FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEB 3, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 7- 15 52 8
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 33 3- CV-RH-EM T BRUCE DOUGLAS PACE, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us WALTER A. MCNEIL, BILL MCC OLLUM,
Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a (Feb ru ary 3, 2 00 9) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:Pet it io ne r Bru ce Do ug la s Pa ce, a Fl or id a d eat h- ro w in m at e, ap pe al s t he

jud gm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a de nyin g h is pe ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us , bro ug htpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 . His app eal pre se nt s o ne is su e: whet he r tr ia l co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l, i n v io la ti on of t he Six th an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts , by fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t ev id en ce o f Pac e’s subs ta nc e ab us e to hi s m en ta l he al th ex pe rts an d t he reaf te r to th e jury durin g t he pe na lt y ph as e o f hi s capi ta l tri al
. W e res ol ve th is is su e ag ai ns t Pa ce an d a cco rd in gl y affi rm . 1 I. A. The ev en ts inth is cas e to okpl ace i n No ve m be r 19 88 inan d a ro un d B ag da d, Fl or id a, a s m al l t own inSan taRo saCo un ty. In t he ev en in g o f Nov em be r 4, 1 98 8, Fran ki e Co vi ng to n, the daug ht er-i n- la w of Fl oyd Co vi ng to n, a t ax ic ab dri ve r,
co nt act edth e San taRo saCo un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce an d re po rte d F lo y d C ov in gt on
m is si ng . Three da y s l at er, Sh eri ff’s d ep ut ie s fo un d C ov in gt on ’s bl oo ds ta in ed ta xi cab ina woo de d area n ear B ag da d. Bl oo ds ta in pa tt ern s i nd ic at edth ata Pace’ s petition asserted six separateconstitutional claims. The district court denie d all 1 six . Pace f

iled a notice of

appea l and the district cour t issued a ce rtificate of appe alability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) limit ing his a ppeal to one issue: Whether penalty phase c ounsel rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e in the “f ailure to de velop and pr esent sente ncingmitigation evidenc e (inc luding lay

and expert testimony) re lating to substanc e abuse .” We have framed the issue in differ ent languag e for convenie nce of

discussion. 2pa ss en ge r sh otCo vi ng to n wh il e Co vi ng to n was si tt in g i n t he tax ic ab ’s dri ve r’s

se at . On Nov em

be r 10 , in ve st ig at or s fo un d C ov in gt on ’s bo dy in ano th er wo od ed
areaap pr ox im at el y

twel ve m il es fro m

wher e th e ta xi cab was l oc at ed . Cov in gt on ha d b een sh ottwi ce i n t he ch es t wi th a sh ot gu n. A sh ot gu n s he ll was fo un d i ns id e Co vi ng to n’s ch es t ca vi ty, in di cat in g t ha t the sh ot gu n h adbe enfir edat ave ry clo se
ran ge . The m ed ic al ex am in er’s o ffi ce fi xe d t he ti m e o f de ath a s s om et im e o n Nov em be r 4. On Dec em

be r 14 , 19 88 , a San taRo saCo un ty gran d jury returne d atwo co un t i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t Bruc e Dou gl as Pace ch arg in g P ace wi th fir st -d eg ree
m ur de r an d a rm edrob be ry . At hi s arrai gn m en t, the San taRo saCo un ty Circu it Co urt d ecl aredPace in di ge ntan d app oi nt edtwo lawyers, Samuel Ha ll an d R an da ll Eth eri dg e, to rep res en t h im
. Pace a dm it te d t o t he se att orne y s t ha t h e k il le d 2 Co vi ng to n b ut , as was hi s ri gh t, h e en te reda pl ea o f no t g ui lt y an d s to odtri al be fo re a jury . The St at e so ug htth e d eat h p en al ty.

Hall and Ethe ridg e we re a ssistant publi c def ender s in the office of the Public Def ender 2 for the F irst J udicial Circuit of F lorida, which c onsists of four counties: Santa Rosa, Walton, Okaloosa, a

nd Escambia. H all and Etheridge wer e stationed in Milton, the county seat of Santa Rosa County . Kim Skievaski and Richard H ill, assist ant state attorney s in the office of the State Attorney for the F irst J udicial Circuit of F lorida, ser ved as c ounsel for the State. The pre -trial and trial proc eeding s took place in Milton. 3B.

The tri al be ga n i n t he San taRo saCo un ty Circu itCo urt o n Au gu st23 , 19 89 , be fo re J ud ge BenGord on . The St at e p res en te d e vi de nc e th atPace an d C ov in gt on were cl os e fri en ds an d s aw eac h o th er al m os t d ai ly. Pace was t wen ty-ni ne y ears ol d; Co vi ng to n was sev en ty y ears ol d a ndon So ci al Secu rit y . Tho ug h t he y were
no t re la te d, Co vi ng to n was li ke anun cl e to Pace
. Ang el a Pac e, a co us in , tes ti fie d t ha t, o n No ve m be r 3, Pa ce t ol d h er tha t h e
was go in g t o d o s om ethi ng he “ ha te d t o d o” be cau se he ne ed edm on ey . Orest in e Fran kl in , Pace’s aun t, t es ti fie d t ha t s he saw Pa ce driv in g C ov in gt on ’s tax ic ab th e
ne xtda y , Nov em

be r 4. Mi ch ael Green , a ch il dh oo d fr ie ndof P ace, t es ti fie d t ha t s om et im e dur in g th e d ay of No ve m

be r 5, h e an d P ace we ntto a woo de d a rea a djac en t t o ava can t ho us e to sh oo t s qu irr el s wi th Pace ’s 12 -g au ge sh ot gu n. Pa ce re tri ev edhi s s ho tg un fro m so m e sh rubb ery on th e si de of t he va can t h ou se ; wh enth ey fin is he d s ho ot in g, he lef t the sh ot gu n o n t he fro ntpo rch of t he ho us e. Harv ey Ric h, Pa ce’s s te pf

athe r, id en ti fie d t he sh ot gu n a s o ne own edby Pace ’s bro th er. Ri ch als o t es ti fie d t ha t h e fo un d t wo s ho tg un sh el ls inhi s fr on t y ardon th e ev en in g o f Nov em be r 5. Th es e sh el ls were i de nt ic al to th e sh ot gu n sh el l fo un d i ns id e th e v ic ti m ’s bo dy.
4Afte r Ri ch id en ti fie d t he sh ot gu n, h e rep eat eda co nv ers at io n h e h adwith

Pace on th e m orni ng of No ve m be r 7. Pa ce l iv edwith R ic h a ndPace ’s m ot he r, Lil li anRic h. OnNov em

be r 7, Pa ce, wh o h adbe enaway fro m th e Ri ch ho m e fo r
se ve ral da y s, re tu rn edto th e res id en ce an d t ol d R ic h t ha t h e was intro ub le an d
ne ed edto lea ve . Whe n R ic h s ou gh t an ex pl an at io n, Pa ce re la te d t he fol lo win g st ory . On th e n ig htof No ve m be r 3, C ov in gt on dro ve Pace to Ric h’s h ou se . After Co vi ng to n d ro pp edhi m

off , Pace d is co ve redth athe ha d l os t h is ho us e k ey , so he
en te redth e h ou se th ro ug h a n o pe n wi nd ow. Whenhe wentin to hi s b edro om , so m eo ne ch ok edhi m

an d h e lo stco ns ci ou sn es s. He awo ke ina woo de d a rea
se ve ral m il es away , ly in g n ex t t o ash ot gu n andCo vi ng to n’s t ax ic ab . Whe n h e
no ti cedbl oo d s pl at te redab ou t the cab , he t oo k t he sh ot gu n a ndfle d t he sce ne . Harv ey an d Li ll ia n R ic h wer e atho m e atth e ti m e Pac e cl ai m edto ha ve
en co un te redth e in tru de r in hi s b edro om . The p ro se cu to r as ke d t he m whet he r th ey ha d l at er o bs erv edan y

si gn s o f stru gg le inth e h ou se or i n P ace’s ro om . Bot h s ai d th atth ey ha d n ot . Inqu es ti on in g R ic h o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n, Ra nd al l Ethe rid ge , who serve d a s le adde fen se co un se l dur in g t he gu il t p ha se of t he tri al , im pl ie d t ha t an in tru de r
co ul d h av e b eeninth e h ou se an d a tt ack edPace witho utawak en in g t he Ric he s o r le av in g a ny sig ns of ascu ffl e. Thi s que st io ni ng lai d t he gro un dwo rkfor
5Eth eri dg e’s cl os in g a rg um en t t o t he jury th atso m eo ne ot he r th anPace ki ll ed

Co vi ng to n. The Sta te res te d i ts cas e o n Au gu st25 . Pace re st edhi s ca se m om en ts lat er witho utcal li ng an y

witne ss es . After c lo si ng arg um en t an d re cei ptof t he co urt’s in st ru ct io ns , th e jury reti redto de li be rat e. Two h ou rs lat er, the jury returne d a
ve rd ic t o f gu il ty on b ot h c ou nt s o f th e in di ctm en t. Inth e p en al ty pha se , whi ch be ga n t he ne xtda y , th e St at e in tro du ced , as a n
ex hi bi t, a ce rti fie d c op y

of ajud gm en t o f th e San taRo saCo un ty Circu itCo urt da te d Dec em

be r 4, 1 98 1, ad

jud gi ng Pace gu il ty of st ro ng -arm rob be ry an d
se nt en ci ng hi m

to pri so n fo r fi fte eny ears . Rob ertMan n, a p ro ba ti on off ic er fo r th e St at e o f Fl or id a, te st ifi edth atPace was o n p aro le at t he ti m e o f th e Co vi ng to n
m ur de r. Pace ha d b een rel eas edfro m pri so n o n Au gu st20 , 19 86
. Sam ue l Hal l, l eadde fen se co un se l fo r Pac e in th e p en al ty pha se , cal le d fi ve witne ss es . San taRo saCo un ty corre ct io ns off ic er Paul Cam

pb el l t es ti fie d tha t 3 Pace was am od el pri so ne r, “ ex tre m el y co op erat iv e,” “ res pe ct fu l,” andgave no tro ub le . Hurl ey

Man ni ng , Pace’s h ig h s ch oo l fo otba ll co ach , tes ti fie d t ha t Pa ce
Prior to trial, after

evalua ting the stre ng th of the State’s c ase, which they considere d 3 overwhelming, H all and Etheridgeconclude d that Pace’ s best chanc e of a favor able ve rdict would be in the pena lty

phase. B eca

use Ha ll had more e x perie nce tha n Etheridg e, espe cially

in capital c ases, Ethe ridg e wa s lead c ounsel in the trial phase and Ha ll was lead c ounsel in the penalty phase. 6was hardwork in g a ndth e “ type o f ki d t ha t you wo ul d l ik e to ha ve inth e

pr og ram .” Ro be rt S et tl es , Pace’s h ig h s ch oo l s ho p t each er wh o, af te r le av in g te ach in g, h adop en eda trus s m anuf actur in g b us in es s an d h ire d P ace t o c uttru ss es , te st ifi edth atPace ha d b een a m as te r sa wm anwith g reatpo te nt ia l b utha d n ot al way s b een rel iabl e. Evel y n R ic h, Pa ce’s au nt , tes ti fie d t ha t Pa ce was a “ lo vi ng , cari ng pe rs on ” who cam e fro m a go od , supp orti ve fam il y . Fin al ly, Pace ’s m ot he r Lil li anRic h p le ad edco m pa ss io na te ly for h er s on ’s li fe. Sh e d es cri be d h ow h e
worke d t o s up po rt t he fam il y when he was ju stth irt een y ears ol d a fte r hi s st ep fathe r le ft the ho m e. Sh e al so tes ti fie d t ha t Pa ce s uf fere d ahe adin

jury as a y ou ng ch il d t ha t re nd eredhi m un co ns ci ou s. Inclo si ng arg um en t, the pro se cu to r arg ue d t ha t fi ve ag gr av at ed ci rcu m st an ces di ct at eda de ath p en al ty verd ic t: (1) Pace was o n p aro le at t he ti m e of th e m ur de r; ( 2) Pace ha d b een pre vi ou sl y co nv ic te d o f a v io le ntfel on y ; (3 ) he
co m m it te d t he m

ur de r du rin g arob be ry ; (4 ) Pac e co m m it te d the cri m e to av oi d
arre st ; an d (5 ) he co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r fo r fi na nc ia l g ai n. Hall , inres po ns e, 4 arg ue d t ha t the pro se cu to r ha d e xa gg erat edth e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces . He

See F la. Stat. § 921.141(5) ( 1989) (listing a g gravating c ircumstance s in effe ct at the 4 time of Pace ’s trial). 7ur ge d t he jury to ha ve m ercy onPace be cau se Pace was ahu m anbe in g a nda go od

pe rs on with ago odhe art . The jury reco m

m en de d b y

a vo te of s ev ento fiv e th atPace be sen te nc edto de ath. The tria l co urt fo ll owe d t he jury’ s re co m m en da ti on an d, o n No ve m be r 16 , 5 19 89 , sen te nc edPace to de ath fo r fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r an d fi fte eny ears im pr is on m en t fo r th e arm edrob be ry ch arg e. The c ou rt f

ou ndth ree a gg rav at in g ci rcu m st an ces : (1 ) Pac e was on pa ro le at t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r; ( 2) Pace h ad be enpre vi ou sl y

co nv ic te d o f a v io le ntfel on y ; an d (3 ) th e m ur de r was co m

m it te d du rin g t he co ur se of arob be ry . The co urt fo un d n o m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . 6 Pace ap pe al edhi s co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h s en te nc e to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. The s up rem e co urt af firm edPace ’s con vi ct io ns an d d eath s en te nc e, Pace 7 v. St at e, 59 6 S o. 2 d 1 03 4, 1 03 5- 36 (Fl a. 19 92 ), an d t he Supr em e Co urt o f th e

The re cord doe s not indicate the length of the jury ’s deliber ation at the close of the 5 penalty phase of trial. See F la. Stat. § 921.141(6) ( 1989) (listing mitig atingcirc umstances in ef fec t at the time 6 of Pace ’s trial). In addition to the statutory mitigatingcirc umstances, the c ourt took into account “as a mitigatingfac tor, any

aspec t of a de fenda

nt's c hara cter

or re cord a

nd any of the circ umstances of

the offe nse that the de fenda nt proffe r[ed] as a basis for a sentenc e less than death.” L ockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 2964-65, 57 L . Ed. 2d 973 (1978). The issue c ertified in the c ertificate of a ppeala bility , which we decide today , was 7 prese nted to the state c ourts in Pace’ s motion for post-conviction relief . None of the issues prese nted to the supreme court on dire ct appe al ar e implicated in the instant appe al. 8Uni te d S ta te s d en ie d c ert io rari rev ie w, Pace v . Flo rid a, 50 6 U.S. 8 85 , 11 3 S . Ct.

24 4, 1 21 L. Ed. 2d17 8 (1 99 2)
. II. On M arch 7, 1 99 7, Pa ce, rep res en te d b y co urt ap po in te d c ou ns el (“ co ll at eral
co un se l” ), m ov edth e San taRo saCo un ty Circu itCo urt t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s
an d d eat h s en te nc e p ur su an t t o F lo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0. Th e
m ot io n was ass ig ne d t o J ud ge Pau l Ra sm us se n, wh o p res id edov er i ts di sp os it io n. 8 Pace ’s m ot io n p res en te d t wen ty-on e cl ai m s fo r rel ie f, Pace v. St at e, 85 4 S o. 2d16 7, 1 70 n.2 (Fl a. 20 03 ), in cl ud in g t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m
no w bef or e u s. Th atcla im

co nc ern s t he pe na lt y

ph as e o f Pac e’s tr ia l an d fo cu se s
on th e m an ne r in whi ch Sam ue l Hal l d eal t wi th Pace ’s add ic ti on to crac k
co cai ne —s pe ci fic al ly, whe th er Hal l’s i nv es ti ga ti onin to th e ex te ntof t hi s ad di ct io n was ad equa te ; wh ethe r he ful ly info rm edPace ’s m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts ab ou t the ad di ct io n; an d wh ethe r rea so nabl y co m pe te ntde fen se co un se l wo ul d ha ve tre at edth e ad di ct io n a s a m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce an d p res en te d i t t o t he jury atth e p en al ty pha se of t he tri al
. A.

J ohn M. J ackson, Scott Mario, and Andre w Thomas, Assistant Capital Collateral 8 Counsel in the Northern Re g ion Office handled Pac e’s Rule 3.850 motion. 9The cir cu itco urt h el d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on th es e th ree i ss ue s t o g iv e
co ll at eral co un se l an op po rtu ni ty to p ro ve th atHall ’s per fo rm an ce was
co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t. To t ha t en d, co ll at eral co un se l s umm on edth ree g ro up s of witne ss es : (1 ) m em

be rs of P ace’s fa m il y

or f rie nd s, Ken ne th Bem

bo , Marg aret Dix on , Barry Cop el an d, M el an ie Pace , Ora Kay Jo ne s, an d C ynt hi a Jo ne s; (2) th e two m en ta l h eal th expe rts Hall ret ai ne d t o a ss is t h im inpre pa rin g fo r th e p en al ty ph as e o f th e tr ia l, Dr. J am es Lars on , a ps y ch ol og is t, an d Dr. Pe te r Szm ur lo , a ps y ch ia tri st ; an d (3 ) th e two m en ta l h eal th expe rts co ll at eral co un se l re ta in ed , Dr.

9 Barry Cro wn, a p sycho lo gi st , andDr. Mic ha el Herk ov , a ps y ch ia tri st . Thes e witne ss es ’ te st im on y

is su m m ari zedbe lo w. The fir stgro up of wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o P ace’s u se of c rackco cai ne . The 1 0 fir stgro up st at edco ll ect iv el y th atPace us eda si gn ifi can t am ou ntof c rackco cai ne in th e m on th s p rece di ng th e m ur de r. Kenn eth B em

bo est im at edth atPace us ed be twee n $ 50 to $1 00 of c rackco cai ne pe r da y . Barry Cop el an d s ai d t ha t Pa ce
us edbe twee n $ 30 0 t o $ 50 0 o f cra ckco cai ne pe r da y . Sev eral witne ss es tes ti fie d th atwhen Pace us edcrac k c oc ai ne , he h adpo orhygie ne an d wo ul d a ctne rv ou s
Drs. L arson a

nd Sz murlo also assisted Etheridg e to deter mine whether

Pace ha d a 9 defe nse to the cha

rg es base d on his mental condition at the time of the Coving ton murder. The doctors found no ba sis for such a defe nse. In addition to presentingthe testimony of these w itnesses in open cour t, collatera l 1 0 counsel submitted aff

idavits they

had obtained f

rom these witnesse s. 10an d p aran oi d. Th es e wit ne ss es als o t es ti fie d tha t Pa ce ab us edalc oh ol whi le us in g

crac k c oc ai ne . Ken ne th Bem

bo , Mel an ie Pace , andOra Kay Jo ne s s ai d t ha t Pa ce
m an ife st edth es e sym

pt om s o f cra ckco cai ne ab us e dur in g t he weekpre ced in g t he
m ur de r. Howev er, Cynth iaJo ne s an d M el an ie Pace sai d t ha t o n t he da y be fo re
an d d ay of the m ur de r, al th ou gh Pace ap pe aredto ha ve po orpe rs on al hygie ne an d
sm el le d o f al co ho l, h e d idno t s eem to be un de r th e in flu en ce o f al co ho l o r drug s. Incro ss -ex am in at io n, the Sta te sh owe d t ha t fi ve of t he se witne ss es ha d te st ifi edon de po si ti on tak enby defen se co un se l p rio r to Pace ’s tri al
. Tho ug h 1 1 qu es ti on edab ou t Pa ce’s dru g u se at t ha t t im e, th ey di d n otoff

er the in fo rm at io n th ey pro vi de d i n t he affi da vi ts an d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng . The sec on d g ro up of wi tn es se s co ns is te d o f Drs . Larso n a ndSzm ur lo . Hall ret ai ne d Dr. Lars on to ev al ua te Pace to de te rm in e whe th er an y ps y ch ol og ic al
m it ig at in g fa ct or s co ul d b e d ev el op edforus e in th e p en al ty pha se of t he tri al . Dr. Lars on adm in is te redps y ch ol og ic al tes ts an d i nt erv ie wedPace . Bas edon th e
res ul ts of t he ps y ch ol og ic al tes ts , Dr. Larso n’s o bs erv at io ns of P ace dur in g t he in te rv ie w, andth e b ack gr ou ndin fo rm at io n Hal l p ro vi de d, wh ic h h e fo un d

The attorney s who prosec uted Pace did not repre sent the State in the Rule 3.850 1 1 proce eding . Assistant St ate Attorne y J ohn Molchan a

nd Assistant Attorney

Gene ral Curtis Fr ench r epre sented the State. 11su ffi ci en t fo r hi s p ur po se s, Dr. Lars on co nc lu de d t ha t a p sycho lo gi cal m it ig at in g fact or ba se d o n m en ta l i m

pa irment wa s n otpre se ntinPace ’s cas e. He reach ed 1 2 th is co nc lu si on no twi th st an di ng Pace ’s dru g abu se . Tho ug h Dr. Lars on no te d i n hi s re po rt t ha t Pa ce u se d c rackco cai ne reg ul arl y , he d idno t re co m m en d t ha t an ad di ct io no lo gi stev al ua te Pace ’s con di ti on . By th e ti m e co ll at eral co un se l ca ll edhi m to tes ti fy at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng el ev eny ears lat er, h owe ve r, Dr. Larso n h adrev is edhi s t hi nk in g. Dr. Lars on
reac he d t he vi ew th atPace was dru g d ep en de ntan d i n a“ ch ro ni c cycle o f ab us in g al co ho l an d d ru gs ” atth e ti m e o f th e m ur de r. Thu s, h e te st ifi edth atPace m etth e st atut ory m it ig at orof b ei ng subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d a t the ti m e o f th e cri m e. Dr. Lars on cam e to th is vi ew aft er re ad in g t he affi da vi ts of t he fir stgro up pro vi de d b y
co ll at eral co un se l. Si m il arl y , Dr. Pete r Szm

ur lo m etwith P ace, c on du ct eda ps y ch ia tri c
ev al ua ti on—wh ic h i nv ol ve d c on si de rat io n o f Pac e’s be ha vi or hi st ory , th e res ul ts of th e p sycho lo gi cal tes ts Dr. Larso n a dm in is te red , andDr. Szm ur lo ’s cli ni cal ob se rv at io ns of P ace— an d was un ab le to id en ti fy a ps y ch ia tri c m it ig at in g

At the time of Pace ’s sentenc ing, F la. Stat. § 921.141 gove rned se ntencingin death 1 2 penalty case s. Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6) (1989). This lists as a mitigating c ircumstance : “(f) The capa city of the de fenda

nt to apprec iate the c riminality of his conduct or

to conform his conduc t to the re quirements of la

w was substantially

impaired.” 12ci rcu m st an ce. Dr. Szm ur lo was u nabl e to do so ev enth ou gh Pace to ldDr. Szm ur lo th athe us edcrac k c oc ai ne forth ree m on th s p rio r to th e m ur de r. Dr. Szm ur lo be li ev edth atPace was acrac k c oc ai ne ad di ct . Alth ou gh he was n ot fam il ia r wit h t he m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces li st edinth e Fl or id a st atut e atth e ti m e he ev al ua te d P ace, Dr. Sz m ur lo un de rs to odth atbe in g i nt ox ic at ed , un de r th e in flu en ce o f drug s, o r ha vi ng a pr eex is ti ng ps y ch ia tri c co nd it io n a t the ti m e o f a cri m e wou ldco ns ti tu te a m it ig at in g fa ct or . Howev er, i n l ig htof wh atPace to ld Dr. Szm ur lo ab ou t h is m en ta l an d p hysic al co nd it io n l ead in g up t o a ndaro un d t he ti m e o f th e m

ur de r, Dr. Szm

ur lo co nc lu de d t ha t Pa ce was no t u nd er the in flu en ce of dru gs when he co m

m it te d t he cri m e. As Dr. Szm ur lo st at edinhi s ex pe rt r ep ort to Hall , he f

ou ndno m it ig at in g p sychi atric co nd it io ns “ ex cep t fo r a rat he r he av y
us e o f co cai ne pri orto th e o ffen se .” Lik e Dr. Lars on , Dr. Szm ur lo be li ev edth athe ha d s uf fic ie ntin fo rm at io n t o e va lu at e Pac e an d d idno t re co m m en d t ha t an ad di ct io no lo gi stass es s Pa ce. At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Dr. Szm ur lo tes ti fie d tha t co ll at eral co un se l pr ov id edhi m

th e fi rs t g ro up ’s affi da vi ts whi chin di cat edth atPace ’s coc ai ne habi t
was of alo ng er dur at io n a ndm or e se ve re tha n Dr. Sz m ur lo in it ia ll y

be li ev edan d th athabi t caus edPace to lo se sl eep an d qui t ea ti ng . Ass um in g t he tru th of t he affi da vi ts ’ st at em en ts , Dr. Szm ur lo op in edth at , at t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r, Pace ’s
13crac k c oc ai ne ad di ct io n s ub st an ti al ly im pa ire d h is ab il ity

to co nf orm hi s ac ti on s t o th e requi rem en ts of l aw. The th irdgro up of wi tn es se s co ns is te d o f Drs . Cro wn an d Herko v. Co ll at eral co un se l h ire d Dr. Barry Cro wn, a p sycho lo gi st , to pe rfo rm a
ne ur op sycho lo gi cal ex am in at io n o f Pac e in 19 94 , si x years a fte r th e m ur de r. Dr. Cro wn t es ti fie d tha t Pa ce was of a ve rag e in te ll ig en ce b uthi s “ in te ll ectua l effi ci en cy ” was si gn ifi can tl y di m in is he d s uc h t ha t h e h adth e p ro bl em -s ol vi ng ab il it ie s o f a thi rte en -y ear o ldch il d. Dr. Cro wn ad de d t ha t dru g a dd ic ti on in crea se d t he li ke li ho odth ata pe rs on with P ace’s i nt el le ctua l capabi li ti es wou ld
en ga ge inan ti so ci al be ha vi or . Co ll at eral co un se l h ire d Dr. M ic ha el Herk ov be cau se he was aps y ch ia tri st with e xp ert is e in co cai ne ad di ct io n. Dr. Herk ov in te rv ie wedPace on June 1, 2 00 0
an d t es ti fie d t ha t, b as edon th atin te rv ie w andhi s re vi ew of th e d oc um en ts in cl ud in g t he rep orts of Drs . Larso n a ndSzm ur lo , Pace wa s a c oc ai ne ad di cton a

“ co cai ne bi ng e” s ev eral day s b efo re the m ur de r. Howev er, Dr. Herk ov tes ti fie d th atPace di d n otus e cra ckco cai ne on th e d ay of t he m ur de r orth e p rev io us da y . Dr. Herk ov op in edth atPace ’s on go in g c rackco cai ne ad di ct io n a ndbi ng e
subs ta nt ia ll y

im pa ire d h is ab il it y

to co nf orm hi s b eh av io r to th e requi rem en ts of th e la w at t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r. 14The Sta te co un te redco ll at eral co un se l’s p res en ta ti on with t he tes ti m on y of Ja m es Mart in , a Publ ic Defen de r Offi ce i nv es ti ga to r, an d S am ue l Hal l. Ma rti n te st ifi edth athe in te rv ie wedPace on Nov em be r 10 , 19 88 , at t he San taRo sa Co un ty Jail
. At th atm eet in g, Pa ce ad m it te d t ha t h e k il le d C ov in gt on . Pace t ol d

1 3 Marti n t ha t h e u se d c rackco cai ne bu t d idno t u se iton th e d ay be fo re o r th e d ay

of th e m ur de r. Mart in sai d t ha t, dur in g t he in te rv ie w, Pace was co he ren t an d d idno t ap pe ar t o b e u nd er the in flu en ce o f drug s o r al co ho l. Hall tes ti fie d t ha t h is pe na lt y ph as e st rat eg y

was to try to t el l the jury th atBru ce Pa ce was so m eb od y th atha d ali fe, a hu m anbe in g, h e sh ou ldbe sav ed
. . . . Even th ou gh he ha d t hi s o th er ch arg e, th is st ro ng arm

rob be ry [co nv ic ti on in19 81 ,] th atitst il l was ou t o f ch arac te r fo r hi m

to ha ve co m

m it te d t hi s cr im e. Hall kn ew th atPace was acrac k c oc ai ne ad di ctbu t wan te d t o k eep th atfactfro m th e jury if atall po ss ib le be cau se in tro du ci ng ev id en ce o f Pac e’s drug us e was a

“ two -ed ge d s wor d” : Pu t o n a ll of thi s g oo d s tu ff t o s ho w whata go odpe rs onhe is , and th enals o, l ad ie s an d g en tl em en , als o b y th e way , he i s [a ] drug ad di ct an d adru g u se r. I jus t tho ug htth atitwas ane ga ti ve . AndI co ul d b e
Pace w as not indicted until Dece mber 14, 1988, so the que stion arises as to why Martin 1 3 would have me t Pace at the jail on November 10. The re cord doe s not provide an e x plicit explanation, but itsug g ests that Pace ha d been a rre sted for violatingFla. Stat. § 790.23, prohibiting F lorida fe lons from possessinga fire arm. At Pac e’s a rra ignme nt on the charg es in this case, Samuel Ha ll informed the cour t that he had be en appointed to r epre sent Pace in the unlawful possession of f

irea rm ca se. It is possi ble that Martin we nt to the jail on November 10 to interview Pac e about the unla wful possession of fire arm c harg e.

15wro ng an d i t wo ul d b e so m ethi ng th atth e jury can co ns id er as a

m it ig at or , bu t tha t was m y reas on in g. . . . There m ay be so m e p eo pl e th atjus t d is li ke pe op le th atus e dru gs an d v ot e fo r de ath ju stbe cau se of th at . Hall m ad e th atst rat eg ic ch oi ce t o p ortra y Pace as ade cen t hum anbe in g a nd to st eer c le ar o f th e cra ckco cai ne ad di ct io n fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, Pa ce t ol d Hal l
an d M art in th atPace di d n otus e dru gs on th e d ay of t he m ur de r orth e p rev io us da y . Hall ha d n o re as on to be li ev e th atPace was l y in g, s o h e m ad e n o a tt em ptto lo cat e so m eo ne who wou ldtes ti fy th atPace was h ig h o n t he day of o r da y be fo re th e m ur de r. Mo reo ve r, Pace ’s gen eral us eag e o f cra ckco cai ne di d n ot , inHall ’s

1 4
m in d, co ns ti tu te a st ro ng m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce. Sec on d, n ei th er Dr. Lars on no r Dr. Szm ur lo , who were awar e o f Pac e’s crac k c oc ai ne habi t, s ug ge st edus in g in to xi cat io n a s a m it ig at in g fa ct or . The d oc to rs als o ru le d o utas am it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce ev id en ce o f br ai n d am ag e, or ga ni c b rai n d y sf un ct io n, o r se rio us
m en ta l d is or de r. B. On J ul y 11 , 20 01 , th e ci rcu itco urt d en ie d P ace’s R ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. Th e
co urt d en ie d re li ef af

te r ap pl y in g t he two -p ro ng edst an da rdfor in effe ct iv e When questioned on cross- examination why Hall thought Pace wa s telling the truth 1 4 about beingsober at the time of the murder , Hall re plied, “Why would he lie to me about the drug s, the alcohol, or thebeingintox icated, a nd tell me [that he murde red Coving ton,] something that is a lot worse than whether or not he used dr

ug s or not? ” 16as si st an ce o f co un se l en un ci at edinStr ic kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 ,

10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 6 74 (19 84 ). In s ho rt, t o s at is fy th atst an da rd , a de fen da nt“ m

us t s ho w th at : (1 ) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntbe cau se itfel l be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss ; an d (2 ) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edth e d efen se .” Ste wartv. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 47 6 F .3d11 93 , 12 09 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7)
. W it h re sp ectto th e fi rs t p ro ng , th e ci rcu itco urt s aw no ba si s t o fi ndth at Hall ’s per fo rm an ce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t i n p rep ari ng foran d h an dl in g th e p en al ty pha se of t ria l. To the co nt rary, the c ou rt f ou ndth atth e in ve st ig at io n Hall co nduc te d i n p rep ari ng forth atph as e was th or ou gh an d tha t the st rat eg y he ch os e to fol lo w at t ria l was en ti rel y reas on ab le . Havi ng reac he d t hi s d eci si on , th e
co urt co ns id eredit s St ric kl an d a na lysis clo se d a ndde ni edPace ’s in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce cl ai m . The co urt al so reject edPace ’s ot he r gr ou nd s fo r Ru le 3.8 50 rel ie f. III. Pace ap pe al edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fr om th e d en ia l. OnMay 22, 20 03 , th e supr em e co urt af firm ed . Pace v . Sta te , 85 4 S o. 2 d 1 67 (Fl . 20 03 ). W e 1 5
At the same time, Pac e petitioned the supre me cour t for a writ of habe as cor

pus on the 1 5 ground that the c ourt-appointed attorney s who handled his dire ct appe al provided ine ffe ctive assistance of counse l. The cour t denied the writ and that decision is not impli cate d in this appeal.

17m ay

no t d is tu rb th e supr em e co urt’s d eci si on un le ss it“ (1 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry

to , or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s,
or(2) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edon anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Thu s, we re vi ew in co ns id erab le de ta il an d quo te ex te ns iv el y fro m th e supr em e co urt’s o pi ni on fin di ng no m eri t i n t he in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m at h an d.

18The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re ci te d t he ap pl ic ab le Str ic kl an d s ta nd ard , an d 1 6 th en , app lying th atst an da rd , con si de redth e ci rcu itco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actan d
co nc lu si on s o f la w. 1 7 The supre me cour

t stated: 1 6 To establish a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel: First, the de fenda

nt must show that counsel' s perf ormanc e wa s defic ient. This require s showing that counsel made err ors so serious that counse l was not functioningas the “ counsel” guara nteed the de fenda

nt by the Six th Amendment. Second, the defe ndant must show that the defic ient perf ormanc e pre

judiced the defe nse. This requir es showingthat counsel' s errors wer e so serious as to deprive the def endant of a fa ir trial, a tria l whose result is reliable. Unless a def endant make s both showings, it cannot be said that the convic tion or death sente nce r esulted fr om a brea kdown in the adve rsar

y proce ss that rende rs the re sult unreliable
. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052[ , 2064], 80 L .Ed.2d 674 (1984). The re is a “ strongpresumption that counsel’s c onduct fa lls withi n the wide ra ng e of r easona

ble profe ssional assistance.” Additionally , “ther e is no rea son for a

court de cidingan inef

fec tive assistance claim . . . to addre ss both components of the inquiry if the def endant make s an insufficie nt showing on one.” T o prove pr ejudice, “ [t ]he defenda nt must show that there is a re asonable probability

that, but for counse l's unpr ofessional e rror s, the result of the proce eding s would have be en diffe rent. A r easona ble proba bility is a probability sufficie nt to undermine conf idence in the outcome.” Pace, 854 So. 2d at 172 ( citations omitt ed). The supre me cour

t employ ed the f

ollowing standa

rd of r eview in r eviewingthe circ uit 1 7 court’s disposition of Pace’ s claim: [T] he per formanc e and pr ejudice pr ong s are mix ed questions of lawand fa ct subject to a de novo revie w standar d but . . . the trial court’ s fac tual finding s areto be g iven def

ere nce. So longas its decisions are supported by competent, substantial evidence , this Court wil l not substi tute its judgment for that of the trial 19Pace cla im edth atHall ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce i n p rep ari ng foran d

rep res en ti ng Pace inth e p en al ty pha se of t he tri al . Spe ci fic al ly, Pace art ic ul at ed th ree a reas of d efi ci en cy : (1 ) Hal l’s fa il ur e to ad equa te ly inv es ti ga te Pace ’s ad di ct io n t o c rackco cai ne ; (2 ) Hal l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntto Drs. Lars onan d S zm ur lo th e ev id en ce o f cra ckad di ct io n t ha t an ad equa te in ve st ig at io n wo ul d h av e pr oduc ed ; an d (3 ) Hal l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntsu ch ev id en ce t o t he jury. W it h re sp ectto th e fi rs t d efi ci en cy , th atHall fai le d t o a de qu at el y in ve st ig at e Pace ’s crackco cai ne ad di ct io n, the cir cu itco urt fo un d, as su m m ari zedby the
supr em e co urt, tha t: Hall ’s [pr e-tria l] in ve st ig at io n c on si st edof t he fol lo win g: (1) de po si ng sev eral witne ss es ; (2 ) ut il iz in g a n i nv es ti ga to r to in te rv ie w witne ss es for

po te nt ia l m it ig at in g e vi de nc e; (3) ob ta in in g wi tn es s st at em en ts fro m

th e St at e; (4) ob ta in in g P ace' s s ch oo l re co rd s; an d (4 ) se cu rin g two m en ta l h eal th expe rts , ps y ch ol og is t Dr. J am es Lars on an d p sychi atris t Dr. Pet er Sz m ur lo , to ex am in e Pac e. . . . Pace co ns is te nt ly relat edto Hall th athe was s uf feri ng fro m

no dru g- rel at ed effe ct s atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . . . . Hall in te rv ie wedsev eral of Pace 's fr ie nd s an d re la ti ve s re ga rd in g P ace' s cr ackus e b ut , as t he po st co nv ic ti onco urt s ta te d, “ in di vi du al s cl os e to Pace fai le d t o di sc lo se an y

in fo rm at io n t ha t ei th er au gm en te d o r sh arp ly co nt rad ic te d P ace’s o wn s el f rep orts of c rackus e.” court on que stions of fact a nd, likewise, on the c redibility of the witnesse s and the weight to be g iven to the evidenc e by the trial cour

t. We recognize and honor the trial court’ s superior va

ntag e point in assessingthe cr edibility of witnesses a

nd in makingfinding s of fa ct. Pace, 854 So. 2d at 172 ( citations omitt ed).
20The supr em e co urt ag reedwith t he cir cu itco urt tha t Hal l’s i nv es ti ga ti on in to

Pace ’s crackco cai ne us e was reas on ab le . Hall no t o nl y rel ie d o n P ace’s re pe at ed
as se rti on s t o h im

—tha t h e was no t o n t he dru g b efo re o r du rin g t he m ur de r—b ut he als o e xp lo redth e subjec t wi th Pace ’s fam il y an d fr ie nd s. The supr em e co urt the n turne d t o P ace’s s eco ndde fic ie nc y , th atHall
ren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y fai li ng to pro vi de Drs. Lars on an d S zm ur lo fu rth er ev id en ce o f Pac e’s crac k c oc ai ne ad di ct io n, ev id en ce tha t, ac co rd in g t o
co ll at eral co un se l, a re as on ab le in ve st ig at io n wo ul d h av e d is cl os ed . The co urt fo un d tha t “ [co ll at eral ] co un se l p ro vi de d Dr. Lars onan d Dr. Sz m ur lo with re cen t affi da vi ts fro m

Pace ’s frie nd s an d fa m il y , th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt f or Pace ’s stro ng arm

rob be ry [in 19 81 ], an d P ace’s ju ve ni le reco rd s.” Id . at 1 74 n.5
. Fro m th is in fo rm at io n, the do ct or s kne w andex pr es se d i n t he ir r ep orts th atPace ab us edcrac k c oc ai ne bu t tha t h e was no t h ig h o n c rackat t he ti m e h e co m m it te d th e ch arg edoff

en se s. Id . at 1 73 . “

Neit he r ex pe rt r eque st edth atPace be ev al ua te d by an ad di ct io n s pe ci al is t n orin di cat edth at[Pac e’s] crackus e m ig hthave affe ct ed hi s m en ta l h eal th at the ti m e o f th e o ffen se .” Id
. Pace co nt en de d t ha t Drs . Larso n a ndSzm ur lo m is di ag no se d P ace’s m en ta l
co nd it io n a ndif Hal l h adpro vi de d t he m with “ th e in fo rm at io n t ha t p os tc on vi ct io n
co un se l p ro vi de d t he m , bo th ex pe rts wou ldhave fou ndth atbo th st atut ory m en ta l
21m it ig at or s wer e ap pl ic ab le .” Id . at 1 74 . The ci rcu itco urt h el d t hi s co nt en ti on

witho utm eri t fo r se ve ral reas on s. Fi rs t an d fo rem os t, tria l co un se l's in ve st ig at io n i nt o [P ace’s] dru g u se was reas on ab le ba se d upo n t he rep res en ta ti on s o f [Pac e] andot he rs . Seco nd , cou ns el di d n otwithh ol d a ny ess en ti al in fo rm at io n fr om ei th er ex pe rt tha t was withi n t he ir p os se ss io n. Th ird , nei th er ex pe rt be li ev edat t he ti m e o f th e o rig in al ev al ua ti on th atth ey ha d in ad equa te in fo rm at io n t o re nd er a d ia gn os is no r reque st edad di ti on al in fo rm at io n fr om

co un se l. Fo urth , cou ns el di d p ro vi de th e ex pe rts with i nf orm at io n t ha t co nt ai ne d i ns ig htin to [Pac e’s] back gr ou nd
. The reco rdrev eal s t ha t co un se l p ro vi de d S zm ur lo an d Lar so n wi th po li ce i nv es ti ga ti ve rep orts th atco nt ai ne d i nf orm at io n p ert ai ni ng to [Pac e’s] crackus e, hygi en e is su es , em ot io na l s ta te , andth e fac t tha t he st ay edinanab an do ne d h ou se . Cou ns el als o p ro vi de d Dr. Lars on with n um ero us pre tri al st at em en ts an d d ep os it io ns . In ad di ti onto th e ba ck gr ou ndm at eri al s, ea ch ex pe rt h adanop po rtu ni ty to i nt erv ie w [Pac e] andPace rep orte d h eav y crac k u se to bo th of t he m . Desp it e th ei r kn owl ed ge of h is crac k u se an d abe rran t b eh av io r, bo th ex pe rts fai le d t o d ev el op th e p res en ce o f or ga ni c b rai n d am ag e o r st atut ory m en ta l m it ig at io n dur in g t he ir i ni ti al ev al ua ti on s. In ad di ti on , nei th er ex pe rt r eco m

m en de d t ha t an ad di ct io ns sp eci al is t ex am in e Pac e. Mo reo ve r, th e fac t tha t [P ace] ha s n ow s ecu redfav or ab le tes ti m on y of m en ta l m it ig at io n a ndbra in da m ag e fro m Dr. Mic ha el Herk ov an d Dr. Barry Crown do es no t re nd er co un se l's in ve st ig at io n i nt o m it ig at io n i ne ffec ti ve . See As ay v. St at e, 76 9 S o.2 d 9 74 , 98 6 (Fl a.2 00 0) ; J on es v. St at e, 73 2 S o.2 d 3 13 , 32 0 (F la .19 99 ); R os e v . St at e, 61 7 S o.2 d 2 91 , 29 4 (F la .19 93 ). See al so Davi s v . Sin gl et ary, 11 9 F .3d14 71 , 14 75 (11 th Cir .19 97 ) (s ta ti ng “ m ere f acta de fen da nt can fin d, years a fte r th e fac t, a m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt wh o wi ll tes ti fy fav or ab ly for h im

do es no t d em on st rat e th attri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro du ce tha t ex pe rt a t tria l.”) . Cou ns el di li ge nt ly obt ai ne d t wo m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al s t o e xa m in e Pac e pr io r to tri al bu t tho se expe rts fai le d t o p ro vi de co un se l wi th
22fav or ab le in fo rm at io n. As in di cat edab ov e, co un se l i s n otde fic ie nt

fo r rea so nabl y

rel y in g upo n t he op in io ns of S zm ur lo an d Lar so n a nd no t s eek in g o utad di ti on al ex pe rts . See Ca rdv. Du gg er, 9 11 F.2d 14 94 , 15 13 (11 Cir .19 90 ) (s ta ti ng co un se l i s n otrequi redto sh op for a ps y ch ia tri stwho wil l t es ti fy ina pa rti cu la r way ). Fu rth erm or e, th e fac t tha t Sz m ur lo an d Lar so n h av e n ow ch an ge d th ei r di ag no si s d oe s n otren de r co un se l's ba ck gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n in effe ct iv e. At the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Szm ur lo an d Lar so n b ot h te st ifi edth atth ey

cu rren tl y be li ev e th atPace was s uf feri ng fro m

an em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce atth e ti m e o f th e m ur de r an d h is ab il it y

to co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o the requi rem en ts of t he law was im pa ire d. Howev er, the in fo rm at io n t ha t Sz m ur lo an d Lar so n a ttrib ut e to th is ch an ge inop in io n i s co m pr is edpri m ari ly of in di vi du al s wh o h av e ch an ge d t he ir a cco un ts of P ace' s b eh av io r orot he r in fo rm at io n t ha t co un se l h adno reas on to pu rs ue du e to th e rep res en ta ti on s o f [Pac e] an d o th ers . Of th e 1 0 re cen tl y

ob ta in edaffi da vi ts th atco ll at eral co un se l subm it te d t o t he ex pe rts , tri al co un se l h adde po se d fi ve of the affi an ts pr io r to Pace 's t ria l. Barry Co pe la nd , EllaMae Green , Mel an ie Pace , Cynt hi a Pac e, an d Hi ld a Pac e were e ach qu es ti on edreg ard in g P ace' s drug us e an d n on e o f th es e wit ne ss es off eredin fo rm at io n t he y pr ov id edinth e rec en t af

fid av it s. Tri al co un se l ca nn otbe de em ed in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro vi de in fo rm at io n t o m en ta l h eath e xp ert s th atth e aff

iant s ch os e n otto di sc lo se to co un se l wh enori gi na ll y qu es ti on ed . As fo r th e rem ai ni ng affi an ts , tri al co un se l h adno reas on to pu rs ue th es e in di vi du al s i n l ig htof t he in fo rm at io n t he y rece iv ed fro m [Pac e] andhi s fr ie nd s an d fa m il y . Id . at 1 74 -7 5. Th e supr em e co urt h el d tha t the ev id en ce b efo re the cir cu itco urt
supp orte d i ts factua l fi nd in gs . Rev ie win g d e n ov o the cir cu itco urt’s co nc lu si on of la w th atHall was n otin effe ct iv e in fai li ng to di sc lo se to Drs. Lars on an d S zm ur lo th e ev id en ce p ro vi de d b y th e te n a ffi an ts co ll at eral co un se l o bt ai ne d, the supr em e

23co urt h el d t ha t the fai lu re d idno t co ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce. Id . at 1 76
.

The supr em e co urt the n c on si de redth e th irdde fic ie nc y , th atHall was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to pre se ntto th e jury evi de nc e o f Pac e’s ad di ct iv e ab us e o f
crac k c oc ai ne . The ci rcu itco urt “ co nc lu de d t ha t ‘gi ve n t he un fav or ab le ps y ch ol og ic al op in io ns [by Drs. Lars on an d S zm ur lo ], co un se l’s t act ic al de ci si on to hu m an iz e [Pa ce] andno t p res en t an y ev id en ce o f hi s dru g u se was areas on ab le st rat eg y .’ ” Id . at 1 73 . The s up rem e co urt h el d t ha t the cir cu itco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Hall m ad e anin fo rm ed“ st rat eg ic de ci si onto pre se ntPace ’s po si ti ve att rib ut es
ov er ev id en ce o f hi s cr ackus e” was supp orte d b y “ subs ta nt ia l co m

pe te nt
ev id en ce.” Id . In re ach in g thi s h ol di ng , th e supr em e co urt re jecte d P ace’s arg um en t tha t Hal l an d t he cir cu itco urt erro ne ou sl y rel ie d upo n t he ass um

pt io n th atPace ha d t o b e u nd er the in flu en ce o f drug s atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se : [W] e d o n otfin d t ha t ei th er Hal l o r th e p os tc on vi ct io n c ou rt r el ie d up on su ch anass um

pt io n. Hal l’s t es ti m on y

was t ha t i n h is ex pe rie nc e, Pace ’s coc ai ne ad di ct io n wo ul d o nl y be co ns id ered“ si gn ifi can tl y ” m it ig at in g i f so m e eff

ectof t he ad di ct io n c ou ldbe li nk edto Pace ’s co nduc t atth e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Becaus e Pac e co nt in ue d t o a ss ert th athe was n otaffe ct edby his crac k u se at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se an d be cau se Dr. Larso n a ndDr. Szm ur lo , th e ex pe rts hi redby H al l, d id no t re po rt t ha t Pa ce's crac k u se affec te d h is m en ta l h eal th at t he ti m e of th e o ffen se , Hall co nc lu de d t ha t ev id en ce o f Pac e's pa stcrac k u se wou ldbe m or e p reju di ci al th anbe ne fic ia l u nd er the cir cu m st an ces of th e d efen se . Hall co nc lu de d t ha t the ev id en ce o f cra ck us e wou ldbe co nt rary to h is strat eg ic effo rts to em ph as iz e wit h t he jury th atPace “ ha d s om e g oo d qua li ti es an d was a hu m anbe in g wh o s ho ul d b e 24sa ve d.” Our re vi ew of th e p os tc on vi ct io n o rd er re ve al s t ha t the co urt m ad e a fac tu al de te rm in at io n b as edup on th e ev id en ce p res en te d t ha t Hall 's d eci si on was s tra te gi c an d t ha t the po st co nv ic ti onco urt ap pl ie d th e co rrec t ru le of l aw. Id . at 1 74
. Insu m , th e supr em e co urt, o n d e n ov o re vi ew, co nc lu de d tha t Pa ce fa il edto pr ov e th atHall ’s per fo rm an ce i n p rep ari ng foror p res en ti ng Pace ’s cas e in th e pe na lty ph as e fel l b el ow t he Str ic kl an d p erfo rm an ce s ta nd ard . The co urt the refo re affi rm edth e ci rcu itco urt’s d is po si ti on of t he cla im at i ss ue alo ng with i ts de ni al of th e o th er cl ai m s Pa ce’s Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n h adrai se d. Pa ce p et it io ne d t he Uni te d St at es Supr em e Co urt fo r writof c ert io rari an d t he Supr em e Co urt d en ie d P ace’s pe ti ti on on Jan ua ry

20 , 20 04 . Pace v . Flo rid a, 54 0 U.S. 1 15 3, 1 24 S. Ct. 1 15 5, 1 57 L. Ed. 2d10 49 (20 04 ). IV. On Se pt em

be r 28 , 20 04 , Pace f

il eda ti m el y

pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas
co rp us inth e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a
se ek in g re li ef o n t he same ine ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m th e supr em e
co urt re jecte d a ndfiv e o th er cl ai m s o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r as well . On Oct ob er 1 , 20 07 , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d P ace’s p et it io n i n fu ll . It rejec te d t he in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce cl ai m

at i ss ue he re as fol lo ws:

25Insh ort, the att orne y de te rm in edth atth e p os si bl e b en efi t o f pr es en ti ng tes ti m on y

reg ard in g M r. Pace ’s coc ai ne us e was ou twei gh edby the ris k t ha t i t wo ul d i m pa ctth e jury neg at iv el y . He th eref or e m ad e a t act ic al de ci si on no t t o p res en t ev id en ce o f th e co cai ne us e in m it ig at io n. Gi ve n the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , Mr. Pa ce h as no t d em on st rat edth atth e at to rn ey ’s rep res en ta ti onfel l be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss . Or atlea st , so a st at e co urt co ul d re as on ab ly con cl ud e, as th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d id . The co urt’s d eci si on was n otco nt rary to, n 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 e co urt cl earl y id en ti fie d Stri ckl an d

an d o th er re le va ntst at e an d fe de ral cas es in te rp ret in g Stri ckl an d , anditap pl ie d t ho se de ci si on s t o t he fact s o f Mr. Pace ’s cas e. Ther e is no cas e d eci de d b y th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt with m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fact s t ha t re ach eda di ffer en t re su lt . Nor was th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si onba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts . . . . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t M r. Pace ’s pen al ty pha se co un se l d idno t re nd er i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e b y fai li ng ad equa te ly to pr ep are the m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts or b y rel y in g o n the ir o pi ni on s. Th e co urt’s h ol di ng is no t anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, no r co nt rary to, se tt le d fe de ral law, an d t he de te rm in at io n i s n otba se d o n a n un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts . Pace fil eda ti m el y

no ti ce o f ap pe al to th is co urt. Aft er h e fi le d t he no ti ce, he ap pl ie d t o t he di st ric t co urt fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y . The co urt g ran te d hi s ap pl ic at io n o n o ne is su e: whet he r tr ia l co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, i n v io la ti on of t he Six th an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts , for fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t ev id en ce o f Pac e’s subs ta nc e ab us e to hi s m en ta l h eal th
ex pe rts an d t he reaf

te r to th e jury durin g the pe na lty ph as e o f hi s capi ta l tria l.

26V.

Pace ’s pet it io n i s g ov ern edby the Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h Pen al ty A ctof 1 99 6, wh ic h e st ab li sh es a “ ge ne ral fram ewo rkof s ub st an ti al de fere nc e” fo r rev ie win g “ ev ery is su e th atth e st at e co urts ha ve de ci de d[ .] ” Diaz v. Se c’y forth e Dep ’t of Co rr., 40 2 F .3d11 36 , 11 41 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). As di sc us se d b efo re, a fe de ral co urt m ay no t i ss ue a writof h ab eas co rp us set ti ng
as id e a s ta te co urt’s d en ia l o f a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cla im un le ss th e p et it io ne r de m on st rat es th atth e st at e co urt’s d eci si on is fla wedforon e o r bo th of t he reas on s li st edin28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . The fi rs t re as on is th atth e st at e co urt m is ap pl ie d th e rel ev an t h ol di ng s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt; th e se co ndreas on is 1 8 th atth e st at e co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actlac k e vi de nt ia ry

supp ort. See Newlan d v
. Hall , 52 7 F .3d11 62 , 11 84 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In a ss es si ng th e st at e co urt’s fi nd in gs of fact , we “pr es um e” tho se fin di ng s ar e “ co rrec t.” Se e id .; 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) . If th e p et it io ne r co nt en ds th atth e fi nd in gs of f actare n otco rrec t, h e be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth ey are n otco rrec t b y

“ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng

It is clear that the rele vant Supreme Court pre cede nt for our pur poses is Strickland v. 1 8 Washington, bec ause tha

t decision was ha

nded down prior to the Supreme Court’s de nial of Pace’ s petition for a writ of cer tiorari to re view the supre me cour t’s denial of Rule 3.850 r elief. See g ener ally

Newla nd, 527 F.3d a

t 1197-1202. 27ev id en ce.” Id. (“ The [pe ti ti on er] sh al l h av e th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th e 1 9 pr es um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.”). Pace ha s n ev er ch al le ng edth e supr em e co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actas l ack in g
ev id en ti ary supp ort, ei th er i n l it ig at in g h is pe ti ti on inth e d is tri ctco urt o r inhi s br ie f on ap pe al
. Nor d oe s h e ch al le ng e th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt 2 0 pr eced en t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ap pl ie d i n re jecti ng hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m . Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at68 7, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 4, cl earl y co nt ro ll edth e is su e in th is cas e an d t he st at e co urt ap pl ie d i t. His arg um en t o n app eal th eref or e b oi ls do wn t o wh ethe r th e supr em e co urt m is ap pl ie d S tri ck la ndinho ld in g t ha t d efen se
co un se l m ad e a rea so nabl e st rat eg ic ch oi ce i n o pt in g t o fo reg o a dd it io na l in ve st ig at io n i nt o P ace’s c rackco cai ne ad di ct io n a ndpo rtr ay in g P ace a s a d ecen t hu m anbe in g ra th er tha n a s a c rackco cai ne ad di ct .

“ Strat eg ic ch oi ces m ad e aft er tho ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on of l aw an d fa ct s rel ev an t t o p os si bl e o pt io ns are v irtua ll y un ch al le ng eab le .” Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 68 . Thatis to say, “ [c]ou rts co nduc t a h ig hl y de fere nt ia l

I f the district cour

t does not hold an evidentiar y hearing on the claimant’s issues but 1 9 instead, re lies on the state cour t’s finding s of fa ct made f ollowing a

n evidentiar

y hearing on the claim, the petitioner must re but the presumption of cor rec tness by

pointing to clea

r and convincingevidenc e in the re cord of that evidentiar

y hearing. In the supreme court, Pac e did not challeng e as c lear ly err oneous the finding s of fa ct 2 0 the circ uit court made in de nying his Rule 3.850 motion. 28rev ie w of c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce an d i ndul ge th e stro ng pre su m pt io n t ha t
co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was reas on ab le .” Ste wart , 47 6 F .3dat 1 20 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Here, the supr em e co urt fo un d t ha t d efen se co un se l m ad e a rea so nabl e in ve st ig at io n i nt o P ace’s dru g abu se . Mart in an d Hal l b ot h que st io ne d P ace reg ard in g h is dru g abu se an d P ace t ol d t he m th athe ab us edcrac k c oc ai ne an d h ad be endo in g s o fo r m on th s p rece di ng th e m ur de r. Pace m ad e th e sa m e st at em en t t o Drs. Lars on an d S zm

ur lo . Szm

ur lo ’s rep ort t o Hal l s ta te d t ha t Pa ce was en ga ge d in “ a rat he r he av y

us e o f co cai ne pri orto th e o ffen se .” Hall ask edm em be rs of Pace ’s fam il y

an d fr ie nd s ab ou t h is dru g abu se ; h e to okth e d ep os it io ns of f iv e o f th e te n p eo pl e who ga ve co ll at eral co un se l the affi da vi ts th atwere s ub m it te d t o Drs. Cr own an d Herko v. He to okth e d ep os it io ns of t ho se m os t l ik el y to kn ow 2 1 ab ou t Pa ce’s b eh av io r; t he y rev eal edno th in g s ig ni fic an t ab ou t Pa ce’s dru g u se , th ou gh th ey

were as ke d abo utitpo in t b la nk
. Pro vi di ng anaffi da vi t tha t co ntrad ic ts whatth e aff ia nt s p rev io us ly said
un de r oa th is no t u nkno wn:

Florida aff ords def endants in criminal cases e ssentially the same discove ry

rights 2 1 litigants in civil case s enjoy . In this case, de fense counsel took 11 depositions in addition to the extensive open-file discove ry the prosec ution provided.

29It i s co m m on pra ct ic e fo r pe ti ti on ers att ack in g t he ir d eath s en te nc es to subm itaffi da vi ts fro m witne ss es who say the y

co ul d h av e supp li ed ad di ti on al m it ig at in g c irc um st an ce ev id en ce, h adth ey be encal le d. . . . Su ch affi davi ts us ua ll y

pro ve at m os t the who ll y un rem ark ab le fact th atwith t he lu xu ry

of t im e an d t he op po rtu ni ty to fo cu s re so ur ces on sp eci fic pa rts of am ad e rec or d, p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou ns el wil l in ev it ab ly ide nt ify sh ortc om in gs inth e p erfo rm an ce o f pr io r co un se l. W il li am s v . Head , 18 5 F .3d12 23 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. Im pl ic itinth e supr em e co urt’s re jecti on of P ace’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m is th e n ot io n t ha t Hal l wen t fa r en ou gh inin ve st ig at in g P ace’s c rackco cai ne ad di ct io n. Hal l co ul d h av e d ep os edall ten , in st eadof ju stfiv e, of th e wit ne ss es who ga ve affi da vi ts to co ll at eral co un se l. Ho wev er, “ [t]o b e eff ect iv e, a la wy er i s
no t re qu ire d t o p ur su e ev ery pa th un ti l i t b ears fru itor u nt il all ho pe withe rs . . . . [A] deci si on to li m itin ve st ig at io n i s ac co rd eda st ro ng pre su m pt io n o f
reas on ab le ne ss .” Id. at12 36 -3 7 (c it at io ns om it te d) . Giv enth e st at em en ts Pace
m ad e to de fen se co un se l, the in ve st ig at or , andDrs. Lars onan d S zm ur lo —tha t h e
was no t u nd er the in flu en ce o f cra ckco cai ne or a lc oh ol when he co m m it edth e Co vi ng to n m

ur de r—a ndwhatth e wit ne ss es sai d o n d ep os it io n, we ag ree wi th th e
supr em e co urt tha t i t was reas on ab le forco un se l t o l im itth ei r in ve st ig at io n i nt o Pace ’s subs ta nc e ab us e ad di ct io n. We als o a gr ee wi thth e supr em e co urt tha t

“ [t]ri al co un se l ca nn otbe de em edin effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pro vi de in fo rm at io n t o

30[Drs . Larso n a ndSzm ur lo ] th atth e aff

ia nt s ch os e n otto di sc lo se to co un se l wh en
or ig in al ly que st io ne d.” 2 2 Mo reo ve r, as Hall hi m se lf r eco gn iz ed , pre se nt in g e vi de nc e o f a d efen da nt ’s drug ad di ct io n t o ajury is oft ena “ two -ed ge d s wor d” : wh il e p ro vi di ng a
m it ig at in g fa ct or , su ch de ta il s m ay ali en at e th e jury andoff

er l it tl e rea so n t o l es se n th e se nt en ce. Fo r ex am

pl e, inHou se l v . Head , 23 8 F .3d12 89 , 12 96 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 ), we he ldth atanatt orne y ’s strat eg y to sh ow a “ fam il y -fri en dl y si de of [d efen da nt ], rathe r th andwel li ng on th e ev id en ce o f [h is ] ex te ns iv e dru g u se an d dr in ki ng with aso ci op athi c b ik er cr owd ” was reas on ab le be cau se th e jury woul d li ke ly notco ns id er al co ho l an d d ru g u se to be m it ig at in g. Here , as i n Ho us el , Hall ch os e to dra w up on th e sym pa th y of t he juro rs by portray in g P ace a s a g oo d pe rs on who he lp edan d c aredforhi s fa m il y rathe r th anas acrac k c oc ai ne ad di ct with p oo r hygi en e an d apa ran oi d p ers on al ity whi le ondru gs . The s up rem e co urt
co rrec tl y he ldth atth is was areas on ab le st rat eg y ch oi ce. 2 3 We agree as we ll with the supreme cour t that the testimony

of Dr. H erkov a

nd Dr. 2 2 Crown was unc onvincing . The “ mere fac t a def endant c an find, year s after the fa ct, a menta l health expert who will testify favor ably

for him does not demonstrate that trial counse l was ineffe ctive for

failingto produce that expert at trial.” Da vis v. Si ng letary , 119 F.3d 1471, 1475 (11th Cir. 1997). We note in passing that neither c ollatera l counsel nor the a ttorney s repr esentingPace in 2 3 these fe dera l habea s proce eding s have c riticized Hall for pre sentingwitnesses who de scribed Pace a s a loving , caring pe rson who ca me from a

g ood, supportive family

and wa s a dec ent human being . Rather, their challeng e is that Hall should have c alled witnesses to infor m the jury that Pace w as a c rac k cocaine addict. Ha ll could have summoned Ke nneth B embo and B arr y 31VI.

The re i s n o b as is inth is reco rdto co nc lu de th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on de nyin g P ace’s c la im of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i n t he pe na lt y ph as e o f th e tr ia l was co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co urt p rece de nt , or was ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts . W e th eref or e res ol ve inth e St at e’s fav orth e is su e pr es en te d i n t he cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y , andth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on de nyin g awritof h ab eas co rp us is , acco rd in gl y , AFFIR MED.

Copeland to establish that Pace neede d betwee n $50 to $500 per da y to maintain his crac k addiction. This would have le ft it to the jury to speculate as to wher e Pace , who was unemployed, might have f ound such funds. I f Ha ll had called thosewitnesses, we can only imag ine, as Ha ll probably did, how the State would have used the drugaddiction evidenc e in cross-e x amining H all’s cha rac ter witnesse s and in arguing that the death se ntence was the appropriate pena lty

under the circ umstances. 32