te adof r el y in g o n t he att en da nc e o f hi s co -d efen da nt ’s cou ns el ; (4 ) fai li ng to m ov e an d a rg ue fora ch an ge of v enue ba se d o n p reju di ci al pre tri al
9publ ic it y ; (5 ) fai li ng to ob ject t o n um ero us in st an ces of i m pr op er co nduc t b y

th e pr os ecu to r atth e g ui ltph as e; (6) fai li ng to ad equa te ly argu e m ot io ns forjud gm en t of acqui tt al an d n ew tr ia l; (7) de le ga ti ng hi s re sp on si bi li ti es to co -d efen da nt ’s
co un se l; an d (8 ) fai li ng to subjec t the pro se cu ti on ’s cas e to m ean in gf ul adve rs ari al te st in g u nd er Uni te d Sta tes v. C ro ni c, 46 6 U.S. 6 48 (19 84 ). W e co ns id er ea ch of the se cla im s u nd er the tes t es tabl is he d i n Stri ckl an d v

. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7 (1 98 4) . To o bt ai n re li ef o n a n i ne ffec ti ve
as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m , Fi rs t, the de fen da ntm

us t s ho w th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . This requi res sh owi ng th atco un se l m ad e err or s s o s eri ou s th atco un se l was no t fu nc ti on in g a s t he “ co un se l” gu aran te edth e de fen da ntby the Six th Am en dm en t. Sec on d, the de fen da ntm us t sh ow t ha t the de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e d efen se . This requi res sh owi ng th atco un se l’s erro rs were s o s eri ou s as to de pr iv e th e d efen dantof afai r tr ia l, a t ria l wh os e res ul t i s re li ab le
. Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 7. (1 ) Co uns el ’s ad

vi ce t o p le ad gu il tyto arm ed

kidn ap ing At St ep he ns ’ st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n e vi de nt iary he ari ng , th e tr ia l co urt fo un d th atSte ph en s’ lawyer was d efi ci en t fo r advi si ng Ste ph en s t o p le adgu il ty to arm ed ki dn ap in g b ecau se th is was “ no t a r eas on ab le st rat eg y ,” an d t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ag reed
. St ep he ns II , 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 19 . Howev er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt al so fou ndth atSte ph en s co ul d n otde m on st rat e Stri ckl an d pre jud ic e. In
10or de r to sh ow tha t co un se l’s d efi ci en cy pre jud ic edhi m , Ste ph en s m

us t s ho w th at

“bu t fo r co un se l’s erro rs , he wo ul d n otha ve pl ead edgu il ty andwou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o t ria l.” Hil l v. Lo ckh ar t , 47 4 U.S. 5 2, 5 9 (1 98 5) . Step he ns
can no t m eetth is st an da rd . The re co rdrefl ect s t ha t the pl ea t o t he ki dn ap in g c ha rg e
was m ad e kno win gl y

an d v ol un ta ril y . Furt he rm or e, St ep he ns co nc ed edhi s in vo lv em en t i n t he ki dn ap in g dur in g h is own tes ti m on y , adm it ti ng th athe to okth e vi ct im fro m th e h ou se . Cou ns el ut il iz edSte ph en s’ pl eas inhi s ar gu m en t atth e pe na lty ph as e, arg ui ng th atth e jury sho ul d c on si de r th em as e vi de nc e o f St ep he ns ’
rem or se an d re habi li ta ti on po te nt ia l. Mo reo ve r, th ro ug ho utth e tr ia l, co un se l arg ue d t ha t St ep he ns di d n ot in te nt io na ll y ki ll th e v ic ti m , whi ch was t he pri m ary po in t o f co nt en ti on at t ria l. W e can no t s ay

th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t St ep he ns fai le d t o s ho w th athi s co un se l’s d efi ci en t s tra te gy preju di cedth es e pr oc eed in gs was c on tra ry to or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law. (2 ) Co uns el ’s ad

vi ce t o p le ad gu il tyto thearm ed

ro bb er y o f Derri ck Dix on Lik ewis e, St ep he ns arg ue s t ha t co un se l was de fic ie ntforadvi si ng hi m to pl eadgu il ty to the arm edrob be ry of De rri ckDix on , andsubs eque nt ly fail in g t o
m ov e to withdraw the gu il ty ple a, be cau se Dix on tes ti fie d t ha t n ot hi ng was t ak en
11fro m

hi m . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ag ai n d et erm in edth atSte ph en s co ul d n ot
es tabl is h p reju di ce wi th res pe ctto th is cla im :

Dur in g t he de fen se ’s cas e, St ep he ns adm it te d t o ro bb in g Derri ckDix on . He tes ti fie d t ha t h e to ok$2 0 fr om Derri ckDix on , and whe n c ou ns el ask edhi m

ab ou t Di xo n’s t es ti m on y th atSte ph en s d id no t t ak e an yth in g fr om

hi m , Ste ph en s ad m it te d t ha t h e d idinfacttak e m on ey fro m Dix on . Thu s, St ep he ns fai ls to de m on st rat e th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th atth e o ut co m e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t ha d c ou ns el m ov edto withd raw the gu il ty ple a to th e ch arg e o f arm ed ro bb ery. Acco rd in gl y , th e tr ia l co urt p ro pe rly den ie d re li ef o n t hi s cl ai m . St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 20 . Mor eo ve r, th e ro bb ery of Derri ckDix on was n ot pr ejud ic ia l b ecau se itwas i ns ig ni fic an t i n c om pa ris on to th e o ve rwh el m in g
ev id en ce tha t h e ro bb edot he r in di vi du al s i n t he ho us e an d k id nape d t he vi ct im
. W e th eref

or e can no t s ay

th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s cl ai m
was co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. (3 ) Co uns el ’s failu reto pe rs on al lyat te nd ke y d ep os it io ns The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t co un se l was de fic ie ntforfai li ng to pe rs on al ly atte ndnu m ero us cri ti cal de po si ti on s. St ep he ns II , 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 18
. Howev er, Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t St ep he ns co ul d n otsh ow pr ejud ic e b ecau se he fai le d t o “ de m on strat e th at , bu t fo r co un se l’s fa il ur e to att en d

12th es e d ep os it io ns , th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l

wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t.” Id

. Thi s co nc lu si on is no t co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral law. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the de po si ti on s were at te nd edby co-d efen dant ’s cou ns el . Alth ou ghwe do no t co un te na nc e th e fai lu re t o p ers on al ly atte ndim po rta ntde po si ti on s, St ep he ns di d n otde m on st rat e be fo re the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt an d d oe s n otde m on st rat e h ere h ow h e was pr ejud ic edby thi s fa il ur e. (4 ) Co uns el ’s failu reto m ov e a nd ar gu e fo r a cha nge o

f ven ue d ue t o a bn orm al pr et rial pu bl ic it y St ep he ns ne xtcla im s t ha t h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in de pe nd en tl y

m ov e fo r a ch an ge of v enue , as o pp os edto rel y in g o n h is co de fen da nt ’s m ot io n, due to ab no rm al pre tri al publ ic it y . Step he ns ag ai n c an no t de m on st rat e p reju di ce. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re as on edth atSte ph en s “ fai le d to all eg e fac ts in di cat in g abn orm al pre tri al publ ic it y .” St ep he ns I , 78 7 S o. 2 d a t 75 7. The co urt fo un d t ha t [T]he tr ia l co urt wen t b ey on d t he ne ces sary pre cau ti on s t o e ns ur e th e jury sele ct edwas fa ir a ndim pa rti al by con du ct in g i nd iv idua l v oi r di re of th e p ot en ti al juro rs to de te ctan y po te nt ia l juro r who ha d b een pe rs ua de d b y

th e p retria l p ub li ci ty. Outof t he 11 5 p ot en ti al juro rs , th e co urt l en ie nt ly dis m is se d 4 0 p ot en ti al juro rs be cau se itfel t the re was “ so m e rea so nabl e d oubt ” th atth ey co ul d b e fai r an d i m

pa rti al
. Fu rth er, the co urt n ot edtwo -th ird s o f th e p ot en ti al juro rs , in cl ud in g 13al l o f th e juro rs who were u lt im at el y sel ect edto serve on th e jury, st at edth ey

co ul d b e fai r an d i m

pa rti al . Acco rd in gl y , th e tr ia l co urt act edwithi n i ts di sc ret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n fo r a ch an ge of ve nu e. Id

. , at 7 57 -5 8. As th e Supr em e Co urt h as no te d, Ourde ci si on s h av e ri gh tl y seta hi ghba r fo r al le ga ti on s o f juro r pr ejud ic e due to pre tri al publ ic it y . News co ve rag e o f ci vi l an d cri m in al tri al s o f publ ic in te res t co nv ey s t o s oc ie ty at la rg e h ow o ur jus ti ce s y st em

op erat es . Anditis a pr em is e o f th atsyste m th atjuro rs wil l s etasi de th ei r pr eco nc ep ti on s wh enth ey en te r th e co urtro om

an d de ci de cas es ba se d o n the ev id en ce p res en te d. Skil li ng v. Uni te d Sta tes , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 89 6, 2 92 5 n .34 (20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. St ep he ns ha s n otde m on st rat edth atth e jury was so tai nt edby pretria l p ub li ci ty th atth ey co ul d n otde ci de th e cas e so le ly on t he ev id en ce an d t he jud ge ’s in st ru ct io ns . Ind eed , th e rec or d d em on st rat es th atth e tr ia l co urt wen t t o g reat le ng th s t o v oi r di re the jury with re ga rdto th e p retria l p ub li ci ty of th is cas e, an d t o in su la te th e jury from

th e ta in t o f im

pa rti al it y . Thu s, we ca nn otsay tha t the Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s cl ai m is co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law. (5 ) Fa ilur e to ob

je ct to ins ta nces of im

pr op er co nd uct bythepr os ecutor

at the gu il t p ha se St ep he ns ’ cl ai m

th atco un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o
nu m ero us in st an ces of i m pr op er co nduc t b y

th e p ro se cu to r al so fai ls . As th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d 14Inord er t o p rev ai l o n an i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m on th es e g ro un ds , Ste ph en s m us t fi rs t s ho w th atth e co m m en ts were im pr op er o r ob

jecti on ab le an d t ha t the re was no tac ti cal reas on for fai li ng to ob

ject. Se co nd ly, St ep he ns m us t d em on st rat e th atth e co m m en ts de pr iv ed“ th e d efen da ntof afai r an d i m pa rti al tri al , m at eri al ly con tri bu te [d ] to th e co nv ic ti on , [were] so ha rm fu l o r fu nd am en ta ll y

tai nt edas t o re qu ire a ne w tri al , or [we re] so in fla m m at ory th atth ey m ig htha ve in flu en cedth e jury to re ach a m or e se ve re v erd ic t tha n t ha t i t wo ul d h av e o th erwi se .” Sp en cer v. St at e , 64 5 S o. 2 d 3 77 , 38 3 (F la . 19 94 ). The t ria l co urt fo un d t ha t n on e o f th e co m m en ts was s o p reju di ci al th atSte ph en s was de ni eda fai r tr ia l, an d we ag ree. When readin co nt ex t, the se co m m en ts were n otim

pr op er an d d idno t d ep riv e St ep he ns of afai r tr ia l. St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 20 (al te rat io ns inori gi na l). Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt de te rm in edth atth e co m

m en ts of the pro se cu to r were n ota su ffi ci en t b as is to
rev ers e th e co nv ic ti on . “ Bec au se th e al le ge d c omm en ts were n otim pr op er, St ep he ns fai ls to sh ow t ha t h e was pre jud ic edun de r Stri ckl an d .” St ep he ns II , 97 5 So . 2dat 4 21 . W e can no t s ay th atth e st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t St ep he ns
was no t p reju di cedby cou ns el ’s lac k o f ob jecti on was u nr eas on ab le or c on tra ry to cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. (6 ) Fa ilur e to ad

eq ua te lyar

gu e m ot io ns for jud gm ent of a cq uitt

al an d n ew t

rial St ep he ns arg ue s tha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r m ak in g a“ba re bo ne s” m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d m ot io n fo r ne w tri al , andth eref or e fai le d t o p res erv e v ari ou s ar gu m en ts forSte ph en s’ di rectap pe al . On d ire ctap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d idfin d t ha t co un se l h adfai le d t o p res erv e th es e
15arg um en ts . St ep he ns I, 78 7 S o. 2 d at75 3 (“ Thi s cl ai m was n otpre se rv edfor ap pe al be cau se Ste ph en s’ cou ns el m ad e a b are b on es m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , witho utan y

sp eci fic arg um en t.”) . Howev er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt
wen t o n t o d eny

bo th m ot io ns on th e m eri ts , fin di ng th atth ere was

“ ov erwh el m in g” ev id en ce o f gu il t, an d tha t the “ m an ife stweig htof t he ev id en ce pr ov es , at a m in im

um , th atSte ph en s co m

m it te d fe lo ny m

ur de r.” St ep he ns I

, 78 7 So . 2d at75 4 (“ Thi s i ss ue ha s n otbe enpro pe rly pres erv edforap pe al be cau se St ep he ns ’ co un se l m ad e a b are b on es m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. . . . Mor eo ve r, ev enif th is is su e h adbe enpre se rv edforap pe al , we wou ldfin d n o e rro r be cau se th e cl ai m is witho utm eri t.”) . On p os t-c on vi ct io n re vi ew, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt de te rm in edth atco un se l’s fa il ur e to m or e v ig or ou sl y arg ue th es e m ot io ns di d n ot pr ejud ic e St ep he ns be cau se , on di rectap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt b ot h ackno wled ge d t ha t the cla im s wer e u np res erv edan d d en ie d t he m on th e m eri ts in
an y cas e. W e can no t s ay

th atth is co nc lu si on was c on tra ry to or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law. (7 ) Del egat io n o f co uns el ’s res

po ns ib il it ies to c o- de

fend an t’s co uns el St ep he ns arg ue s tha t h e h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r de le ga ti ng
subs ta nt iv e dut ie s t o c ou ns el forhi s co -d efen da nt . Ste ph en s m ak es a si m il ar,
se pa rat e arg um en t, al be iton th e sa m e g ro un ds , th atco un se l was pe r s e in effe ct iv e
16be cau se he was o pe rat in g u nd er a co nf li ctof i nt eres t: “be cau se [St ep he ns ] was actua ll y rep res en te d b y

th e atto rn ey

forco de fen da ntCum

m in gs an d b ecau se Cu m m in gs ’ an d S te ph en s’ def en se s wer e an ta go ni st ic , hi s ri gh t t o c on fli ct -fre e
co un se l was vi ol at ed .” St ep he ns II , 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 22 . Alth ou gh Ste ph en s fr am es th is arg um en t as two sep arat e cl ai m s, we ad dr es s the m to ge th er h ere. Afte r a car efu l re vi ew of

th e rec or d i n t hi s ca se , we con cl ud e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt was no t u nr eas on ab le inco nc lu di ng th atSte ph en s’ at to rn ey was a ct in g a s h is sep arat e co un se l, wi th on ly Step he ns ’ in te res ts inm in d. Lik ewis e, al th ou gh Ste ph en s’ att orne y fai le d t o a tt en d s om e k ey de po si ti on s, as
no te d abo ve , andfai le d t o o bjec t i n c ert ai n i ns ta nc es , itis ap pa ren t fr om th e rec or d th atSte ph en s’ cou ns el was c on cern edon ly w it h S te ph en s’ in te res ts , andwas n ot op erat in g u nd er a co nf

li ctof i nt eres t. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d en ia l o f th es e cl ai m s was th eref

or e n otco nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral law. (8 ) Fa ilur e to sub

je ct thepr os ecut

io n’s ca seto m ea ni

ng ful ad ver sa rial tes ting Ina rel at edcla im , Ste ph en s as se rts th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt s ho ul d
no t h av e requi redhi m

to sh ow t ha t h e was pre

jud ic edby cou ns el ’s all eg ederro rs
an d s ho ul d h av e in st eadap pl ie d t he pre su m pt io n o f pr ejud ic e u nd er

Uni te d Sta tes v. Cr on ic , 46 6 U.S. 6 48 (19 84 ) be cau se co un se l en ti rel y fai le d t o s ub

ject t he

17pr os ecu ti on ’s cas e to a m ean in gf ul adve rs ari al tes ti ng by (a) co nc ed in g t he
un de rlyin g fe lo ny, (b) l ab or in g u nd er an actua l co nf li ctof i nt eres t, an d (c ) fai li ng to att en d k ey

de po si ti on s. Th is cla im

fai ls for th e rea so ns alr eady

ad dr es se d. St ep he ns co un se l ar gu edth ro ug ho uttri al th atSte ph en s was gu il ty of ki dn ap in g
an d s ev eral ot he r se rio us cri m es , bu t ar gu edth athe was n otgu il ty of cap it al
m ur de r. Thi s “ adve rs ari al tes ti ng ” is ap pa ren t thr ou gh ou t al l p ha se s o f th e tr ia l. Lik ewis e, as ad dr es se d abo ve , cou ns el was n otlab or in g u nd er an actua l co nf li ctof in te res t, an d was no t co ns tru ct iv el y or a ctua ll y

ab se ntfro m

cri ti cal st ag es of t he pr oc eed in gs , with t he ex cep ti on of s ev eral de po si ti on s. Thus , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt p ro pe rly requ ire d S te ph en s t o d em on st rat e th athe was p reju di cedby
co un se l’s al le ge d e rro rs un de r Stri ckl an d
. C. Inef fect iv e Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el at t he Pena lty Phas e St ep he ns arg ue s tha t, i n re ga rdto th e p en al ty pha se , hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e b y

(1) fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t ce rta in mit ig at in g e vi de nc e; (2) fai li ng to ne ut ral iz e h is pri orvi ol en t fe lo ny con vi ct io n; (3) fai li ng to ob ject t o im pr op er co m

m en ts of t he pro se cu to r du rin g the pe na lt y ph as e; (4) co nc ed in g
va rio us ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces th ro ug h g ui lt y pl eas ; an d (5 ) co nc ed in g v ari ou s ag gr av at in g fa ct or s n otfou ndby the tri al co urt dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t. We
co ns id er ea ch in tu rn .
18(1

) Fa ilur e to inv es ti

ga tean d p rese nt

certa in m it

ig at ing e vide nce At the pe na lt y

ph as e, St ep he ns ’ co un se l p res en te d t enwitne ss es to tes ti fy to St ep he ns ’ go odqu al it ie s. St ep he ns arg ue s, h owe ve r, th atco un se l fa il edto ad equa te ly inv es ti ga te ot he r m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. The F lo rid a Supr em e Co urt ad dr es se d t hi s i ss ue as f

ol lo ws: Co un se l t es ti fie d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athi s s tra te gy was to hu m an iz e St ep he ns by call in g fa m il y an d fr ie nd s t o t es ti fy

th at St ep he ns was alo vi ng pe rs on , th athe ha d g oo d re la ti on s wi th ch il dr en , andth athe to okcare of d iff eren t ch il dr en . Thi s s tra te gy was es pe ci al ly im

po rta ntbe cau se th e cas e in vo lv edth e d eat h o f a ch il d. Co un se l fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t h e was trying to ge t the jury to he ar go odth in gs ab ou t St ep he ns inanatt em ptto ge t a l ife sen te nc e. The reco rdde m on st rat es th atco un se l d idinfactcal l t enlay witn es se s du rin g t he pe na lty

ph as e. All ten witne ss es tes ti fie d t ha t St ep he ns was a lo vi ng , che erfu l, an d b rig htpe rs on who cam e fro m a lo vi ng fam il y an d wh o was go odwith c hi ld ren . St ep he ns co nt en ds th atco un se l fa il edto di sc ov er m an y of t he de ta il s t ha t es tabl is he d c om pe ll in g m it ig at io n, s uc h a s h is dru g u se , anin ci de ntwher e St ep he ns st art eda fi re ata ne ig hb or ’s ho us e, an d th e acc id en ta l s ho ot in g o f St ep he ns ’ br ot he r. Howev er, co un se l te st ifi edth athe di d n otco ns id er the se in ci de nt s as m it ig at io n a ndth at su ch in fo rm at io n wen t ag ai ns t h is st rat eg y to po rtr ay

Ste ph en s as a “ go odgu y .” St ep he ns II, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 14 . A recen t l in e o f cas es fro m th is Co urt em

ph as iz es th e im po rtanc e o f pe na lt y

ph as e in ve st ig at io n, p art ic ul arl y wher e a d efen da ntm ay ha ve a pr io r hi st ory

of m en ta l i ll ne ss or d is ab il it y or ahi st ory

of abu se an d n eg le ct in th e h om e. Fo r ex am

pl e, in W il li ams v. All en , 54 2 F .3d13 26 (11 thCir . 20 08 ),

19we he ldth at , wher e th e ab us e ex pe rie nc edby a defe nd an t fa r ex ceed s t ha t wh ic h

was pre se nt edat t he pe na lt y ph as e, co un se l was de fic ie nt , andth e d efen dant pr ejud ic ed , by co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntth e ad di ti on al ev id en ce. Here, h owe ve r, co un se l’s s tra te gy was to om itall ne ga ti ve ev id en ce ab ou t St ep he ns ’ ch il dh oo d. Th ere was ev id en ce p res en te d a t the po st -co nv ic ti on ph as e reg ard in g abu se th atSte ph en s s uf fere d a t the ha nd s o f hi s fa th er, tha t St ep he ns
was a habi tu al dru g u se r an d h adbe enus in g dru gs on th e d ay of S parro w III’s de ath, tha t h e h adacci de nt al ly set f ire to hi s n ei ghbo r’s ho us e atth e ag e o f ei gh t,
an d t ha t h e acc id en ta ll y

sh othi s b ro th er. Und er the se cir cum st an ces , itwas
reas on ab le for

co un se l t o c on cl ud e th atfai lu re t o p res en t s uc h e vi de nc e wou ld ha ve un de rm in edhi s “ go odgu y ” p en al ty pha se st rat eg y . Con trary to th e ci rcu m st an ces of W

il li ams v. All en , wher e co un se l fa il edto ful ly inv es ti ga te th e li ne of d efen se he actua ll y pu rs ue d, an d wh ere t he jury di d n othe ar al l o f th e
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e rel at edto th atsp eci fic de fen se , her e, St ep he ns cla im s t ha t
co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pre se nttes ti m on y th atwas o pp os it e to , and
wou ldha ve en ti rel y

un de rm in ed , cou ns el ’s strat eg y . Whi le co un se l h as a du ty to in ve st ig at e p ot en ti al ly mit ig at in g c irc um st an ces , pu rs ui t o f th e “ go odgu y ” 2
The AB A Guidelines for the Appointment and Perf ormanc e of Counsel in De ath 2 Penalty Cases 11.4.1(c ) (1989) , for e x ample, provide that investiga tions int o mitigatingevidenc e “should comprise e ffor

ts to discover all re asonably available mitigatingevidenc e and e vidence to rebut a ny ag gravating e vidence that may be introduce d by

the prosec utor.” This includes 20de fen se was re as on ab le inth is cas e, an d c ou ns el m ay “ reas on ab ly decl in e to in ve st ig at e a l in e o f de fen se th or ou gh ly,” where s uc h i nv es ti ga ti on wou ldlea d
on ly to fa ct s t ha t wo ul d b e h arm fu l t o t he de fen se . Ch an dl er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F.3 d 1 30 5, 1 31 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ( en ba nc ). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s
co nc lu si on th atco un se l was no t d efi ci en t fo r fai li ng to in ve st ig at e th es e ad di ti on al ci rcu m st an ces was the refo re n otco nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. St ep he ns ’ cl ai m

th atco un se l fa il edto co ns ul t an d c al l m en ta l h eal thex pe rts
as witne ss es inm it ig at io n o f hi s cr im e li ke wis e fai ls be cau se itis un supp orte d b y th e rec or d: Co un se l t es ti fie d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athe co ns ul te d t wo ex pe rts , Dr. Ernes t M il le r an d Dr. Pe te r Kno x. He fu rth er t es ti fie d th athe di d n otco ns ul t b ot h e xp ert s ju stto kn ow i f St ep he ns was co m pe te ntto st an d tria l o r if

Ste ph en s was in sa ne at t he ti m e o f th e cri m e, bu t al so to see if t he y co ul d h el p d et erm in e if

th ere was an y m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n. Co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t af te r rev ie win g t he rep orts of b ot h e xp ert s, h e b el ie ve d t he ex pe rts ’ co nc lu si on s wer e de tri m en ta l t o S te ph en s an d t ha t i t wo ul d n otbe inSte ph en s’ bes t in te res t t o p res en t the fin di ng s.

investigating, whe re r eleva nt, a def endant’ s school rec ords, social ser vice a nd welfa re r ecor ds, juvenile depe ndency

or fa mily court re cords, medic al history , criminal history , drugabuse history , and employ

ment history , and conduc ting a psycholog ical eva luation. Id. 21St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 14 . The tria l co urt cr ed it edth is tes ti m on y , andth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d et erm in edth atth is was s uf fic ie ntto in ve st ig at e St ep he ns ’
m en ta l h eal th forpu rp os es of t he gu il t p ha se of h is cap it al tri al
. Add it io na ll y , at the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , cou ns el tes ti fie d tha t h e h adno t
wan te d t o c al l Dr. Mi ll er b ecau se th e st at e wou ldha ve th enbe enab le to hi gh li gh t
se ve ral in ci de nt s co nt ai ne d i n Dr. M il le r’s rep ort, s pe ci fic al ly the ars on in ci de nt , th e acc id en ta l s ho ot in g, an d t he factth atSte ph en s h adbe enex pe ll edfro m sch oo l fo r fi gh ti ng . Cou ns el tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t wan t the jury to he ar ab ou t the se fact s b ecau se he be li ev edth atth ey were ad ve rs e to co un se l’s “ go odguy ” d efen se st rat eg y . Sim il arl y , Dr. Kno x’s re po rt i nd ic at edth atSte ph en s m ay ha ve su ffer ed fro m anan ti -s oc ia l p ers on al it y di so rd er. At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , cou ns el to ld th e co urt tha t h e d idno t co ns id er s uc h e vi de nc e as mit ig at io n e vi de nc e, an d t ha t “ I do n’t ev er wan t the jury to he ar tha t.” Dur in g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e tr ia l co urt h eardth e te st im on y of ath ird
m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt, Dr. J ethr ow To om er, wh o c la im edth athe co ul d h av e m ad e fu rth er fi nd in gs reg ard in g S te ph en s’ m en ta l h eal than d p res en te d the se to th e jury. Howev er, b ecau se Dr. Too m er t es ti fie d t ha t St ep he ns ’ m en ta l h eal th is su es were ba se d o n l ow IQ an d atro ub le d fa m il y up br in gi ng , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo un d tha t

22. . . D r. Too m er’s fi nd in gs wou ldha ve be enda m ag in g t o t he “ go od

gu y ” im ag e th atco un se l was att em pt in g t o p ortra y . Cou ns el can no t b e de em edin effe ct iv e whe n h e m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si on to foc us on th e po si ti ve asp ect s o f St ep he ns ’ li fe i ns te adof s eek in g ath irdop in io n. St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 15
. Se e a ls o Ha li bu rt on v. Se c’y f or Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 34 2 F .3d12 33 , 12 44 -4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (co nc lu di ng th atco un se l’s d eci si on to hu m an iz e th e d efen da ntth ro ug h l ay tes ti m on y

rathe r th ancal l a m en ta l h eal th
ex pe rt wh o m ig htha ve hu rt t he de fen se was n otde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce). We th eref or e can no t s ay

th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s cl ai m was
co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. (2 ) Fa ilur e to neut

ra li zeSte ph ens ’ pr io r vi ol

ent fel on y co nvi ct io n St ep he ns als o c on te nd s tha t co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ch al le ng e
orne ut ral iz e a 1 99 2 b ur gl ary co nv ic ti on th atth e St at e in tro du cedas apri orvi ol en t fel on y ag gr av at or . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t co un se l d id , infact , co nduc t d is co ve ry

with re sp ectto th e p rio r vi ol en t fe lo ny agg rav at or , bu t m ad e th e st rat eg ic de ci si on no t t o c al l a n eu tra li zi ng witne ss , bec au se he di d n otwantto dr aw fu rth er at te nt io n t o t he in ci de nt : W it h re ga rdto th e fai lu re t o n eu tra li ze the burg la ry co nv ic ti on as a n ag gr av at or , cou ns el tes ti fie d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athe de po se d Lat on y a Ja ck so n, the vi ct im of the burg la ry , andlo ok edat th e p ol ic e rep orts of t he bu rg la ry co nv ic ti onan d u nd ers to odth atth ere was da m ag in g i nf

orm at io n abo utit . Cou ns el tes ti fie d t ha t h e kne w th atev enif h e o bjec te d t o t he in tro du ct io n o f th e ag gr av at or , th e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on was n on ethe le ss go in g t o c om e in . As a res ul t, 23co un se l m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si onno t t o fo cu s o n i nt ro du ci ng

ev id en ce t o p os si bl y

les se n t he weig htof t he ag gr av at orbe cau se he be li ev editco ul d b ack fir e. St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 15 . Becau se co un se l m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si on no t t o pr es en t thi s ev id en ce, we ca nn otfin d t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of th is cla im

was c on tra ry

to or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law. (3 ) Fa ilur e to ob

je ct to im pr op er co m m ent

s o f th e p ro se cut

or du ring thepe na lt

y ph as e St ep he ns all eg es tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o po rti on s o f th e p ro se cu to r’s arg um en t i n wh ic h h e d is cu ss edth e St at e’s vi ct im im pa ctev id en ce, d es cri be d S te ph en s’s ac ti on s as tra ns fo rm in g t he vi ct im fro m a happ y li tt le bo y in to a co rp se , app eal edto th e jury’ s s ym pa th y , andsh owe d t he jury pho to s o f th e v ic ti m th atha d b een adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e. As the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ [c]ou ns el is no t i ne ffec ti ve form ak in g atac ti cal de ci si on no t t o o bjec t t o s ta te m en ts an d p ho to gr ap hs in tro du ceddu rin g t he Sta te ’s cl os in g a rg um en ts when th os e st at em en ts an d p ho to gr ap hs were n otim pr op er.” St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 16 -1 7. Atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , cou ns el tes ti fie d th athe di d n otfin d a nyth in g o bjec ti on ab le ab ou t the pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts , and th atas ade fen se att orne y y ouhave to “pi cky ou r fi gh ts care fu ll y ” o r ri sk

“ al ie na ti ng ” th e jury. W e th eref or e can no t fi ndth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s
24res ol ut io n o f th is cla im was c on tra ry

to or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral
. (4 ) Co nced ing v ar io us ag

gr av at ing c ir cum st

an ces thr ou

gh gu il typl ea s. St ep he ns arg ue s tha t co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r advi si ng hi m to pl ead gu il ty to ce rta incri m es th atco ns ti tu te d a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ces . As di sc us se d ab ov e, in Hil l v. Lo ckh ar t , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t wh ena de fen da nt ch al le ng es hi s g ui lt y

pl eas ba se d o n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, “ th e de fen da ntm

us t s ho w th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s
erro rs , he wo ul d n otha ve pl ead edgu il ty andwou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o tri al .” 47 4 U.S. at59 . Step he ns can no t m eetth is st an da rd . As th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt p oi nt s o ut :

Pen al ty pha se co un se l . . . tes ti fie d t ha t l eadco un se l’s s tra te gy was to ga in cred ib il it y

with t he jury an d t ha t thi s s tra te gy work ed be cau se en te rin g g ui lt y

pl eas on cert ai n c harg es res ul te d i n a n acqui tt al of s om e o f th e ch arg es forwhi chSte ph en s p le d n otgu il ty. Dur in g t he pe na lt y

ph as e, co un se l ev enst at eddu rin g h is clo si ng arg um en ts th atth e fac t tha t St ep he ns pl edgu il ty to a num be r of ch arg es sh ou ldbe see n a s m it ig at io n. In fact , init s s en te nc in g o rd er, th e tr ia l co urt fo un d i n m it ig at io n t ha t St ep he ns en te redpl eas to so m e co un ts of the in di ctm en t. Co un se l i s n otde em edin effe ct iv e fo r us in g astrat eg y th at be ne fit edSte ph en s. St ep he ns fai ls to sh ow t ha t co un se l was de fic ie nt un de r Stri ckl an d
.

25St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 18 (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d) . W e can no t fi ndth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s cl ai m was c on tra ry

to or a n
un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. (5 ) Co nced ing v ar io us ag

gr av at ing fa ct or s no t fo und

bythetr ia l co urt d

ur ing cl os ing a rg um ent St ep he ns furth er ar gu es th atco un se l co nc ed edcert ai n a gg rav at or s i n h is cl os in g s ta te m en t. Ho wev er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t thi s was no t th e cas e: St ep he ns all eg es th atco un se l co nc ed edbo th th e h ei no us , atro ci ou s, o r cru el (HAC) ag gr av at oran d the pe cu ni ary ga in ag gr av at orto th e jury durin g h is clo si ng arg um en t. St ep he ns is m is ta ke n a s co un se l d idno t co nc ed e ei th er ag gr av at or . W it h re gardto th e p ecu ni ary ga in ag gr av at or , cou ns el ex pl ai ne d t o t he jury th atth e ag gr av at orsh ou ldbe m erg edwith t he m ur de r “ in th e co ur se of a fel on y ” ag gr av at or . Cou ns el exp la in edth atbe cau se Ste ph en s h ad be enco nv ic te d o f ro bb ery, whi ch was o ne of t he enum erat edfel on ie s reco gn iz edforth e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce o f m ur de r “ in th e co ur se of a fel on y ,” th e cri m e was forfin an ci al ga in , andas ares ul t, the two ag gr av at or s s ho ul d m erg e. W it h re ga rdto th e HAC ag gr av at or , cou ns el att em pt edto em ph as iz e to th e jury tha t the Sta te ha d n otpro ve n t he ag gr av at or be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Co un se l s ta te d t o t he jury th atth ey sh ou ld gi ve ve ry li tt le weig htto th e HAC ag gr av at orbe cau se no ne of t he m ed ic al tes ti m on ie s d em on st rat edth atLit tl e Ro b s uf fere d fr om

a pr ol on ge d, ag on iz in g k in d o f de ath, wh ic h i s n eces sa ry forth e HAC ag gr av at orto ap pl y . Cou ns el als o s ta te d t ha t the re was no pro of of en joym en t o f pu ni sh m en t o r so m e k in d o f pl eas ur e in m ak in g Li tt le Ro b s uf fer the way

he di d.

26St ep he ns II

, 97 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 17 . Bas edon th is reco rd , Ste ph en s fa il s t o d em on st rat e th atco un se l was de fic ie ntun de r Stri ckl an d . Furt he rm or e, St ep he ns can no t s ho w pr ejud ic e b ecau se , as h e h im se lf p oi nt s o ut , th e tr ia l co urt d idno t fi ndth ateithe r th e fi nanc ia l g ai n o r th e HAC ag gr av at orwas p ro ve n b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t,
an d t he refo re d idno t g iv e wei gh t t o t he se ag gr av at or s i n s en te nc in g S te ph en s t o de ath. We can no t fi ndth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s cl ai m
was co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. II I. Co ncl us io n Inde nyin g S te ph en s’ cla im forrel ie f, we ech o t he di stric t co urt’s co nc ern s ab ou t thi s ca se :

Thi s i s a c lo se de ath p en al ty case, as ev id en cedby the 4-3 de ci si on of t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt o n the di rectap pe al . The im po si ti on of t he de ath p en al ty w as no t b as edup on a fi nd in g t ha t Pet it io ne r in te nd edto m

ur de r th e ch il d v ic ti m . Ins te ad , itwas pr ed ic at edup on a fi nd in g t ha t h e p la y eda m ajor rol e in th e un de rlyin g fe lo ny andact edwith re ck le ss in di ffer en ce t o t he ch il d’s li fe. Un de r th e h ig hl y

de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardforfed eral habe as rev ie w of st at e co urt ad

jud ic at io ns , se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) , th is Co urt co nc lu de s t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f th is Tiso n/ Enmu nd is su e was no t co nt rary to cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral la w, di d n otin vo lv e anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law, an d was no t b as edonanun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs . Add it io na ll y , th is Co urt h as ser io us m is gi vi ng s ab ou t Pet it io ne r’s co un se l’s fa il ur e to att en d d ep os it io ns , fai lure t o a dv oc at e m or e th or ou gh ly on h is cli en t’s b eh al f an d h is advi si ng Pet it io ne r to 27pl eadgu il ty to the ki dn ap pi ng th atwas the un de rlyin g fe lo ny un de r

th e fel on y

m ur de r th eo ry . Cou ns el rep res en ti ng a de fen da ntina cap it al cas e o we th ei r cl ie ntan d o ursyste m of ju st ic e b ette r. Howev er, thi s C ou rt m

us t ev al ua te Pet it io ne r’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m s “ [u ]nde r th e d oubl y de fere nt ia l ju di ci al rev ie w th at ap pl ie s t o a Stri ckl an d cl ai m ev al ua te d u nd er the § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) st an dard .” [Kn ow les v. Mi rz ay an ce , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 41 1, 1 42 0 (2 00 9) ]. Here, the st at e ci rcu itco urt tho ro ug hl y ad dr es se d a ndreject ed Pet it io ne r’s in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m s af te r co nduc ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng . There aft er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re vi ewedinde ta il th e sa m e in effe ct iv en es s i ss ue s an d fo un d t ha t Pe ti ti on er i s n oten ti tl edto po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f. St ep he ns v. McNei l , No. 3 :0 8- cv -2 60 -J -3 2J RK (Ma rch 17 , 20 11 ), at51 -5 2. Howev er, b ecau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re so lu ti on of t hi s ca se was n ot
co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, St ep he ns ’ habe as pe ti ti on is de ni ed
. AFFIRMED.

28