### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 5 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1200 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00796 CV -C-E JAM ES CALLAHAN, Petitioner-Appellee, ve rs us DO NA L C AMP BE LL , C omm issio ner, A la ba m a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF AL ABAMA, Re spon de nts -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 5, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e:Callahan did not argue to this Court that his s tatements should not have be en admitted 1 beca use they wer e involuntary

and obtained in violation of the r ight to counse l. He has the ref ore waived that claim. Se e Ste ph e ns v . H

all , 407 F.3d 1195, 1202 ( 11th Cir. 2005).

2 Ja m es Ca llahan w as c onvi ct ed a nd s en te nc ed

to de ath inA la

ba m a state co urt f or the int en tio na l m

ur de r of Re be cc a Su zanne H ow el l. C al lahan f ile d a fe de ra l ha be as c or pus pe tit ionpur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 22 54, w hic h w as gr an te d in part and denied in part. T he Governm ent and Callahan both app eal the district co urt’ s de ci sio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

on f our of Ca llahan’ s c la im s: (1 ) the tr ia l j udge ’ s f ai lur e to r ec use him se lf

vio la te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts; ( 2) he r ec ei ve d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el due to his co unse l’ s f

ai lur e to o bj ec t t o th e adm iss ionof his state m en ts b as ed

on a pr ior ruling of the Alabam a Suprem e Court; (3) his statem ents sho uld no t have been adm itt ed be ca use the y w er e inv oluntary

a nd o bta ine d invio la tio n of the r igh t t o co unse l; a nd ( 4) he r ec ei ve d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el a t se nte nc ing due to 1 his c ouns el ’ s f

ai lur e to i nve sti ga te a nd p re se nt m iti ga tin g e vid en ce . W e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of

c la im ( 2) a nd r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of r el ie f on cl ai m s (1 ) an d (4 ).3 I. BACKGROUND This appeal com es to us m ore than 23 y ears a fter the death of Rebecca Su zanne H ow el l. I n th e int er im , the re have be entw o tr ia ls, tw o se nte nc ing he ar ing s, tw o di re ct

appe al s, apos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f pr oc ee din g instate c ourt, which included a two-day evidentiary

hearing, and the current habeas petition. In or de r to p la ce the iss ue s and o ur de ci sio n inthe pr ope r co nte xt, it is ne ce ssary

f or us to rev ie w th e en ti re h is to ry of t he cas e. A. F ac ts 1. Be cky H

owell’s Disappearan ce On Fe bruary

3, 1982, ar ound 11:00 p.m ., Becky How ell m et her f

iancé, Mur ray K nig ht, a t the c lub w he re he w as pe rf orm ing w ithhis band i n Ja ck sonv ill e, A la

ba m a. H ow el l, 26, w as astu de nt at Ja ck sonv ill e St at e U niv er sity . A ft er

vis iti ng K

nig ht f or 10 t o 15 m inu te s, H ow el l w en t a cr oss the str ee t t o th e N or ge W as he rt er iato do l aundr y . H ow el l w as sup pose d to r et ur n to the c lub , but

w he n K nig ht’ s band f

ini she d pl ay ing a t 1: 30 a . m . , she ha d st ill not ret urne d. Kn ig ht be cam e worrie d a nd went to th e was he rte ria to lo okforHowel l. H e fo und he r car, he r sc hool boo ks, he r laundr y , a nd h er j ac ke t, but

he did not f ind her. K nigh t called the police, and Offic er Joe Carter and Sergeant K athy Thienes re spon de d. T he of

fi ce rs se ar ch ed

the a re a an d di sc ove re d ar oll of gr ay duc t t ap e4

and a pair of m en’ s blue jeans in th e vicinity of H owell’ s car but found no o ther ev id en ce o f Howe ll ’s wher eab ou ts . On Fe bruary

17, 1982, two w eeks after her disappearance , H owell w as f o u n dd e a do f

a s p h yx i a t i o n i n t h e Ta l l a s s e e h a t c h e e C r e e ki n C a l h o u n C o u n t y, A la ba m a— he r hands w er e ta

pe d to ge the r; he r be lt w as on u psi de down; and s he wa s not wearing pantyhose, socks, or shoes. Avaginal swab revea led the presence of se m ina l f lui d. 2. James C

allah an Becom es a Susp ect On the night of Howe ll’ s disapp earance, Jimm y Dunagan w as in his car out sid e of aw as he rt er iasix or

se ve n bl oc ks f

ro m the N or ge W as he rt er ia . A ro und 11:0 0 p.m ., Dunagan observed a late m odel green Ford pickup truck being driven by am an , pul l i nto apark ing lot a cr oss the str ee t f

ro m ay oung w om anin a phon e boot h. A fter w atching the wom an for about ten m inutes, the m an in the truck pul le d ou t of

the park ing lot

a nd p ar ke d w ith in t enf

ee t of the w om anin the pho ne booth. Af

ewm inu te s late r, the w om anle ft the pho ne boo th, a nd a s sh e pa sse d by the gr ee n tr

uc k, she be gan r

unni ng t o he r ca

r. Whe n th e w om andr ove a w ay , the gr ee n tr uc k f oll ow ed he r fo r se ve ra l bl oc ks, sto ppi ng whe n sh e tur ne d on to Ja ck sonv ill e St at e U niv er sity c am pus. D una gan f

oll ow ed the tr uc k and wro te down its tag num

ber. O n February

20, D unagan tol d Detec tive Max Kir by what5

he sawon F eb ru ar

y 3 and tha t the ta g nu m

be r of the tr uc k w as e ith er

“N RF 467” or

“ RNF 467.” K i r b y s e a r c h e dt h e d a t ab a s e f o r t a g n u mb e r

“N R F 4 6 7 ” a n dn o t h i n g c a me up, but the ta g nu m

be r “ RN F4 67” be lon ge d to a n or an ge F or d tr uc k r eg ist er ed

to Ja m es Ca llahan. F urthe r inv es tig at ionr ev ea le d th e “ RN F4 67” ta g w as nowon a green 1982 Ford picku p truck. O n February 21, police located the green F ord outsi de of the residence of Harvey Callahan, the defendant’ s father. D unagan identified the truck at Har vey Callahan’ s as the sam e one he sawon February 3 at th e was he rte ria . St art in g a t 9 :3 0 p .m . on Feb ru ary 21 , po li ce s ta ke d o ut th e g reen Fo rd . A ro und 5:0 0 a . m . the ne xt m or nin g, D ep uty

Joh nny A le xande r an d S er ge an t Thienes observed Jam es Callahan get into the truck and drive away . The off icers p u l l ed Ca l l ah an o v erfo r d ri v i n g wi t h a s wi t ch ed t ag . C al l ah an o p en ed t h e d ri v er ’s sid e door , pla ce d so m ethin g be hin d th e se at of his tr uc k, a nd e xit ed , le av ing the dr ive r’ s si de doo r ope n. T he of fi ce rs e xpl ai ne d to Ca llahan th at he w as goi ng t o b e t i c k e t e df

o r h a v i n g t h e w r o n g t a g o n h i s v e h i c l e . A tt h i s p o i n tC a l l a h a n b e c a me ve ry ne rv ous an d a tte m

pte d to ge t ba ck

to his tr uc k. C al lahan w al ke d aro und Alexander and, w ithou t getting back into the truck, shut the previou sly open dr ive r’ s si de doo r an d lo ck ed it . T he of

fi ce rs the n tr an spor

te d C al lahan to the j ai lCallahan ha d to be taken to the ja il to rece ive his ticket bec ause the administrative policy 2 of the sher iff did not allow offic ers to ca rry ticket books in their ca

rs. Anyone who r ece ived a ticket for a

traff ic offe nse in Calhoun County would be take n to the jail to rece ive their ticke t. The jail, cour

thouse, and sher iff’s de partment we re a ll located in the same building. Callahan wa s convicted twic e in 1979 for a ssault with intent to m urder and wa s still on 3 probation for

those crimes on F ebrua

ry 21, 1982 . We will also discuss what has bee n ref err ed to as a

“fifth state ment.” 4 6 so the y c oul d w ri te him

ati ck et f or dr ivi ng w ithasw itc he d ta g. A ft er r ec ei vin g 2 his ti ck et , Ca llahan w as tol d in ve sti ga tor s w oul d li ke to ta lk t o hi m a nd h e co uld wa it for them

in the lobb y . He agree d. A t approxim ately 9:00 a.m ., Callahan w as placed under arr est for violating hi s probation by driving a vehicle with an in co rrec t t ag . A subs eq ue nt sea rch of C al la ha n’s t ru ckrev eal ed , int er ali a , a 3 pi st ol , a pi ll ow, an d t wo p ai rs of m en ’s bl ue jeans . 3. Callaha n’s Statements to Police O ve r the c our se of

F eb ru ar y 22 and 2 3, Ca llahan gave f our state m en ts t o th e police concerning his wher eabouts and action s on the nig ht of February 3. Bef ore 4 ea chstate m en t C al lahan w as r ea d hi s M ira nda ri ght s and s ign ed

aw ai ve r of co unse l. S ta te m en t #1 w as giv enor al ly to K ir by w ho transc ri be d it . S ta te m en ts #2, #3, and #4 wer e given during question ing byAssistant District A ttorney J o s e p h Hu b b a r d ; t h e l a t t e r t h r e e s t a t e men t s we r e au d i o t ap e da n dt r a n s c r i b e db y a co ur t re po rte r.In eac h of Callahan’ s statements he wa s driving a g ree n 1982 For d pickup truck. 5 7 a. St at em en t # 1: Feb ru ary 22 , 9: 30 a.m . C a l l a h a ns t a t e dh e w e n tt o aw a s h e rt e r i ab e t w e e n 7 : 3 0 p . m. a n d7 : 4 5 p . m. an d w as dr ivi ng a

gr ee n 19 82 F or d pi ck

up tru ck . A ft er

goi ng t o ge t so m ethin g to 5 eat , he r eturne d t o t he wash ert eri a an d l eftag ai n a t ap pr ox im at el y 10 :0 0 p m . He the n w en t t o th e Ja ck sonv ill e H ospi ta l w he re he m et his f athe r w ho w as vis iti ng the de fe ndant’ s m oth er . A t 11 :00 p. m . , Ca llahan le ft the hos pit al a nd f

oll ow ed his fathe r to h is f

athe r’ s ho use , w he re Ca llahan r em ai ne d f or the r es t of

the nig ht. b. St at em en t # 2: Feb ru ary 22 , 1: 45 p.m . to 3: 25 p.m . Callahan stated he arr ived at a w asherteria around 10: 00 p.m . How ell wa s not the re . C al lahan pl ac ed

his c lothe s inaw as hin g m ac hin e an d le ft to g et som ethin g to e at . Whe n he r et ur ne d to the w as he rt er iaappr oxi m at el y 30 m inu te s late r, H ow el l w as the re by he rs el f. C al lahan kn ewH ow el l be ca use Bi lly Gr iffith’ s wife introduced th em to each other at the Jac kson ville Nursing Hom e a fe wy ears a go. S inc e the y w er e intro duc ed , Ca llahan and H ow el l sp oke in pa ssi ng se ve ra l t im es . T ha t ni ght , Ca llahan to ld h er he w as thi nki ng o f re nti ng o ut h is m obi le hom e an d a ske d if she w as int er es te d. H e of fe re d to take he r the re a nd t old her to think abo ut it while he w ent and visit ed his m other in the hos pital. H e left to g o to the hos pit al a ro und 11: 00 p . m . a nd r et ur ne d aro und 12: 00 a . m . Whe n heCallahan wa nted to add more detail to his previous statement. 6 8 returned, How ell told hi m she would like to see the m obile ho m e that night. It w as at thi s ti m e that G la dy s C al lahan, the de fe ndant’ s e str an ge d w if e, pul le d up out sid e of th e was he rte ria , bu t d idno t en te r an d s oo n d ro ve off . Cal la ha n a nd Howel l l eftth e was he rte ria at app ro xi m at el y 12 :1 0 a .m . H ow el l e nte re d C al lahan’ s tr uc k onthe dr ive r’ s si de be ca use y ou c oul d no t ge t i n o n t h e p a s s e n g e r

s i d e . F i v e mi n u t e s a f

t e r t h e y arr i v e da th i s mo b i l e h o me, Gl a d ys al so arr ive d and a cc use d C al lahan of “ runni ng aro und” on h er . A ft er a rg uin g w ith Glad y s fo r ro ug hl y

20 m in ut es , Cal la ha n t ol d h er h e an d Ho well were l eav in g. That w as when G lady s rem oved a pisto l from her pocketbookand poin ted it at Ca llahan. S he the n di re ct ed Ca llahan and H ow el l i nto the kit ch enw he re she forced C allahan to tape How ell’ s hands to gether. A fewm inutes later Callahan es ca pe d ou t the ba ck

doo r of the m obi le hom e an d dr ove a w ay , le av ing H ow el l al on e wit h Gl ad y s. He d idno t h av e se xu al rel at io ns wit h Ho well .

c . S t a t e me n t# 2 ( a d d e n du m) : F e b r u a ry 2 2 , 3 : 4 8 p . m. 6 Callahan stated that about a y ear and a half prior to Fe bruary 3, he had dated How ell, and they

had sexual relations on one occasion. When Callahan saw How ell at the w asherteria , a fter r eturning from the restaurant, H owell intim ated t h a ts h e w a n t e dt o h av e s e x w i t h C a l l a h a n a g a i n . I n p a rt i c u l a r , s h e s a i d , “I9

re m em be r se ve ra l of

the goo d ti m es w e ha d a t on e tim e. A re the goo d ti m es sti ll out the re ?” C al lahan r ep lie d, “ I don’ t kn ow . Why don ’ t y ou try

it a nd w e’ ll fi nd out.” A fter C allahan returned fr om the hospi tal, H owell said she wanted to lo ok at Callahan’ s m obile ho m e and com m ented, “ W e’ ll have a good tim e once w e get the re . ” Ca llahan and H ow el l arr ive d a t the m obi le hom e, ha d se x, a nd w er e sti ll in be d w he n G la dy s e nte re d th e be dr oom . G la dy s po int ed apis tol a t the m

a nd ordered them

to m ove to the kit chen. C allahan taped How ell’ s hands to gether then es cap edth ro ug h t he ba ckdo or .

d. St at em en t # 3: Feb ru ary 23 , 10 :2 0 a .m . Af ter the off icers r etrieved a photograph from Callahan’ s father’ s hous e at Ca llahan’ s r eque st, he state d hi s w if e m ay have tho ught

H ow el l w as the w om anin the phot ograph, Maler a Fox. Callahan’ s wife wa s very j ealous of Fox. Ca llahan furthe r de ta ile d hi s r el at ion shi p w ithBe cky H ow el l. H e an d H ow el l f ir st m et in 1977 at Fe deral Mogul where they we re introduced by

Billy Gr iffith. Callahan as ke d he r out

a nd g av e he r his pho ne num be r. T he f

oll ow ing w ee ke nd the y

w en t out on a date. Callahan told How ell he w as curre ntly seeing som eone, but he w as not su re he w anted to stay with that person. T wo w eeks later C allahan took h er w at er ski ing on h is b oa t. Whil e on the boat, the y ha d se x and H ow el l t old Ca llahan he ne ed ed

to m ak e up h is m ind

w ho h e w an te d to be w ithor she w oul d10

not se e him a nym or e. T he y

ne xt s poke thr ee m onths l at er , w he n H ow el l t old him she had started seeing som eone else, but could call it off very easily if Ca llahan wou ldlea ve hi s g irl fri en d. Aft er t ha t, Ca ll ah an on ly spo ke bri efl y wit h h er o n t wo oc cas io ns be fo re t he y

m etin th e Nor ge W as he rte ria on Feb ru ary 3. e. St at em en t # 4: Feb ru ary 23 , 2: 50 p.m . Ca llahan st at ed

that onF eb ru ar

y 4, he w en t t o th e N or ge W as he rt er ia , f or the f ir st t im e that ni ght , ali ttl e af te r 12: 00 a . m . T he re w er e se ve ra l pe opl e in the w as he rt er ia , inc lud ing H ow el l, w hom he ha d m et

be fo re . H e pla ce d hi s c lothe s in a w as hin g m ac hin e an d th enw en t t o e at a t a r es taur an t. C al lahan r et

ur ne d to the w a s h e rt e r i aa tap p r o x i ma t e l y 1 2 : 3 0 a . m. MR . H U BB A RD : Wha t di d y ou d o w he n y ou arr ive d ba ck a t the L aundr om at

f ro m G ino ’ s? MR. CALLAHAN: I t al ke d wi th he r a few m in ut es , and I as ke d h er, I sa id, ‘ Be cky , y ou’ re ne ed ed ove r y onde r. ’ S he sa id, ‘ Fo r w ha t?’ A nd I said, ‘ You’ re j ust needed ov er y onder.’ I said, ‘ Com e on, I ’ ll carr y y ou ov er t he re.’ MR . H U BB A RD : A ll ri ght . Wha t di d y ou m ean w he n y ou s ai d, ‘Yo u ’re n ee d ed o v ery o n d er ’? MR . CA L L A H A

N : I j ust tol d he r she w as ne ed ed

a cr oss the r oa d. MR. HU BBA RD: D id y ou m ention any body ’ s nam e in particular? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N o. I didn’ t m en tio n no body ’ s nam e. I j ust tol d he r she w as ne ed ed .11

MR. HU BBA RD: D id y ou say who she w as needed by , Mr . Ca llahan? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N o, I didn’ t. MR . H U BB A RD : Wha t di d sh e re spon d w he n y ou s ai d so m eb ody needed her over there ? M R. CA LLA HAN : Sh e s ai d , ‘Un d o ub t ed i tm u s tb e my b o yfri en d .’ Sh e sa id , ‘ Tha t’s t he on ly one I kn ow t ha t’d b e o ve r th ere.’ MR. HU BBA RD: A ll right. D id y ou say anything else to her at that tim e? MR . CA L L A H A

N : W e start ed

out the doo r an d sh e sa id, ‘ W el l, I ’ ll jus t t ak e m

y car.’ I sai d, ‘No. Get i n t he tru ckan d we’ll go in it .’

. . . . MR. HU BBA RD: A fter y ou go t outsi de with Miss How ell, what ha ppe ne d th en ? MR . CA L L A H A

N : S he sa id a

f ewthi ngs. S he sa id, ‘ I’ ll j ust dr ive m y car .’ I said, ‘ No. G o ahead and get in the truck.’ I said, ‘ I’ ll carr y y ou ov er t he re.’ M R . HU B B A R D : Wh a td i ds h e s a y? MR . CA L L A H A

N : S he start ed

to the tr uc k and s he c hange d he r m ind j ust about the ti m e she start ed

to ge t i n th e tr

uc k. MR . H U BB A RD : Wha t ha ppe ne d th en ? M R. CA LLA HAN : I t o l dh er , ‘J u s tg o ah ea dan dg et i n .’ I s ai d , ‘We go t t o g o.’12

M R . HU B B A R D : Wh a te l s e d i dyo us a y? MR . CA L L A H A

N : T ha t w as about

the e xte nt o f it. I tol d he r to j ust go ah eadan d g etin th e truc k a nd let ’s go . Andsh e sa id , ‘ W el l, I don’ t kn ow . I m igh t ou ght to j ust take m y c ar . ’ A nd I sa id, ‘ W el l, no, no t re al ly.’ I sai d, ‘You ne edto jus t g o g etin th e truc k.’ MR. HU BBA RD: D id y ou say anything about hu rting her, Mr . Ca llahan, if

she didn’ t go w ithy ou? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N o. Re al ly , I didn’ t say a nythi ng a

bout a ct ua lly hurtin g he r or

harm ing he r. I gue ss s he m igh t have tho ught I w oul d ha ve , tho ugh, on a cc ount of the re w as aBo w ie kni fe lay ing up o n th e da sh of t he tru ckat t ha t t im e. MR. HU BBA RD: D id y ou po int to th e Bow ie knife? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N o. I didn’ t a ct

ua lly poi nt t o it . I t w as j ust

lay ing there. MR . H U BB A RD : D id s he se e it? MR. CA LL AH AN : Ye s, sir. MR. HU BBA RD: D id she say anything about the Bowie knife? M R. CA LLA HAN : Whe n s h e t u rn ed ar o u n dan ds ee n i ts h e d i d n ’t say a nythi ng, she j ust

sa t do w n. MR. HU BBA RD: S he sat down wher e? MR . CA L L A H A

N : I n th e se at , a nd s lid

ove r. T he re w as no w ay to get in the passeng er side there at that particular tim e.

. . . .13

MR . H U BB A RD : A ft er

y ou g ot i n—a ft er

she got ins ide the tr

uc k, w ha t ha ppe ne d th en ? MR . CA L L A H A

N : I start ed

ove r that w ay . S he sa id, ‘ Wha t’ s go ing on Ji m m y ? ’ AndI sa id , ‘ I jus t wan t t o g ety ou by y ou rs el f ag ai n.’ M R . HU B B A R D : Wh a td i ds h e s a y? MR . CA L L A H A

N : S he sa id, ‘ I don’ t kn ow . ’ I sa id, ‘ W el l, I j ust w an t to be by y ou—ju st be wit h youag ai n.’ MR . H U BB A RD : S he sa id s he w an te d to be w ithy ou a ga in? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N o. I w an te d to be w ithhe r ag ai n. MR . H U BB A RD : M r. Ca llahan, she didn’ t w an t t o be w ithy ou? MR. CA LL AH AN : Not at that particular tim e. MR. HU BBA RD: D id she scream at any tim e? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N o, she did

not . MR . H U BB A RD : D id s he tr y to ge t aw ay

f ro m y ou? MR . CA L L A H A

N : N ot t o tr

y a nd g et a w ay . S he j ust

tol d m e, she said, ‘ Stop the truck and let m e out. A nd I’ ll forget anything ever happ en ed .’ Ca llahan’ s st or

y the n c hange d: MR . H U BB A RD : O kay . A ll ri ght . Ji m m y , y ou w en t i nsi de the L aundr om at

a nd y ou t old

Mi ss H ow el l tha t sh e w as ne ed ed a cr oss the str ee t; is tha t c or

re ct ? MR . CA L L A H A

N : R igh t.14

MR . H U BB A RD : A ll ri ght . A nd the n w ha t di d sh e do? MR . CA L L A H A

N : S he didn’ t kn oww he the r it w as tr ue or not a nd she jum ped up and to ok off to the doo r. MR . H U BB A RD : A ll ri ght . S he r anto the doo r. Wha t di d y ou d o the n? MR. CA LL AH AN : I j ust follo we d behind her. MR . H U BB A RD : A ll ri ght . Wha t di d y ou d o th en ? MR . CA L L A H A

N : Whe n sh e w en t ou t t ow ar d he r car I tol d he r the be st thin g to do—

w he n I put

m y hand o n he r shou lde r, I sa id, ‘ Be st thing to do is just go get in the truck. Don’ t holler, don’ t say no th in g.’ MR . H U BB A RD : T he n w ha t ha ppe ne d? MR . CA L L A H A

N : T he n to start

w ithshe j ust

buc ke d onm e. S he s ai d , ‘I d o n ’t k n o w.’ I s ai d , ‘Wel l , I d o n ’t w an tt o h av e n o t ro ub l e. ’ I s ai d , ‘Be s tt h i n g t o d o i s ju s tg o o n .’ MR . H U BB A RD : A ll ri ght . T he n wha t ha ppe ne d? MR . CA L L A H A

N : S o, she got

in the tr uc k and s he start ed

to ch an ge he r m ind j ust about the ti m e she got

to the tr uc k. S he r ea ch ed

up i n the tr uc k and g ra

bbe d th e ta

pe a nd thr ow ed

it ba ck out . Callahan took her to his trailer and locked her in the bedroom . He kept her locked in the be dr oom

the e nti re day

of F eb ru ar y 4. T ha t ni ght , Ca llahan a ske d H ow el l t o have sex with him , and she said sh e w ouldif he let her go. L ater that night, af

ter the y ha d se x, Ca llahan ta

pe d H ow el l’ s hands tog ethe r an d dr ove he r to the15

Ta llasseehatchee Cr eek bridge. He boun d her hands to m ake it look lik e she had es ca pe d. Whe n th ey

ne ar ed the br idg e, H ow el l j um

pe d ou t of

the pa sse nge r sid e door a nd r antow ar d th e cr ee k, w hic h w as about 30 y ar ds aw ay . C al lahan dr ove off and did not p ursue her.

f. Judg e Mon k’ s I nvol ve m en t While Callahan wa s givin g his fourth s tatem ent, attorney Fre d Ly brand, at the r eque st o f Ca llahan’ s f athe r, c am e to S he ri ff

S ne ad ’ s of

fi ce to ta lk w ith Ca llahan. T he S he ri ff

a ske d L y br an d if he r ep re se nte d C al lahan and L y br an d sa id no. T he Sheriff

told Ly brand he would not allo w him in to talk with Callahan be ca use Ca llahan w as be ing int er ro ga te d and h ad

not r eque ste d alaw y er . H av ing be enr ef use d a cc es s to Ca llahan, L y br an d w en t t o se e Judg e Sam ue l M onk (who w oul d late r pr es ide ove r both tr ia ls) . L y br an d e xpl ai ne d to Jud ge Mo nk tha t he w as tr y ing to spe ak

w ithCa llahan a t the r eque st o f Ca llahan’ s f athe r, but the Sheriff would not let him

because Ca llahan was being interrogated and had waived his right to an attorney . Judg e Monk accom panied Ly

brand to the Sheriff’ s office an d sp oke w iththe S he ri ff . T he S he ri ff

tol d Ju dge Mo nk wha t he ha d to ld Ly br an d, an d t he n J ud ge Mo nken te redth e in te rro ga ti on roo m aft er k no ck in g. The best evidence of what happened when Judge Monk entered the room com es fr om the tr an sc ri pt:On pag es 22–23, inf ra , we discuss the ba sis of J udg e Monk’s stateme nt that he knew 7 Callahan ha d been r ead his rights. 16 MR . H U BB A RD : Ji m

m y , is the re a nythi ng e lse y ou w an t t o a dd o f y our own fre e w ill at this tim e? MR. CA LL AH AN : I didn’ t m ean to hurt any body . She j ust jum

ped out a nd r un. J U D G E M O N K : Ex c u s e me, M r . C a l l a h a n . Ex c u s e me. M a y I int er ru pt? MR. HU BBA RD: Y es, sir. JU D G E MO N K : M r. Ca llahan, I ’ m Jud ge Mo nk. N ow , I kno w y ou’ ve be ene xpl ai ne d y our r igh ts s o f

ar . I w an t t o r

un o ve r tho se 7 ri ght s w ithy ou o nc e ag ai n. D o y ou unde rs tand wha t I ’ m say ing ? MR . CA L L A H A

N : R igh t. JU D G E MO N K : A ll ri ght . A nd d o y ou unde rs tand tha t y ou h av e the ri ght to re m ai n si le nt i n th is c as e an d no t c oope rate w iththe pol ic e in a n ywa y? MR . CA L L A H A

N : R igh t. JUD GE MON K: D o y ou un derstand that anything that y ou tell them can and w ill be use d a ga ins t y ou i n c ourt by the S tate in the prosecution of this case? MR . CA L L A H A

N : Y es , sir . I do. JU D G E MO N K : D o y ou unde rs tand tha t y ou h av e a ri ght to dis cu ss the c as e or

to ta lk w itha n a tto rn ey

be fo re a ny

que sti oni ng p ro ce ed s? MR . CA L L A H A

N : R igh t.17

JU D G E MO N K : A ll ri ght . A nd d o y ou unde rs tand tha t i f y ou c an not af fo rd to hir e ana tto rn ey

that an a tto rn ey

w ill be appoi nte d to represe nt y ou and th at the question ing will stop until su ch tim e as yo u ’v e h a da n o p p o rtu n i t y t o t a l kwi t h t h a ta t t o rn e y? MR . CA L L A H A

N : I und er stand a ll that. JUD GE MON K: A ll right. D o y ou un derstand that y ou can stop at an y ti m e that y ou w ishto? I n othe r w or ds, that y ou c ansto p an sw er ing the ir

que sti ons at

a ny ti m e y ou w an t t o? D o y ou unde rs tand a ll of

that? MR . CA L L A H A

N : R igh t. JU D G E MO N K : N ow , it ’ s m y und er standi ng tha t y ou t old the m y ou do n ot w ishto ha ve a n a tto rn ey w ithy ou; is that c or

re ct ? MR . CA L L A H A

N : I don ’ t ne ed

one . I j ust

— JUD GE MON K: A ll right. N ow, let m e tell y ou—lis ten to m e, please, Mr. Callahan. Y our father has r etained the services of an attorney by the nam e of Fr ed Ray

Ly brand. D o y ou kn ow Mr . L y br an d? MR . CA L L A H A

N : Y es , I do. JU D G E MO N K : A ll ri ght . Mr . L y br an d is out sid e in the out er j ai l of fi ce a t this ti m e. H e’ s ava ila ble to ta lk t o y ou i f y ou w ishto ta lk t o him . H ow ev er , it ’ s ape rs ona l c hoi ce of y our s. Y ou d o no t have to speak with Mr. Ly

brand if y ou do not wish to, but he is out side at y ou r fat he r’s req ue st , ava il ab le fory ou to tal k t o i f y ou want to do so . D o y ou unde rs tand tha t? MR. CA LL AH AN : Ye s, sir. JU D G E MO N K : D o y ou w an t t o ta lk t o M r. L y br an d or w oul d y ou j ust—do y ou want to go ahead and contin ue talking with the po lice18

of fi ce rs w ith out

ta lki ng t o hi m ? It ’ s y our pe rs ona l de ci sio n, Mr. Callahan, and it m

ust be m ade by

y ou, not by

y our father. MR . CA L L A H A

N : I ’ m not tr y ing to hid e an ythi ng. I j ust —I ’ m j ust upset. I don’ t want—I didn’t w ant any bodyto get hurt over this. It w as n’ t i nte nti ons of

nob ody ge tti ng hurt. JU D G E MO N K : D o y ou unde rs tand m y que sti on? M r. L y

br an d is av ai la ble to spe ak

w ithy ou i f y ou w an t t o ta lk w ithhim , but no o ne is fo rc ing y ou o r te lli ng y ou tha t y ou h av e to t al k w ithhim . I t’ s y our choice. I’ m

going to ask y ou again, would y ou lik e to talk to Mr. L y br an d be fo re y ou g o any

f urthe r or w oul d y ou l ike to w ai ve y our ri ght to ta lk t o M r. L y

br an d? MR . CA L L A H A

N : H old on j ust f or ase co nd. C anI ta lk t o y ou j ust a m inute? JUD GE MON K: Mr . C allahan, y ou cannot lo ok to th e police office rs to a dvi se y ou a s to y our

r igh ts. T ha t’ s so m ethin g th at I ’ ve a lr ea dy advis ed y ou t o, a nd I kno wthe y ’ ve giv eny ou y our r igh ts. B ut i t’ s a decision th at y ou have to m ake. Now , I ’ m going to ask y ou on e m ore tim e. D o y ou w ishto spe ak to Mr . L y

br an d or do y ou w an t m e to t el l M r . L yb r an dt h a tyo ud o n o tw i s h t o s p e a kw i t h h i m? MR . CA L L A H A

N : I f m y f athe r se nt h im

down he re , I m igh t ou ght to ta lk t o hi m

br ie fl y . B ut tha t w oul d be about a ll. JU D G E MO N K : T ha t’ s y our c hoi ce . A nd the y ’ ll sto p a ll pr oc ee din gs at thi s po int . T he ne xt m or

nin g, L y br an d to ld D istri ct

A tto rn ey Bo b F ie ld tha t he did

not rep res en t Ca ll ah an .In f a c t, at th e se c on d tr ia l, t

he State sp e c if

ic a lly no te d it wo uld tr y to a vo id d e lvi ngint o 8 conver sations Callahan had w ith the office rs duringthe trip. 19 g . S t a t e me n t# 5 : F e b r u a ry 2 4 , 1 1 : 0 0 a . m. Ca llahan w oul d gi ve no o the r fo rm al state m en ts a ft er his f ourth o ne , but

on Fe br uary 24, 198 2, be tw ee n 11 :00 a nd 1 1:3 0 a . m . , Ca llahan se nt w or d to K ir by that he wanted to see him . What transpired next has been repeatedly ref erre d to as the “ fi fth st at em en t. ” A lth oughthe e vid en ce Ca llahan pr oduc ed is m or e im

portant than what he said, for sim plicity , w e w ill refer

to the events on the 24th as Ca llahan’ s f

if th s ta te m en t. 8 Kirby had Callahan brought to see him roughly30 m inutes after Ca llahan m ad e his r eque st. Whe n C al lahan sa id h e w an te d to ta lk a bout the c as e, K ir

by advis ed Ca llahan of

his M ira nda rig ht s, an d C al la ha n s ig ne d a waiv er o f co un se l. Ca llahan to ld K ir

by he c oul d sh owhim

w he re he thr ewH ow el l’ s bo ots out of his truck. K irby

and Sheriff

Snead, accom

panied by Callahan, we nt, am ong o ther pla ce s, to Ca llahan’ s f

athe r- in- law ’ s ho use . C al lahan di re ct ed the of fi ce rs to a w oodp ile , a nd the of

fi ce rs f ound apur se be hin d it . C al lahan th endir ec te d th e o f f i c e r s t o h i s f

a t h e r ’s h o u s e . A th i s f

a th e r ’s h o u s e , h e r e mo v e dakn i f e f r o m a cam pe r an d t ol d t he off

ic ers itwas t he kn ife he ha d i n h is tru ckon Feb ru ary 3. The police did not recover a pair of boots at this tim e.Count I of the ind ic tme nt r e a d: “ Jame s H . Ca lla ha n . . . did int e nti on a lly

c a us e the de ath 9 of Re be c c a Suza nn e Ho we ll, by

a sp hy xiat inghe r b y

ob str uc tin ghe r a ir

wa y , a nd the sa id J ames H. Callaha

n cause d said death duringthe . . . abduc tion of, or attempt to abduct, Rebe cca Suz anne H owell with intent to accomplish or aid the c ommissi on of Rape in the F irst Deg ree , a felony , or flig ht theref

rom . . . .” Count I Ichar g ed esse ntially the same c onduct except that the a bd uc tio n o r atte mpt

to a bd uc t w a s d on e “ wi th i nte nt t o in fl ic t phy sic a l in jur y up on he r, or to violate her

sexually .” Count I I Iincluded the same basic c onduct except that the abduc tion or attempt to abduct wa s done “w ith intent to t err orize.” 20 O n Apr il 5, 198 2, Jam es Ca llahan w as ind ic te d f or the int en tio na l m

ur de r of Re be cc a Su zanne H ow el l, in vio la tio n of S ec tio n 2( a) (1 ) of

A ct N o. 81- 178 of

the A ct s of A la ba m a an d A la . Co de § 13 A -5 -4 0. 9 4. Th e F

irs t T ria l a. Pre- Tr ial Callahan w as repre sented by W ilfred L ane. On April 19, 1982, Lane filed ana ff idavit a sse rt ing his be lie f that C al lahan w as suf fe ri ng f ro m am en ta l di se as e th atwou ldpre ve nthi m

fro m st an di ng tri al an d a ss is ti ng in pre pa rin g a de fen se . Lane requested Callahan re ceive a psy chiatric evaluation, and the court ordere d Ca llahan a dm itt ed

to the T ay lor

H ar dinMe dic al F ac ili ty . A ft er am onth of ev al ua tio n, af

ina l r ep ort w as iss ue d by

thr ee psy ch ia tr ist s, A le xande r Sa lil la s, C.B . H arden, and Jam es T hom pson , diagnosing Callahan w ith adult antisocial behavior and narcissisti c personality . They found he function ed within the norm al range of int el le ct ua l a bil iti es a nd w as c om

pe te nt t o st an d tr ia l and a ssi st i n hi s de fen se .21

Ina ddi tio n to the e xa m inatio ns b y the a fo re m en tio ne d ps y ch ia tr ist s, Cal la ha n was als o i nt erv ie wedby psycho lo gi st s Do n Whi tt ak er an d Al le n S he al y . T he y f ound Ca llahan to be of

nor m al int el lig en ce w ithno s ign s of psy ch osi s and

“ a rathe r dr am at ic ind ivi dua l w ho u se s f re que nt and o bvi ous ex ag ge ratio ns i n de sc ri bin g pe rs ona l l if

e ev en ts. ” Ca llahan to ld the m he use d to abuse a lc ohol , but sto ppe d sm oki ng and dri nki ng i n 19 81 a ft er ar el igi ous co nve rs ion . H e ha d a

“ str ai ne d e m oti ona l r el at ion shi p” w ithhis f athe r, but a lw ay s f el t c los e to h is m oth er . T he re w as no m en tio n inthe r ep ort of Ca llahan or

his m oth er

be ing ab us edby his fat he r. V ic ki Y oung , apsy ch ia tr ic soc ia l w orke r, a lso f ile d ar ep ort ba se d on in te rv ie ws wi th th e d efen da nt an d M ary Cal la ha n, t he de fen da nt ’s m ot he r. Ca llahan di sc uss ed

his c hil dhoo d w ithY oung a nd i ndi cate d he ha d tr oubl e ge tti ng al ong w ithhis f

athe r due to his f

athe r’ s he av y

dr ink ing . H ow ev er , a cc or din g to Ca llahan, he c ur ed

his f athe r’ s a lc ohol ism

by le av ing him

out sid e in a wheelbar row in 13-degree we ather. Callahan said he hit puberty at 14 and dated fr eque ntl y

thr oughhis te en ag e y ears be ca use he w as e xtr em el y

pop ular w iththe yo u n g l a d i e s . H e a l s o ab u s e da l c o h o l f o r mo s to f h i s l i f e — i n c l u d i n g o n e t i me pur porte dly spe ndi ng $ 1200 a t the Ja ck D an ie l’ s r ef

ine ry on whis ke y

that di d no t la st hi m si x m on th s—

bu t q ui t d rin ki ng an d s m ok in g i n 1 98 0.22

D ur ing he r ta lk w ithY oung , Mary Ca llahan de sc ri be d ingr eat de ta il the de fe ndant’ s y outh and h er ow n hi sto ry

of psy ch oti c pr obl em s. S he sa id the de fe ndant w as br ea st f

ed , ha d no pr obl em

w ithtoi le t tra ini ng, a nd b eg anw al kin g at the a ge of

te n m onths; he w as a n e ne rg et ic a nd am bit iou s c hil d who a lw ay s di d his chores around th e house; and he suffered assorted injur ies growing up, such as falling out o f a tr ee house and spill ing a pot o f hot coffee on him self. Mar y Callahan claim ed she wa s the one who had to dis cipline the children because her husb an d w as of

te n bu sy a nd a bse nt f ro m hom e. S he sa id s he be gan e xpe ri en ci ng psy ch olo gic al pr obl em s w he n he r fi rs t c hil d le ft hom e 19 y ears e ar lie r. S inc e the n, she ha d be entr eate d a

ppr oxi m at el y

20 t im es f

or psy ch ia tr ic pr obl em s. D es pit e go in g i nt o g reat de ta il ab ou t t he de fen da nt ’s up br in gi ng an d h er o wn psy ch olo gic al pr obl em s, Mary Ca llahan di d no t m en tio n th e de fe ndant b ei ng ph y si cal ly abu se d b y

hi s fa th er. A ft er be ing de cl ar ed

c om pe te nt t o st an d tr ia l, Ca llahan m ad e a m oti on f or Ju dg e Mo nkto recu se hi m se lf b as edon Ju dg e Mo nk ’s act io ns on Feb ru ary 23 . Sp ec i fi ca l l y, Ca l l ah an ar g u ed i f t h e S t at e s o u g h tt o i n t ro du ce an y o f C al l ah an ’s state m en ts, the n C al lahan w oul d w an t t o c al l Ju dge Mo nk a s aw itn es s to te sti fy to w ha t he obs er

ve d inthe int er

ro ga tio n r oom . Jud ge Mo nk d en ie d th e m oti on and ex pla ine d:23

Mr . F re d L y

br an d an a tto rn ey

pr ac tic ing w iththe Ci ty

of A nni sto n approached the Court and inform ed the Court that Mr. Callahan w as be ing que sti one d inthe Ca lho un C ounty Ja il an d r eque ste d of

the Co urt a ssi stanc e in g ai nin g a cc es s . . . to his c lie nt whe re uponI pr oc ee de d to the Ca lho un C ounty Ja il w ithMr . L y

br an d; i nf orm ed the Sheriff , R oy Snead, that Mr. Ly

brand was ther e to see Mr . C allahan and I entere d the room

wher e Mr. Callahan w as located w ith a court reporter and I believe tw o, perhaps three other persons. T he rec ord will disclose that I inform ed Mr. Callahan of his rights and in form ed him that hi s f athe r ha d r et ai ne d an a tto rn ey w ho w ish ed

to spe ak to him , w he re uponMr . Ca llahan in fo rm ed the Co urt tha t he did

w ishto spe ak w ithMr . L y

br an d or that he w oul d sp eak w ithhim . B ut, the Co urt kn ow s no thi ng a

bout the f ac ts and c ir cu m stanc es sur ro undi ng the case and I’ m

deny ing Mr. L ane’ s m otion to recuse m y self. T here is n o m at er ia l f

ac t tha t the Co urt kn ow s th at he ha d te sti fi ed

to in reg ardto th e v ol un ta rin es s o f an y st at em en t. A ft er Jud ge Mo nk’ s st at em en t, the f oll ow ing dis cu ssi on o cc ur re d: MR. LA NE : Your H onor page twenty -six of the statem ent that, I am refe rring to, line fourteen is w hen y ou entered the room . It say s, “ Mr. Callahan, I’ m

Judge Mon k. N ow, I know y ou have been explained y our r igh ts s o f

ar . ” W as the H onor ab le Co urt pr es en t or did the H onor ab le Co urt kn owthat the D ef en dant h ad

ha d hi s r igh ts r ea d to h i m? THE COURT: No, I d idno t. Tha t was pu rel y an ass um pt io n o n my

pa rt. Y ou knowthat no j udge part ic ipate s ina ny int er ro ga tio n of

a ny Defen da nt , y ou kn ow t ha t o f y ou r own kn owl ed ge .At the first trial, the ope ning a nd closingstatements of both the guilt and penalty phases 10 wer e not transc ribed. The State did not offe r any evidenc e about the f irst four stateme nts. 11 24 b. Tr ial 10 D ur ing the tr ia l, the S ta te a tte m pte d to intro duc e Ca llahan’ s f if th s ta te m en t (b ut n ot the f

ir st f our ) an d C al lahan ob

j ec te d, a rg uin g th e state m en t w as not vol unt ar y . I n su ppor t of his obj ec tio n, Ca llahan c al le d F re d L y br an d. L y

br an d de sc ri be d C al lahan’ s de m eanor on F eb ru ar

y 23 a s ti re d, som ewha t e m oti ona l, a nd al m ost to the poi nt o f te ar s. A ft er L y br an d, Ca llahan a tte m

pte d to c al l Ju dge Mon k a s aw itn es s, but

Jud ge Mo nk r ef

use d. A ft er the S ta te of

fe re d de ta ile d e vid en ce that C al lahan ha d be enr ea d hi s ri ght s and v oluntari ly

w ai ve d th em

be fo re m ak ing his f

if th s ta te m en t, Jud ge Mo nk de nie d C al lahan’ s ob

j ec tio n. 11 Ina ddi tio n to Ca llahan’ s f if th s ta te m en t, the S ta te pr es en te d th e fo llo w ing ev ide nc e ag ai nst

Ca lla han:

• Ji m m y Dun ag an tes ti fie d a s t o wh athe saw o n F eb ru ary 3.

• Susan Bragg testified she drove by the Norge W asherteria

a little afte r 12: 00 a . m . on F eb ru ar

y 4 and s awa“ blu ishgr ee n F or d pi ck -u p tr uc k” pa rk edou ts id e th e was he rte ria wit h s om eo ne in it .

• K ev in W ay

ne P ri ch ar d te sti fi ed

that onF eb ru ar

y 4 aro und 1:0 0 a . m . , he dr ov e p as t t he Norg e Wash ert eri a an d s aw a m an an d wo m an in si de . He de sc ri be d th e w om ana s havin g dark ha ir a nd w eari ng n ic e cl oth es . T he25

m anha d sl igh tly

c ur ly , r ed dis h or

br ow nis h bl onde ha ir , w hic h w as not w el l kept. Pr ichard w as struck by the contrast betwee n the pretty girl who w as dr es se d n ic el y

an d t he rag ge d m an .

• Se rg eant T hie ne s te sti fi ed she a rr ive d a t the N or ge W as he rt er iaon February 4 and insp ected H owell’ s car. T here a ppeared to have been an al te rc at ionon the hoo d of H ow el l’ s c ar . S he obs er ve d f ing er pr int s st ar

tin g at the top of the hoo d and contin uing all the w ay down it, including an un us ua l am ou nt of f

in ge rp rin ts on th e lo wer p art .

• W al te r Ch aunc ey

te sti fi ed Ca llahan us ua lly

m et him a t hi s ho use in the mo rn i n g , s o t h e t w o o f

t h e m co u l dr i d e t o wo rkt o g e t h e r . On F e b r u a ry 4 ar ound 5:0 0 a . m . , Ca llahan c al le d C haunc ey a nd t old him he w oul d no t be g o i n g t o wo rkt h at d ay. Th e n ex td ay, C al l ah an s h o we dup at Ch au n ce y’ s hous e to r ide to w ork w ithhim . C haunc ey obs er ve d f re sh s cr at ch es on b oth of Ca llahan’ s arm s. Whe n he a ske d C al lahan if the sc ratc he s w er e fr om ha vi ng tro ub le wit h h is wife , Cal la ha n l au gh ed .

• K ar enH ow el l, Be cky ’ s si ste r, ide nti fi ed the pur se the of

fi ce rs f ound be hin d th e woo dp il e as Beck y ’s pu rs e.

• Pa ul H en nin ge r, Ca llahan’ s br oth er -i n- law , te sti fi ed that onF eb ru ar

y 21, he re m ove d apa ir

of boo ts f ro m Ca llahan’ s tr ai le r an d turn ed the m ove r to the po li ce a fe w days la te r.

• Do n n a H o we l l , B ec ky’ s s i s t er , i d en t i fi ed t h e b o o t s re m o v ed fr o m Ca l l ah an ’s tra il er b y Henn in ge r as be lo ng in g t o B eck y .

• Fulton Prevost, an Identifications Off icer f or the State of Alabam a, testified that f ing er pr int s onthe r oll of

gr ay duc t t ap e fo und out sid e the N or ge W as he rte ria m at ch edCal la ha n’s fi ng erp rin ts .

• D r. Jos ep h E m

br y , aF or en sic P athol ogi st, te sti fi ed H ow el l ha d aone a nd a ha lf inc h indiam et er

br uis e on h er

le ft te m ple that w as pr es en t a t l ea st 30 m inutes before she died, and that her legs and fee t showed no scratches or oth er e vid en ce of

tr au m a. I n D r. E m

br y ’ s m ed ic al opi nio n, H ow el l c oul dMo rr iso n d e sc ri be d a se c re tor a s so me on e wh o s e c re te s n or ma l A B O b loo d f

a c tor s into 12 their biolog ical fluids. He stated that appr ox imately 80% of the population are se cre tors. 26 not have r un thr oughthe a re a of

w oods ne ar

the c re ek w he re Ca llahan sa id sh e d id .

• It em s r ec ove re d f

ro m the se ar chof

Ca llahan’ s tr

uc k in cl ude d aloa de d . 25 cal ib er au to m at ic pi st ol , sev eral pa irs of jea ns , and a pi ll ow.

• JohnCa se , ac ri m ina lis t w iththe A la bam a D ep ar

tm en t of F or en sic S ci en ce s, testified that the two pair of blue j eans rec overed from Callahan’ s truck w er e siz ed

29 1⁄2 by 30 and 3 0 by

30. T he blu e j eans f

ound out sid e the Norge W asherteria

we re sized 30 by

32. Ca se also m ade severa l co nc lus ion s r eg ar din g ha ir a nd f ibe r sa m ple s: a str an d of

hum anha ir re co ve re d f

ro m am op i n C al lahan’ s tr ai le r w as m ic ro sc opi ca lly c onsi ste nt wi t h a s amp l e o f h ai r f

ro m Ho we l l ; a s amp l e o f h ai r t ak en fr o m Ho we l l ’s dog w as m ic ro sc opi ca lly

c onsi ste nt w ithdog ha ir

f ound in Ca llahan’ s tr

uc k; ac ry lic f ibe rs in the poc ke t of

the j eans f

ound out sid e the N or ge W as he rt er ia w er e the sam e ty

pe of f ibe rs pr es en t i n th e carp et of Ca llahan’ s tr ai le r; a nd a piece of white duct tape recovered f rom a w indo w pane at Callahan’ s trailer w as ide nti ca l i n c onstru ct iona nd c he m ic al pr ope rt ie s to the ta pe use d to bin d H ow el l’ s hands. C as e co uld not say w ithc er ta inty that the ha ir , f

ibe rs , an d t ap e were t he same, onl y th atth ey were co ns is te nt .

• Ro ge r Mor

ri son, ac ri m ina lis t i n th e D ep ar tm en t of F or en sic S ci en ce s inthe Huntsville Region al H ospit al, testified that he analy zed a vaginal swa b take n f ro m the vic tim , ase m ensam

ple f ro m he r fi an cé , Murr ay

K nig ht, a nd as a l i v as a mp l e f

r o m C a l l a h a n t o d e t e rmi n e w h i c h , i f a n y, c a me f

r o m a “ secretor. ” T he vaginal swab had antigens on it that wer e indicative of a

12 G ro up O se cr et or . C al lahan’ s sa liv a sa m ple c ont ai ne d anti ge ns, ind ic at ive of aG ro up O se cr et or . K

nig ht’ s se m ensam

ple ha d no a nti ge ns p re se nt, m ean in g h e was a no n- se cret or . Cal la ha n c al le d s ev eral wit ne ss es in hi s d efen se . Rob ertBla ckweld er, a pr of es sor w itha n e xpe rt ise in fi nge rp ri nt i de nti fi catio n, did not dis put e that the27

fingerprint found o n the roll of duct tape was C allahan’ s, but he opined th at Callahan’ s print found on the tape was unusually full and com

plete. Blackw elder al so que sti one d th e re lia

bil ity of ha ir a nd f ibe r co m pari sons , statin g on e co uld not be certain that a particular loose hair cam e fr om a particular

indiv idual and th at do g h ai r co m

pa ris on s wer e le ss rel iabl e th an th os e o f hu m an ha ir. Ja m es F ox t es tif

ie d C al lahan vi sit ed

him f ro m the 8thto the 16th of Fe br uary in L ak e Ch ar le s, L oui siana . F ox d id n ot r ec al l se ei ng any sc ratc he s on Ca llahan’ s arm s. A cc or din g to Mi ch ae l C al lahan, the de fe ndant’ s br oth er , he a nd his f athe r w en t t o th e de fe ndant’ s tr ai le r on F eb ru ar y 14 and o bse rv ed

apla sti c m ilk c ont ai ne r fu ll of

ga sol ine on a

li t ga s st ove . Mi ch ae l C al lahan turn ed of f the ga s to the sto ve a nd l ef

t. I t a ppe ar ed to him that so m eo ne w as tr

y ing to blo wup the tr ai le r. P au l H en nin ge r, the de fe ndant’ s br oth er -i n- law , te sti fi ed he r em ove d a co nta ine r of

ga sol ine f

ro m the sto ve a t the de fe ndant’ s tr ai le r. T w o day s late r, the defendant arrived at H enning er’ s hous e ear ly in the m orning and told Henninger he w as on h is w ay

ba ck f ro m L ak e Ch ar le s, L oui siana . H en nin ge r did not obs er ve scratches on Callahan’ s arm s. S haron Henninger, the defendant’ s sister, testified she a lso sawCa llahan onF eb ru ar y 16 w ith out

his shi rt on and d id n ot s ee a ny sc rat ch es . The jury fo un d C al la ha n g ui lt y on all th ree c ou nt s.28 c. Se nte nc ing —Jury

Re co m m en da tio n T he S ta te c al le d F or

re st D obbi ns, Cl er

k of the Ca lho un C ounty

Co urt, a nd H ubbard . D obbi ns r ea d in to e vid en ce c opi es of Ca llahan’ s tw o c onvi ct ion s f or assault with intent to m

urder, and Hubbard confirm ed Callahan w as the indivi dual co nvi ct ed of tho se of fe nse s. C al lahan c al le d B oy ce Ca llahan, his unc le , Caro lin e Ca llahan, his aunt , a nd M ar ie Ca llahan, his sis te r- in- law . A cc or din g to Bo y ce , he kne wthe de fe ndant f

or his e nti re li fe a nd n ev er

kne whim

to ge t i nto a ny

tr oubl e or hurt any one . B oy ce be lie ve d hi s ne phe ww as ave ry nic e pe rs on who j ust

got em oti ona l so m et im es . C ar oli ne Ca llahan te sti fi ed she kne wthe de fe ndant f or al m ost his e nti re li fe ; sh e ne ve r sawhim thr eate n or

hurt any one a nd d id n ot b e l i e v e h e wo u l dd o s o . S h e a l s o s t a t e dC a l l a h a n h e l dar e g u l a r jo b a n da l w a ys supp orte d hi s tw o c hil dr en . B oy ce a nd C ar oli ne Ca llahan w er e both a ske d to te ll the j ury anything that m ight h elp them in m aking th eir re com

m endation. Boy ce tol d th e j ur

y the de fe ndant h ad

m ad e a re ce nt c om

m itm en t t o G od, a nd C ar oli ne reasserted her belief that the def endant could never hurt any one. Marie Ca llahan sa id s he kne wthe de fe ndant f or 11 y ears , a nd h e al w ay s he ld a j ob, sup porte d hi s children, and never hurt any one. O n cross-exam ination , a ll three w itnesses ad m i t t ed t h ey kn ew Ca l l ah an h ad b ee n co n v i ct ed o f f i ri n g a g u n i n t o h i s ex -w i fe ’s trailer, hitting his 11-y ear- old ni ece in the f oot. N one of the witnesses m entioned29

ab use , phy sic al or

se xua l, oc curr ing in the Ca llahan ho use hol d w hil e the de fe ndant w as gr ow ing up. The jury reco m

m en de d a sen te nc e o f de at h. d. Se nte nc ing —T ri al Co urt’ s F ind ing s At t he sen te nc in g h eari ng , Cal la ha n i nt ro du cedno te s fr om in te rv ie ws conducted byRichard T hom pson , a private investigato r. T hom pson interviewe d people who knew Jam es Callahan, and Callahan hoped the no tes would show that som e ind ivi dua ls i n th e co m m uni ty ha d am or e favor ab le a tti tud e tow ar ds Cal la ha n t ha n i nd ic at edin th e p re-s en te nc e rep or t. The Sta te off ered no ev id en ce. Ina cc or danc e w ithA la . Co de §§ 1 3A -5 -4 7, 13A -5 -5 1, the tr ia l c ourt m ad e fi ndi ngs w ithr es pe ct

to pot en tia l a ggr av at ing a nd m iti ga tin g f ac tor s. O n th e ag gr av at ing sid e, the c ourt f ound the de fe ndant h ad

be enpr ev iou sly

c onvi ct ed

of two separate felonies involv ing th e use of violence to the person, and the capital of fen se was c omm it te d d ur in g t he co m m is si on of a ki dn ap pi ng in th e fi rs t d eg ree. T he c ourt f

ound no m iti ga tin g f

ac tor s pr es en t. A s su ch , the c ourt c onc lud ed the ag g ra v at i n g fa ct o rs o u t we i g h ed t h e mit i g at i n g fa ct o rs , s up p o rt i n g th e ju ry’s re co m m en da tio n, a nd s en te nc ed Ca llahan to de ath.30 e. Dire ct Appeal T he A la ba m a Co urt of

Cr im ina l Appe al s a ff

irm ed Ca llahan’ s c onvi ct ion an d s en te nc e. Ca lla han v. Sta te , 471 S o. 2d 4 47 ( A la . Cr im . App. 198 3) . T he A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt, a ddr es sin g on ly the intro duc tio n of

Ca llahan’ s f

if th st at em en t, re ve rs ed . E

x part e Ca lla han , 471 So. 2d 46 3 (Ala . 1985) ( Ca lla han I ). In a 6-3 decision, the A labam a Suprem e Court held that the fifth statem ent was im pr ope rl y a dm itt ed be ca use the S ta te ha d f

ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n of sho w ing the fif th st at em en t was no t t ai nt edby a pri or , im pr op erl y tak en co nf

es si on . Id

. at 470– 71. Callahan’ s convictio n and sentence wer e vacate d, and the case wa s rem an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l. 5. Th e Se co nd T

ria l a. Pre- Tr ial W ilf re d L an e w as r ep la ce d by H ar old K nig ht a s C al lahan’ s c ouns el . K nig ht hir ed L oui s W ilk ins on t o a ssi st h im dur ing the gui lt pha se . C al lahan f ile d a m oti on f or Jud ge Mo nk t o r ec use him se lf be ca use he c oul d po ssi bly

be c al le d a s a wit ne ss . Ju dg e Mo nkde ni edth e m ot io n fo r th e sa m e rea so ns as b efo re. O n M ar ch11, 198 7, K

nig ht r eque ste d apsy ch ia tr ic e xa m inatio n f or Ca llahan. C al lahan w as a dm itt ed to T ay lor H ar dinon Apr il 16, 198 7 and discharged on Ju ne 3, 1987. D uring his stay at T ay lor Hardin, Ca llahan was31

exam ined and int erview ed by several individu als. An initial p sy cholog ical ev al ua tio n w as don e by

psy ch olo gis t D r. W ilb ur n R ive nbark . R ive nbark

did not do a co m pl et e h is to ry

be cau se on e was do ne when Cal la ha n was ad m it te d i n 1 98 2. Ca llahan to ld h im

that w he n he w as 12, apie ce of the law nm ow er

he w as w orkin g on broke off and kno cked him out for four hours. H e also talked “ som ew hat grandiosely ” about his “ sexual prowess” and the num ber of w om an he had been with. Rivenbark found no evidence of significant thou ght di sorder and diagnos ed Callahan w ith adult antisocial behavio r—although he noted there w as no evidence Cal la ha n h adbe en an an ti so ci al juv en il e—a nd na rci ss is ti c p ers on al it y di so rd er. Dr . B ernard B ry ant, a

psy chiatrist, diagnosed Callahan with adult antiso cial be ha vio r. C al lahan to ld B ry an t tha t a s ate en ag er he start ed

usi ng dru gs and al co ho l an d o fte n wo ul d b eco m e in eb ria te d t o t he po in t wh ere h e wou ldbl ackou t. H e al so h ad

num er ous hosp ita liz at ion s f or w ork- re la te d a cc ide nts a nd m oto rc y cl e cr as he s. B ry an t f

ound him to be of nor m al int el lig en ce , sho w ing no e vid en ce of ps y ch ol og ic al ab no rm al it y . Dr . K am al N agi, a

psy chiatrist, diagnosed Callahan with adult antiso cial be ha vio r an d ahis tor

y of dr ug and a lc ohol abuse . W ithN ag i, Ca llahan “ ta lk[ ed ] free ly about different things,” includin g his child hood , his father being an al co hol ic , a nd h is m oth er ’ s dr ink ing . C al lahan sa id h e start ed to dr ink a t the a ge32

of 13 and w oul d e xpe ri en ce bla ck out s be ca use he dr an k so m

uc h. H e w oul d a lso sell m oons hine for his father beca use selling m oons hine was the fam ily ’ s prim ary source of incom e. N agi saw no signs of m ental illness and n oted Callahan scored above average on m ost parts of the com petency to stand trial test. A noth er psy chiatrist, D r. Fe Yum

ul, also concluded Callahan was c om petent to stand trial an d f re e of m en ta l i lln es s a t the ti m e of the a lle ge d c ri m e. N one of the r ep orts contained any

ref erence s to Callahan or his m other suffering phy sical abuse. Ca llahan a ga in f

ile d am oti on f

or Jud ge Mo nk t o r ec use him se lf . T he m otion wa s discuss ed at a hearing on March 2, 1987, and at a pr etrial confer ence on July 6, 198 7. A t the m oti on h eari ng, a ft er r ec ount ing his int er

ru pti on o f Ca llahan’ s in te rr oga tio n onF eb ru ar y 23, 198 2, Jud ge Mo nk d en ie d th e m oti on, statin g: “ I knownothin g a bout the f ac ts o f the c as e. I don ’ t kn oww ha t y ou c oul d expect m e to testify

to other than that. E ven if I did testify to that I don’t see what it show s, num

be r one . N um

be r tw o, the re a re oth er

w itn es se s w ho knowa ll of the facts of the c ase. ”

b. T ri al The S tate introduced all five of Callahan’ s statem ents and offered detailed evidence about ho w he wa s advised of his rights and waived his rights before giv ing e ac h st at em en t. Ji m m y D una gan, S usan B ra gg, F ult on P re vost , D onnaLy brand a nd Henning er did not testify in person at the se cond trial, but their testimony 13 from the f irst trial was ente red into the re cord. I n Ly brand’ s case , his testimony was not off

ere d to the jury , but only

to the court on the que stion of the voluntariness of Callaha n’s statements. 33 H o w e l l , K a r e n H o w e l l , F r e dL yb r a n d , a n dP au l H e n n i n g e r t e s t i f i e dt o t h e s a me effe ct as they

did at the first trial. Y et, the evidence at the second trial did differ 13 in s ev er al r es pe ct s f

ro m the f ir st tri al . Dr . E m bry testified that How ell had a bruise on her tem ple and that her fee t ha d no br uis es or sc ratc he s c onsi ste nt w ithhavin g r un thr oughthe a re a of

w oods w he re she w as f

ound , but he did not state in his m ed ic al opi nio n th at H ow el l c oul d not have r un thr oughtho se w oods . Joh n C as e ag ai n c onc lud ed w hit e duc t t ap e re co ve re d f

ro m aw ind owa t C al lahan’ s tr ai le r ha d th e sa m e co m posi tio n, co nstru ct ion , a nd d im en sio ns a s th e ta pe use d to bin d H ow el l’ s hands, but he did not testify

about his com

parisons of hair and fiber sam ples. Roger Morrison stated he exam ined a vaginal swab from How ell and concluded hu m an sem inal fluid was pr es en t, b ut he di d n ot di sc us s t he “ se cret or ” te st s h e p erfo rm ed . Ina ddi tio n to ide nti fy ing Be cky ’ s purs e, K ar enH ow el l a lso te sti fi ed that on Fe br uary 4 sh e sawsc ratc he s and h an d pr int s onBe cky ’ s c ar f ro m the top of

the hood to the gr ill ; sh e ha d no t se enthe m ar ks b ef or e that day . S er ge an t T hie ne s, K ev in P ri ch ar d, a nd W al te r Ch aunc ey w er e not c al le d a s w itn es se s a t the se co ndGar y Callahan late r pled guilty to perjury

for his testimony

in this case. 14 34 tr ia l. T he S ta te intro duc ed the pil lowr etri ev ed

f ro m Ca llahan’ s tr

uc k, but not the gu n o r a d es cri pt io n o f th e b lu e jean s. T w o ne ww itn es se s w er e ca lle d by the S ta te . G la dy s C al lahan te sti fi ed she ne ve r m et Be cky H ow el l and w as not

a t the w as he rt er iaor

Ca llahan’ s m obi le hom e on F eb ru ar

y 3. B etty Ba ss, Bi lly

G ri ff ith ’ s w if e, te sti fi ed

she did not kno w Bec ky Howell an d d idno t i nt ro du ce h er t o C al la ha n. Callahan called tw o witnesses in his d efense—G ary Callahan, his broth er, an d Je nny

F or dham . G ar

y Ca llahan to ld the j ur

y he ha d w itn es se d an arg um en t be tw ee n G la dy s C al lahan and H ow el l a t a tr ai le r in J ac kson vil le in O ct obe r of 1981 . H ow el l a lle ge dly

tol d G la dy s to le av e an d ne ve r co m e ba ck . A ft er w ar ds, G la dy s w as “ a little ups et . ” G ar y Ca llahan sa id h e w as una ble to de sc ri be H ow el l because it w as dark the night he saw her. H e explained that he did no t testify ab out the inc ide nt at the f

ir st tri al be ca

use the de fe ndant’ s f

ir st atto rn ey

did not believe his sto ry . Gary

Callahan never told the defendant what happened betwe en G l a d ys a n dB e c ky H o w e l l , n o r d i dh e t e l l t h e p o l i c e w h e n t h e y s p o k e t o h i m. 14 Je nny F or dham te sti fi ed that onA ugus t 8, 198 1, Jam es Ca llahan and B ec ky How ell picked her up at the hosp ital, and the three of them drove around for a fe w hours lo okin g for Fordham ’ s truck. S he described Becky as being 5’5” with dark35

hair and brown ey es. In the State’ s rebuttal, K aren H owell testified Be cky had bl ue ey es . The jury ag ai n fo un d J am es Cal la ha n g ui lt y on all co un ts . c. Se nte nc ing —Jury ’ s R ec om m en da tio n T he S ta te , in its ope nin g arg um en t of the pe na lty

pha se , c ont en de d f

our aggravating factors existed: (1) the capital offe nse was c omm itted while Callahan wa s under sentence of another felony ; (2) Ca llahan had previou sly been convicted of a fe lonyinvol ving the use of violence to the person; (3) the capital offense w as co m m itt ed in furthe ranc e of

ar ap e or kidna ppi ng; a nd ( 4) the c ap ita l of fe nse in questio n was e specially

heinous , atrocious, or cruel c om pared to other capital of fe nse s. T he c as e put

on b y the S ta te w as ne ar ly

ide nti ca l t o th e fi rs t se nte nc ing : t h e S t at e c al l ed Fo rr es tDo b b i n s , wh o re ad i n t o t h e r ec o rd co p i es o f C al l ah an ’s two co nv ic ti on s fo r as sa ul t wi th in te nt to m ur de r. Callahan called his aunt, Caroline Callahan. Caroline Callahan said her fam ily lov ed Jam es a nd urg ed

the j ur y to re co m m en d ase nte nc e of

li fe w ith out paro le . S he not ed

the de fe ndant’ s m oth er

c oul d no t be a t the se nte nc ing he ar ing be ca use she w as “ ve ry , ve ry

il l. ” W e re co unt

in fu ll K nig ht’ s c los ing a rg um en t t o t h e ju ry:36

L ad ie s and G en tle m enof the j ur y , I don ’ t thin k th at

the re ’ s anythi ng that any one c ansay

that c anund o w ha t’ s be endon e. B ut I thi nk som et im es that i t’ s sa id the handw ri tin g go es a nd g oe s and p as se s on by . I hop e y ou d on’ t thin k I ’ m f ool ishin spe ak ing on b eh al f of him that he not

be se nte nc ed

to the e le ctri c ch ai r. I t m ay be that y ou dis ag re e ab out

that. T ha t’ s a ll ri ght . I c er ta inl y w oul dn’ t w an t the death of Becky

How ell, e ither. I think that [is the] one thin g that has be endon e that c an ’ t be und one . A nd I w oul d li ke to as k y ou t o co nsi de r his se nte nc e as li fe w ith out paro le , a nd tha t he c anli ve out the r es t of

his li fe [ w ith ] his w ro ngdo ing in his m ind . H e’ ll ha ve to l i v e w i t h i t . B u tt o me t h a t ’s

— i f yo ut a l kab o u tp u n i s h me n t , i ts e e ms to m e th atth atis pu ni sh m en t t ha t wo ul d m eetth e ci rcu m st an ces . Of co ur se , that i s j ust

m y opi nio n. A nd I w oul d li ke to as k y ou t o co nsi de r it, a nd I don ’ t f

au lt y ou i f y ou d on’ t. B ut I w oul d li ke to as k fo r m er cy f or him in that r es pe ct . I gue ss s om et im es m er cy is a thi ng, y ou kn ow, that som ebody ’ s free to have m ercy and som etim es see their way to forgive, and I’ ll agree to do that. Alot of tim es I’ m sure that a lot of the dis gust

a nd h atre d and s uc h ha s st ay ed a liv e in the H ow el l f am ily f or Jim m y Ca llahan. I thi nk the y ’ re pr oba bly not se cr et s. I don ’ t thin k th at ha tr ed c anbe w ipe d ou t of

the ir he ar ts o r the ir m ind s or the ir li ve s by r ec om m en din g th e el ec tr ic c ha ir to Jim m y . May be y ou thin k it

c an . I don ’ t se e that i t do es . I thi nk that’ s so m ethin g th at

if w e’ re goi ng t o li ve w ithit —hatr ed is sort of lik e canc er , it

e ve ntu al ly

c onsum es the he ad

a nd h eart both. A nd i f that i s th e ba sis of

the se nte nc ing is hatr ed

I thi nk i t w oul dn’ t be the ri ght ba sis . I r ec om

m en d to y ou that i sn’ t. I f ee l l ike that i f y ou h av e an y m er cy in y our he ar ts y ou’ ll se e y our

w ay to ex er ci se on y our m ind s and I a sk y ou t o do so. The jury reco m

m en de d a sen te nc e o f de at h.At the fi rs t tr ia l, t

he c ourt fo un d Ca lla

ha n w a s no t under a

sentenc e of imprisonment. 15 We cannot explain the differ ence , but at the time of Callahan’ s second tria l, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appea ls had clea rly stated: “[T]he definition of the term ‘unde r sentenc e of imprisonment’ . . . ‘means while servinga ter m of imprisonment, while under a suspended sentenc e, while on probation or parole, or while on wor

k rele ase, f

urloug h, esca

pe, or a ny other ty pe of r elea se or f

ree dom while or af

ter ser ving a term of imprisonment, other tha n unconditional rele ase a

nd fre edom af

ter e x piration of the ter

m of sentenc e.’” Tarv e r v . S tate , 500 So. 2d 1232, 1251 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) (quotingAla. Code § 13A- 5-39(7) ) aff’d , 500 So. 2d 1256 (Ala. 1986) . Callahan ra ised numerous issues in his direct a ppeal a nd in his state and fe dera l 16 petitions for post-conviction re lief. In this recitation of the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, w e on ly a dd re ss e a c h c ourt ’s re so lut ion of the iss ue s th at are pe rt ine nt t o th is a pp e a l. 37 d. Se nte nc ing —T ri al Co urt’ s F ind ing s The tr ial court found three aggravating factors: Callahan w as under sentence of im

prisonm ent for a f

elony , i. e. , probation; he had previouslybeen 15 co nvi ct ed of ac ri m e inv olv ing the thr eat or use of vio le nc e to the pe rs on; a nd h e com m itted the crim e in furtherance of a kidn apping in the first degree. T he court concluded th e evidence supported the jury ’ s recom m endation andsentenced Ca llahan to de ath. B. P roc ed

ural H istory —State Co urt 16 1. D ire ct

A ppe al O n di re ct appe al of his se co nd c onvi ct ion , Ca llahan arg ue d Ju dge Mo nk er re d inde ny ing his m oti on f or r ec usa l. C al lahan’ s arg um en t w as ba se d onCanon 3. C. (1 ) of the A la ba m a Canon of

Jud ic ia l E thi cs , w hic h st at es :38 (1) Aj udge sho uld di squalify him self in a procee ding in which his dis qua lif

ic at ionis re qui re d by

lawor his im part ia lity m igh t reasonably

be question ed, including bu t not lim ited to ins tances wher e: ( a ) He h a s ap e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e ju d i c e c o n c e r

n i n g ap a rt y, or pe rs ona l kn ow le dge of

dis put ed e vid en tiary

f ac ts c onc er

nin g th e pr oc ee din g; (b ) H e se rv ed a s alaw y er

in the m atte r in c ontro ve rs y , or a law y er w ith whom

he previouslypractice d law ser ved during such association as a lawy er in the m atter, or the j udge or such lawy er has be enam at er ia l w itn es s c onc er nin g it . In m aking th is argum ent, Ca llahan stated he “ [w a] s in no way accusing the trial j udge of bia s. ” Rathe r, he c ont en de d Ju dge Mo nk h ad pe rs ona l kn ow le dge of dis put ed f ac ts, suc h a s th e de m eanor of Ca llahan and the int er

ro ga tor s, a nd w ith out being able to call Jud ge Monk as a witness, “ these facts c ouldnever be disclosed from an apparently

unbiased witness.” Ca llahan a lso a sse rt ed

he w as de nie d th e ri ght

to “ co nf ro nt the Jud ge a s to his obs er va tio ns at the int er

ro ga tio n w hic h is one of

our m ost f undam en ta l and ba sic law s kn ow n to our

land. ” I n su

ppor t of his c la im , Ca llahan c ite d th e Si xth Am endm ent to the United States Constituti on, A la. Code § 12-21-13 7, and severa l ca se s. S ec tio n 12 -2 1- 137 of the A la ba m a Co de giv es ade fe ndant the r igh t t o cr oss -e xa m ine the w itn es se s c al le d a ga ins t hi m . S im ilarl y , the c as es c ite d by39

Ca llahan de al t w iththe Co nf ro ntatio n C lause of

the S ixth A m en dm en t and a de fen da nt ’s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e an ad ve rs e wit ne ss . O n a ppe al to thi s C ourt, Ca llahan arg ue s Ju dge Mo nk’ s f ai lur e to r ec use hi m se lf v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o p res en t wi tn es se s o n h is be ha lf. Al t h o u g h t h e r i g h tt o co n fr o n ti s d i ff er en tfr o m

t h e r i g h tt o co m

p el , C al l ah an ’s ar gum en t i n st at e co urt w as larg el y pr em ise d onhis abil ity

to ca ll Judg e Mon k a s a w itn es s; the re fo re w e w ill a ssu m e he pr ope rl y r ai se d and e xhaust ed

his c ur re nt arg um en t. Ca llahan a lso nowa rg ue s he w as de pr ive d of his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o an im partial tribunal. N ot onl y did Callahan fail to m ake any constitu tional ar gum en t i n st at e co urt r el at ed to Judg e Mon k’ s bi as or appe ar an ce of

bia s, but he e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e dh e w a s n o tma k i n g s u c h a c l a i m. A l t h o u g h w e w i l l a s s u me Callahan raised this argum ent in state court, w e ar e com pelled to no te it is a very cl ose que sti on. T he A la ba m a Co urt of

Cr im ina l Appe al s c onsi de re d bo th whe the r Judg e Mon k w as am at er ia l w itn es s and whe the r Judg e Mon k a cquir ed kno w le dge of di sp ut edfact s. Ca lla han v. Sta te , 557 S o. 2d 1 292, 130 7–09 ( A la . Cr im . App. 1989 ) ( Callaha n II

). A s to the first issue, the Court of Cr im inal Appeals adopted the view of sever al other states that a “ ‘ m aterial w itness’ is ‘ a w itness who giv esCa lla ha n e le c te d to have Ly

br and ’s te sti mony

re a d into t

he re c or d r athe r t

ha n c a ll h im 17 ag ain. 40 testim ony going to som e fa ct aff

ecting the m erits of the cause and abou t w hic h no oth er wi tness m igh t t es tif

y .’ ” Id. at

130 7–08 ( quot ing W

inga te v. Mach , 157 S o. 2d 421, 422 ( Fl a. 193 4) ). T he c ourt no te d th at A ssi stant D istri ct

A tto rn ey H ubbard , who w as present in the interrogation room when Judge Monk entered, testified at the supp ression hearing, and L y brand, w ho entered the interrogation room after J u d g e M o n k ’s s h o rtv i s i t , wa s a v a i l ab l e t o t e s t i f y. Id . at 1308. Bec ause other 17 ind ivi dua ls c oul d te sti fy , a nd d id, a s to the sam e ev en ts o bse rv ed by Jud ge Mo nk, th e Co ur t o f Cri m in al App eal s co nc lu de d J ud ge Mo nkwas n ot a m at eri al wit ne ss . Id . T he c ourt ne xt e xa m ine d w he the r Judg e Mon k “ av oid [e d] los ing his im partiality ” and “ m aintain[ed] his unfam iliarity with disputed m atters. ” Id . (c itatio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). T he c ourt r ec ount ed the de sc ri pti on Judge M o n kg a v e a tt h e s e c o n dt r i a l o f w h a to c c u rr e di n t h e i n t e rr o g a t i o n r o o m: T he e nti re tr an sa ct ionw as j udi ci al in na tur e. I t w as in the dis ch ar ge of m y pub lic duty

a nd m y duty a s aCi rc uit

Jud ge . I obs er

ve d no thi ng fa ct ua l a s f ar a s th e takin g of

the state m en t. I he ar d no portio ns o f the state m en t othe r than th e— a portio n of ase nte nc e or

so tha t ha d no m eanin g. T he re ’ s no thi ng I c oul d te sti fy to that I kno wof

. T he e ve nts up unti l the ti m e I knoc ke d onthat do or a re e ve nts that c oul d be clear ly testified to by

Mr. Ly brand. A fter the tim e I knocked on that41

do orth ey are a m at te r of

co ur t— ora m at te r of

reco rdha vi ng be en , I as sum ed , . . . tr an sc ri be d by Mr s. H ind s. Id. at 1309. Af

ter considering Jud ge Monk's statem ent and transcript of what ha ppe ne d inthe int er

ro ga tio n r oom , the Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s r ea ch ed the fo llo w ing c onc lus ion :

It appe ar s th at

Jud ge Mo nk w as pr es en t i n th e int er ro ga tio n ro om f or no m or e than af

ewm om en ts. T he tr an sc ri pt r ef le ct s th at , while Judge Monk was present, no qu estions we re put to Callahan re gard ing Ms . H ow el l’ s de ath, no thr eats w er e m ad e to C al lahan, nor an y r ew ar ds o ff

er ed him . I n f

ac t, the onl y

c onve rs at iona ft er

Jud ge Mo nkin te rrupt edwas t ha t b et ween Ju dg e Mo nkan d C al la ha n . . . . This is not a situatio n in which the trial j udge cond ucted an independ ent investig ation, becam e the “ fact gather er a s well a s a fac t fin de r, an d t he reb y

su bjec t[e d] a de fen da nt to an im po ss ib le bu rd en ,” w hic h w oul d ne ce ssi ta te ar ec usa l. N or is it a sit ua tio n inw hic h th e j udge acquired “ knowledge de hor s the r ec or d of

the tr uthor f al sity of a m atte r” a nd l at er

w as r equir ed

to m ak e a cr ed ibi lity

de te rm inatio n w ithr eg ar d to c onf

lic tin g te sti m ony

pr es en te d onthe m atte r. T he co nf lic tin g te sti m ony

giv enw ithr eg ar d to Ca llahan’ s st at em en ts d id not c onc er n any e ve nts oc curr ing w hil e Judg e Mon k w as in the int er ro ga tio n r oom . I n th is c as e, the tr ia l j udge c onsi de re d hi s pr ior inv olv em en t and “ state [d ] on the r ec or d w hy his im part ia lity c oul d no t re as ona bly be c al le d in to que sti on. ” T he “ tot al ity of the f ac ts” did not re qui re Jud ge Mo nk’ s r ec usa l. Id . (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . Call ah an ’s con vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e were a ffi rm ed . Id. at13 10 . The A labam a Suprem e Court, in a one paragra ph decision , a lso affirm ed Cal la ha n’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. E x part e Ca lla han , 557 So. 2d 13 11 (Ala.42

19 89 ). The Un it edSta te s Su pr em e Co ur t d en ie d C al la ha n’s p et it io n fo r cer ti or ari . Ca ll ah an v. Ala ba ma , 49 8 U.S. 8 81 , 11 1 S . Ct. 2 16 (19 90 ). 2. Rule 32 P etition fo r Post-Conviction Relief On Se ptem

ber 30, 1992, Callahan f

iled a petition for pos t-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabam a Rules of Cr im inal Procedure. Callahan co nte nde d he r ec ei ve d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el dur ing both th e gui lt an d se nte nc ing pha se s of

his tr ia l. T he S ta te de pose d C al lahan inpr ep ar at ionf or the ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing on the Ru le 32 m oti on. a. De posit ion of Jam es Callahan Callahan stated his father w as often drunk and would h it him , sever al tim es knoc kin g hi m

unc onsc iou s. H e al so w itn es se d hi s f athe r ab usi ng h is m oth er

a nd y oung er br oth er . O n on e oc ca sio n, Ca llahan in te rv en ed in a fi ght be tw ee n hi s y oung er br oth er a nd h is f athe r, br eakin g hi s f

athe r’ s arm

w ithati re ir on and di sabl in g h im . Ca llahan w as a ske d se ve ra l qu es tio ns a bout the pe na lty

pha se of his se co nd tr ia l: he did

not r em em be r dis cu ssi ng the pe na lty pha se w ithhis c ouns el , H ar old K nig ht; he did

not r em em be r w an tin g hi s aunt , Caro lin e, to te sti fy ; he did not re m em be r his m oth er

be ing il l a t tha t t im e; he did not r em em be r if he gave his co unse l nam es of

pe opl e he w an te d to te sti fy ; he did not r em em be r te lli ng h is43

co unse l t o ta lk t o any

w itn es se s; and h e did

not r em em be r his c ouns el dis cu ssi ng with him the possi bilityof putting on m ental health evidence. J u d g e M o n kp re s i d ed o v ert h e t wo -d ay ev i d en t i ary h ea ri n g o n Ca l l ah an ’s Ru le 32 p et iti on h el d Ju ly 1 and 2 , 199 7. T es tim ony a t the he ar ing f

oc use d on Ca llahan’ s c la im

that K nig ht w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o in ve sti ga te a nd p re se nt m or e m iti ga tin g e vid en ce . B ec au se K nig ht p as se d aw ay

se ve ra l y ears be fo re the he ar ing , he did

not te sti fy . C al lahan c al le d th re e w itn es se s to sup port hi s argum ent: Mary

Callahan, Joanne Ter

rell, and Dr . John Goff

. The S tate called Dr. Karl Ki rk la nd .

b. T es tim ony

a t the Ru le 32 H eari ng i. Mary

Ca llahan Mary Ca llahan, the de fe ndant’ s m oth er , te sti fi ed he r husb an d w as dr

unk every day and beat her and ra

ped her “pretty

m uch every day ” of their 44-y ear m arri ag e; he r hu sb an d s ta rte d b eat in g t he de fen da nt when he was a to dd le r. Ac cording to h er, the defendant often saw her husband b eat her and would step betwee n them

and try to m ake him

stop. When the defendant tried to intervene, her husb an d w oul d be at

him a s w el l. A s ar es ult

of be ing c onst an tly

r ap ed a nd a buse d, sh e was de st ro y edem ot io na ll y , whi ch led he r to att em pt su ic id e se ve ral ti m es . Although she wa s in and ou t of hospi tals and m ental hospi tals since 1962 , she hadA psychosocia l assessment, as de scribed by Terr ell, involves the ac cumulation and 18 e va luatio n o f t

he de ve lop me nta l and

be havio ra l ba c kgro un d in fo rm atio n o f a n in div idu a l to a id in u nd e rs tand ingthe imp a c t th e se e nv ri onme nta l f a c tor s h a d o n th e ind ivi du a l’ s a bil ity to f un c t i o ni ns o c i e ty. 44 no idea why

her re cords did no t m ention h er husband’s phy sical and sexual abuse. Sh e to okm ed ic at io n fo r he r “ ne rv es ,” an d i t p ut he r in a zo m bi e-l ik e st at e. Re gard ing he r son’ s tr ia ls, she te sti fi ed ne ith er W ilf re d L an e nor

H ar old Knight contacted her about testify ing on her son’ s behalf. Knight didcom e to her hous e onc e an d sp eak w ithhe r husb an d a bout the tr ia l, but

she le t he r husb an d take care of every

thing relate d to the trials. A lthou gh she adm itted to bein g in a hosp ital in a “ zo m bie -l ike state ” dur ing the se co nd tri al , she w oul d have te sti fi ed “ zo m bie an d a ll ” if ask ed . ii. Joanne T er re ll Joanne Ter

rell w as a clinical social w orker, who developed “ psy chosocial as se ssm en ts” of

ind ivi dua ls. U nde r state law , she w as not auth or iz ed

to dia gnos e 18 m ental or em otion al disorders. I n this case, T erre ll developed a psy chosocial assessm ent of Callahan. T o prepare the a ssessm ent, T erre ll interviewed Mar y Callahan, Sharon He nnin ger, Paul H enning er, Gary Callahan, Gary ’ s wife (L isa), Mi ch ae l C al lahan, Mi ch ae l’ s w if e (M ar ie ), a nd the de fe ndant’ s m at er na l aunt , H el enH ood. T er

re ll did not int er vie we ith er

of the de fe ndant’ s e x- w ive s be ca use45

she did no t feel it w as im portant to talk to them . Along with the relevant legal records, she also review ed the m edical and psy chiatric re cords for both Mary Ca llahan and the de fe ndant. Te rrell r ecounted her interviews w ith the defendant’s f am ily m em bers. Mary Callahan told Ter

rell her husband was phy sically and sexually

abusive towards her an d th at she tr ie d to c om

m it sui ci de se ve ra l t im es . S he a lso sa id h er hus band starting beating the defendant when he w as two y ears old. Mary wa s first adm itted to a m en ta l he al th h ospi ta l i n 19 62, w he re she w as dia gnos ed w ithpsy ch oti c depression andgiven electric shock therapy . Sharon He nnin ger told Ter rell that her father beat her m other and Jam es on a regular basis. Sharon said her father be gan se xua lly

m ole sti ng h er

w he n sh e w as 11 and c ont inu ed to m ole st h er

unt il she w as 16, w he n sh e be cam e pr eg nant. S haro n a lso tol d T er re ll that the de fe ndant be gan dr ink ing a t the a ge of 13 and c ont inu ed

unt il he w as a rr es te d f

or the pr es en t cr im e. G ar

y Ca llahan to ld T er

re ll that he w as a w ar e his f athe r hit his m oth er

a nd th e d efen da nt . Te rr el l ’s co n cl u s i o n s we re b as ed o n h erb el i ef t h at an i n d i v i du al ’s pe rs ona lity

is fo rm ed

by the ti m e the y

a re se ve n or

e igh t, a nd tha t pe rs ona lity w ill inf lue nc e howa n in div idu al w ill r es pond to pe opl e. B as ed

on h er int er vie w s and reviewof the rec ords, T erre ll concluded Callahan cam e fr om an abusive fam ily

that46

did no t m eet his essential em otion al needs. As a result of the environm ent he grew up i n, Ca llahan w as not

taught howto co ntr ol h is i m

pul se s and h owto obe y

the law s of soc ie ty . C al lahan’ s dr ink ing e xa ce rb at ed the pr obl em

be ca use it dim ini she d hi s a lr ea dy

lowim pul se c ontro l. O n c ro ss- ex am inatio n, T er re ll adm itt ed that M ar y Ca llahan’ s and J am es Ca llahan’ s m ed ic al r ec or ds d id n ot corroborate any

of the acc ount s of phy sical or sexual abuse. D espite her co nc lus ionthat H ar

ve y a nd J am es Ca llahan w er e al co hol ic s, she c onc ed ed both w er e ab le to m ai nta in s te ady e m plo ym en t thr ough out

the ir li ve s. T er

re ll w as not aw ar e that G la dy s C al lahan sa id the de fe ndant h ad onc e tr ie d to sm oth er

he r w itha pi ll ow. iii. Dr . John Goff Dr . John Goff

, a clinical psy cholog ist, conducted a neuropsy cholog ical ev al ua tio n of

Ca llahan, a sse ssi ng h is i nte lli ge nc e, c ogni tiv e ab ili tie s, m em or y , a nd pe rs ona lity

f unc tio ns. G of

f loo ke d a t the m ed ic al r ec or ds f ro m Ca llahan’ s 19 82 an d 19 87 p sy ch ia tr ic e xa m s, a nd t al ke d w ithT er re ll ab out w ha t the f

am ily m em be rs tol d he r. G of

f did not r ea d th e de posi tio n C al lahan gave pr ior to the Ru le 32 hearing or interview any fam ily m em bers personally

because he could not reach t h e m.47

G of f co nc lud ed

Ca llahan ha d am ild

c ogni tiv e de fi ci t, w hic h c au se d po or m em or y ski lls , a nd a

paranoi d pe rs ona lity

dis or de r. C al lahan’ s paranoi d pe rs ona lity

dis or de r pr ev en te d C al lahan f ro m tr ust ing a ny one , w hic h le d to h o s t i l i t y, s u s p i c i o u s n e s s , a n dd i s t o rt e dp e r c e p t i o n s . C a l l a h a n a l s o h a d“a tendency . . . towar ds unt ruths.” A lthou gh Goff c onclud ed Callahan had m em ory pr obl em s, he a cknow le dge d C al lahan w as e m plo y ed f or m ost of his li fe , inc lud ing hol din g th e posi tio n of

sup er vis or a t so m e j obs. G of

f w as not a w ar e of a ny docum entary

evidence to supp ort Mary Callahan’ s claim s of phy sical and sexual ab use . H e tho ught

Mary Ca llahan’ s te sti m ony

that sh e w as r ap ed

e ve ry day f or 44 y ears to be “poss ibly

an overstatem ent.” G of f adm itt ed , of

a ll the psy ch ia tr ist s and p sy ch olo gis ts t o e xa m ine Cal la ha n, o nl y

on e cam e cl os e to di ag no si ng Cal la ha n i n t he same way he di d. When asked why

only Callahan’ s m other testified at the Rule 32 hearing, G off ex pr es se d abe lie f that so m e fam ily m em be rs pr oba

bly did not li ke Ca llahan. T he State a lso qu estioned Goff about a A labam a Court of Civil Appeals decision , which re fe rr ed to his c onc lus ion s a s “ que sti ona ble ” be ca use the y w er e ba se d ona“ narr ow in ve st ig at io n” an d “ in co m pl et e” i nf or m at io n. Se e In re B ry ant , 485 S o. 2d 7 50, 752– 53 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986). G off agre ed that the Court of Civil Appeals had48

cr iti ci ze d hi m , but

dis ag re ed

w ithit s ob se rv at ionthat he ha d ava ila ble inf orm at ion th athe ch os e n ot to us e.

iv. D r. K ar l K irkland Dr . K arl K irkland, a psy cholog ist and assis tant professor of m edicine, com pleted a forensic evaluation and psy chosocial assessm ent of Callahan, which included exam ining Callahan in person and reviewing the m edical re cords of Jam es an dMa ry Ca l l ah an , t h e D i s t ri ct At t o rn ey’s fi l e, t h e t ri al t ra n s cr i p t , a n dCa l l ah an ’s d e p o s i t i o n . Ki rk l a n dwa s n o tab l e t o i n t e rv i e wa n y m e mb e r s o f C a l l a h a n ’s f

a mi l y, but did int er vie wCa llahan’ s tw o e x- w ive s and a c los e fr ie nd, A nn P ay

ne . K irkland spok e w ithL uc re tia

P ar is, w ho w as m ar

ri ed to Ca llahan f

ro m 196 9 to the la te 1970 s. P aris told Kirkland that Callahan did not have a drug or alcohol problem w hil e the y

w er e m ar ri ed , a nd C al lahan w as not vio le nt a ga ins t he r unt il the e nd o f their relationship. In particular, Lucr etia Paris relate d an incident where C allahan fired a gun in to her trailer . Callahan never told Par is he suffere d any phy sical abuse as a child. A nn Payne told Kirkland she never perceived Ca llahan as paranoid or saw him

engage in bizarre or inappropriate behavior, but she was aware of th e in ci de nt wher e Cal la ha n s ho t i nt o t he tra il er. K irkland a dm ini ste re d I Q a nd m em or y te sts to Ca llahan; C al lahan sc or ed in the nor m al r an ge on b oth . K irkland c onc lud ed Ca llahan w as suf

fe ri ng f ro m no49

m en ta l i lln es se s th at

w oul d have de tr ac te d f

ro m his abil ity

to ap pr ec ia te the wr ongfuln ess of his actions at the tim e of the off ense. Kirkland further concluded that a t the ti m e of

both tr ia ls, Ca llahan w as c om pe te nt and a

ble to as sis t hi s attorney s. K irkland also ob served that there w as evidence showing Callahan tried to c ove r up the c ri m e, suc h a s hi din g e vid en ce , le av ing the state , c hangi ng h is story , and try ing to destroy his m obile ho m e—such actions ind icated Callahan kn ew wha t h e d idwas wro ng . Kirkland disagreed w ith the Tay lor Hardin Reports that diagn osed Callahan as havin g an anti soc ia l pe rs ona lity . K irkland b el ie ve d th er e m igh t be e vid en ce of a n a n t i s o c i a l p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r , b u th e d i dn o tt h i n k t h e r e wa s o n e . F i n a l l y, Kirkland found no causal conn ection between the a lleged abuse Callahan suffere d as ac hil d and the c ri m e he c om m itt ed , w hic h w er e se parate d by 23 y ears . L ike D r. G of f, K irkland s awnothin g inMary Ca llahan’ s m ed ic al r ec or ds t o c or ro bor at e he r acc ou nt s o f ph y si cal an d s ex ua l ab us e.

c. In ef

fe ct ive A ssi stanc e of

Co unse l— G uil t P ha se Ca llahan arg ue d hi s c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e dur ing the gui lt pha se f or f ai lin g to argue that in ligh t of Ca lla han I , the S ta te did

not pr es en t su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce to pr ove the c onst itu tio na lity of Ca llahan’ s st at em en ts. U nde r Ca llahan’ s vi ewof Ca lla han I

, t h e S t at e’s i n t ro du ct i o n o f t h e s t at emen t s wa s p re cl u d edb y Al ab ama’sWit hout goinginto unnecessa ry detail, the g ist of Hu ll and He rgott is that the State does 19 not ge t two bites at the apple; if a court finds the State f

ailed to prove the admissibilit y of evidenc e, then at a sec ond trial, the State ca nnot introduce a dditional evidence to try and prove what it failed to prove the first time. 50 in te rp ret at io n o f th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cla us e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n. Re ly ing on H

ull v . Sta te , 607 S o. 2d 3 69 ( A la . Cr im . App. 199 2) a nd E x part e H er got t , 588 S o. 2d 9 11 ( A la . 199 1) , Ca llahan arg ue d Callaha n I wa s a final j udgm en t onthe a dm iss ibi lity of the state m en ts. Ca lla han v. Sta te , 767 S o. 2d 19 380, 386 (Ala. Crim . App. 1999) ( Callaha n III ). I n r ej ec tin g C al lahan’ s arg um en t, the Court of Crim inal Appeals observed: “ The A labam a Suprem e Court’ s reversal of Callahan's c onvi ction at his first trial wa s based on trial error, not on evidentiary ins uf fi ci en cy ; the re fo re , Ca llahan’ s r etri al did not im pli cate the D oubl e Je opardy Clause . . . . ” Id

. at 3 87 . d. Ineff

ectiveness Assistance of Counsel—Penalty Phase Ca llahan arg ue d hi s c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o in ve sti ga te a nd present addition al m itigatin g evidence. S pecifically , C allahan contended th at be tte r inv es tig at ionw oul d have pr oduc ed “ m an y f am ily m em be rs , f ri en ds, a nd oth er w itn es se s” w ho w oul d have “ te sti fi ed about Mr . Ca llahan’ s se ve re ly dy sf unc tio na l f

am ily w ithno s oc ia l se rv ic e int er ve nti on, his se xua lly

a nd phy sic al ly

abusi ve a lc ohol ic f

athe r, his sui ci da l and c hr oni ca lly de pr es se d pa ssi ve51

dependant m other, his history of chronic alcohol abuse, his histo ry of closed head injuries, and his go od behavio r in and adj ustm ent to prison .” Callaha n III , 767 So . 2dat 3 98 –9 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . T he tr ia l c ourt ob se rv ed

that a lth oughCa llahan a lle ge d m an y ind ivi dua ls w er e av ai la

ble to te sti fy

on h is b eh al f, onl y

one a ct ua lly te sti fi ed a t the Ru le 32 he ari ng . For e xa m

pl e, Sh aro n Hen ni ng er was un de r su bp oe na , bu t d idno t h on orit . For this reason, the tr ial court concluded: “ Callahan’ s present counsel was apparently

no m ore successful than trial counsel in havin g the fam ily m em bers showup and t es tif

y f or Ca llahan. ” T he tr ia l c ourt f ound Joanne T er

re ll’ s te sti m ony ab out Ca llahan’ s c hil dhoo d a

buse w as not

c re dib le f

or se ve ra l r ea sons . F ir st, T er re ll j ust r ep eate d w ha t f

am ily m em be rs ha d to ld h er , a nd the re fo re , the S ta te w as de nie d an op portun ity to cr oss -e xa m ine the f

am ily m em be rs . I f the f

am ily m em be rs ha d te sti fi ed , the tr ia l c ourt no te d th er e w as ar ea l po ssi bil ity the ir te sti m ony m ay not have be enf

av or ab le to Ca llahan. S ec ond, T er re ll’ s te sti m ony oc ca sio na lly

de m onstrate d th at

she w as bia se d to giv e onl y f av or ab le te sti m ony ab out Ca llahan. I n part ic ular, she did not int er vie we ith er

e x- w if e be ca use she t h o u g h tt h ey wo u l db e b i as ed ag ai n s tCa l l ah an . As a f u rt h eri n d i ca t i o n o f T erre l l ’s bia s, the c ourt no te d sh e be lie ve d e ve ry thi ng the f

am ily m em be rs sa id d es pit e re co gni zi ng the ir

pot en tia l m oti ve to m ak e the f am ily sit ua tio n lo ok w or se than it52

re al ly w as . O n th e oth er

hand, the tr ia l c ourt c re dit ed the te sti m ony

of D r. K irkland and foundwhatever

the degree of abuse in the Callahan hous ehold, it had no causal co nn ect io n wi th Cal la ha n’s m ur de r of Beck y Howel l. T he tr ia l c ourt c onc lud ed Ca llahan’ s c ouns el w as not de fi ci en t f

or f ai lin g to present the testim ony

proffer ed at the Rule 32 hearing, and even if the evidence had been presented there w as not a reasonable probabilityof a diff erent re sult at s en t en ci n g . Th e C o u rt o f C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s ag re ed wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’s conclusio n: “ Callahan presented insufficient evidence to establish th at trial co unse l w as not

a t l ea st a s di lig en t a s c ouns el a t the Ru le 32 e vid en tiary he ar ing in investig ating m itigatin g evidence.” Callaha n III , 767 S o. 2d at 39 9. “ T he ev ide nc e that C al lahan pr es en te d to sup port this c la im w as not c om pe lli ng and, if

it ha d be enpr es en te d a t the pe na lty pha se of the tr ia l, it

w oul d no t have c hange d th e outcom e of the procee ding s.” Id . ( internal quotatio ns om itted). C. P roc ed

ural H istory —F ed eral C ourt O n M ar ch29, 200 1, Ca llahan f ile d ape tit ionf

or ha be as c or pus in the Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a, rai si ng a to ta l o f ni ne cla im s. Ca lla han v. Ca m pbe ll , 396 F.3d 128 7, 1288 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005) ( Ca lla han V ) (l is ti ng th e cl ai m s) . Ca llahan’ s pe tit ionw as r ef er re d to Ma gis tr at e Judg e H ar w el l G . D av is I II on June 8, 200 1. A ft er

the m ag istrate j udge r ec om m en de d de ny ing Ca llahan’ s pe tit ionon53

al l c ount s, Ca llahan ob

j ec te d to the m ag istrate j udge ’ s r es olu tio n of e igh t of his nin e cl ai m s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a ddr es se d on ly tw o of Ca llahan’ s e igh t ob

j ec tio ns t o th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t, g ran ti ng rel ie f on bo th of t he m . Callaha n v. Haley , 313 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N. D. Ala . 2004) ( Callaha n IV ). W e ordere d a lim ited rem an d i ns tru ct in g t he di st ric t co ur t t o a dd res s t he ot he r si x c la im s. Ca lla han V , 39 6 F .3dat 1 28 8– 89 . O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d r el ie f on the six c la im s no t pr ev iou sly ad dr es se d and i ssu ed

ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

on a tot al of f our c la im s—the tw o or igi na l c la im s onw hic h r el ie f w as gr an te d, a nd tw o a ddi tio na l c la im s f or w hic h r el ie f w as de nie d. W e the n or de re d th e part ie s to f ile sup ple m en ta l br ie fs on th e two he ret of

or e u nb rie fedcla im s. Ca ll ah an on ly brie fedon e o f th e two “ ne w” cl ai m s, the re by

w ai vin g th e oth er . T hus, Ca llahan ha s th re e cl ai m s th at a re a ct ua lly at iss ue in thi s a

ppe al : ( 1) the tr ia l j udge ’ s f ai lur e to r ec use him se lf

vio la te d hi s co nst itu tio na l r igh ts; ( 2) he r ec ei ve d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el due to his co unse l’ s f

ai lur e to o bj ec t t o th e adm iss ionof his state m en ts b as ed

on a pr ior r uli ng of the A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt; an d ( 3) he r ec ei ve d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of co unse l a t se nte nc ing due to his c ouns el ’ s f ai lur e to i nve sti ga te a nd p re se nt m it ig at in g e vi de nc e.54

1. Ju dge M

onk ’s F ail ure to R ec use H

im se lf The district court concluded Judg e Monk’ s failure to re cuse him self violated Ca llahan’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o an im part ia l tri buna l and r igh t t o pr es en t a fu ll an d f ai r de fe nse . A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s ana ly sis of the tw o gr ound s f

or re lie f is i nte rs pe rs ed , the be st w e can te ll is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound Jud ge Mon k im part ia l be ca

use by e nte ri ng the int er

ro ga tio n r oom

“ [h e] a ssu m ed

the r ole of the prosecutor” and “ eschew ed his judicial role. ” Callaha n IV , 313 F . S upp. 2d at 1264. The district court was troubled by the fac t that Judg e Monk inform ed Ca llahan of

his M ira nda ri ght s and f

ound “ ev enm or e ap pa lli ng [ ] that on fou r se para te oc ca sio ns , in the pr es en ce of the dis tr ic t a tto rn ey

a nd l awe nf

or ce m en t of fi ce rs , Jud ge Mo nk a dvi se [d ] [ Ca llahan] that he ha s ar igh t not to t al k w iththe lawy er r etained by

[Ca llahan's] father. ” Id

. I n gr an tin g r el ie f on this iss ue , the d i s t ri ct co u rt co n cl u d ed t h at “ [t ]h e S t at e C o u rt s ’ [o rd er ] an dt h e M ag i s t ra t e J u d g e’s R&R do not address the im plications of Tume

y[ v. O hio , 273 U . S. 510 , 47 S . Ct . 437 (1 927) ] a nd [In re ] M urc his on [ , 3 4 9 U. S . 1 3 3 , 7 5 S . C t . 6 2 3 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ]. C l e a r l y, they are controlling prece dents of the United States Suprem e Court. ” Id . a t 12 65. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c onc lud ed Ca llahan’ s r igh t t o pr es en t a f ull a nd co m pl et e d efen se was v io la te d b ecau se he co ul d n ot cal l J ud ge Mo nkas a wit ne ss . Inpart ic ular, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed :55

T he j udge w as c er

ta inl y aw itn es s to 1) the c ondi tio ns o f the interrogation room , 2) Petitioner's dem eanor and m ental/em otion al state , 3) the appe ar an ce of the lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ci al s inthe i n t e rr o g a t i o n r o o m. If the j udge ha d te sti fi ed

a t tri al a s aw itn es s, a nd c onf irm ed the te sti m ony of A tto rn ey L y br an d and p ar

ts o f the te sti m ony

of [C al lahan] , his te sti m ony w oul d li ke ly

have c ar ri ed m uc h m or e w ei ght than th e te sti m ony

of oth er w itn es se s. Id . at 1264. T he district court did n ot specifically cite any Suprem e Court case law to s uppo rt

thi s po rt ionof

it s ho ldi ng, but

w e pr es um e the ba sis w as Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U . S. 683 , 106 S . Ct . 214 2 ( 1986 ), w hic h w as c ite d e ar lie r in i ts opi nio n f or the pr opos iti on tha t “ [c ] ri m ina l de fe ndants a re guarante ed the r igh t t o present a com

plete defense. ” Id

. a t 12 63. 2. In ef fe ct iv e A ssi

sta nc e of C

ouns el —G uil t Phase Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ad o p t ed t h e mag i s tra t e ju d g e’s re p o rt as t o Ca l l ah an ’s cl ai m of ine ff ec tiv en es s a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el a t the gui lt pha se of his tr ia l. T he m ag i s t ra t e ju d g e r ea ch ed t wo co n cl u s i o n s . F i rs t , t h e A l ab ama S up re m e C o u rt ’s de ci sio n di d no t ho ld C al lahan’ s f if th s ta te m en t wa s ta int ed

by his pr ior unl aw fu lly obt ai ne d c onf

es sio ns. R athe r, the A la

ba m a Su pr em e Co urt he ld the S ta te f ai le d to satisfy its burden to establish th at the fifth statem ent was not tainted. T herefor e, Ca llahan’ s c ouns el w as not de fi ci en t f

or f ai lin g to obj ec t t o th e adm iss ionof Cal la ha n’s s ta te m en ts on th atgro un d.Callahan’s ha beas pe tition was filed well af ter the e ffe ctive date of AEDPA. 20 56 3. Ineffective Assistance of Couns el—P enalty Phase T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound Ca llahan’ s c ouns el w as de fi ci en t a t se nte nc ing f or thr ee pr im ar

y r ea sons : ( 1) K

nig ht f ai le d to c al l C al lahan' s m oth er a s aw itn es s; (2 ) “ [t ] he re [ w a] s no e vid en ce that any subs tanti al m iti ga tio n in ve sti ga tio n or str at eg y w as dis cu sse d or

im ple m en te d by

de fe nse c ouns el ”; a nd ( 3) “ [e ] qua lly crucial w as the failure of [Ca llahan’ s] counsel to present any psy cholog ical evidence.” Id

. at 1261– 62. In particular , the district court believed evidence shou ld h av e be enpr es en te d r eg ar din g C al lahan’ s “ dy sf unc tio na l up br ing ing , his paranoid personalitydisorder, and his cognitiv e defe cts.” Id . at 1265. If Ca llahan’ s c ouns el ha d take n th ose ste ps, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed the re w as a reas on ab le pro babi li ty Call ah an wou ldno t h av e b een sen te nc edto de at h. Id . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Und er t he Ant i-Te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct(AEDPA), a fe de ra l c ourt’ s a

bil ity to gr an t a

state c ourt pr iso ne r’ s pe tit ionf or ha be as c or pus is lim ite d to thr ee sit

ua tio ns. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) .

20 First, we can grant re lief if the state court decision was “ contrary to . . . c le ar ly

e sta bli she d F ed er al law , a s de te rm ine d by the S upr em e Co urt of

the U n i t e dS t a t e s . ” § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . As t a t e c o u rtd e c i s i o n w i l l b e c o n t r a ry t o S up r e me57

Co urt pr ec ed en t w he re “ the state c ourt a ppl ie s ar ule that c ontra dic ts the gov er nin g lawse t f orth i n [ Su

pr em e Co urt] c as es , ” or

w he re “ the state c ourt c onf ro nts ase t of facts that ar e m aterially

indist ingu ishable from

a decision of [the Suprem e] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result differ ent from

[its] prece dent.” W

illiams v. Ta ylor , 529 U . S. 362 , 405 –06, 120 S . Ct . 149 5, 151 9–20 ( 2000 ). “ Inappl y ing the

‘ contrary to’ prong of AE DP A, we have rec ogni zed that wher e no Suprem e Court pr ec ed en t i s onpoi nt, ‘ w e cannot say that the state c ourt’ s c onc lus ion. . . is c o n tr a ry t o c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e dF e d e r a l l a wa s d e t e rmi n e db y t h e U . S . S up r e me Court.’ ” W

ashi ngt on v . Cr osby , 324 F . 3d 1 263, 126 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( ci ta tio n om it te d) . Second, w e can grant relief where the state c ourt decision “ invo lved an unr ea sona

ble appl ic at ionof

. . . c le ar ly

e sta bli she d F ed er al law , a s de te rm ine d by the S upr em e Co urt of

the U nit ed

S ta te s. ” § 22 54( d) (1 ). “ St at ed sim ply , af ed er al habe as c ourt m ak ing the ‘ unr ea sona ble appl ic at ion ’ inquir

y sho uld a sk whe the r the state c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

c le ar ly e sta bli she d f ed er al laww as obj ec tiv el y unreasonable.” W

il li ams , 529 U. S. at 409, 120 S. C t. at 1521 . “ [A ] feder al habeas co urt m ay not iss ue the w ri t si m

ply be ca use that c ourt c onc lud es in its ind ep en de nt j udgm ent that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal58

lawe rr one ousl y

or inc or re ct ly . R athe r, that a

ppl ic at ionm

ust a lso be unreasonable.” Id

. a t 41 1, 120 S . Ct . a t 15 22. T hir d, § 22 54( d) (2 ) al low s f or r el ie f w he re the state c ourt a dj udi catio n

“ re sul te d inade ci sio n th at w as ba se d ona n un re as ona ble de te rm inatio n of

the f ac ts in li gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co ur t p ro ceed in g.” § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). N ot o nly m ust the f ac tua l de te rm inatio n have be enunr ea sona ble , but the state co urt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s m ust be sho w n un re as ona

ble by c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing ev ide nc e. § 2 254( e) (1 ); se e als o R uth er ford v . Cr osby , 385 F . 3d 1 300, 130 8 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) ( co nc lud ing that “ [p et iti one r] ha s no t sh ow n by c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing ev ide nc e that the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt’ s f

ac tua l f ind ing . . . [ w a] s un re as ona ble in ligh t of the evidence in the state court rec ord”). III. DISC USSION A f t e r ac a r e f u l r e v i e wo f

t h e s t a t e c o u rtr e c o r da n dt h e r e l e v a n tS up r e me Co urt c as el aw , w e co nc lud e that C al lahan’ s ha be as pe tit ionr ai se s no c la im s to su pp or t re li ef u nd er AEDPA. A. Ju dge M

onk ’s F ail ure to R ec use H

im se lf Ca llahan arg ue s Ju dge Mo nk’ s f ai lur e to r ec use him se lf

vio la te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o an im part ia l tri buna l and h is S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o pr es en t witnesses. W e discuss each in turn. A lthou gh the dis trict court did not id entify59

unde r w hic h pr ong of

§ 22 54( d) it

w as gr an tin g r el ie f, Ca llahan a sse rt s he is en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) an d (d )(2 ). 1. R igh t t o an I

m part ial T rib unal a. § 22 54( d) (2 ) Callahan first challenges the A labam a Court of Cr im inal Appeal’ s factual finding that Judg e Monk did n ot participate in his in terrogation. H owever , other than sim ply concludin g Judg e Monk participated, the only fac tual supp ort Callahan provides for his claim

is Judg e Monk’ s statem ents that he knew Callahan had been read his rights and he knew he had wa ived his righ t to an attorney . Callahan supp oses Jud ge Monk learned this in form ation from the prosecution and from that supp osi tio n e xtr ap olate s th at Jud ge Mo nk w as inv olv ed in the inv es tig at ion . T he record belies Ca llahan’ s assertions because we know why Judge Mon k said what he said. W ilfred L ane specifica lly asked Judg e Monk how he knew Ca llahan had be enr ea d hi s r igh ts, a nd Judge Mo nk r ep lie d it w as m er el y

a n a ssu m pti on. Jud ge Monk also stated on the record it w as L y brand who told him

initiallythat Callahan ha d w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o an a tto rn ey . T his m ak es se nse , c onsi de ri ng L y br an d pe rs ua de d Ju dge Mo nk t o in te rc ed e on h is b eh al f be ca use the S he ri ff

w as usi ng Ca llahan’ s w ai ve r of

c ouns el to de ny

him a cc es s to Ca llahan duri ng the int er ro ga tio n.We may only g rant ha beas r elief unde r § 2254(d) (2) whe re “ the adjudication of the 21 claim . . . re sulted in a decision that w a s based on an unre asonable de te rm ina tio n o f th e fac ts in light of the evidenc e pre sented in the State c ourt proce eding .” (e mphasis added) . 60 Judg e Monk did n ot obt ain inform ation abou t the investig ation before en te ri ng the int er

ro ga tio n r oom , a nd h e did not part ic ipate in the inv es tig at ion w he n he e nte re d th e ro om —no t a sin gle que sti on w as pos ed to Ca llahan by

Jud ge Mon k th at

w as r em ote ly

r el at ed to the inv es tig at ion . W e ha ve f ound no s uppo rt

in the r ec or d f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing that Ju dge Mo nk “ as sum ed the r ole of

the prosecutor.” See Callahan IV , 313 F. Supp. 2d at 1264. The state court’ s factual fin di ng was n otun reas on ab le . Callahan also argues the state court’ s decision that Judg e Monk rem ained 21 im partial w as based on an unreasonable determ ination of the fac ts. Ca llahan co nte nds the state c ourt’ s ul tim at e fa ct ua l de te rm inatio n—the f

ind ing that Ju dge Mon k di d no t ob ta in e xtr aj udi ci al kno w le dge pe rt ai nin g to dis put ed f ac ts s u rr o u n d i n g h i s i n t e rr o g a t i o n o n F e b r u a ry 2 3

— i s u n r e a s o n ab l e . S p e c i f i c a l l y, Ca llahan c ha lle nge s so m e of the sub sid iary

f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns, c la im ing that by entering the interrogation roo m and speaking with Callahan, Judge Mon k acquired know le dge of

thr ee f ac tua l i ssu es w hic h w er e in c onf lic t a t the sup pr es sio n he ar ing : whether Callahan w as offer ed food or drink on Februar y 22 and 23 ; whether Ca llahan’ s ph y sic al c ondi tio n duri ng the int er ro ga tio n w as im

pa ir ed due to la ck

of61

sle ep ; and whe the r a de puty she ri ff thr eate ne d C al lahan by

pla ci ng a pis tol on the tabl e dur in g t he in te rro ga ti on . The co ur t’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n was ba se d o n s ev eral pi eces of e vi de nc e. Fi rs t, “ the e nti re c onve rs at iondur ing the j udge ’ s pr es en ce in the int er ro ga tio n r oom w as , in fa ct , r ec or de d and l at er tr an sc ri be d by

the c ourt r ep orte r as part of the statem ent.” Callaha n II

, S o. 2d at 1309. Sec ond, “ [t] he entire transaction was j udicial in natu re, ” id. ( quot ing Jud ge Mo nk’ s st at em en t) , a nd n ot e xtr aj udi ci al in nature. Indeed, Judg e Monk’ s invo lvem ent was at the behest of counsel retained by Ca llahan’ s f

at he r. T hir d, “ [t ] he c onf

lic tin g te sti m ony

giv enw ithr eg ar d to Callahan’ s statem ents did n ot concern any events occurring while Judge Monk was in the interrogation room .” Id . I n part ic ular, the a lle ge d pi sto l i nc ide nt w as not al le ge d to have ha

ppe ne d w hil e Judg e Mon k w as in the r oom . F ourth, “ Judg e Monk was present in the interrogation room for no m ore than a fe w m om ents.” Id . Im plicit in th e state court’ s observation is that, although J udge Monkdid speak with Callahan, he did not spend enou gh tim e w ith him to form any conclusion s as to hi s d em ean oror p hysic al st at e. The t ran sc rip t al so su pp or ts su ch a co nc lu si on . Fi fth, the state c ourt’ s r ev ie wof the tr an sc ri pt r ev ea le d th at “ w hil e Judg e Mon k w as pr es en t, no que sti ons w er e put to Ca lla han r eg ar din g M s. H ow el l’ s de ath, no threats we re m ade to Callahan, nor any rew ards offer ed him .” Id .As dis c us se d e arl ie r, we wi ll a ssume Ca lla ha n ma de an a

rgume nt b a se d o n h is Si xth 22 Am e ndme nt r ig ht t o a

n im pa rt ia l tr ibu na l in state c ourt . 62 W e cannot

say the state c ourt’ s de ci sio n w as ba se d ona n un re as ona ble determ ination of the fac ts in lig ht of all the evidence before it. § 2254(d)(2). b. § 225 4(d)(1) W e now consider w hether the state court’ s application o f lawto fact w as

“ co ntr ar y to” or a n “ unr ea sona

ble appl ic at ionof

” Su pr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t. T he 22 onl y S upr em e Co urt c as e ci te d by Ca llahan a ddr es sin g w he n aj udge c an not pr es ide ove r a m atte r, i. e. , m

ust r ec use , is In re M

urc his on . 349 U . S. 133 , 75 S . Ct . 623 (1 95 5) . M

urc his on invol ved a Michigan law that allow ed a j udge to act as a “ onem an grand j ury ,” but prohi bited judges who we re one-m an grand j uries from then he ari ng an y

cas es ari si ng fro m

th ei r in qu iri es . Id

. at 1 33 –3 5, 7 5 S . Ct. at 62 4– 25 . T he re , astate c ourt j udge c al le d a s w itn es se s tw o in div idu al s, Murc his on and Whi te , as p artof a gra nd jury in qu iry he was co nd uc ti ng . Id . at 1 34 , 75 S. Ct. 6 24 . Whit e re fu se d to a nsw er

a ny que sti ons on the gr ound

that he w as e nti tle d to have an att orne y

pre se nt du rin g q ue st io ni ng . Id . at 1 34 –3 5, 7 5 S . Ct. 6 24 –2 5. Mur ch iso n te sti fi ed , a nd the j udge c harg ed him w ithpe rj ur

y a nd o rd er ed

him to sh ow ca us e why he s ho ul d n ot be he ldin co nt em pt . Id . at 1 34 , 75 S. Ct. at 62 4. The jud ge th en tri ed , con vi ct ed , and sen te nc edth em in op en co ur t fo r co nt em pt .63

Id . at 135, 75 S. Ct. at 625. T hey objec ted, arguing a trial before a j udge “ who w as at the sam e tim e the c om

pla inant, ind ic te r an d pr ose cu tor , c onst itu te d ade nia l of the f ai r an d im

part ia l tri al r equir ed

by the D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F ourte en th Am endm ent . . . .” Id

. , 75 S . Ct . a t 62 5. T he tr ia l j udge a nsw er ed that du e pr oc es s di d n ot forbi d h im

fro m trying co nt em

pt ch arg es . Id. at13 5– 36 , 75 S. Ct. at 62 5. T he S upr em e Co urt r ev er se d, statin g: A fai r tr ia l i n a fai r tr ib un al is a ba si c requi rem en t o f du e p ro ces s. . . . T o th is e nd n o m anc anbe aj udge in his ow n c as e an d no m anis perm itted to try

cases w here he has an interest in the out com e. . . . It would be very

strange if our sy stem

of lawperm itted a j udge to act as a gr an d j ur

y and the n tr

y the ve ry pe rs ons ac cu se d a s ar es ult of his in ve st ig at io ns . Id . a t 13 6–37 , 75 S . Ct . a t 62 5. C al lahan in te rp re ts M urc his on as holdin g that

“ when a j udge’s par

ticipation in a case allows the j udge to acquire extraj udicial knowledge that directly

relate s to issu es over w hich the judge is presiding , r ecusal is r equir ed

be ca use it is dif fi cu lt if not im poss ibl e fo r a j udge to fr ee him se lf f ro m the influence of w hat tookplace. ” In Jo hnso n v . Ca rro ll , 369 F. 3d 25 3 (3d Cir. 2004 ), the Third Cir cuit was as ke d to r ea d M

urc his on as hol din g th at

the appe ar an ce of

bia s vi olate d th e D ue P r o c e s s C l au s e . R e

j e c t i n g s u c h a n i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n , t h e c o u rts t a t e d : “[M urc his on ’ s] hol din g, a s op pose d to dic ta , is co nf ine d to the ba sic c onst itu tio na l pr inc ipl e of64

pr ohi bit ing aj udge f

ro m a dj udi catin g ac as e w he re he w as a lso a n in ve sti ga tor f or the governm ent.” Id

. a t 26 0. W e ag re e. Jud ge Mo nk w as not a n in ve sti ga tor

f or th e g ov ern m en t; th eref

or e, M urc his on is n ot o n po int . T he state c ourt’ s r ej ec tio n of Ca llahan’ s c la im

ba se d onJud ge Mo nk’ s f ai lur e to r ec use him se lf

w as not “c o n t r a ry t o ” o r

a n “u n r e a s o n ab l e ap p l i c a t i o n o f ” c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e dS up r e me Co ur t p rece de nt . 2. Right to Present W itnesses Although he did not use these term s, Ca llahan’ s claim is essentially

an al le gatio n th at

his r igh ts unde r the Co m pul sor y P ro ce ss C lause of

the S ixth A m en dm en t have be envio la te d be ca use he w as pr ev en te d f

ro m c al lin g Ju dge Mon k a s aw itn es s. U nli ke m ost S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts, w hic h “ ar ise au tom at ic al ly

on the ini tiatio n of

the a dve rs ar

y pr oc es s, ” the r igh t of

ade fe ndant t o com pulso ry process is “ dependant entirely on the defendant’ s initiativ e. ” Taylor v. Il lin ois , 484 U . S. 400 , 410 , 108 S . Ct . 646 , 653 ( 1988 ) (“ T he de ci sio n w he the r to em ploy[com

pulso ry process] in a particular c ase re sts sol ely with the defe ndant.”). Af ter a thoroug h reviewof the rec ord, w e cannot find where Callahan ac tua lly a tte m pte d to c al l Ju dge Mo nk a s aw itn es s, e ith er a t the sup pr es sio n he ar ing or

a t the se co nd tri al . T he onl y r ef er en ce to Judg e Mon k te sti fy ing w as in Ca llahan’ s m oti on t o r ec use in w hic h he state d Ju dge Mo nk c oul d “poss ibl y ” be65

ca lle d a s aw itn es s. I n f

ac t, w he n C al lahan’ s m oti on t o r ec use w as dis cu sse d a t a pr e- tr ia l c onf

er en ce on July

6, 198 7, Ca llahan f

oc use d hi s arg um en t onJud ge Mo nk ’s abi li ty to b e im

pa rti al —n ot hi s d es ire to cal l J ud ge Mo nkas a wit ne ss . Co nve rs el y , a t the f

ir st tri al , Ca llahan e xpl ic itl y a tte m pte d to c al l Ju dge Mo nk a s a w itn es s. T he iss ue is thu s w he the r Ca llahan’ s m oti on t o r ec use w as asuf fi ci en t atte m pt t o e m plo y c om pul sor y pr oc es s su chthat Ju dge Mo nk’ s de nia l of the m otion wa s a denial of a r equest to call him as a w itness. A lthou gh we ar e inclined to thin k it w as not , ne ith er

party , nor

the state c ourt, a ddr es se d it , so w e w ill as su m e Cal la ha n was de ni edhi s re qu es t t o h av e Ju dg e Mo nktes ti fy .

a. § 225 4(d)(2) Assum ing Callahan did attem pt to call Judg e Monk as a w itness, Callahan ch al le nge s th e state c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing that Ju dge Mo nk d id n ot o bse rv e anything in the interrogation roo m that could no t have been testified to by another witness. It is not enou gh for Callahan to claim that because he did not have an oppo rt uni ty to que sti on Judge Mo nk, he doe s no t kn oww ha t Ju dge Mo nk m ay or m ay not have kno w n. T he bur de n is on C al lahan to sho wby c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing ev id en ce t ha t J ud ge Mo nkpo ss es se d i nf or m at io n u nk no wn t o a ny oth er wi tn es s. Y et , Ca llahan do es not

c ont es t the f

ac t tha t se ve ra l i ndi vid

ua ls w er e in the r oom

the66

en tir e tim e Judg e Mon k w as pr es en t, nor doe s he c ont es t the f

ac t tha t L y

br an d entered the room

im m ediately after Judge Mon k. A t the second trial, H ubbard te sti fi ed , a nd L y

br an d w as a va ila

ble to te sti fy , but

Ca llahan c hose to ha ve his te st im on y fro m th e fi rs t t ria l re adin to th e rec or d i ns te adof c al li ng hi m ag ai n. Be ca u s e a tl ea s tt wo i n d i v i du al s kn ew as m u ch as J u d g e M o n k , t h e s t at e c o u rt ’s factual f indin g was not unreasonable. b. § 22 54( d) (1 ) Ca llahan c ont en ds a

lon g li ne of

S upr em e Co urt c as es e sta bli sh h is r igh t t o pr es en t w itn es se s onhis be ha lf , a nd the state c ourt’ s de ci sio n is “ co ntr ar y to” a nd an “ unreasonable application ” of them . The S uprem e Court case s he relies on are Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U. S. 683, 106 S. Ct. 2142 (1986), Ch am be rs v . M iss iss ipp i , 41 0 U.S. 2 84 , 93 S. Ct. 1 03 8 (1 97 3) , Ta ylor v . I lli noi s , 484 U . S. 400 , 108 S . Ct . 646 (1 988) , a nd W

ashi ngt on v . T

ex as , 388 U . S. 14, 87 S . Ct . 192 0 ( 1967 ). O n a ve ry hig h le ve l of

ge ne ra lity , Ca llahan is c or re ct : those c as es do a ddr es s a defendant’ s right to p resent w itnesses. H owever , j ust because a Suprem e Court opin ion refer s to a defendant’ s right to call witnesses does no t necessarily m ean that c as e is “ on p oin t” f

or a ll fu tur e ca se s in vol vin g a sse rt ed r igh ts unde r the S ixth A m en dm en t. C al lahan m ust poi nt t o aS upr em e Co urt c as e ad dr es sin g asit ua tio n si m il ar t o h is , and he ha s n ot do ne so .The Supreme Court did not ex plicitly g round its holding on a spe cific c onstitut ional 23 rig ht. Crane , 4 76 U. S. at 69 0, 10 6 S. Ct. at 21 46 (“ Whe the r r oo te d d ir e c tly in t he Du e Pr oc e ss Clause of the F ourtee nth Amendment or in the Compulsory Clause or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth A me ndme nt, the Con sti tut ion gua ra nte e s c ri min a l de fe nd ants a me anin g fu l op po rt

un ity to present a

complete de fense .”) ( quotations and citations omitted). 67 InCrane , the tr ia l c ourt f ound the de fe ndant’ s c onf

es sio n w as vol unt ar

y , but the de fe ndant s til l w ish ed to intro duc e ev ide nc e of the c ir cu m stanc es of

the co nf es sio n to “ ca s[ t] doubt o n it s va lid ity a nd i ts c re dib ili ty . ” 476 U . S. a t 68 5–86 , 106 S. Ct . a t 21 44 ( int er

na l qu otatio ns o m itt ed ). T he tr ia l c ourt de nie d th e de fe ndant’ s r eque st and p re ve nte d hi m f ro m intro duc ing any ev ide nc e ab out the du rat io n o f th e in te rro ga ti on or t he in di vi du al s wh o wer e in att en da nc e. Id . , 106 S. Ct. at 2144. Reversing, the S uprem e Court observed that the circum stances sur ro undi ng the m ak ing of

ac onf es sio n are of

te n r el ev an t no t on ly

to its vo lu nt ari ne ss , bu t al so to it s cr ed ib il it y . Id . a t 68 8, 106 S . Ct . a t 21 45. B ec au se of the blanke t e xc lus ionof

te sti m ony

about the c ir cu m stanc es of

the c onf es sio n, the de fen da nt was d ep riv edof a fai r tr ia l. Id. at 690 , 106 S . Ct . a t 21 46. 23 In this case, the issue is no t whether Callahan w as able to introduce evidence about th e circ um stances of the interrogation: Hubbard and Ly brand both testified ab out w ha t the y

saw . T he iss ue is w he the r Ca llahan sh oul d have be ena llo w ed to call Judge Monkas a w itness, despite the availabilityof other w itnesses who saw as m uc h a s J ud ge Mo nkdi d. Crane is no t o n p oi nt .The idea behind the vouche r rule w as that the pa rty who ca lled a witness vouche d for 24 his credibility . Cha mb e rs , 410 U.S. at 295–96, 93 S. Ct . at 1046. 68 In Ch am be rs , the S upr em e Co urt a ga in i nc lud ed ge ne ra l l an gua ge about

the ri ght of ade fe ndant t o c al l w itn es se s, 410 U . S. a t 29 4, 93 S . Ct . a t 10 45 ( “ T he rig ht s t o c on fro nt an d c ro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es an d t o c al l wi tn es se s i n o ne ’s own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.”), but the actual hol din g do es not

r es em ble the c as e at

bar. T he re , a n in div idu al , G ab le Mc D ona ld, gave a sw orn confession th at he w as responsibl e for the m urder L eon Cham

bers was ch arg edwit h c omm it ti ng . Id . at 287, 93 S. Ct. at 1042. McD onald later rep ud ia te d t he co nf

es si on . Id. at 288, 93 S. Ct. at 1042. Cham bers called Mc D ona ld a s aw itn es s bu t w as ke pt f ro m c ro ss- ex am ini ng h im

be ca use Mi ssi ssi ppi ’ s “ vouc he r” r ule pr ev en te d aparty

f ro m im pe ac hin g hi s own w itn es s, unl es s th e w itn es s w as a dve rs e, a nd the tr ia l c ourt r ule d M cD ona ld w as not ad ve rs e. Id

. a t 29 1, 295 –96, 93 S . Ct . a t 10 43–4 4, 104 6. T he tr ia l c ourt a lso 24 pr ev en te d, on h ears ay

gr ound s, Ch am

be rs f ro m c al lin g se ve ra l f

ri en ds o f McDo na ldwho he ardhi m co nf es s. Id . at2 9 8 , 9 3 S . C t . a t1 0 4 7 . T h e S up r e me Co ur t h el d C ha m

be rs ’ du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d. Id . at 302, 93 S. Ct. at 1049 . He re, Callahan w as not prevented from cross-exam ining a w itness, nor wa s he pre ve nt edfro m

in tro du ci ng an y

he ars ay ev id en ce. Ch am be rs is no t o n p oi nt .69

Ta ylor co nta ins the sam e ge ne ra l l an gua ge a s Ch am be rs ab o u ta d ef en d an t ’s right to call witnesses in his d efense, 484 U.S . at 408, 108 S. Ct. at 652 (“ Few rig ht s ar e m or e fu nd am en ta l t ha n t ha t o f an accu se d t o p res en t wi tn es se s i n h is own de fe nse . ”) , but

in Ta ylor , the appeal stem

m ed from the trial court’ s exclusion of a de fe nse w itn es s a s asanc tio n f or f ai lin g to dis cl ose the w itn es s’ ide nti ty dur ing di sc ov ery. Id

. a t 40 1–02 , 108 S . Ct . a t 64 9. T he S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t w hil e the Si xthA m en dm en t co uld be vio la te d by pr ec lud ing te sti m ony

of ade fe nse w itn es s as a sa nc ti on fora di sc ov ery vi ol at io n, t he re was no ab so lu te ba r to pre cl us io n. Id . at 409 –10, 108 S . Ct . a t 65 3. T he Co urt a ct ua lly a ff irm ed the tr ia l c ourt’ s de ci sio n to pre cl ud e th e wit ne ss fro m tes ti fy in g a s a s an ct io n. Id. at41 6, 1 08 S. Ct. at 65 7. If an yth in g, Ta

ylor hurts Callahan’ s cause because it dem onstrates the right of a de fen da nt to pre se nt wit ne ss es is no t ab so lu te . Ta ylor is n ot o n po int . In W ashi ngt on , the w itness th at the defendant wished to call w as prevented fr om te sti fy ing by

state lawbe ca

use he ha d be enc onvi ct ed a s apart ic ipant i n th e sam e cr im e. 388 U. S. at 16–17 , 87 S. Ct. at 1922. T he j ustification for a rule that pr ev en te d c o- de fe ndants f ro m te sti fy ing a t e ac h othe r’ s tr ia ls w as that “ ea chw oul d try to swear the other out of the charge. ” Id . at 21, 87 S. Ct. at 1924 (internal quot at ion s om itt ed ). I n ho ldi ng the statut e vio la te d W as hin gto n’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o c om pul sor y pr oc es s, the S upr em e Co urt di d no t ho ld a70

de fe ndant c oul d ne ve r be pr ev en te d f ro m c al lin g any wit ne ss . Se e id. at 23, 87 S. Ct. 1925 . The state statute viol ated the Constitu tion b ecause it w as an “ arbitrar y ru le [] that pr ev en t[ ed ] [ a] w hol e cate gor [y ] of de fe nse w itn es se s f

ro m te sti fy ing on the basis of a priori categor[y ] that presum e[d] them unworthy

of belief. ” Id

. a t 22 , 87 S. C t. at 1925 . He re, Ala bam a has not prevented Callahan from calling an entire cat eg ory of p os si bl e wit ne ss es , e.g., jud ge s. W ashi ngt on is no t o n p oi nt . Ina ct ua lity , the r

ule Ca llahan w an ts u s to appl y is one w he re the de fe ndant h as a r i g h tt o ca l l h i s p re fe rr ed wi t n es s , a s h e s t at es i n h i s b ri ef : “ M r. Ca l l ah an ’s ab ili ty to pr es en t the j udge a s aw itn es s w as c ri tic al be ca use he w as the onl y w itn es s to the int er

ro ga tio n w ho w as not

e m plo y ed by the pr ose cu tio n. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppe ar s to have a gr ee d: “ [Judge Mo nk’ s] te sti m ony w oul d li ke ly have carr ied m

uch m ore w eight than th e testim ony of other w itnesses. H is refusal to recuse him self deprived [Ca llahan] of that opportu nity .” Callaha n IV , 313 F. Su pp. 2d at 12 64. C al lahan pr ovi de s no sup port, S upr em e Co urt or oth er w ise , f or the pr opos iti on tha t the S ixth A m en dm en t gi ve s hi m ar igh t t o c al l a

w itn es s no t em pl oyed b y th e p ro se cu ti on or a wit ne ss he pe rcei ve s as m os t cr ed ib le . Ac cordingly , the state court’ s decision o n this is sue was not contrary to or an unr ea sona

ble appl ic at ionof

S upr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t.71

B. In ef fe ct iv e A ssi

sta nc e of C

ouns el —G uil t Phase The two pro ng tes t fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i s wel l-k no wn.

“ First, the defendant m

ust sh ow that counsel’ s perform ance w as deficient. ” Str ic kland v. W

ashi ngt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4 (1 98 4) .

“ Se co nd, the de fe ndant m ust sho wthat the de fi ci en t pe rf orm an ce pr ej udi ce d th e de fe nse . T his r equir es sho w ing that c ouns el ’ s e rr or s w er e so s er iou s a s to de pr ive the defendant of a fa ir trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id . , 104 S . Ct . a t 20 64. Ca llahan c la im s hi s c ouns el w as de fi ci en t f or f ai lin g to a rg ue that, ba se d on the A la ba m a state c ourts’ int er

pr et at ionof

the D oubl e Je opardy

Cl au se in H

ull an d H er got t , the holding o f Callaha n I pr ec lud ed the intro duc tio n of

a ll of his statem ents at his secondtrial. T he Court of Crim inal Appeals concluded Callahan’ s claim

relied on an err oneous interpretation of Callaha n I an d re jecte d i t. Callaha n III

, 76 7 S o. 2 d a t 3 86 –8 7. Ca llahan’ s arg um en t tha t the state c ourt un re as ona bly appl ie d Str ic kland obvi ousl y de pe nds uponour

de te rm ini ng K

nig ht’ s pe rf

orm an ce w as de fi ci en t, but fir st we wou ldha ve to co nc lu de th e st at e co ur t m is in te rp ret edst at e la w, i.e., m isi nte rp re te d Ca lla han I . I n H errin g v . Se cr etary

, D ep art m en t of Co rre ct ion s , 397 F.3d 133 8 (11th Cir. 2005), w e addressed a sim ilar issue. T here, petition er ar gue d hi s c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o m ak e anobj ec tio n, ba se d onstate72

law , to the intro duc tio n of non -s ta tut or

y a ggr av at ing e vid en ce a t the pe na lty pha se of his tr ia l; the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed suc h an ob

j ec tio n w oul d have be en ov erru le d a nd th eref or e co un se l was no t d efi ci en t. Id . a t 13 54–5 5. W e he ld:

“ The F lorida Suprem e Court alre ady has told us how the issues would have been resolved und er F lorida state law had [petitioner’ s counsel] done w hat [petitioner] argues he should have done . . . . I t is a ‘ fundam ental principle that state courts are the f ina l arb ite rs of

state law , a nd f

ed er al ha be as c ourts s houl d no t se co nd- gue ss them on such m atters. ’ ” Id

. ( quot ing A gan v. V

augh n , 119 F . 3d 1 538, 154 9 ( 11th Ci r. 19 97 ). H er e, a s in H

errin g , the A la

ba m a Co ur

t of Cr im ina l Appe al s ha s a lr ea dy an sw er ed the que sti on o f w ha t w oul d have ha ppe ne d ha d K

nig ht o bj ec te d to the intro duc tio n of

Ca llahan’ s st at em en ts b as ed on Ca lla han I

, H ull , an d H

er got t—the ob jecti on wou ldha ve be en ov erru le d. Callaha n III , 76 7 S o. 2 d a t 3 86 –8 7. T he re fo re , K

nig ht w as not

ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o m ak e that ob j ec tio n. Mor eo ve r, w e ar e co nvi nc ed Ca llahan c oul d no t satis fy the pr ej udi ce pr ong of Str ic kland . C al lahan’ s a bil ity to de m onst

rate pr ej udi ce is ag ai n f

or ec los ed by the state c ourt’ s de ci sio n in Callaha n III . E ve n if K nig ht w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng to m ak e the obj ec tio n, the state c ourt ha s to ld u s th at if he did m ak e the obj ec tio n it73

wo u l dn o th av e b ee n s u cc es s fu l . C al l ah an ca n n o tb e p re ju d i ce db y h i s co u n s el ’s fa ilure to m ak e a los ing obj ec tio n. C. In ef fe ct iv e A ssi

sta nc e of C

ouns el —P en alt y Phase Ca llahan arg ue s K

nig ht w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r thr ee pr im ar

y r ea sons : ( 1) he failed to call his m other as a w itness; (2) he failed to present evidence of his m ental he al th; a nd ( 3) he f

ai le d to pr es en t e vid en ce of the phy sic al a

buse he suf

fe re d a s a ch ild . I f thi s e vid en ce ha d be enpr es en te d, Ca llahan c ont en ds the re is a re as ona ble p ro b ab i l i t y t h e ju ry wo u l dh av e r ec o m m en d ed a s en t en ce o f l i fe i n p ri s o n . We conclude Callahan has not sh own the state court’ s application o f Str ic kland , on ei th er t he pe rfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e p ro ng , was u nr eas on ab le . 1. De ficient Performance Before addressing hi s claim , it w ill be useful for us to first discuss in greater detail how w e apply

the perform ance prong of Str ic kland . Whe n e xa m ini ng a cl ai m of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el , w e “ m

ust ind ulg e [the ] str ong pr es um pti on tha t c ouns el ’ s pe rf

orm an ce w as r ea sona

ble a nd tha t c ouns el m ad e al l signi ficant decisions in th e exer cise of re asonable profession al j udgem ent.” Chandl er v. United States , 218 F. 3d 13 05, 1314 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (e n banc) (c itatio ns and i nte rn al quo ta tio ns o m itt ed ). “ [W ] he re the r ec or d is inc om ple te or unc le ar about [ co unse l] ’ s a ct ion s, w e w ill pr es um e that he did w ha t he sho uld

haveAt the time of Callahan’ s second tria l, acc ordingto L ouis W ilkinson, Knight had 25 prac ticed law in B irmingha m, Alabama f

or over twenty y ear s. Wi lkinson also testified that he did not think Knight’s pra ctice c onsisted of more than 80% criminal work. An attorney need not limithimself to only criminal ca ses in order to be consider ed an e x perie nced de fense lawyer in a capital c ase: Wilkinson never stated Knight was not an e x perie nced c riminal defe nse lawyer. 74 do ne , and th athe ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud ge m en t.” Id. at 131 4 n. 15 (quot ing W

ill iam s v . H

ea d , 185 F . 3d 1 223, 122 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ). W e “ m ust av oid usi ng ‘ the dis tortin g e ff

ec ts o f hin dsi ght ’ a nd m

ust e va luate the re as ona ble ne ss o f a co unse l’ s pe rf orm an ce ‘ fr om

c ouns el ’ s pe rs pe ct ive a t the tim e. ’ ” Id

. at 1 31 6 (c it at io n o m it te d) . A habea s petition er bears the burden of proving counsel’s per form ance w as ineffec tive and that bu rden is “ a heavy one.” Id . at 1314– 15 & n.15. “ [P] etitioner m ust e sta bli sh tha t no c om

pe te nt c ouns el w oul d have take n th e ac tio n th at his counsel did take. ” I

d. at 1315. T he presum

ption of rea sonablen ess is even strong er whe n we a re re vi ewin g t he pe rfo rm an ce o f an ex pe rie nc edtri al co un se l. Id. at 1316 . 25 Co nc er nin g wha t c onst itu te s r ea sona ble inv es tig at ion , “ co unse l ne ed not al w ay s in ve sti ga te be fo re pur sui ng o r not pur sui ng a

li ne of de fe nse . I nve sti ga tio n (even a nonexhaustiv e, prelim inary investig ation) is not required for counsel reasonably

to decline to inv estigate a line of defe nse thorou ghly .” Id . a t 13 18 (c iti ng Str ic kland , 466 U . S. a t 69 0–91 , 104 S . Ct . a t 20 66) . I n th is c ont ex t,Knig ht hired Wilki nson to assist him only with the guilt phase of the tria l. Wi lkinson, 26 with Callahan’s pe rmission, left the courtroom be fore the pena lty phase be g an. Wilkins on te sti fi e d K

night d id n ot d isc us s h is p re pa ra tio n f or the pe na lty

ph a se wi th h im. 75 “ ev ide nc e of

ape tit ion er ’ s st at em en ts and a ct s inde al ing w ithc ouns el is hig hly relevant to ineffec tive assistance claim s.” Id . ( ci tin g Str ic kland , 466 U . S. a t 69 1, 104 S. Ct . a t 20 66) . “ O nc e w e co nc lud e that de cl ini ng t o in ve sti ga te f urthe r w as a re as ona ble a ct , w e do n ot l ook to s ee w ha t a f urthe r inv es tig at ionw oul d have produced.” R oge rs v . Z

ant , 13 F. 3d 38 4, 388 (11th Cir. 1994). Be ca use K nig ht p as se d aw ay

be fo re the Ru le 32 h eari ng, w e ha ve no ev ide nc e of

w ha t he did

to pr ep ar e fo r the pe na lty pha se of Ca llahan’ s tr ia l. I n a 26 situatio n like this , w e w ill presum e the attorney “ did what he should have done, and that he exercised re asonable profession al j udgm ent.” W il li ams , 185 F. 3d at 1228 . T he re fo re , w e w ill pr es um e the f oll ow ing : K

nig ht r ev ie w ed

the r el ev an t legal docum ents, Jam es Callahan’ s m edical and psy cholog ical re cords, and Mar y Ca llahan’ s m ed ic al r ec or ds; K nig ht que sti one d th e fam ily a nd f ri en ds o f Ca llahan, particularly

the ones who testified at the trial, about po ssibl e m itigatin g evidence; an d K nig ht and the de fe ndant d isc uss ed w ha t m iti ga tio n e vid en ce to pr es en t a t the pe na lty pha se . T he bur de n is on C al lahan to pr ove K nig ht d id n ot t ak e the se ste ps.76 a. Fa ilure to Ca ll H is M oth er a s aW itn es s D ur ing the se co nd tri al , by he r ow n a dm iss ion , Mary Ca llahan w as in the hosp ita l be ing tr eate d f

or he r ne rv es a nd w as in a “ zo m bie -l ike ” state . A lth ough sh e st at es sh e wou ldha ve tes ti fie d “ zo m bi e an d a ll ” if

sh e h adbe en ask ed

—an d we do no t doub t her com

m itm ent to her son—it was not un reasonable, or even su rp ris in g, t ha t Kn ig ht di d n ot cal l h er as a wit ne ss gi ve n h er m en ta l co nd it io n.

b. Failure to Pr esent Mental He alth Evidence In he re nt i n C al lahan’ s arg um en t tha t K nig ht w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o pr es en t e vid en ce of

his m en ta l he al th i s ac ont en tio n th at K nig ht s houl d have kn o wn ab o u th i s m en t al h ea l t h p ro b l ems. Th er ef o re , we co n s i d erwh et h erKn i g h t ’s in ve st ig at io n i nt o C al la ha n’s m en ta l h eal th was re as on ab le . At the beginning of the penalty phase, K nigh t knew that Callahan had been exam ined in 19 82 and 19 87, the latter at Knight’ s request, f or a total of three m onth s by

no less than si x psy chiatrists, tw o psy cholog ists, and a psy chiatric social wor ke r—n on e o f who m

rep or te d C al la ha n a s h av in g a ny m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s. To the contrar

y , e very one who exam ined Callahan found hi m to be of norm al int el lig en ce . K

nig ht a lso kne wthat C al lahan’ s pr ev iou s c ouns el did not pr es en t an y e vid en ce of

m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s a t the pe na lty pha se of the f ir st tri al , a nd th ere i s n o e vi de nc e Cal la ha n e ve r to ldKni gh t ab ou t h is m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s.77

A lth oughCa llahan do es not spe ci fi ca lly

say w ha t K nig ht s houl d have don e dif fe re ntl y , w e as sum e he w oul d have ha d K nig ht h ir e anind ep en de nt e xpe rt to ex am ine Ca llahan. “ [C ] ouns el is not r equir ed to se ek a n in de pe nde nt e va luatio n when the defe ndant do es not dis play strong evid ence of m ental problem s.” Holladay v. H

aley , 209 F . 3d 1 243, 125 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . I n H olladay , w e fo und counsel’s dec ision not to seek an ind ependent exam ination rea sonable in p art b e c au s e t h e d e f

e n d a n th a ds p e n to v e r

amo n t h a tTa yl o r

Ha r d i n M e d i c a l F a c i l i t y, had been exam ined by

several m ental health experts, and had no t been diagnos ed wit h a ny m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s. Id. at 125 1; se e als o F

unc hess v . W

ain wr igh t , 772 F. 2d 6 83, 689 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( co nc lud ing c ouns el a ct ed r ea sona bly in not inv es tig at ing de fe ndant’ s ps y ch olo gic al pr obl em s, w he re the de fe ndant d id n ot t el l co unse l of

pa st p sy ch olo gic al pr obl em s, de fe ndant a ct ed c om pe te ntl y in as sis tin g co unse l a t tri al , a nd d ef

en dant’ s pr e- tr ia l ps y ch olo gic al e xa m did not sug ge st p as t pr obl em s) . G ive n wha t K nig ht k ne w , it w as r ea sona

ble f or him not to co nduc t any furthe r inv es tig at ionint o C al lahan’ s m en ta l he al th, a nd o bvi ousl y , he w as not in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pre se nt ev id en ce o f wha t h e d idno t k no w.78 c. Fa ilure to Pr es en t E vid en ce of Ch ildhood

Abuse A s w ithCa llahan’ s m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s, w e m ust f ir st c onc lud e K

nig ht shou ld h av e known a

bout the abuse suf

fe re d by Ca llahan be fo re w e can f ind him ineffec tive for fa iling to present it. E specially when it com es to childho od abuse,

“ [i ] nf orm at ionsup pli ed

by ape tit ion er

is ex tr em el y

im portant i n de te rm ini ng whether a law y er’ s perform ance is constituti onally adequate.” Van P oyck v. F lor ida D ep ’t

of Co rr. , 290 F.3d 131 8, 1325 (11th Cir. 2002 ). T his Court has al re ady state d inno unc er

ta in t er m s: “ A n a tto rn ey

doe s no t r en de r ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e by

f ai lin g to dis co ve r an d de ve lop e vid en ce of c hil dhoo d a

buse that hi s client does no t m ention to him .” W il li ams , 185 F . 3d at 12 37. When we plac e ourselves in Knight’s shoes at the tim e of the trial, it wa s reas on ab le forhi m

no t t o i nv es ti ga te th e p os si bi li ty Call ah an was abu se d a s a c hi ld . Fi rs t and f

or em ost , Ca llahan ha s pr es en te d no e vid en ce that he tol d K nig ht a bout the abuse or

that K nig ht did not ask him

whether he had been abused. I n Ca llahan’ s ps y ch ia tr ic r ec or ds, both C al lahan and h is m oth er dis cu ss h is y outh in great detail, e. g., when he started to walk and talk and his datin g prowess, but th ere are no refer ences to the phy sical abuse that he and his m other allegedly suffere d at the hands of

his f athe r. C al lahan’ s m oth er a ct ua lly sa id s he w as the one w ho h ad to di sc ip li ne th e ch il dr en be cau se Cal la ha n’s fa th er was away fro m ho m e so m

uc h.79

Ca llahan di d ta lk a

bout his f athe r’ s dr ink ing a nd m en tio ne d a“ str ai ne d” re la tio nshi p w ithhis f

athe r, y et a lc ohol abuse in an d of

it se lf is not a n in dic at ionof phy sic al abuse , not

to m en tio n th at

Ca llahan st at ed

he c ur ed his f athe r of his dr ink ing . Mo re ove r, the re w as no i ndi catio n C al lahan and h is f athe r did not curr en tly have agoo d r el at ion shi p: Ca llahan w as stay ing a t hi s f athe r’ s ho use w he n he w as a rr es te d; h is f athe r hir ed

L an e to r ep re se nt h im

a t hi s f ir st tri al ; and his father hired K

nigh t to represent him

at his second trial. A nd Knight k new Ca llahan’ s pr ev iou s c ouns el ha d no t pr es en te d e vid en ce of c hil dhoo d a

buse . A t the first trial, Callahan’ s aunt and un cle stated they had known Callahan all of his life, an d de spi te the f

ac t the y spe nt a gr eat de al of

ti m e w ithhim

w he n he w as gr ow ing up, ne ith er

one m en tio ne d ph y sic al abuse . N or w oul d K nig ht h av e be ena le rt ed

to Callahan’ s histo ry

of abuse from

review ing hi s m other’ s volu m inou s m edical records. A t the Rule 32 hearing, Ca llahan’ s own expert testified nothing in Mary C a l l a h a n ’s med i c a l r e c o r d s c o rr o b o r a t e dh e r R u l e 3 2 t e s t i mo n y. Ca llahan ana log iz es the f ai lur e of K nig ht t o di sc ove r ev ide nc e of his abuse to the f ai lur es in W

ill iam s v . T

ay lor an d W

igg ins v . Sm ith , 539 U . S. 510 , 123 S . Ct . 2527 ( 2003 ), but

he ove rl ooks aglari ng d if fe re nc e— the e vid en ce of

abuse in W ill iam s an d W

igg ins was do cu m en te d e xt en si ve ly in p ub li c rec or ds . Se e W igg ins , 539 U.S . at 523– 25, 123 S. C t. at 2536 –37 (In additio n to the PSI, in which80

W iggin s described his y outh as “ disgu sting ,” social services re cords revealed

“ [W iggin s’ ] m other wa s a chronic alcoholic; W iggin s was shuttled from foster hom e to foster hom e and display ed som e em otion al difficulties while there ; he had frequent, lengthyabsences fr om school; and , on at lea st one occasion, his m other le ft him a nd h is s ibl ing s a lon e fo r day s w ith out f ood. ”) ; W il li ams , 529 U . S. a t 39 5, 120 S. Ct . a t 15 14 ( A n in ve sti ga tio n “ w oul d have unc ove re d e xte nsi ve r ec or ds gr ap hic al ly

de sc ri bin g W ill iam s’ nig htm ar ishc hil dhoo d. ”) . H er e, it w as not a s if the re w as a n a

bse nc e of r ec or ds, be tw ee n th e de fe ndant’ s ps y ch ia tr ic r ec or ds and h i s m o t h er ’s m ed i ca l re co rd s t h er e w as ampl e d o cu m en t at i o n o f C al l ah an ’s ch ildhood . T he pr obl em

is none of

it r ef er en ce d any

abuse . F or

a ll of the af or em en tio ne d r ea sons , K nig ht a ct ed

r ea sona ble in not inv es tig at ing f

urthe r the poss ibi lity

of Ca llahan su ff

er ing abuse a s ac hil d. W e al so a ddr es s K

nig ht’ s pe rf

orm an ce a t the pe na lty

pha se ge ne ra lly . T his Co urt ha s r ep eate dly

state d th at

“ [n ] o a bsol ute duty

e xis ts t o in tr oduc e m iti ga tin g or chara cter e vidence.” Chandl er , 218 F. 3d at 131 9. “ Good advocacy requires

‘ winnowing out’ som e ar gum ents, w itnesses, evidence, and so on, to stress oth ers. ” Id . In this case, we know from Knight’ s closing argum ent at the penalty phase that he foc us edon m ercy. Se e H ouse l v . H

ea d , 238 F . 3d 1 289, 129 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) (“ [C ouns el ] c oul d r ea sona bly de ci de , giv enthe he ino usne ss o f thi s c ri m e an d81

H ouse l’ s c onf

es sio n to it , that i n th e cu ltura l c lim at e of G w inn ett C ounty

in the 1980 s, r em or se w as li ke ly to play be tte r than e xc use s. ”) ; W il li ams , 185 F. 3d at 1 2 2 8 (o b s er v i n g “ wh er e t h e r ec o rd i s i n co m p l et e o r u n cl ea r ab o u t[c o u n s el ]’s act io ns , we wil l p res um e . . . he ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.”) . Whe n w e pla ce our se lve s inK nig ht’ s po sit ion , w hic h w e m ust , w e se e the following: overwhelm ing evid ence that his client com m itted a prem editated kidna ppi ng, r ap e, a nd m

ur de r of ar an dom

vic tim , inc lud ing ac onf

es sio n to the kidna ppi ng and r ap e in whic h he c onc oc te d apr ior se xua l r el at ion shi p w iththe victim and insin uated his ex-wife wa s the real m urderer ; his client’s last tw o wives le ft him , in part , be ca

use he w as phy sic al ly

abusi ve ; hi s c lie nt h ad

tw o pr ev iou s co nvi ct ion s f

or a ssa ult w ithint en t t o m

ur de r, one of

w hic h aro se f

ro m w he n he sho t his ow n 11 -y ear- old

nie ce in the f

oot ; hi s c lie nt’ s pa st i nc lud ed no c om pe lli ng m iti ga tio n e vid en ce , suc h a s m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s or phy sic al abuse ; and h is cl ie nt h ad a lr ea dy onc e be ense nte nc ed

to de ath f

or the m ur de r of H ow el l i n th e ab se nc e o f hi s m os t d am ag in g s ta te m en ts . Giv en th e h an d Kn ig ht was d eal t, we cannot say ade ci sio n to f

oc us o n m er cy

ins te ad of m iti ga tio n w as a n un re as ona ble on e.82

2. Prejudice In order to m eet the prej udice prong o f the Str ic kland te st, the de fe ndant m ust sho wthe re is a re as ona

ble pr oba bil ity that the out co m e of

the pr oc ee din g wou ldha ve be en di ffer en t. Se e Str ic kland , 4 6 6 U . S . a t6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t . a t2 0 6 8 . “A re as ona ble pr oba bil ity is a pr oba

bil ity suf fi ci en t t o un de rm ine c onf ide nc e in the outcom e. ” Id

. , 104 S. Ct. at 2068. “ It is not enou gh for the defendant to sho w that the error s had som e conceivable ef fect on the outcom e of the procee ding .” Id . at 69 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at 20 67 . Whe n a de fen da nt ch al le ng es a de at h s en te nc e, we

“ evaluat[e] the totality

of the available m itigatio n evidence—both that adduced at tr ia l, a nd the e vid en ce a dduc ed in the ha be as pr oc ee din g—[ an d] r ew ei gh[ ] it against the evidence in aggravation .” H all v . H ea d , 310 F. 3d 68 3, 701 (11th Cir. 2002 ) (internal quotations o m itted). W e be ginby

r ev ie w ing the m iti ga tio n e vid en ce of fe re d a t the Ru le 32 he ar ing . Joanne T er

re ll te sti fi ed

m em be rs of Ca llahan’ s f

amily tol d he r Ca llahan, as we ll as his m other, w as phy sically abused by

his father. T erre ll concluded Ca llahan’ s hi sto ry

of abuse pr ev en te d hi m

f ro m c ontro lli ng h is i m

pul se s. T he state co urt, f or se ve ra l r ea sons , m ad e a fa ct ua l f ind ing that T er

re ll’ s te sti m ony

w as not cr ed ibl e. T er

re ll did not state w hy

the f am ily m em be rs w ithw hom

she spo ke w oul d no t t es tif

y a t the he ar ing , a nd a s ar es ult of the f am ily m em be rs notCallahan a rgues the state c ourt found Te rre ll not credible be cause it was operating 27 un de r a “ fu nd ame nta l mi sund e rs tand ingof the law o f m iti g atio n. ” He c ontin ue s: “ [d]e fe ns e c ouns e l is un de r n o o bli g atio n to se e k o ut un fa vo ra ble or a g g ra vatin ge vid e nc e . . . . ” Ca lla ha n is corr ect. “ Def

ense c ounsel” is under

no obligation to seek out unfavor able e vidence , but it was not defe nse counse l who was found not c redible. The individual in question was an expert wi tne ss who wa s h old inghe rs e lf out a s a n o bje c tiv e e va luator . T he state c ourt did no t f ind fa ult with her for

not seekingout unfavora ble evidenc e; the state c ourt faulted he r for not seekingout all possible evidence . 83 testify ing, the state w as prevented from cross-exam ining them . If the state had be enable to cr oss -e xa m ine the m , the ir te sti m ony

m ay not have be ena s f

av or ab le to Ca llahan a s po rtray ed

by T er re ll. T he state c ourt a lso f ound T er re ll’ s te sti m ony bia se d. A lth oughshe w as pr ep ar ing apsy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t and w oul d pr es um ab ly

have w an te d to ga the r as m uc h in fo rm at iona s po ssi ble about Ca llahan, she f ai le d to int er

vie wCa llahan’ s e x- w ive s. I f T er re ll w as int er es te d inge tti ng a tr ue se nse of

w ho C al lahan w as , it

is not unr ea sona

ble to thi nk s he w oul d w an t t o ta lk t o th e tw o pe opl e w ithw hom he spe nt m ost

of the la st 1 5 y ears be fo re the crim e. T he state court w as further tr oubl ed by the fac t that Ter

rell believed ev er ythi ng the f

am ily m em be rs tol d he r, de spi te the ir m oti ve to m ak e the ir

f am ily situatio n lookworse than it was. W e cannot say the state court’ s finding wa s unreasonable. 27 O n th e oth er

hand, the state c ourt c re dit ed the te sti m ony

of D r. K irkland regarding Callahan’ s m ental health and childh ood abu se. Dr . K irkland placed great im portanc e on C al lahan’ s ps y ch ia tr ic r ec or ds— no d oc tor a t T ay lor H ar dinCallahan interpr ets the trial cour t’s cre diting Dr . Kirkland’s te stimony as re quiring 28 Ca lla ha n to sh owa

c a us a l c onne c tio n b e tw e e n h is a bu se and the c ri me in o rd e r t o d e mon str ate prejudice , which is “c ontrary to” Strickland . Callahan’s inter pretation is wit hout support. The tr ia l c ourt and the Court

of Cr imi na l App e a ls b oth

c ite d a nd a pp lie d a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity standard to de termine if ther e wa s prejudice . See Callahan III , 767 So. 2d at 400. Moreover , under § 2254( d)(1) , “we revie w the state c ourt’s ‘de cision’ and not nec essar ily its rationale,” Pa rk e r v . S e c ’y for De p’ t of Cor r. , 331 F.3d 764, 785 ( 11th Cir. 2003), in order to avoid a “‘gradingpaper s’ appr oach that is outm oded in the post-AED PA era ,” W right v. Sec’

y for Dep’ t of C or r. , 278 F.3d 1245, 1255 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 84 dia gnos ed

Ca llahan w itham en ta l i lln es s or de fe ct —be ca use the doc tor s w ho m ad e those records we re a

ble to obs erve Ca llahan for a m uch long er per iod of tim e than the e xpe rt s, him se lf

inc lud ed , w ho t es tif

ie d a t the Ru le 32 h eari ng. D r. K irkland al so c onc lud ed

that w ha te ve r de gr ee of

abuse Ca llahan su ff

er ed a s ac hil d it

ha d no ca usa l c onne ct ionw iththe c ri m e Ca llahan c om m itt ed . 28 The on ly firs th an d a cco un t o f th e ab us e Cal la ha n s uf fere d was by his m ot he r. W e w ouldbe rem iss to n ot acknowledge the potential credibilit y issues ac co m pany ing Mary

Ca llahan’ s te sti m ony . A lth oughshe spo ke of y ears of abuse by Ca llahan’ s f

at he r, she ha d no a nsw er

a s to w hy

he r m ed ic al r ec or ds d id n ot co nta in any

r ef er en ce to the abuse . S he a lso did not e xpl ai n w hy

she did not m en tio n th e ab use he r son suf fe re d w he n sh e w as int er

vie w ed f or his psy ch ia tr ic evaluation in 1982 . The S tate could have further ca lled into question her cred ib il it y

by poi nt in g o ut he r lo ng hi st ory of m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s. Fi na ll y , we85

cannot forget that all of her testim ony at the penalty

phase would have been offer ed while she w as in a zom

bie-like state. It is unl ike ly

D r. G of f’ s c onc lus ion s a

bout Ca llahan’ s m en ta l he al th w oul d ha ve c ar ri ed m uc h w ei ght

w iththe j ur

y e ith er . Mo st n ota

bly , a ft er onl y e xa m ini ng Ca llahan f

or le ss than aday , D r. G of

f dia gnos ed

him dif fe re ntl y than th e six psy ch ia tr ist s w ho p re vio usl y ha d a cc es s to Ca llahan f or a t l ea st a m onth. O n c ro ssexam ination , the S tate brought o ut that, despite diagno sing Callahan with m em ory loss, Goff did no t read C allahan’ s deposi tion (less than 1 50 pages) in which Ca llahan w oul d have obv iou sly be enque sti one d a t l en gthabout the pa st. T he S ta te al so n ote d D r. G of

f ha d be enc ri tic iz ed

by the A la ba m a Co urt of

Ci vil Appe al s f

or ba sin g hi s c onc lus ion s onanarr owinv es tig at iona nd i nc om ple te inf orm at ion . The m itigatio n evidence offer ed at the Rule 32 hearing prim arily concerned phy sic al abuse Ca llahan su ff er ed a s ac hil d, y et

Ca llahan w as 35 whe n he co m m itt ed the c ri m e. Whe n ade fe ndant i s se ve ra l de ca de s r em ove d f ro m the ab us e b ei ng off

ered as m it ig at io n e vi de nc e it s v al ue is m in im al . See F rancis v. Dugger , 908 F . 2d 6 96, 703 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( ac co rd ing “ little , if a ny , m iti ga tin g w ei ght ” to e vid en ce of

ade pr ive d and a

busi ve c hil dhoo d w he re de fe ndant w as 31 y ears old when he c omm itted the m urder). T erre ll also adm itted that, to her knowledge, none of Callahan’ s siblin gs had comm itted vio lent crim es, f urther86

reduc in g t he va lu e o f ab us e as m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. Se e G ray son v. T hom pson , 257 F. 3d 1 194, 122 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( “ T he f ac t tha t G ray son w as the onl y c hil d to c om m it suc h ahe ino us c ri m e al so m ay have und er

m ine d de fe nse e ff

orts t o us e his c hil dhoo d inm iti ga tio n. ”) . O ve ra ll, the m iti ga tio n e vid en ce of fe re d on Cal la ha n’s b eh al f was les s t ha n c om pe ll in g. O n t h e o t h e r

h a n d , t h e s t a t e c o u rtf

o u n dt h r e e a g g r a v a t i n g f

a c t o r s : th e c r i me w as c om m itt ed w hil e Ca llahan w as und er se nte nc e of

im pr iso nm en t; the de fe ndant had been previous ly

convicted of a crim e of violence; and the m urder w as co m m itt ed dur ing akidna

ppi ng. W e ha ve pr ev iou sly not ed that “ [m ] an y

de ath pe na lty c as es inv olv e m

ur de rs that are c ar ef

ull y planne d, or

a cc om panie d by torture, rape or kidnapping .” D obbs v . T urpi n , 142 F. 3d 13 83, 1390 (11t h Cir. 1998 ) (a lte ratio n inor igi na l) ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). “ Inthe se ty pe s of c as es , thi s co urt ha s f

ound that the a ggr av at ing c ir cu m stanc es of the c ri m e outw ei gh any pr ejud ic e cau se d wh en a la wy er fa il s t o p res en t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e.” Id. Whil e that is obv iousl y

not an absolu te rule, it dem onstrates the burden a defendant faces whe n t ry in g t o o ve rco m e su ch ha rs h a gg rav at in g fa ct or s wi th m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. Se e Cl is by v. Ala ba ma , 26 F . 3d 1 054, 105 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( “ [S ] om et im es the best law y er ing , not

j ust r ea sona ble law y er ing , c an not

c onvi nc e the se nte nc er

to overlookthe fac ts of a brutal m urder—or, even, a

less brutal m

urder for which87

the re is str ong ev ide nc e of gui lt in f ac t. ”) ; se e als o C

raw ford v . H ea d , 311 F . 3d 1288 , 132 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( fi ndi ng n o pr ej udi ce in part be ca use of the “ str en gth of th e ev id en ce b ot h o f Cra wfo rd ’s gu il t an d o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces ”). The e vidence that Callahan kidnapp ed, r aped, and m urdered Be cky

How ell wa s ov erwh el m in g; we ne edno t re co un t i t ag ai n. W e m ust r em em be r that our ro le is not

to de te rm ine w he the r w e thi nk the state c ourt c or

re ct ly c onc lud ed

Ca llahan w as not

pr ej udi ce d; w e ar e onl y concerned w ith whether the state c ourt’ s conclusio n was unrea sonable. A fter rew eighing the aggravating and m itigatin g evidence, w e cannot say the state court unreasonablyapplied the prej udice prong o f Str ic kland . IV. CONCLUSION Jam es Callahan has produced no evidence that his constitu tional right s wer e violated at either the guilt o r penalty phase of his trial. H is petitio n for habeas co rp us is th eref

or e d en ie d o n a ll co un ts . AFFIR MED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.88

W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , c onc ur

ri ng: Judg e Mon k’ s de ci sio n to ste p a cr oss the thr es hol d of the int er ro ga tio n ro om a nd s pe ak

w ithCa llahan, out

of c ourt, se em s unusua l t o m e. I t i s no t sur pr isi ng tha t no c as e pr es en tin g m at er ia lly the sam e fa ct s ha s e ve r re ac he d th e Su pr em e Co urt. Y et , la ck ing a ny S upr em e Co ur

t de ci sio n say ing so, the state court’ s decision d eny ing relief on the recusal c laim is not, under the standards set fo rth by the S upr em e Co urt i n W ill iam s v . T

ay lor , 529 U . S. 362 ( 2000 ), c ontrary to oran un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Th eref or e, I ag re e that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g ha

be as r el ie f on the gr ound that Ju dge Mon k’ s f ai lur e to r ec use him se lf

de nie d C al lahan af

ai r tr ia l. As to the second issue, I a gree w ith the court’ s analy sis in d eny ing Callahan re lie f on h is i ne ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el c la im

dur ing the gui lt- pha se of the proceeding. Whether Callahan w as denied the effe ctive assistance of counsel during th e penalty -phase is a som ew hat m ore difficult propositi on, since Ca llahan’ s pe na lty -p ha se law y er ha d di ed by the ti m e of

the pos t- co nvi ct ion he ar ing . C onse que ntl y , the re is no e vid en ce r eg ar din g any pr ep ar at ionhe did

f or the m itigatio n effort. T here is no evidence that he perfor m ed any subst antial investig ation int o Callahan’ s background , or attem pted to call fam ily

m em bers oth er than C al lahan’ s aunt . F oll ow ing Chandl er v. United States , 218 F . 3d 1 30589

(11th Cir. 2000) (en banc), we “presum e that he did what he should h ave done, an d t ha t h e ex erci se d re as on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t” . Id . a t 13 14 n . 15 (quot ing W

ill iam s v . H

ea d , 185 F . 3d 1 223, 122 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ). I n W iggin s v. Sm ith , 539 U. S. 510 (200 3), def ense counsel inv estigated W iggin s y outh , w ere aw are of his backgroun d, and hired a psy cholog ist and crim inolo gist (who testified at tr ia l) , a nd the S upr em e Co urt st ill he ld the ir pe rf orm an ce to be c onst itu tio na lly ine ff ec tiv e. H er e, w e ha ve no i de a w he the r K nig ht d id any

of the se thi ngs; but , sin ce w e ar e boun d by

our c ir cu it pr ec ed en t, w e pr es um e that he did .