[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 96 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 7- cv -0 04 44 -WT H-DAB ANTHONYJOHN PONTICELLI, Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts - App el le es

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st16 , 20 12 ) Befo re PRYOR, MARTIN an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Ant ho ny Pon ti cel li , a Flo rid a p ris on er s en te nc edto de ath fo r th e m ur de r of two bro th ers , Nickan d R al ph Gran di ne tt i, ra is es two is su es ab ou t the de ni al of h is pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us . Firs t, Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the pro se cu ti onvi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o due pro ces s wh enitall eg ed ly sup pr es se d e vi de nc e o f an d

fai le d t o c orrectfal se tes ti m on y ab ou t an ag reem en t t o p ro vi de imm un it y fora wit ne ss forth e st at e an d abo utPo nt ic el li ’s us e o f co cai ne sh ortl y be fo re the m ur de rs , see Brad y

v. Ma ry la nd , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) ; s ee Gi gl io v. Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ). Pon ti cel li co nt en ds th atth e ru li ng of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a—t ha t the pro se cu ti on di d n otvi ol at e h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts an d tha t, ev enif i t d id , he s uf fere d n o p reju di ce— is co nt rary to oranun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law an d a n un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts . 28 U.S.C. §2 25 4( d) . Seco nd , Pon ti cel li arg ue s t ha t h is tri al co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e b y fai li ng to pre se nt ev id en ce o f Po nt ic el li ’s in co m pe te nc e to st an d tria l an d b y fai li ng to pre se nt m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o f drug us e an d m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e. See Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . Po nt ic el li co nt en ds th atth e ru li ng of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a—t ha t tria l co un se l d idno t re nd er d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce b efo re an d dur in g t he co m pe te nc y he ari ng , andth atan y

de fic ie nc ie s b y

co un se l dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e d idno t pr ejud ic e Po nt ic el li —i s co nt rary to o r anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). Pon ti cel li ’s arg um en ts fai l. The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a o n t he fir stis su e, reas on ab ly det erm in edth e und erl y in g 2fact s an d, o n b ot h i ss ue s, n ei th er co nt rav en edno r un reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y

es tabl is he d fe de ral law. Th e d en ia l o f Po nt ic el li ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us is affi rm ed . I. BACK GROUND Ant ho ny Pon ti cel li owedNickan d R al ph Gran di ne tt i m on ey forco cai ne so he ha tc he d apl anto lure the bro th ers in to a car t o d riv e to a ba ckroa d, away fro m th ei r ho m e, whe re h e m

ur de redth em

with agu n h e h adbo rro wedfro m a fri en d. Po nt ic el li sh otRal ph on ce i n t he he adan d Ni ck twi ce i n t he he adan d l at er ab an do ne d t he m

to di e in th e car . Ralp h d ie d fr om th e g un sh otwou ndwithi n o ne ortwo m in ut es of b ei ng sh ot . Nickwas fo un d ada y lat er, cu rle d up o n t he flo orbo ardin th e fro ntof t he car, co ve redin bl oo d, g as pi ng forair , andki ck in g h is fo ot . Nickfel t p ai n u nt il he be cam e co m at os e, an d l at er d ie d fr om card ia c arr es t se co nd ary to th e g un sh otwou nd s. In ad di ti on to hi s g un sh otwou nd s, Ni ck su ffer edbru is es to th e b ackan d s id e o f hi s h ead , whi ch were co ns is te ntwith b lu nt fo rce t rau m a, an d abu rnof h is rig htear. The di sc us si on of t he pro cedur al hi st ory of t hi s ap pe al is di vi de d i nt o se ve ral pa rts . PartA di sc us se s the pre tri al de te rm in at io n o f co m pe te nc y . PartB di sc us se s t he gu il t p ha se of P on ti cel li ’s tri al . PartC di sc us se s t he pe na lt y ph as e o f Po nt ic el li ’s tri al . PartD di sc us se s t he de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a o n 3di rectap pe al . Part s E an d F di sc us s the st at e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs . PartG

di sc us se s t he pro ceed in gs in th e d is tri ctco urt.

A. Pretri al

Dete rmi na ti on of

Co mpe te nc

y Afte r Po nt ic el li was c ha rg edwith t wo co un ts of f irs t d eg ree m

ur de r an d o ne co un t o f ro bb ery wit h ade ad ly w eap on , Pon ti cel li ’s cou ns el m ov edfor an ev al ua ti onof h is cli en t’s co m pe te nc y . The tria l co urt the n app oi nt edth ree m en ta l he al th ex pe rts to ev al ua te Po nt ic el li ’s com pe te nc y to st an d t ria l: Dr. Harry

Krop , Dr. Ro dn ey

Po et te r, an d Dr. Ro bi n M il ls . At a p retria l h eari ng , bo th Dr. Krop an d Dr. Poe tt er t es ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li was c om pe te nt , bu t Dr. Mi ll s t es ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li was i nc om

pe te ntbe cau se he su ffer edfro m a de lu si on al th ou gh t p ro ces s. The st at e tr ia l co urt fo un d P on ti cel li to be co m pe te nt . Pon ti cel li v. St at e (Po nt ic el li I), 59 3 S o. 2 d 4 83 , 48 7 (F la . 19 91 ).

B. Guil t Ph as e The pro se cu ti on bu il t i ts cas e o n b oth p hysic al ev id en ce an d t he tes ti m on y of sev eral witne ss es who tes ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li pl an ne d t o k il l the bro th ers , carr ie d o utth atpl an , andth enbra gg edab ou t i t. At t he co nc lu si on of t he gu il t ph as e, th e jury con vi ct edPo nt ic el li , so in ou r rev ie w of the ev id en ce fr om th e g ui lt ph as e, we are o bl ig edto co ns tru e th e rec or d i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e 4go ve rn m en t. See Lewis v. J effe rs , 49 7 U.S. 7 64 , 78 1– 82 , 11 0 S . Ct. 3 09 2,

31 02 –0 3 (1 99 0) . On No ve m

be r 27 , 19 87 , th e Fri da y

aft er Th an ks gi vi ng Day , Pon ti cel li dro ve to th e Gran di ne tt i b ro th ers ’ tra il er i n S il ve r Sp rin gs Sh or es , Flo rid a, wit h a.22 cal ib er h an dg un th athe ha d b orro wedfro m hi s fr ie nd , Jo se ph Leon ard . Pon ti cel li ha d b ou gh t l arg e am ou nt s o f co cai ne fro m th e b ro th ers on at l eas t 1 5 o ccas io ns , an d h e o wedth e b ro th ers be twee n $ 20 0 a nd$3 00 for so m e o f th os e dru gs . Po nt ic el li pl an ne d t o k il l the bro th ers an d ro b t he m of c oc ai ne an d m on ey . Po nt ic el li co ns id eredki ll in g t he bro th ers in th ei r tr ai le r, bu t d eci de d a ga in stit , be cau se to o m an y

ot he r pe op le were p res en t, i nc lu di ng th e b ro th ers ’ ro omm at e, Tim ot hy Keesee . Po nt ic el li de ci de d t o l ur e th e b ro th ers away fro m th ei r tr ai le r by pret en di ng to sel l co cai ne forth em . Pon ti cel li ask edth e b ro th ers if h e co ul d s et tl e h is de btby se ll in g wh at ev er co cai ne th ey ha d. Th e b ro th ers ag reedan d P on ti cel li m ad e fak e te le ph on e cal ls to m ak e th e b ro th ers be li ev e th athe was fi nd in g p ur ch as ers for th ei r co cai ne . At tri al , Kees ee t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adsee n c oc ai ne at t he tra il er o n th e n ig htof t he m

ur de rs , bu t d en ie d t ha t an y on e p res en t atth e tr ai le r—i nc lu di ng Po nt ic el li —h adus edco cai ne th atni gh t.

5Po nt ic el li di rect edth e b ro th ers to th e p ur po rte d c us to m ers ’ res id en ces , in cl ud in g t he ho us e o f Kei th Dot so n. Po nt ic el li ha d v is it edDot so n e arl ie r th atda y an d h adwatc he d p artof t he m ov ie “ Scar face ” wit h Do ts on ; Do ts on ’s cou si ns , Ed an d Warren Bro wn; an d t he ir f rie nd , Bri anBurg es s. Whe n P on ti cel li an d t he br ot he rs arri ve d a t Do ts on ’s ho m e, Po nt ic el li lef t the bro th ers in th e car . In si de Dot so n’s h ou se , Pon ti cel li sh owe d EdBro wn an d B ur ge ss a gu n a nd to ldth em th atth ere wer e two pe op le in th e carwho he pl an ne d t o k il l fo r co cai ne an d m on ey . Po nt ic el li ask edBro wn an d B ur ge ss if t he y wou ldbe wil li ng to gi ve hi m a ri de ho m e aft er h e m

ur de redth e Gran di ne tt i b ro th ers . At tri al , Ed Bro wn, Bu rg es s, an d Do ts on tes ti fie d t ha t the y ha d n otm etPo nt ic el li be fo re tha t d ay . Afte r he returne d t o t he car, Po nt ic el li di rect edth e b ro th er t o d riv e to ne arb y ba ckroa ds . From th e b ackof the car, Po nt ic el li th ensh otRal ph on ce an d Ni ck twi ce i n t he he adwith Leo na rd ’s gu n. Po nt ic el li th rew Ral ph in to th e b ackof t he car. WhenNickm oane d, Po nt ic el li rep eat ed ly ham m eredNick ’s hea d wi th th e bu ttof t he gu n b ecau se he ha d n o m or e b ul le ts . Pon ti cel li th enpu sh edNickon to th e fl oo rb oa rdof t he car. Heatfro m th e fl oo rb oa rdsea redNick ’s ear. Po nt ic el li dro ve to Leon ard ’s ho us e to return t he gu n andto see k h is advi ce. Po nt ic el li ap pr oa ch eda win do w andcal le d Leo na rdou ts id e. He ga ve Leon ardth e gu n b ackan d t ol d Leo nardth athe “ di d Ni ck .” Leon ardun de rs to odPo nt ic el li to 6m ean th athe ha d m ur de redNick . Pon ti cel li returne d t o t he car an d b eg andri vi ng , bu t ev en tu al ly aban do ne d t he bo di es an d t he car b ecau se of afla t t ire . He call eda ta xi cab an d re tu rn edto Dot so n’s h ou se aro un d 1 1: 00 or 1 1: 30 p.m . W it h h is rig htkn ee co ve redin bl oo d, Po nt ic el li en te redDot so n’s h ou se

“ lo ok in g fo r anali bi .” Po nt ic el li an no un cedto Ed Bro wn, Do ts on , andBu rg es s, “ I di d i t, dud es ,” an d a sk edth e m ento “ gi ve hi m anali bi . . . th athe ha d s ta y edth ere . . . all n ig ht .” He ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e “ ha d k il le d t wo g uys fo r $2 ,00 0 a ndso m e co cai ne .” Po nt ic el li st at edth athe ha d s ho t ea ch m anin th e b ackof the he adan d aft erwar d “ dr ov e th em

ou t s om ewh ere a ndlef

t the m ” b ecau se he ha d afla t t ire . Po nt ic el li sh owe d t he Bro wn b ro th ers an d B ur ge ss so m e co cai ne in sm al l p la st ic pa ck et s an d alar ge rol l o f m on ey . At tri al , Ed Bro wn d en ie d tha t an y on e u se d co cai ne with P on ti cel li aft er h e returne d t o Do ts on ’s ho us e. Po nt ic el li ask edEd Bro wn i f he were “ to sh oo t s om eo ne . . . in th e h eadwith agu n” di d h e “ th in k t ha t th ey wou ldli ve ? ” Po nt ic el li to ldEd Bro wn, Do ts on , andBu rg es s tha t h e was worrie d b ecau se “ on e o f th e g uys w[as ] m oa ni ng or b ot h o f th em .” Po nt ic el li th encal le d h is m ot he r an d t ol d h er tha t h e was work in g o utwith so m e fri en ds , bu t wo ul d b e h om e in ab ou t 3 0 m in ut es . Dot so n h el pe d P on ti cel li was h h is clo th es to rem ov e th e b lo odst ai ns an d P on ti cel li fol de d t he cle anclo th es an d p la cedth em

in a br own ba g. Aft erwar d, Warren Bro wn an d B ur ge ss dro ve 7Po nt ic el li bac k t o h is ho us e. Po nt ic el li in st ru ct edBro wn an d B ur ge ss to “ dr iv e

aro un d t he bl oc k aco up le of t im es ” b ecau se he “ was afra idth e p ol ic e m ig htsp ot hi m ou t . . . andcat ch hi m .” The da y aft er the m

ur de r, Po nt ic el li an d h is fri en d, J oh n Tu rn er, as ke d Turn er’s fri en d, Ro na ldHals ey , if the y co ul d b urn t ras h b eh in d Hal se y ’s ho us e. Hals ey ag reed . Hals ey

lat er i ns pe ct edth ei r pr og res s an d “ no ti cedth atth ere was a bl acklo ok in g c oa t o n t op of t he fir e.” WhenHals ey in qu ire d abo utth e cl ot he s, Po nt ic el li “br ok e d own an d t ol d [Ha ls ey ] . . . tha t . . . he s ho t the two bo y s, Ni ck an d R al ph .” Po nt ic el li to ldHals ey th athe owedNickm on ey forco cai ne an d t ha t Nickan d R al ph ha d “ ro ug he d h im up .” Po nt ic el li st at edth at“ th ey were driv in g so m ewh ere” to “ se ll m or e co ke ” an d, wh enth ey “ cam e to a st op ,” he to okou t a gu n a nd“ sh otth e driv er twice in th e b ackof t he he adan d the n h e sh otth e pa ss en ge r twi ce i n the ba ckof t he he ad .” Po nt ic el li to ldHals ey th at“ he kn ew aft er h e sh oton e o f th em

th athe ha d t o k il l b ot h o f th em be cau se of wi tn es se s.” He sa idth athe ho pe d t o d is po se of t he bro th ers ’ bo di es “ ou t o f st at e,” b uta fl at ti re fo il edhi s p la n. Po nt ic el li co nf es se d t ha t h e to ok“ ei gh t o r ni ne gra m s o f crac k” an d “ li ke $9 00 cas h o ff the bo di es ,” an d h e ad m it te d t ha t h e an d Tu rn er sm ok edall of t he crac k a ndsp en t m os t o f th e m on ey on m or e cra ck . Pon ti cel li st at edth athe in te nd edto lea ve Flo rid a to esc ap e th e au th or it ie s. 8Po nt ic el li th enreturne d t o Leo na rd ’s ho us e, whe re h e to ldLeon ardth atth e

Gran di ne tt is ha d “ ha ras s[ ed ] hi m forso m e m on ey ,” an d t ha t “ th ey weren ’t go in g to lethi m lea ve be cau se he owedth em so m e m on ey .” Po nt ic el li adm it te d t ha t h e di rect edth e b ro th ers aro un d “ba ckroa ds ” whe re h e sh otan d k il le d t he m . He st at edth athe to oka few h un dr eddo ll ars an d c oc ai ne fro m th e car . Po nt ic el li als o to ldLeon ard , so on aft er Po nt ic el li returne d Leo nard ’s gu n, t ha t h e h adno ti cedth at th e carha d afla t t ire so he ha d l eftth e b od ie s an d h adtak ena cab ho m e. Po nt ic el li op en ly dis cu ss edhi s p la ns to co ve r up hi s cr im e. He to ld Leo nardth athe bu rn edth e cl ot he s h e h adworn whenhe ki ll edth e b ro th ers . He to ldLeon ardan d Leo na rd ’s roo m m at e, Bo bb y

Mea de , th athe pl an ne d t o e sc ap e to Can ad a o r Mex ic o. He t ol d Leo na rdan d M ead e th at , if que st io ne d b y th e p ol ic e ab ou t the m

ur de r, he pl an ne d t o e it he r de ny bei ng with t he Gran di ne tt is aft er 9 :0 0 p.m . or h e wou ldli e an d s ay th at“ he was wi th th em

an d s om e g uy was wit h t he m , to o, an d tha t the gu y

ha d s ho t the m

an d l et[Po nt ic el li ] go .” Whe n P on ti cel li returne d t o Do ts on ’s ho us e, he sh owe d Do ts onhi s car an d t ol d Do ts on th athe pl an ne d t o “ fix th is car up . . . with t he m on ey th athe go t an d u se itas age ta way car.” Afte r hi s arres t, Po nt ic el li co nf es se d h is cri m e to hi s jai l ce ll m at e, Den ni s Free m an . Pon ti cel li adm it te d t o F reem anth athe m ad e se ve ral tel ep ho ne cal ls 9fro m

th e Gran di ne tt i’s trai le r to tri ckth e b ro th ers in to be li ev in g t ha t h e p la nn edto se ll co cai ne forth em . Pon ti cel li to ldFree m anth atth e b ro th ers dro ve hi m to Dot so n’s h ou se an d t ha t, af te r he lef t Do ts on ’s ho us e, he sh otth e b ro th ers in th ei r car “ to rob th em

of . . . co cai ne an d . . . m on ey .” Po nt ic el li to ldFree m anth athe returne d t he gu n t o Leo na rdan d a sk edLeon ardto “ ge t ri d o f it .” Po nt ic el li to ld Free m anth athe an d Leo na rddi sc us se d b urni ng th e b od ie s, b utth athe in st ead ev en tu al ly aban do ne d the bo di es in th e carbe cau se of afla t t ire . Pon ti cel li adm it te d t ha t h e to okbe twee n $ 70 0 a nd$8 00 an d c oc ai ne fro m th e b od ie s an d th ento oka cab to Dot so n’s h ou se , wher e h e was he d h is clo th es an d t ol d e ve ry on e atth e h ou se ab ou t the m

ur de r. He st at edth atth e n ex t d ay he bu rn edhi s cl ot he s an d b ur ie d t he bu rn t re m ai ns in a ba cky ard . Whe n F reem anask edPo nt ic el li if h e ha d “ be endo in g a ny dru gs or drin ki ng , hea vi ly or wha te ve r” o n t he da y th athe ki ll edth e b ro th ers , Pon ti cel li de ni edit . Po nt ic el li als o a sk edFree m anif h e wou ldhe lp di sp os e o f so m e ev id en ce an d d rew Fre em ana m ap with t he lo cat io n o f th atev id en ce. The m ap ha d Dot so n’s n am e an d t el ep ho ne nu m be r on it . At tri al , th e st at e in tro du cedth e m ap in to ev id en ce. Free m antes ti fie d tha t h e h adno t re cei ve d a ny ben efi t fo r hi s t es ti m on y ag ai ns t Po nt ic el li . He als o t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adbe enco nv ic te d o f 26 fel on ie s, al l 10of

whi ch in vo lv eddi sh on es ty. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Fr eem anadm it te d t ha t h e was a “ jail ho us e sn it ch ” who ha d p ro vi de d i nf orm at io n t o l aw en fo rcem en t fo r th e pa stten y ears an d t ha t h e h adearn edm on ey th ro ug h p art ic ip at io n i n arev ers e st in g o pe rat io n. Afte r th e st at e res te d, t he tri al co urt en te reda jud ge m en t o f acqui tt al on th e ro bb ery ch arg e. The d efen se th enpre se nt edev id en ce tha t Po nt ic el li was aco cai ne ad di ctwho ha d s uf

fere d fr om

co cai ne ps y ch os is . In h is op en in g s ta te m en t, de fen se co un se l ar gu edth atPo nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne ad di ct io n p ro hi bi te d h im fro m fo rm in g t he requi si te in te ntto ki ll th e b ro th ers an d t ha t the re was reas on ab le do ub t as to whet he r Po nt ic el li ha d e ve n s ho t the bro th ers . Po nt ic el li ’s fathe r, Mi ch ael Po nt ic el li Sr., tes ti fie d t ha t the fam il y ha d m ov edfro m

Lon g Is land , New York , to th e Si lv er Sp rin gs Sh or es areaof F lo rid a a li tt le m or e th antwo y ears be fo re the tri al . Mic ha el to ldth e jury tha t ar ou ndLabo r Day 19 87 , th e fam il y

vi si te d New Yo rkforab ou t a m on th . Whe n t he fam il y returne d t o F lo rid a in earl y Octo be r, Po nt ic el li st ay edbe hi ndin New Yorkfor an ot he r th ree wee ks . Whe n P on ti cel li returne d t o F lo rid a, Mi ch ael no ti cedth athi s so n h adch an ge d. Mi ch ael de sc rib edPo nt ic el li as a rg um en ta ti ve , sh ort t em pe red , an d “ ve ry ne rv ou s, v ery th in , very

ag it at ed .”

11Jo hn Turn er t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adkn own Po nt ic el li si nc e h e h adm ov edto

Fl or id a fro m

New Yorkan d t ha t, af

te r Po nt ic el li ’s return fr om hi s re cen t trip to New Yorkun ti l the da y

be fo re the m

ur de rs , he a ndPo nt ic el li ha d u se d c oc ai ne ev ery da y . Turn er t es ti fie d t ha t n ei th er h e n orPo nt ic el li work edan d i ns te ad sm ok edco cai ne “ al l d ay

lo ng ” fro m

eig htor n in e in th e m orni ng to th ree o r fo ur th e n ex t m orni ng . Turn er ad m it te d t ha t, b efo re Po nt ic el li ha d re tu rn edfro m hi s la te sttri p t o New Yo rk , he h adne ve r se enPo nt ic el li us e co cai ne . On cro ss ex am in at io n, Tu rn er t es ti fie d t ha t h e co ul d n otreca ll whet he r he ha d s een Po nt ic el li on th e d ay

of the m ur de rs . W

he n a sk edwhet he r he kn ew whe th er Po nt ic el li ha d u se d c oc ai ne th atda y , Turn er t es ti fie d, “ I do n’t kno w, y oukn ow . . . . I m ean , I’ m

sayin g m ay

be we di d t ha t m orni ng . It’s b een awhi le . I can ’t real ly rem em be r ex act ly. I kn ow i t was n’t tha t af te rn oo n o r th atev en in g. I’m no t—y ou kn ow, I d on ’t th in k I s een hi m .” Jo se ph Leon ardan d B ob by Mead e al so tes ti fie d fo r th e d efen se . Leon ard st at edth atbe fo re Po nt ic el li returne d fr om hi s l at es t trip to New Yorkhe was “ real rel iabl e” an d t ha t, wh enhe returne d, h e was “ no t l ik e h im se lf.” Mead e ag reedth at be fo re Po nt ic el li vi si te d New Yo rkhe ha d b een a “ go odfri en d” who was

“ de pe nd ab le ” an d “ bubb ly goo fey. ” Mea de tes ti fie d t ha t, af te r Po nt ic el li returne d fro m New York , “ he was m or e qui et . He di dn ’t tal k a s m uc h l ik e h e u se d t o. . . He 12ke ptev erythi ng in si de of h im , andhe wou ldge t l ik e ups etab ou t l it tl e th in gs .”

The de fen se att em

pt edun su cces sf

ul ly to p res en t the tes ti m on y of Dr. M ark Bran ch , an e xp ertin be ha vi or al ph arm aco lo gy. The de fen se off eredto ha ve Dr. Bran ch pre se ntex pe rt o pi ni on tes ti m on y ab ou t the effe ct s o f co cai ne on th e m in d an d b od y an d t o e xp la in co cai ne ps y ch os is , bu t Br an ch co ul d o fferno tes ti m on y on th e el em en ts of t he in sa ni ty defen se . The s ta te ob jecte d t o Dr. Br an ch ’s te st im on y on th e g ro un ds th atBran ch ha d n ev er i nt erv ie wedPo nt ic el li , th at Bran ch ’s res earc h h adbe enli m it edto pri m at es , andth atBran ch was n otqu al ifi ed to tes ti fy th atPo nt ic el li ha d s uf

fere d fr om

co cai ne ps y ch os is at t he ti m e o f th e m ur de rs . The tria l co urt ex cl ud edDr. Bran ch ’s tes ti m on y . The jury co nv ic te d P on ti cel li of b oth m ur de rs .

C. Pen al tyPha se Dur in g t he pe na lt y

ph as e, th e st at e p res en te d n o n ew ev id en ce, b utth e de fen se pre se nt edth e te st im on y of Dr. R ob in Mi ll s, wh o h adev al ua te d P on ti cel li fo r fi fte enm in ut es be fo re the tri al forleg al co m pe te nc e an d s an it y . Bas edon a hypo th et ic al qu es ti on , whi ch ass um edth atPo nt ic el li ha d n o h is to ry of c oc ai ne us e be fo re Oct ob er 1 98 7, Dr. Mi ll s t es ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s chang es in hi s p ers on al it y 13were s ym

pt om s o f so m eo ne who su ffer edfro m anex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l di sturba nc e in du cedby repea te d e xp os ur e to il le ga l dru gs . Defen se co un se l p os ed an ot he r hypo th et ic al qu es ti on , whi ch ass um edth atPo nt ic el li ha d s m ok edco cai ne

“ ev ery day , all da y , up un ti l [t he da y be fo re the m

ur de rs ]”; th ata few h ou rs be fo re th e m ur de rs , Pon ti cel li rev eal edhi s p la n t o fo urpe op le who he ha d kno wn fo r

“ on ly fou r ho ur s” whi le act in g “ ne rv ou s,” “ hyper,” an d “ pa ran oi d” ; an d t ha t af te r th e m ur de r, Po nt ic el li co nf

es se d t he cri m e to th es e fo urpe op le , wash edhi s cl ot he s, as ke d fo r anali bi , cal le d h is m othe r, an d a rran ge d arid e h om e. Dr. Mil ls te st ifi ed , inres po ns e to th athypo th et ic al qu es ti on , th athe be li ev edth atPo nt ic el li ha d s uf fere d fr om

a drug -in du cedex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is or de r or di sturba nc e whe n Ni ckan d R al ph were m ur de redan d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s cap aci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of h is co nduc t o r to co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o l aw ha d be ensubs ta nt ia ll y

im pa ire d. Dr. Mi ll s t es ti fie d t ha t h e b el ie ve d t ha t the st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or s s ho ul d app ly even if Po nt ic el li ha d n otco ns um edany co cai ne on th e d ay

of t he m ur de rs : “ The . . . effe ct[of co cai ne ] on th e . . . in te ll ectua l capa ci ti es canpe rs is t, i n s om e cas es , fora y ear a fte r th e in to xi cat io n . . . so on e d ay

lat er, t o h is bra in , wou ldno t m ak e th atm uc h d iff eren ce.” Oncro ss ex am in at io n, Dr. Mi ll s ad m it te d t ha t Po nt ic el li “pr ob ab ly . . . hadth e ab il ity to

14kn ow ri gh t fr om wron g” an d t ha t the re “ was so m e ev id en ce” t ha t h e h adth e ab il it y to un de rs ta ndth e co ns eque nc es of h is act io ns . Dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t o f th e p en al ty pha se , th e p ro se cu to r to ldth e jury th at , alt ho ug h P on ti cel li ha d u se d alo t o f co cai ne , “ th ere was no ev id en ce atall . . . th athe ha d u se d c oc ai ne [th e d ay of t he m ur de rs ]; no ne what so ev er.” Th e pr os ecu to r al so rem in de d the jury th atPo nt ic el li “ vo lu nt ari ly cho se to us e co cai ne . . . day in an d d ay

ou t . . . no on e fo rcedth e d efen da ntto us e co cai ne .” The jury reco m m en de d t wo s en te nc es of d eat h b y a vo te of n in e to th ree f

orth e m ur de rs of Nickan d R al ph Gran di ne tt i. The tri al co urt i m

po se d asen te nc e o f de ath fo r eac h c on vi ct io n. Th e tr ia l co urt fo un d t wo ag gr av at in g fa ct or s ap pl ic ab le to bo th m ur de rs : the m

ur de rs were co m m it te d fo r pe cu ni ary ga in , Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(f), a ndth e m ur de rs were

“ co m m it te d i n aco ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edm an ne r wit ho utany pre te ns e o f m or al or l eg al jus ti fic at io n,” id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (i) . The tria l co urt al so fou ndth atth e m ur de r of NickGran di ne tt i was “ es pe ci al ly hei no us , atr oc io us , [an d] cru el .” Id . § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(h ). The t ria l co urt fo un d t wo s ta tu to ry m it ig at or s: Po nt ic el li ha d n o si gn ifi can t h is to ry

of p rev io us cri m in al act iv ity , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (a), an d P on ti cel li was 20 y ears ol d a t the ti m e o f th e o ffen se , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (g ). The t ria l co urt d id no t fi ndth e ex is te nc e o f an y no ns ta tu to ry

m it ig at or . 15The tri al co urt re jecte d Dr. M il ls ’s hypot he ti cal pe na lt y ph as e te st im on y

as sp ecu la ti ve an d d ecl in edto fin d t he ex is te nc e o f ei th er s ta tu to ry m it ig at orab ou t m en ta l h eal th . The co urt re jecte d t he arg um en t tha t Po nt ic el li ha d b een“un de r th e in flu en ce o f ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce” wh enhe ki ll edth e br ot he rs , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (b ). Andth e co urt re jecte d t he arg um en t tha t Po nt ic el li ’s cap aci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of h is co nduc t o r to co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o th e requi rem en ts of l aw ha d b een subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d, s ee i d. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(f). D. Dire ct App ea l Whe n t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a aff irmed Po nt ic el li ’s con vi ct io ns an d se nt en ces on di rectap pe al , Pon ti cel li v. St at e (Po nt ic el li I), 59 3 S o. 2 d 4 83 (19 91 ), th e co urt re

jecte d P on ti cel li ’s arg um en t tha t the tri al co urt erredwhen itreject ed th e two st atut ory

m it ig at or s ab ou t m en ta l h eal th . W it h re ga rdto th e ex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce m it ig at or , Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(b ), th e st at e supr em e co urt ag reedwith t he tri al co urt tha t Dr. Mi ll s’s t es ti m on y was sp ecu la ti ve be cau se “ Po nt ic el li ha d n otdi sc us se d h is m en ta l p ro ces se s o r an y of th e d et ai ls of t he off

en se with Dr. M il ls .” Po nt ic el li I, 59 3 S o. 2 d a t 4 91 . Dr. Mi ll s re li edon ly on ade sc rip ti on of “ Po nt ic el li ’s us e o f co cai ne an d . . . hypera ct iv it y

on th e ev en in g o f th e m

ur de rs , alt ho ug h t he re was no ev id en ce o f drug us e o n the ev en in g o f th e m ur de rs .” Id . W it h re gardto whet he r Po nt ic el li ’s 16cap aci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of h is co nduc t o r to co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o th e requi rem en ts of l aw was subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d, Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (f), the st at e supr em e co urt d et erm in edth at“ th ere was no ev id en ce tha t Po nt ic el li was us in g c oc ai ne at t he ti m e o f th e m ur de rs ” an d t ha t “ Po nt ic el li ’s act io ns on th e ni gh t o f th e m

ur de r ev in c[ed ] th athi s capa ci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of h is co nduc t was no t i m

pa ire d.” Pon ti cel li I, 59 3 S o. 2 d a t 4 91 . The s ta te supr em e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ co m pe te ntsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce” s up po rte d t he fin di ng of t he tri al co urt tha t the mit ig at or di d n otap pl y . Id. The Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s g ran te d P on ti cel li ’s pet it io n fo r a writof c ert io rari , vac at edth e jud gm en t o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a, an d rem an de d fo r rec on si de rat io n i n t he li gh t o f Esp in os a v . Flo rid a, 50 5 U.S. 1 07 9, 10 82 , 11 2 S . Ct. 2 92 6, 2 92 9 (1 99 2) . Pon ti cel li v. Fl or id a, 50 6 U.S. 8 02 , 11 3 S . Ct. 32 (19 92 ). On remand , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ag ai n a ffi rm edPo nt ic el li ’s se nt en ces an d c on cl ud edth atan y erro r un de r Esp in os a was pro cedur al ly barre d. Po nt ic el li v. St at e (Po nt ic el li II), 6 18 So . 2d15 4, 1 54 –5 5 (F la . 19 93 ).

E. Firs t Sta te Pos tc on vi ct io n Mo ti on an d Evi de nt ia ryHear in g On Ap ril 11 , 19 95 , Pon ti cel li fil eda m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f in th e st at e tr ia l co urt. See Fla . R. Cri m . P. 3.8 51 . Pon ti cel li am en de d h is m ot io n s ev eral ti m es an d i nc lu de d num ero us cla im s, i nc lu di ng th e cl ai m s b efo re u s n ow. The 17tri al co urt h el d t wo ev id en ti ary he ari ng s an d P on ti cel li pre se nt edtes ti m on y fro m 27 witne ss es , in cl ud in g h is tri al co un se l, the pro se cu to r, th e le adde te ct iv e, nu m ero us lay witn es se s, an d fo urex pe rt wi tn es se s. Th e st at e cal le d a n e xp ert wit ne ss , ps y ch ol og is t Dr. Way ne Co ng er, i n re bu tt al . The di sc us si on of t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t the fir stev id en ti ary he ari ng is di vi de d i nt o t wo p art s. The fir stpa rt d is cu ss es th e ev id en ce re la te d t o P on ti cel li ’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m s an d wh y th e Fl or id a co urts reject edth os e cl ai m s. Th e se co nd pa rt d is cu ss es th e ev id en ce re la te d t o P on ti cel li ’s bac kg ro un d a ndm en ta l h eal th an d wh y th e Fl or id a co urts reject edPo nt ic el li ’s cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. 1. Br ady an d Gi gl io Evi de nc e As t o t he ev id en ce Po nt ic el li pre se nt edin supp ort o f hi s cl ai m s t ha t the st at e ha d v io la te d h is rig htto du e p ro ces s o f la w, see Brad y , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 11 94 ; Gi gl io , 40 5 U.S. 1 50 , 92 S. Ct. 7 63 , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a d iv id ed Po nt ic el li ’s cla im s i nt o t hr ee ca te go rie s. Fi rs t, the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co ns id eredth e al le ge d s up pr es si on of a ndfal se ev id en ce ab ou t an all eg ed ag reem en t t o p ro vi de imm un it y forDenn is Free m an , th e jail ho us e in fo rm an t. Seco nd , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co ns id eredth e al le ge d s up pr es si on of Tim ot hy Keesee ’s st at em en ts to th e le adde te ct iv e, In ve st ig at orBru ce M un st er, 18an d t he pro se cu to r, Sara h Wil li am s, tha t h e sa w Pon ti cel li us e co cai ne at the

Gran di ne tt i’s trai le r on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs , andKees ee’s fal se tri al tes ti m on y ab ou t tha t m at te r. Thi rd , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co ns id eredth e al le ge d supp res si on of e vi de nc e an d fa ls e te st im on y rel at edto anall eg edThan ks gi vi ng Day co cai ne pa rty at Do ts on ’s ho us e, whi chlas te d u nt il alm os t the da wn o f th e ne xtda y an d dur in g wh ic h t he Bro wn b ro th ers , Bur ge ss , andDot so n s m ok ed co cai ne with P on ti cel li , con tra ry to th ei r tr ia l t es ti m on y

th atth e fi rs t t im e th ey

m et Po nt ic el li was o n the ev en in g o f th e m ur de rs . Thi s d is cu ss io n a dd res se s t he se cat eg or ie s o f ev id en ce i n t he same ord er.

a. Den ni s Fr eem an ’s All eg edIm m un it y Deal Dur in g t he fir stpo st co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Pon ti cel li pre se nt ed ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is arg um en t tha t the st at e h advi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o due pr oc es s b y

supp res si ng ev id en ce, s ee Br ady , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4, an d b y pr es en ti ng fal se tes ti m on y , see Gig li o, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 , abo utan al le ge d d eal th atth e p ro se cu ti on ha d m ad e wit h F reem aninex ch an ge forhi s te st im on y ag ai ns t Po nt ic el li . Pon ti cel li ’s cou ns el ask edW il li am s ab ou t a n ot e th at sh e h adwrit te n t o h ers el f du rin g t he tri al , whi ch st at ed , “ Sp ok e wit h F redLand t [Fre em an ’s def

en se co un se l] reg ard in g Den ni s Fr eem an . Toldhi m I wou ldm ak e no firm off er p rio r to [Po nt ic el li ’s] tri al bu t as su redhi m hi s co op erat io n wo ul d b e 19rem em

be redwith fa vo r be fo re m it ig at in g ju dg e/ Stur gi s. Will m ak e n o fo rm al de al on th e rec or d p rio r to tri al .” W il li am s t es ti fie d t ha t Fr eem an“ ha d b een pro m is ed no th in g fo r hi s t es ti m on y ,” an d t ha t s he di d n otkn ow wh ethe r Free m anha d l at er rece iv edan y

fav or ab le tre at m en t. The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a reject edPo nt ic el li ’s arg um en ts ab ou t the al le ge d d eal with F reem an . W it h re sp ectto Po nt ic el li ’s Brady cla im , th e co urt st at edth at , “ ev enif o ne acce pt s d efen se co un se l’s t es ti m on y as s uf fic ie ntto es tabl is h” th atth e ev id en ce was fav or ab le to Po nt ic el li an d t ha t the ev id en ce was supp res se d b y

th e st at e, ei th er wi ll fu ll y or i na dv ert en tl y , “ Po nt ic el li ’s cla im st il l fai ls be cau se Po nt ic el li ha s n otest ab li sh edth atth e St at e’s fai lu re t o d is cl os e th is ev id en ce re su lt edin pre

jud ic e.” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 08 5. Th e co urt reject edPo nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t the no te wou ldhave pro vi de d aba si s fo r im pe ach in g F reem an . The co urt re as on edth atFree m an ’s tes ti m on y “ was m erel y cu m ul at iv e to th atpre se nt edat t ria l” ; Fr eem an ’s lo ng cri m in al reco rdan d h is to ry of co op erat io n i n e xc ha ng e fo r be ne fit s h ad“ si gn ifi can tl y im pe ach ed. . . hi s m ot iv e fo r te st ifyin g a ndhi s capa ci ty for tru th fu ln es s” ; an d t he m ap th atPo nt ic el li ha d g iv enFree m anin ad di ti on to th e te st im on ie s o f ot he r wit ne ss es co rro bo rat ed Free m an ’s tes ti m on y . Id. at10 85 –8 6. Withres pe ctto Po nt ic el li ’s Gig li o c la im , th e co urt h el d t ha t, “ ev enif we a ccep t Po nt ic el li ’s all eg at io n t ha t the pro se cu to r’s 20no te in di cat es th atFree m anwas n otho ne stwhen he tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t ex pe ct

to rece iv e a b en efi t fr om

co op erat in g i n P on ti cel li ’s cas e, we fi ndno pre jud ic e.” Id . at 1 08 9. Ag ai n, t he co urt re as on edth atFree m an“ was si gn ifi can tl y im pe ach ed on hi s capa ci ty for tru th fu ln es s an d h is in cen ti ve fortes ti fy in g a ga in stPo nt ic el li .” Id . The co urt o pi ne d t ha t “ in fo rm in g t he jury th atFree m anm ig htbe tes ti fy in g fal se ly becau se of h is ho pe foranun gu aran te ed , un sp eci fie d a wardwou ldno t ha ve ren de redhi m

su ffi ci en tl y

les s cr ed ib le in th e jury’ s eyes t o e st ab li sh a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y

th atth is co nt rib ut edto th e v erd ic t.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . b. Co cai ne Use a t the Trail er Po nt ic el li als o p res en te d e vi de nc e to supp ort h is arg um en t tha t the st at e h ad vi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o due pro ces s b y supp res si ng ev id en ce, s ee Br ady , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 83 S. Ct. 1 19 4, an d b y

pre se nt in g fa ls e te st im on y , see Gig li o, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct . 76 3, ab ou t wh ethe r Tim ot hy Keesee ha d s een Po nt ic el li us e co cai ne at t he Gran di ne tt i’s trai le r on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs . Duri ng th e p os tc on vi ct io n he ari ng , Kees ee t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adli edat t ria l an d h ad , intru th , see n P on ti cel li sn ort “ on e li ne of [ co cai ne ] th atwas abo uttwo m at ch st ic ks lo ng ” so m et im e be twee n 7 :3 0 and8: 00 p.m . at t he Gran di ne tt is ’s tra il er o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs . Keese e te st ifi edth at , when W il li am s i nt erv ie wedhi m ab ou t Po nt ic el li , 21he was “ po si ti ve ” th athe to ldhe r th athe , th e Gran di ne tt is , andPo nt ic el li ha d u se d

co cai ne th atni gh t. Oncro ss -ex am in at io n, h e ad m it te d t ha t h e d id n’t “ reca ll [Will ia m s] ask in g s pe ci fic al ly if Po nt ic el li di d c oc ai ne . She sai d: ‘ Didy ouall do so m e co cai ne .’ AndI sa id , ‘ Yes we di d; on e li ne .” Kees ee t es ti fie d t oo th athe to ldInv es ti ga to r Mu ns te r th athe lef t the tra il er wi th hi s b ro th er b ecau se “ atth e ti m e m y bro th er was in th e Nav y , andth ey ha d c ok e o ut , andwe ha d d on e a l in e o f co ke , andI kn ew m

y bro th er was un co m fo rtabl e . . . .” Keesee adm it te d tha t h e to ldPo nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l tha t n o o ne ha d u se d c oc ai ne on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs be cau se “ [o ]ne li ne wasn ’t eno ug h t o i nf lu en ce m e to say tha t we d id co ke .” Kees ee t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adab us eddru gs at t he ti m e o f tr ia l an d h e li edto

“ ge t o utof t he sp ot li gh t . . . itwou ldbri ng m or e tr oubl e o n m e if I di dn ’t co op erat e. So I was t ry in g t o p la y ba ll an d ju stge t the pa stpa stm e.” Kees ee te st ifi edth atMu ns te r ha d s earc he d h is car an d fo un d dru g p arap he rn al ia . Whe n Mu ns te r di d n otsay anythi ng , Kees ee b el ie ve d t ha t M un st er wo ul d “ go li gh t o n [h im ]” in e xc ha ng e fo r hi s co op erat io n. He al so tes ti fie d t ha t Will ia m s h adask ed hi m qu es ti on s dur in g t ria l p rep arat io n l ik e “ Didy a’ll d o a ny cok e,” an d wh enhe sa id , “ no ,” W il li am s wo ul d re pl y , “ Oka y , go od .” Kees ee t es ti fie d t ha t h e “ co ul d te ll by her re sp on se . . . [th athe ] was he lp in g h er ca se .” Desp it e h is co op erat io n,

22Kees ee ad m it te d t ha t h e was ch arg edwith p os se ss io n o f co cai ne a m on thbe fo re

th e p ro se cu ti on to okhi s d ep os it io n i n P on ti cel li ’s cas e. In ve st ig at or

Mu ns te r te st ifi edth atKees ee t ol d h im he lef t the Gran di ne tt is ’s tra il er o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de r be cau se of “ co cai ne us ag e” the re. Mu ns te r in cl ud edth is in fo rm at io n i n asupp le m en ta l re po rt d at edDecem be r 19 87 th at st at edth atKees ee l eftth e Gran di ne tt is ’s tra il er o n t he ni gh t o f th e h om ic id es be cau se of c oc ai ne us ag e ta ki ng pl ace t he re an d b ecau se of aco cai ne de al oc cu rri ng be twee n Ni ck , Ral ph , anda whi te m al e id en ti fie d a s To ny. Mu ns te r pr ov id edPo nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l thi s re po rt. The pro se cu to r, W il li am s, d en ie d t ha t s he kn ew th atPo nt ic el li ha d s m ok ed co cai ne on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs . W il li am s ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t s he ha d wri tt en a n ot e th atst at ed , “ Owed t he m $3 00 . R andN want edit . Notph y si cal . No th reat s. He was m ak in g c al ls to sel l co ke , col le ctm on ey , do in g c oc ai ne ,” bu t s he co ul d n otrem em

be r who “ he ” was . W il li am s al so ackno wled ge d t ha t s he ha d writ te n ano te on Kees ee’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y th atKees ee “ [d ]idn ’t see th em do co cai ne . Didn’t t el l an y on e,” an d t ha t s he ha d u nd erl in ed“ Didn’t t el l an y on e,” an d h adwrit te n i n t he m arg in “ Tol d B M. Tap ed .” Sh e te st ifi edth atsh e d id n’t rem em be r why she wrot e th e n ot e, bu t tha t s he di d n otbe li ev e th atKees ee h ad

23m ad e anin co ns is te ntst at em en t b ecau se “ [o ]ften ti m es I’ll p uta qu es ti on m arkne xt

to [anin co ns is te ntst at em en t] andth ere’s n ota qu es ti on m ark .” The tri al co urt d et erm in edth atW il li am s’s n ot es were n ei th er ex cu lp at ory no r m at eri al . W ith re sp ectto W il li am s’s fi rs t n ot e ab ou t an un id en ti fie d in di vi du al who ha d u se d c oc ai ne , th e tr ia l co urt h el d t ha t “ th ere i s n o way of kn owi ng whet he r [d efen se co un se l] wou ldha ve ga th eredfro m th e n ot e[s ] th at [Po nt ic el li ] was us in g c oc ai ne at t he tra il er o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs ,” an d i n t he li gh t o f th e “ ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f Po nt ic el li ’s gu il t, n o re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y

ex is ts th atth e ev id en ce re ga rd in g d ru g u sa ge fou ndin [W il li am s’s] in te rv ie w no te s wo ul d h av e ch an ge d t he ou tc om e o f th e g ui ltor p en al ty pha se of Po nt ic el li ’s tri al .” See P on ti cel li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 08 6 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . W it h re sp ectto W il li am s’s s eco ndno te ab ou t Kee se e’s al le ge dl y in co ns is te ntst at em en t, the tri al co urt “ fo un d n o e vi de nc e th atth e St at e ei th er kno win gl y

pre se nt ed , or a ll owe d t o b e p res en te d, p erjuredtes ti m on y at tri al .” See i d. at10 90 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The co urt “ reco gn iz ed th atKees ee t es ti fie d a da m an tl y at d ep os it io n a ndat t ria l tha t h e d idno t s ee Po nt ic el li us e co cai ne on th e d ay of the cri m es , andth atrefe ren ces to dru g u se fo un d i n t he st at e in ve st ig at or ’s and[W il li am s’s] no te s ar e v ag ue .” See i d. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . The co urt co nc lu de d, “ It i s 24un de rs ta nd ab le th at[W il li am s] and[Mu ns te r] cou ldha ve ov erl oo ke d v ag ue

st at em en ts in th ei r no te s wh enface d wi th th is tes ti m on y .” See i d. The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ag reedwith t he rul in g o f th e tr ia l co urt tha t, ev eninth e li gh t o f Kees ee’s t es ti m on y , th e p ro se cu to r’s no te s wer e n ei th er ex cu lp at ory

no r m at eri al . The co urt re as on edth atW il li am s’s n ot e ab ou t an un id en ti fie d i nd iv idua l wh o h adus edco cai ne di d “ no t cl earl y in di cat e th at Po nt ic el li was t he pe rs on Kees ee wi tn es se d u si ng co cai ne on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs ,” an d t ria l co un se l co ul d h av e co nf ro nt edKees ee wi th Mu ns te r’s rep ort, whi ch“ co nt ai ne d s ub st an ti al ly the same inf orm at io n a s t he pro se cu to r’s no te .” Id . at10 87 . The co urt h el d t ha t the fin di ng s o f th e tr ia l co urt wi th res pe ctto W il li am s’s s eco ndno te were “ supp orte d b y co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. The pr os ecu to r’s no ta ti on on Kees ee’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y do es no t cl earl y

in di cat e th atth e p ro se cu to r kn ew Kees ee was tes ti fy in g fa ls el y .” Id . at 1 09 0.

c. Co cai ne Part y Po nt ic el li als o p res en te d e vi de nc e atth e fi rs t ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atth e st at e h advi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o due pro ces s b y supp res si ng ev id en ce, s ee Br ady , 37 3 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1 19 4, an d b y pre se nt in g fa ls e te st im on y , see Gig li o, 4 05 U.S.

2515 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 , abo utanall eg edco cai ne party tha t t oo k p la ce atDot so n’s

ho us e th e n ig htbe fo re the m ur de rs . At th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Bur ge ss an d Ed Bro wn adm it te d t ha t the y ha d t es ti fie d fa ls el y

at P on ti cel li ’s tri al . Con tra ry to th ei r tr ia l t es ti m on y

th atth ey ha d fi rs t m etPo nt ic el li onth e ev en in g o f th e m ur de rs , bo thadm it te d t ha t the y ha d m etPo nt ic el li eit he r la te on Than ks gi vi ng ni gh t o r in th e ear ly m orni ng ho ur s o f th e n ex t d ay . Bot h t es ti fie d t ha t the re was a pa rty at Do ts on ’s ho us e o n Th an ks gi vi ng Day an d t ha t the y

ha d s m ok edco cai ne wit h P on ti cel li at Do ts on ’s ho us e u nt il th e p arty ha d e nd edat a ro un d 4 :0 0 a .m . th e ne xtda y . The two m enadm it te d t oo th atth ey ha d u se d c oc ai ne with P on ti cel li th e ne xtni gh t, af

te r Po nt ic el li ha d m

ur de redth e Gran di ne tt is . Bo thm entes ti fie d t ha t th ey ha d n otto ldth e p ro se cu ti on ab ou t the co cai ne pa rty. Jo hn Turn er al so tes ti fie d abo utth e co cai ne pa rty. H e st at edth athe an d Po nt ic el li ha d s m ok edco cai ne with t ho se pre se ntat Do ts on ’s ho us e, in cl ud in g t he Bro wns , Bur ge ss , andDot so n. Tu rn er t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adpro vi de d t hi s in fo rm at io n t o P on ti cel li ’s tri al co un se l an d t o M un st er. Mu ns te r te st ifi edab ou t two n ot es th athe ha d wri tt en , whi chPo nt ic el li arg ue d p ro ve d t ha t M un st er kne w th atPo nt ic el li ha d a tt en de d t he co cai ne pa rty. The fir stno te st at ed , “ W en t t o s om eo ne ’s ho us e to dro p o ff g irl . Bot h To ny and Jo hn are the re. The y

are s m ok in g c ok e o utof a n o ran ge jui ce ca n.” ButMu ns te r

26co ul d n otrem em be r to who m

th e p ro no un “ th ey ” ref

erre d o r on whatni gh t the in ci de ntall eg ed ly too k p la ce. The sec on d n ot e st at ed , “ At jai l wi th Denn is Free m an . Than ks ni gh t. Ton y says Ton y

an d J oh n a ndtwo gu y s fr om W es t Virg in ia , hi s co us in , wentto Nick ’s ho us e. . . . T on y bo ug hteig htba ll of c ok e th at ni gh t. . . . Ton y

wentba ckto Keit h’s h ou se aft erwar ds .” Muns te r te st ifi edth athe co ul d n otrem em

be r whe th er h e d is cl os edth e n ot e to Po nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l an d di d n otkn ow i f tr ia l co un se l wo ul d h av e th ou gh t tha t the no te was m at eri al . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a d et erm in edth atth e ev id en ce d idno t p ro ve th atth e p ro se cu ti on kn ew ab ou t the co cai ne party andth at , “ ev enif t he y di d, Po nt ic el li ha s n otest ab li sh edth atth e supp res si onres ul te d i n p reju di ce.” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 08 7. Th e co urt re as on edth atth e o nl y “ ev id en ce tying th e[] [firs t] no te [] to Po nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne us e atth e ti m e o f th e cri m es was Ed Bro wn’s t es ti m on y , andat the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Bro wn d en ie d t el li ng th e St at e ab ou t the co cai ne pa rty.” Id. at10 87 –8 8. With res pe ctto th e se co ndno te , whi ch al le ge dl y pro ve d tha t Po nt ic el li ha d t ol d F reem anab ou t the co cai ne pa rty, the co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i ts supp res si on was n otm at eri al be cau se “ Po nt ic el li refu se d to an swe r de fen se co un se l’s i nqui rie s re ga rd in g P on ti cel li ’s coc ai ne us e atth e ti m e of th e cri m es ” an d “ attri al , [th e Bro wns an d B ur ge ss ] co nt rad ic te d thi s s ta te m en t in th ei r swo rntes ti m on y .” Id . at 1 08 8. With res pe ctto Turn er’s al le ge d s ta te m en t 27to th e st at e in ve st ig at or , th e co urt re as on edth at , eve n i f Turne r ha d m ad e th e

st at em en t t o M un st er, d efen se co un se l h adth atev id en ce. Id . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a al so reject edPo nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t “ th e St at e v io la te d Gi gl io by allo win g B rian B ur ge ss an d EdwardBro wn t o t es ti fy fal se ly at tri al ab ou t the da te th ey fir stm etPo nt ic el li an d wh ethe r th ey ha d e ve r se enPo nt ic el li us e co cai ne .” Id . at 1 09 1. Th e co urt h el d t ha t the fin di ng of t he tri al co urt tha t the st at e d idno t kno w th atth e wit ne ss es ha d t es ti fie d fa ls el y was

“ supp orte d b y

co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Id . The co urt d et erm in edth at

“ th ere was no ev id en ce p res en te d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atth e St at e kne w th atBu rg es s o r Bro wn t es ti fie d fa ls el y ; i n fa ct , Bur ge ss an d B ro wn t es ti fie d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th atth ey ne ve r to ldth e St at e th ey saw Po nt ic el li us e co cai ne th e n ig htbe fo re the cri m es . . . .” Id . at 1 09 1– 92 .

2. Po nt ic el li ’s Back gr ou ndan d M en ta l Hea lt h Po nt ic el li als o p res en te d t he tes ti m on y of h is tri al co un se l, n um ero us lay wit ne ss es , andva rio us m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts ab ou t h is tri al co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti on of Po nt ic el li ’s com

pe te nc y an d p ot en ti al ev id en ce i n m it ig at io n. He ar gu edth at hi s ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l, u nd er the Six th an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts , hadbe envi ol at ed , see Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2,

28be cau se hi s t ria l co un se l h adfai le d t o c on du ctanad equa te in ve st ig at io n i nt o h is

ba ck gr ou ndan d m en ta l h eal th , whi ch Po nt ic el li arg ue d p reju di cedhi m . Defen se co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s tri al was h is fir stcap it al tri al , th at he di d n otkn ow h ow t o p rep are f ora pe na lt y

ph as e, th athi s o nl y

ass is ta nc e cam e fro m a fo rm er d ep ut y , andth atth e v as t m ajor it y of h is pre pa rat io n was de vo te d t o th e g ui ltph as e. To i nv es ti ga te ev id en ce fo r m it ig at io n, t ria l co un se l t al ke d wi th Po nt ic el li ’s par en ts an d a sk edth em fornam es of p ers on s wh o P on ti cel li kn ew as a ch il d. Al th ou gh Po nt ic el li ’s par en ts pro vi de d t ria l co un se l wi th th e n am es of s om e of Po nt ic el li ’s form er t each ers , em pl oyers, an d fa m il y

m em be rs , cou ns el di d n ot co nt actan y

of t he m . Trial co un se l d idno t co ns id er m ed ic al or s ch oo l re co rd s an d te st ifi edth athe ha d o nl y

a pa rti al vi ew of

Po nt ic el li ’s dru g u se an d b ack gr ou ndat th e ti m e o f tr ia l. Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 2. Whenask edab ou t the lac k o f in ve st ig at io n i nt o P on ti cel li ’s pas t, tria l co un se l ag reedth atth ere was m it ig at in g ev id en ce h e co ul d h av e d is co ve redan d wo ul d h av e u se d dur in g t he pe na lty ph as e. Tria l co un se l al so tes ti fie d t ha t, h adhe kn ownm or e, he wou ldno t h av e co nc ed ed in th e p en al ty pha se th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce tha t the ki ll in gs were co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at ed . At the fir stev id en ti ary he ari ng , sev eral witne ss es tes ti fie d abo utPo nt ic el li ’s ch il dh oo d. Po nt ic el li ’s si st er t es ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li ha d b een bo rna “bl ue baby,” 29whi chDr. Con ge r ex pl ai ne d “ m ean s t he re was in su ffi ci en t o xygen du rin g t he bi rth

pr oc es s.” Po nt ic el li ’s si st er ex pl ai ne d t ha t Po nt ic el li was p la cedin fos te r-ca re m on th s af te r hi s b irt h, an d l at er ad op te d b y th e Po nt ic el li fam il y . Man y witne ss es de sc rib edPo nt ic el li as atypic al , qu ie t ch il d wh o g rew up i n New Yo rk . A few wit ne ss es de sc rib edPo nt ic el li as s oc ia ll y -awkwardan d a ckno wled ge d t ha t Po nt ic el li ha d wo rngl as se s an d was ov erwei gh t. Sev eral witne ss es de sc rib edho w Pon ti cel li st art edto ab us e dru gs as a n ad ol es cen t. Injun io r hi gh sch oo l, Po nt ic el li expe rimente d wi th m ari juan a an d be er. Inhi gh sch oo l, Po nt ic el li st art edto ex pe riment wi th ot he r drug s, i nc lu di ng bl ackbe au ti es , m es cal in e, ha sh , Vali um , andco cai ne . The l ay witne ss es tes ti fie d th at , when Po nt ic el li was n otus in g d ru gs , he was swee t an d re sp ect fu l. Bu t wh en Po nt ic el li us eddru gs , he b ecame para no idan d e xp eri en cedm oo d s win gs . The ev id en ce es tabl is he d t ha t, s oo n a fte r Po nt ic el li gra du at edhi gh sch oo l, hi s fa m il y

m ov edto Flo rid a whe re h e st op pe d u si ng co cai ne an d h el d ajob . Po nt ic el li returne d t o h is form er re la xe d d em ean or . Butitdi d n otlas t. Whenhe returne d t o New Yo rkin19 87 to att en d aco us in ’s wedd in g, Po nt ic el li be gan u si ng co cai ne ag ai n. J oh n Turn er t es ti fie d, as he di d a t tria l, tha t h e an d P on ti cel li st art edus in g c oc ai ne ne arl y ev ery da y . AndTurn er was no t the on ly w it ne ss to Po nt ic el li ’s return t o c oc ai ne us e. Po nt ic el li als o p res en te d t he tes ti m on y of F ran k 30Po rci ll o, wh o h adno t t es ti fie d a t the tri al . After Po rci ll o b efri en de d P on ti cel li in

Fl or id a, th ey

sm ok edm ari

juan a an d d ran k a lc oh ol to ge th er. Po rci ll o d idno t kno w th atPo nt ic el li us edco cai ne un ti l af te r Po nt ic el li returne d fr om a tr ip to New York se ve ral week s b efo re the m ur de rs . After t he New Yorktri p, Po rci ll o b ecame aware th atPo nt ic el li was s m ok in g c oc ai ne an d n ot ic edch an ge s i n h is be ha vi or . Po rci ll o wi tn es se d P on ti cel li us e co cai ne on ce af te r he returne d fr om

New York an d o bs erv edth atPo nt ic el li act ed“paran oi d, l oo ki ng aro un d a ll th e ti m e, jus t n ot eas y to be aro un d,” an d “ [h ]idi ng in th e co rn er.” Po rci ll o’s t es ti m on y

su gg es te d t ha t Po nt ic el li us edco cai ne on th e n ig htof th e m ur de rs . Porc il lo tes ti fie d t ha t h e en co un te redPo nt ic el li aro un d 8 :0 0 p .m . at a co nv en ie nc e st or e o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs . Pon ti cel li ap pr oa ch eda car i n whi chPo rci ll o was a pa ss en ge r an d s po ke to hi m an d o th er o ccupant s o f th e car . Po nt ic el li ke pthi s h an ds in hi s jack etan d rubb edan d s crat ch edhi s s to m ach . Po rci ll o a ndhi s co m

pa ni on s co nc lu de d t ha t Po nt ic el li was “ wha ck edou t” ba se d up on hi s b eh av io r. Por ci ll o t es ti fie d t ha t, b as edon hi s fa m il ia rit y with P on ti cel li ’s reac ti on to co cai ne , he b el ie ve d P on ti cel li was und er the in flu en ce o f co cai ne whe n h e sa w hi m

at t he co nv en ie nc e st or e. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Po rci ll o a ls o reca ll edsee in g aredcar atth e co nv en ie nc e st or e whe n h e sa w Pon ti cel li , whi ch he la te r rea li zedwas t he Gran di ne tt is ’s veh ic le . Porc il lo tes ti fie d t ha t h e kne w abo ut 31ho w peo pl e co ul d a ctun de r th e in flu en ce o f cra ck co cai ne be cau se he ha d afam il y m em be r who was a dd ic te d t o t ha t dru g. Po nt ic el li als o p res en te d wi tn es se s t o h is be ha vi ordu rin g h is pre tri al de te nt io n. Po nt ic el li ’s form er ce ll m at es tes ti fie d t ha t “ th ey oft ensaw Po nt ic el li pa ci ng in hi s ce ll , at t im es with aclo thov er h is he ad , andco ns ta nt ly readi ng hi s Bi bl e an d p raying .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 10 1. Nu m ero us fri en ds an d fam il y m em be rs tes ti fie d t ha t “ Po nt ic el li wrot e th em lo ng let te rs fro m

jail th at were fr ag m en te d a ndun ch arac te ris ti cal ly reli gi ou s.” Id . Trial co un se l t es ti fie d th atPo nt ic el li ’s “bi zarr e b eh av io r co nt in ue d t hr ou gh ou t the tri al .” Id . Pon ti cel li ’s si st er t es ti fie d t ha t, al th ou gh th ei r fat he r ha d b een a rel ig io us fun da m en ta li st , sh e ha d n ev er kno wn Po nt ic el li to be on e to o. Id . Inad di ti on to th e la y

witne ss tes ti m on y , fou r m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts , Dr. Harry K ro p, Dr. Ba rry

Cro wn, Dr. Mi ch ael Herk ov , andDr. MarkBran ch , tes ti fie d on be ha lf o f Po nt ic el li at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Krop , Herk ov , andBran ch te st ifi edth at , inth e li gh t o f Po nt ic el li ’s rep orte d c oc ai ne ab us e, bo th m en ta l h eal th st atut ory m it ig at or s ap pl ie d: th atis , Pon ti cel li su ffer edfro m anex tre m e em ot io na l orm en ta l d is tu rb an ce atti m e o f th e m ur de rs an d P on ti cel li ’s abi li ty to co nf orm hi s be ha vi orto th e requi rem en ts of l aw ha d b een subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d. Kro p a nd Herk ov ag reedth atPo nt ic el li ha d n otbe enco m pe te ntto st an d t ria l. Cro wn 32ex pr es se d n o o pi ni on ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s com pe te nc y to st an d t ria l n or

ab ou t whe th er the st atut ory

m en ta l h eal th mit ig at or s ap pl ie d. He co nc lu de d tha t Po nt ic el li ’s bra infun ct io ni ng was i m pa ire d a ndth at“ hi s d efi ci ts were p art ic ul arl y rel at edto ex ecu ti ve fun ct io ns .” Doc to rs Cro wn an d B ran ch co nduc te d o nl y li m it edres earc h. Cr own adm it te d t ha t h e h adev al ua te d P on ti cel li sev eny ears aft er the m ur de rs an d t ha t h e ha d n ev er b een qu al ifi edas a n e xp ertin ne ur ol og y in an y co urt o f la w. He te st ifi edth athi s o pi ni on was b as eden ti rel y on ne ur op sycho lo gi cal tes ts th athe ha d c on du ct edonPo nt ic el li an d t ha t h e h adno t co ns id eredot he r m at eri al s o r te st im on y , in cl ud in g t es ti m on y ab ou t h ow Po nt ic el li ap pe aredto ex erci se ex ecu ti ve type rea so ni ng on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs . Bran ch , an a ni m al res earc he r, di d n ottes t Po nt ic el li at a ll an d t es ti fie d tha t h e was no t qua li fie d t o te st ify tha t Po nt ic el li su ffer edfro m co cai ne ps y ch os is . Cro wn, Herk ov , andKrop m ad e se ve ral im po rtantco nc es si on s ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s cul pabi li ty. Herk ov an d Kro p t es ti fie d t ha t the y co ul d n otexpr es s an op in io n abo utPo nt ic el li ’s san it y at t he ti m e o f th e m

ur de rs . Cro wn co nc ed edth at Po nt ic el li ha d n orm al in te ll ig en ce. Herk ov an d Kro p c on ced edth atPo nt ic el li un de rs to odth athi s ac ts were wro ng . Krop adm it te d tha t h e b el ie ve d t ha t Po nt ic el li “ was su ffi ci en tl y co he ren t an d re la ti ve ly w el l o rg an iz edan d kne w th at

33wha t h adhapp en edwas acri m e an d wro ng .” All th ree e xp ert s ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t

Po nt ic el li ’s beh av io r on th e n ig htof t he m ur de r su gg es te d t ha t h e was “ go al or ie nt at ed .” Herk ov adm it te d t ha t, ev enif Po nt ic el li su ffer edfro m anex tre m e an d em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce atth e ti m e o f th e m ur de rs , he c ou ldst il l h av e fo rm edth e he ig ht en edpre m ed it at io n n eces sa ry forbo th th e co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at ed ag gr av at oran d t he he in ou s, at ro ci ou s, an d c ru el ag gr av at orto ap pl y . Herk ov co nc ed edth atPo nt ic el li ’s beh av io r th atni gh t “ so un d[ ed ] li ke he . . . [was ] ve ry m uc h t ry in g t o a vo idth e co ns eque nc es of h is act io ns .” Herk ov lat er was reca ll edas awitne ss an d c on ced edth atth ere wer e fac ts , so m e o f whi chwere u nkno wn t o h im when he pe rfo rm edhi s i ni ti al ev al ua ti on , th atcas t d oubton hi s o rig in al op in io ns . Thes e fac ts in cl ud edth atPo nt ic el li ha d as si st edhi s co un se l dur in g the tri al an d t ha t Po nt ic el li ha d a tt em pt edto di sp os e o f th e ev id en ce b y

dra win g F reem ananaccu rat e m ap . Herko v a ls o a dm it te d tha t Po nt ic el li co ul d h av e b een rat io na ll y m ot iv at edby pecu ni ary ga in . Dr. W ayne Co ng er t es ti fie d, o n b eh al f of th e st at e, th at , inhi s o pi ni on , ne it he r st atut ory

m en ta l h eal thm it ig at orap pl ie d a ndth atPo nt ic el li ha d b een co m pe te ntto st an d tria l. Co ng er al so de ni edth atPo nt ic el li ’s bra in fun ct io ns were si gn ifi can tl y

im pa ire d. Co ng er t es ti fie d tha t Po nt ic el li was a“ no rm al fun ct io ni ng in di vi du al ,” bo th in te ll ectua ll y an d c og ni ti ve ly. He tes ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s

34act io ns be fo re, dur in g, an d a fte r he ki ll edth e b ro th ers “ de m on st rat edsi gn ifi can t,

go al -o rie nt edbe ha vi or

th atwas i nc on si st en t wi th si gn ifi can t co gn it iv e dy sf un ct io n an d wi th th e al le ga ti onth atPo nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne us e p rev en te d h im fro m reas on in g effe ct iv el y .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 4. Co ng er al so tes ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s stro ng gra de s i n s ch oo l “ ru le [d ] ou t s ig ni fic an t o rg an ic pro bl em s.” Co ng er co nduc te d m an y

of t he same tes ts as C ro wn, b utreac he d d iff eren t co nc lu si on s. Co ng er t es ti fie d t ha t Cr own ’s res ul ts were n otva li d andth atth e di ffer en ces be twee n h is res ul ts an d C ro wn’s re su lt s s ug ge st edth atPo nt ic el li ha d m al in ge redwhen tak in g C ro wn’s t es ts . Con ge r te st ifi edth at , “ ev enif h e were t o as su m e th atCro wn’s t es ts were ac cu rat e, . . . he d idno t b el ie ve th e res ul ts supp orte d C ro wn’s h y

po th es is .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 4. Dr. Co ng er al so tes ti fie d abo utth e res ul ts of ape rs on al it y tes t, wh ic h s ho wedth atPo nt ic el li ha d “ th e typi cal pro fil e o f anan ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er: anin di vi du al who do es no t n eces sa ril y

co m pl y with t he requi rem en ts of t he law an d a dv en tu re se ek in g wi th ou t an y

pa rti cu la r co nc ern forrul es an d re gu la ti on s.” The tri al co urt re

jecte d P on ti cel li ’s cla im

of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e dur in g t he pe na lty ph as e o f hi s t ria l. The tri al co urt fo un d t ha t Po nt ic el li ha d fa il edto es tabl is h t ha t h e h adbe enpre jud ic edby tria l co un se l’s fa il ur e to off er the lay wit ne ss tes ti m on y

be cau se th atev id en ce was eit he r cu m ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce 35pr es en te d a t tria l o r “ wou ldha ve ha d ane ga ti ve effe cton Po nt ic el li ’s cas e”

be cau se “ [i]ns te adof b ei ng a y ou ng m anwho na iv el y ex pe rimente d wi thdru gs for a sh ort p eri odof t im e, th e la y witne ss es . . . po rtr ay

[Po nt ic el li ] as a m anwho es cap edth e il l ef

fect s o f drug s fo r a s ub st an ti al pe rio d o f ti m e inFlo rid a an d t he n returne d t o ahabi t h e kne w was ev il .” Id . at 1 09 5. Ab ou t the m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce, the tri al co urt fo un d Dr. Co ng er’s t es ti m on y to be th e m os t cr ed ib le . Id. The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a affi rm ed . Alth ou gh th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Po nt ic el li ha d e st ab li sh edde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce, i t ru le d t ha t Po nt ic el li was n ot pr ejud ic edby his co un se l’s d efi ci en ci es . Id. at10 95 –9 9. Th e co urt b as edit s de ci si on on “ th e si gn ifi can t ag gr av at or s an d t he ov erwh el m in g a m ou ntof e vi de nc e co nv ic ti ng Po nt ic el li of t he se ho m ic id es ”: A nu mb e r of wit ne ss es te st ifi ed at tri al th at Po nt ic el li fir st an no un ced hi s pl an t o ki ll th e Gran di ne tt is ; th en , aft er fo ll owi ng th ro ug h on th is pl a n , c on fes se d th at he di d it an d as ke d fo r he lp in co ve rin g it up . Fu rth erm or e, two of th e th ree ag gr av at in g f a c t or s fo un d fo r Nick Gran di ne tt i’s de ath, i.e., HAC an d CCP, ha ve be en reco gn iz ed as two of th e m os t se rio us ag gr av at or s se t ou t in th e st atut ory se nt en ci ng sc he m e. Id . at 1 09 7 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The co urt d et erm in edth atth e la y wit ne ss tes ti m on y

was wea k andcu m

ul at iv e o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l: The la y wit ne ss te st im on y pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng is cert ai nl y no t su ffi ci en t to es tabl is h m it ig at or s th at ou twei gh th es e ag gr av at or s. As th e tri al co urt reco gn iz ed , th e te st im on y pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng was la rg el y cu m ul at iv e to th at pr es en te d at tri al an d to whi ch de fen se co un se l refe rred in hi s cl os in g st a t em en t du rin g 36th e pe na lt y ph as e. Dur i n g th e gu il t ph as e, th e jury he ard a nu m be r of w it ne ss es te st ify to Po nt ic el li ’s po si ti ve ch arac te r an d th e effe ct o f co cai ne on hi s lif

e. Po nt ic el li ’s fathe r te st ifi ed th at Po nt ic el li worke d a pa rt- ti m e jo b du rin g hi gh sc ho ol an d was a “ go od ki d.” Jo hn Turn er, Po nt ic el li ’s cl os e fri en d, te st ifi ed th at he was wit h Po nt ic el li ev ery da y aft er Po nt ic el li returne d fr om hi s v is itto New York andth atPo nt ic el li us ed co cai ne al m os t co ns ta nt ly du rin g th is ti m e. Turn er an d Po nt ic el li ’s fathe r al so te st ifi ed to Po nt ic el li ’s paran oi d be ha vi or whe n he was un de r th e effe ct s of co cai ne , an d Bri an Bu rg es s te st ifi ed at tri al th at Po nt ic el li was act in g ne rv ou s on th e ni gh t he ap pe ared at Dot so n’s. At th e pe na lt y ph as e, whi ch oc cu rred ni ne da y s aft er th e gu il t ph as e en d e d , de fen se co un se l sp eci fic al ly co nn ect ed th e te st im on y reg ard in g Po nt ic el li ’s pa ran oi d be ha vi or to hi s co cai ne us e. Co un se l le d Dr. Mi ll s to te st ify th at th is p a r an oi a was in di cat iv e of th e m en ta l he al th m it ig at or s. On nu m ero us oc cas io ns , th is Co urt ha s de ni ed in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m s whe n th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary heari ng was m erel y cu m ul at iv e to th atpre se nt edat t ria l. . . . Id . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a reject ed , on th ree s ep arat e g ro un ds , Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t h is tri al co un se l’s fa il ur e to di sc ov er the m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce h adpre

jud ic edhi m . Firs t, the co urt re as on edth atth e m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce was no t s uf

fic ie ntto ov erco m e th e ag gr av at or s b ecau se no expe rt h ad te st ifi edth atPo nt ic el li was re ta rd edor s uf fere d fr om

a m ajorm en ta l i ll ne ss . Id. at 10 98 . Seco nd , bec au se th ere was co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y

ab ou t wh ethe r th e m en ta l he al th m it ig at or s wer e es tabl is he d, the co urt d eferredto th e fi nd in g o f th e tr ia l co urt tha t Dr. Co ng er was th e m os t cr ed ib le . Id. Thi rd , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t

37th e m en ta l h eal th tes ti m on y was c um ul at iv e o f th e te st im on y

pro vi de d b y

Dr. Mi ll s atth e tr ia l: Dr. Mi ll s un equi vo cal ly te st ifi ed at tri al th at bo th st atut ory m en ta l he al th m it ig at or s ap pl ie d in Po nt ic el li ’s cas e an d th at Po nt ic el li ’s pa ran oi d be ha vi or was co ns is te nt wit h an ex tre m e co cai ne ad di c t io n. Whi le Dr. Cro wn an d Dr. Herk ov m ay ha ve pr es en te d m or e co m pe ll in g te st im on y at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th is is no t di sp os it iv e. The re is no reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th es e ex pe rts wou ld ha ve le d th e tri al co urt to fin d t he m it ig at in g fact or s at th e ti m e of tri al . The tri al co urt di d no t fin d th e m it ig at or s fro m D r . Mi ll s’ te st im on y be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce Po nt ic el li ha d u se d c oc ai ne on th e da y of th e of fen se s, and no ne of t he ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng to refu te th is fin di ng was av ai labl e to co un se l at th e ti me o f tri al , ev en aft er a reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n. Id . (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a al so reject edPo nt ic el li ’s cla im ab ou t h is co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce dur in g t he pre -tr ia l p ha se . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t “ co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r wai ti ng un ti l a m on th be fo re tria l t o fi le hi s m ot io n fo r ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on an d fo r fai li ng to ob ta in jail reco rd s an d t o i nt erv ie w cel lm at es who wou ldha ve pro vi de d a dd it io na l in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g P on ti cel li ’s stran ge be ha vi or ” was “ wit ho utm eri t.” Id . at 11 02 . The co urt re as on edth atPo nt ic el li ha d fa il edto pro vi de “ ev id en ce tha t i t was un reas on ab le forde fen se co un se l t o fi le hi s m ot io n fo r a p sychi atric ev al ua ti ona m on th be fo re tria l; in fact , cou ns el tes ti fie d t ha t h e fi le d thi s m ot io n as so on as h e n ot ic edPo nt ic el li co ns is te nt ly refus in g t o s pe akwith h im ab ou t the 38cas e.” Id . The co urt d et erm in edth atno t o ne of t he m en ta l h eal thex pe rts who ha d

te st ifi edat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng ha d t es ti fie d t ha t the y be li ev edth atth e m en ta l he al th ev al ua ti on s dur in g t he co m pe te nc y he ari ng were i na de qu at e. The c ou rt reas on edto o t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s form er ce ll m at es di d n otrev eal “ an yth in g s ig ni fic an t th atth e ex pe rts di d n otkn ow wh enth ey ev al ua te d P on ti cel li .” Id . F. Su cces si ve Po st co nv ic ti on Mot io n a nd Se co nd Evid en ti ar y Hea ri ng At a s eco ndev id en ti ary he ari ng , Pon ti cel li pre se nt edm or e ev id en ce o f th e al le ge d d eal with F reem anan d abo utth e co cai ne pa rty. T he ev id en ce ab ou t the al le ge d d eal in cl ud edsev eral let te rs th atsu gg es te d F reem anso ug htga in ti m e fo r hi s t es ti m on y

in th e Po nt ic el li tri al an d t ha t Fr eem an ’s wife “ was to ldof p ro m is es m ad e to Free m anby the [St at e Att orne y ’s Offic e] to re du ce h is sen te nc e th atha d no t b een ful fil le d.” Pon ti cel li als o p res en te d e vi de nc e th at , on th e d ay of Free m an ’s dep os it io n, Fr eem anrece iv ed33 da y s o f m eri to rio us ga in ti m e an d t ha t he was re le as edfro m

pri so n s oo n a fte r he tes ti fie d a ga in stPo nt ic el li . The ev id en ce ab ou t the co cai ne pa rty inc lu de d t he tes ti m on y of Warren Bro wn, wh o co nf irmed th at , con trary

to hi s t ria l t es ti m on y , he h adm etPo nt ic el li on Tha nk sg iv in g n ig htan d h adsm ok edco cai ne with h im th atni gh t. Aga in , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a reject edPo nt ic el li ’s Brady an d Gi gl io cl ai m s. Th e co urt s ta te d tha t, “ fo r th e sa m e rea so ns ex pl ai ne d i n o urpre vi ou s 39op in io n, Po nt ic el li ha s fa il edto m eetth e p reju di ce p ro ng un de r Bra dy or th e

m at eri al it y

pro ng un de r Gig li o.” Pon ti cel li v. St at e, no . SC0 9– 99 2, 4 9 S o. 3 d 2 36 , av ai labl e at20 10 W L 46 28 96 8, at*1 (Fl a. Nov . 10 , 20 10 (un publ is he d t ab le op in io n) ). Thatsu m

m ary or de r co nc lu de d P on ti cel li ’s pro ceed in gs in th e st at e co urts . G. Feder al Hab ea s C

or pu s Pr oc eedin gs Po nt ic el li fil eda fed eral pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us whi le hi s su cces si ve po st co nv ic ti on m ot io n was pe nd in g i n t he st at e tr ia l co urt, an d t he di st ric t co urt l at er d en ie d re li ef. The di st ric t co urt ru le d tha t the Supr em e o f Co urt of Flo rid a rea so nabl y

ap pl ie d c le arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law wh enitreject edth e cl ai m s p res en te d i n t hi s ap pe al . W it h re sp ectto th e cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e of co un se l, the co urt ru le d t ha t “ Po rte r v. M cCo ll um , ---U.S.--- , 13 0 S . Ct. 4 47 (2 00 9) [,] an d S ears v. Up to n,-- -U.S.---, 1 30 S. Ct. 3 25 9 (2 01 0) , are d is ti ng ui sh ab le an d d o n otan no un ce an y ne w rul es of c on st itut io na l i nt erp ret at io n; th ey m erel y ap pl y Str ic kl an d t o d iff

eren t s et s o f fact s.” Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

with re sp ectto Po nt ic el li ’s Brady an d Gi gl io cla im s an d h is cla im th atco un se l h adren de redin effe ct iv e as si st an ce dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e o f hi s tri al . A j ud ge of t hi s C ou rt e xp an de d t he cert ifi cat e to in cl ud e Po nt ic el li ’s cla im

40th atco un se l h adbe enin effe ct iv e in hi s p rep arat io n o f ev id en ce o f Po nt ic el li ’s

co m pe te nc e to pro ceedto tri al .

II . STANDARD OF REVIEW The Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 g ov ern s Po nt ic el li ’s pet it io n a ndou r rev ie w of t he de ci si on s o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a th atde ni edhi m

po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . W e wil l n ot di sturb t he de ci si on of t he st at e co urt u nl es s the de ci si on “ 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 edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s,” o r “ was ba se d o n a n un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he St at e co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . “ The Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es ha s h el d tha t § 22 54 (d )(1 ) im po se s a ‘hi gh ly defer en ti al st an da rdfor ev al ua ti ng st at e-co urt ru li ng s,’ a st an da rd‘ whi ch de m an ds th atst at e-co urt de ci si on s b e g iv enth e b en efi t o f th e d oubt .’ ” Ru th erfo rdv. Cr os by, 385 F.3d 13 00 , 13 06 –0 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (qu ot in g Woo df or d v . Vis ci ot ti , 53 7 U.S. 1 9, 2 4, 12 3 S . Ct. 3 57 , 36 0 (2 00 2) ) (i nt ern al cit at io n o m it te d) . “ A st at e co urt d eci si on in vo lv es anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law wh enitid en ti fie s t he co rrec t le ga l ru le fro m

Supr em e Co urt ca se law b utun reas on ab ly app li es th atrul e to th e fact s o f th e p et it io ne r’s cas e,” Sp en cer v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 60 9 F .3d11 70 , 4111 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , or wh enit

“un reas on ab ly ext en ds , or unr eas on ab ly decl in es to ex te nd , a leg al pri nc ip le fro m Supr em e Co urt ca se law t o ane w con te xt ,” Pu tm anv. Head , 26 8 F .3d12 23 , 12 41 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . To d et erm in e whe th er the st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law i n a dju di cat in g P on ti cel li ’s hab eas pe ti ti on , th is Co urt m us t co nduc t the two -s te p a na lysis th atth e Supr em e Co urt s etforth in Harri ng to n v . Ri ch te r, --- U.S. ---- , 13 1 S . Ct. 7 70 (20 11 ). Firs t, thi s C ou rt “ m us t d et erm in e wha t ar gu m en ts or t he or ie s s up po rte d o r, [if no ne were s ta te d], cou ldha ve supp orte d t he st at e co urt’s d eci si on .” Jo hn so n v . Sec., Dep t. o f Co rr., 64 3 F .3d 90 7, 9 10 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ti ng Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 6) (al te rat io n i n or ig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Seco nd , th is Co urt “ m us t as k whe th er i t i s p os si bl e fai rm in de d ju ris ts co ul d d is ag ree t ha t tho se arg um en ts or th eo rie s ar e in co ns is te ntwith t he ho ld in g i n apri orde ci si on of [ th e Supr em e] Co urt.” Id . (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In o th er wor ds , we m ay

is su e a wri t o f habe as co rp us on ly whe n “ th e st at e co urt’s ru li ng on th e cl ai m be in g p res en te d i n fe de ral co urt was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il it y

forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . 42“ The qu es ti on whethe r a s ta te co urt errs in de te rm in in g t he fact s i s a

di ffer en t que st io n fr om

whet he r iterrs in ap pl y in g t he law.” R ic e v . Col li ns , 54 6 U.S. 33 3, 3 42 , 12 6 S . Ct. 9 69 , 97 6 (2 00 6) . “ Ourrev ie w of fi nd in gs of f actby the st at e co urt i s ev enm or e d efer en ti al th anun de r a cl earl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ardof rev ie w.” Ste ph en s v . Hall , 40 7 F .3d11 95 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e p res um e fin di ng s o f fac t t o b e co rrec t, an d P on ti cel li be ars th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th at pr es um pt io n b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ).

II I. DI SCUSSI ON Thi s d is cu ss io n i s d iv id edin to two pa rts . PartA add res se s Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law o r un reas on ab ly det erm in edfact s wh enitde ni ed Po nt ic el li ’s Brady

an d Gi gl io cla im s. Part B a ddres se s Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d wh enitrul edth at tri al co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti onof P on ti cel li ’s com pe te nc e to pro ceedto tri al di d n ot co ns ti tu te de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce an d t ha t Po nt ic el li was n otpre jud ic edby his la wy er’s i nv es ti ga ti on an d p res en ta ti on of e vi de nc e in m it ig at io n dur in g the pe na lty ph as e. A. The S up re me Co ur t o

f Fl or id a Rea so na bl

y App li ed Brad y

an d Gig li o an d Rea so na bl

y Det ermin ed

th e Under ly in g Fa ct

s.

43Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the reject io n o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a o f hi s

Brad y an d Gi gl io cla im s 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 o r anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e u nd erl y in g fa ct s. To o bt ai n re li ef o n h is Brad y cla im , Pon ti cel li ha d t o “ es tabl is h (1 ) th e g ov ern m en t po ss es se d e vi de nc e fav or ab le to hi m ; (2 ) th e d efen dantdi d n otpo ss es s the ev id en ce an d c ou ldno t h av e o bt ai ne d i t wi th reas on ab le di li ge nc e; (3) th e go ve rn m en t s up pr es se d t he fav or ab le ev id en ce; an d (4 ) th e ev id en ce was m at eri al .” Lam arcav. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 56 8 F .3d92 9, 9 41 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ Evi de nc e wou ldbe ‘ m at eri al ’ if i t i s reas on ab ly pro babl e th ata di ffer en t o ut co m e wou ldha ve res ul te d i f th e go ve rn m en t h addi sc lo se d t he ev id en ce. A reas on ab le pro babi li ty is a p ro babi li ty su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e.” Fer gu so n v . Sec’y forth e Dep ’t of Co rr., 58 0 F .3d11 83 , 12 05 –0 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (so m e in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . To ob ta inrel ie f on hi s Gi gl io cla im , Pon ti cel li ha d t o

“pr ov e: (1) th e p ro se cu to r kn owi ng ly use d p erjuredtes ti m on y or f ai le d t o c orrect wha t h e subs eque nt ly learn edwas fa ls e te st im on y ; an d (2 ) su ch us e was m at eri al , i.e., tha t the re i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e affe ct edth e jud gm en t.” Trep al v. Se c’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., no . 10 -1 53 06 , 20 12 W L 23 08 15 5, at*1 7 (1 1t h C ir. J un e 1 9, 2 01 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . 44“ The Gig li o m at eri al it y st an da rdis di ffer en t an d m or e d efen se -fri en dl y th an th e Bra dy m at eri al it y

st an da rd .” Id . at * 18 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .

“ [F]or Br ady

vi ol at io ns , th e d efen da ntm us t s ho w a reas on ab le pro babi li ty the res ul t wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t, b utfor Gig li o v io la ti on s, the de fen dantha s t he li gh te r bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t the re i s an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se te st im on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jury’ s ju dg m en t.” Id . The di sc us si on of t he se cla im s i s d iv id edin to two pa rts . Parton e ad dr es se s Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , un de r Bra dy, w ere v io la te d wh en th e p ro se cu ti on supp res se d e vi de nc e o f anall eg edde al with F reem anan d o f Po nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne us e o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs an d a tt en da nc e ata co cai ne pa rty onThan ks gi vi ng Day . See Bra dy, 373 U.S. at 8 7, 8 3 S . Ct. at11 96 –9 7. Pa rt two ad dr es se s Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , un de r Gig li o, wer e vi ol at edwhen th e p ro se cu ti on fai le d t o c orrectFree m an ’s tes ti m on y th athe rece iv edno be ne fitinex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y ag ai ns t Po nt ic el li , Kees ee’s te st im on y th athe di d n otsee Po nt ic el li us e co cai ne at t he Gran di ne tt is ’s tra il er o n th e n ig htof t he m

ur de rs , andth e te st im on y of B ur ge ss an d B ro wn t ha t the y ha d no t m etPo nt ic el li be fo re the ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs . See Gig li o, 4 05 U.S. at 15 3– 54 , 92 S. Ct. at76 5– 66 . 1. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a Rea so nabl y App li edBrad y

an d R eas on ab ly Dete rm in edth e Fac ts .

45Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li ed

Brad y an d u nr eas on ab ly det erm in edth e und erl y in g fa ct s, b utth atarg um en t fa il s. W it h re sp ectto th e al le ge d d eal be twee n t he pro se cu ti onan d F reem an , th e st at e supr em e co urt co ns id eredth e ev id en ce o f anall eg edde al un de r th e co rrec t st an da rdform at eri al it y , Pon ti cel li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 08 5 (c on si de rin g wh y th e al le ge d s up pr es si on di d “ no t ri se to th e le ve l n eces sa ry to pu t the who le cas e in su ch a di ffer en t l ig htas t o u nd erm in e o ur co nf id en ce i n t he ve rd ic t” ), an d reas on edth atFree m anha d a lre ady be ensubs ta nt ia ll y

im pe ach edon hi s “ m ot iv e fo r te st ifyin g a ndhi s capa ci ty for tru th fu ln es s” be cau se th e jury hear d t ha t Free m anha d wo rk edun de rco ve r fo r th e p ol ic e o n m ul ti pl e o ccas io ns ; h ad rece iv edcas h i n e xc ha ng e fo r hi s co op erat io n o n a t l eas t o ne oc cas io n; an d h ad adm it te d t ha t ea ch of h is twen ty-si x p rev io us fel on y co nv ic ti on s i nv ol ve d c rimes of di sh on es ty. Id. Th e co urt al so reas on edth atm ul ti pl e wit ne ss es as we ll as t he m ap Po nt ic el li pro vi de d t o F reem anco rro bo rat edhi s t es ti m on y . Id. at10 85 –8 6. It c an no t b e sa idth atth is rul in g abo utm at eri al it y “was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n th atth ere was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d an y po ss ib il ity

forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . W it h re sp ectto ev id en ce ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s us e o f co cai ne on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs an d a tt en danc e atth e co cai ne pa rty onThan ks gi vi ng ni gh t, the Supr em e 46Co urt o f Fl or id a d eferredto th e fi nd in g o f th e tr ia l co urt tha t the st at e d idno t

kn owi ng ly sup pr es s t hi s ev id en ce. Po nt ic el li fai le d t o s at is fy hi s b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng , by cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce, thi s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n. Se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a was en ti tl edto cred itth e te st im on y of t he pro se cu to r, W il li am s, wh o d en ie d kno win g t ha t Po nt ic el li ha d us edco cai ne on th e n ig htof the m ur de rs or h adatt en de d aco cai ne pa rty the da y be fo re the m

ur de rs . Som e o f th e ev id en ce ab ou t the se is su es , su ch as M un st er’s rep ort an d Tu rn er’s t es ti m on y , was p ro vi de d t o P on ti cel li ’s cou ns el , andth e rem ai ni ng ev id en ce, s uc h a s M un st er’s an d Wil li am ’s cry pt ic no te s, i s n ei th er cl ear n orco nv in ci ng . Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a rev ie wedhi s B rady cl ai m to o “ na rro wly” and“ ig no redm uc h o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t the po st co vi ct io n h eari ng ,” bu t “ to m eri t AEDPA de fere nc e th e st at e co urt n eedno t . . . pro vi de a de ta il edop in io n c ov eri ng each asp ectof t he pe ti ti on er’s arg um en t.” All env. Se c’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 7 48 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). Thatth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a d idno t ex pl ic it ly dis cu ss ev ery pi ece o f ev id en ce i s o f no m om en t b ecau se we m us t p res um e “ th atst at e co urts kn ow an d fo ll ow t he law,” an d “ st at e co urt d eci si on s [m us t] be g iv enth e b en efi t o f th e d oubt .” Vis ci ot ti , 53 7 U.S. at 2 4, 1 23 S. Ct. at36 0. “ [F]ede ral habe as co rp us is a ‘gua rdag ai ns t ex tre m e 47m al fu nc ti on s i n t he st at e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em s,’ no t a l ic en se to pe na li ze a s ta te

co urt fo r it s o pi ni on -wri ti ng tec hn ique .” Lafle r v. C oo pe r, --- U.S. ---, 1 32 S. Ct. 13 76 , 13 96 (20 12 ) (Sca li a, J., d is se nt in g) (qu ot in g Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6) . AndAll env. Se cret ary, Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s fo recl os es Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t the “pi ecemeal” an al y si s o f th e co urt s ug ge st s t ha t i t d idno t fo ll ow th e co rrec t s ta nd ardform at eri al it y . See 6 11 F.3dat 7 49 . In Al le n, we re as on ed th atth e “ ex is te nc e o f it em -b y -it em an al y si s . . . is no t i nc on si st en t wi th a cu m ul at iv e an al y si s. In de ed , th e o nl y way to ev al ua te th e cu m

ul at iv e eff

ectis to fir stex am in e eac h p ie ce s ta nd in g a lo ne .” Id . at 7 49 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; s ee al so Ky le s v . Whi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 43 6 n .10 , 11 5 S . Ct. 1 55 5, 1 56 7 n.1 0 (1 99 5) (“ W e ev al ua te th e te nd en cy an d fo rce o f th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce it em by item ; the re i s n o o th er way. W e ev al ua te it s cu m ul at iv e eff

ect. . . se pa rat el y .”). Po nt ic el li can no t o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n t ha t the Flo rid a st at e co urt as se ss edpre

jud ic e cu m

ul at iv el y . See Vis ci ot ti , 53 7 U.S. at24 , 12 3 S . Ct. at 36 0; see als o Gre en e v . Upt on , 64 4 F .3d11 45 , 11 59 –6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (“ Green e rai se d acla im

on di rectap pe al ab ou t the cu m ul at iv e eff

ectof t he pro se cu to r’s al le ge dl y pre jud ic ia l s ta te m en ts , andth e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iareject edit . . . . Alt ho ug h Gre en e co nt en ds th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iafai le d e ve n t o co ns id er h is cla im

of c um ul at iv e p reju di ci al effe ct , we m us t p res um e o th erwi se .”). 482. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a Rea so nabl y App li edGig li o a ndReas on ab ly Dete rm in edth e Fac ts . Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li ed Gig li o a ndun reas on ab ly det erm in edth e u nd erl y in g fa ct s o f hi s Gi gl io cla im , bu t th is arg um en t t oo fai ls . W it h re sp ectto th e al le ge d F reem ande al , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a rea so ne d t ha t an y supp res si on was i m

m at eri al be cau se Free m an ha d a lre ady

be ensubs ta nt ia ll y

im pe ach edan d n um ero us witne ss es as we ll as ph y si cal ev id en ce co rro bo rat edFree m an ’s tes ti m on y . It ca nn otbe sai d t ha t thi s de ci si on , eve n u nd er the m or e d efen se -fri en dl y st an da rdof Gi gl io , “ was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n ex is ti ng law b ey on d a ny po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . W it h re sp ectto Kees ee’s fal se tes ti m on y an d t he ev id en ce ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s att en da nc e atth e co cai ne pa rty, the tri al co urt fo un d a ndth e st at e supr em e co urt af

firm edth atth e p ro se cu ti on di d n otkn owi ng ly pres en t fa ls e te st im on y , andPo nt ic el li fai le d t o s at is fy hi s b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng , by cl ear and co nv in ci ng ev id en ce, the se factua l d et erm in at io ns . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) .
B. The S up re me Co ur t o

f Fl or id a Rea so na bl

y App li ed Stric kl an d
. Bec au se Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t h is tri al co un se l re nd eredin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, Po nt ic el li m us t es tabl is h b ot h t ha t tria l co un se l’s 49“pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , andth atth e d efi ci en cy pre jud ic edth e d efen se .” W ig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 21 , 12 3 S . Ct. 2 52 7, 2 53 5 (2 00 3) ; s ee al so Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2. Defi ci en t p erfo rm an ce o ccu rs when

“ co un se l’s re pr es en ta ti on [fal ls ] be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss . . . un de r pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s.” Wig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at52 1, 1 23 S. Ct. at 25 35 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . “ [C]ou ns el is st ro ng ly pr es um edto ha ve ren de redad equa te ass is tanc e an d m ad e al l s ig ni fic an t d eci si on s in th e ex erci se of r eas on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t.” St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 90 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 . Prejud ic e “ requi res sh owi ng th atco un se l’s erro rs were s o se rio us as t o d ep riv e th e d efen da ntof afai r tr ia l.” Id . at 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . The tes t fo r pr ejud ic e is whet he r “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor co un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Id . at 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 . “ A reas on ab le pro babi li ty is a pr ob ab il it y

su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e.” Id . In the co nt ex t of a ch al le ng e to a se nt en ce o f de ath, t he qu es ti on is whet he r “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th at[th e jud ge an d ju ry ] wou ldha ve returne d wi tha di ffer en t se nt en ce.” Wig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at53 6, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 43 . “ To as se ss th at pr ob ab il it y , we con si de r th e to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—b ot h th atad du cedat t ria l, an d t he ev id en ce ad du cedin th e h ab eas pro ceed in g— an d 50rewei g[ h] itag ai ns t the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n.” Porte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 3– 54

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). “ The li ke li ho odof a di ffer en t re su ltm

us t b e subs ta nt ia l, n otjus t co nc ei vabl e.” Harri ng to n, 1 31 S. Ct. at79 2. Bec au se “ [t]he st an da rd s cr eat edby Stri ck la ndan d § 22 54 (d ) are bo th hi gh ly defer en ti al ,” itfol lo ws tha t “ whe n t he two ap pl y in tan de m , rev ie w is do ub ly so.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . “ Whe n § 22 54 (d ) ap pl ie s, the qu es ti on is no t wh ethe r co un se l’s ac ti on s wer e rea so nabl e,” b ut“ whe th er the re i s an y reas on ab le arg um en t th atco un se l s at is fie d S tri ck la nd ’s def eren ti al st an da rd .” Id . Thi s d is cu ss io n i s d iv id edin to two pa rts . Parton e ad dr es se s Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t tria l co un se l re nd eredde fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce wh enhe in ve st ig at ed Po nt ic el li ’s com

pe te nc e to pro ceedto tri al . Parttwo ad dr es se s Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t tria l co un se l’s d efi ci en ci es du rin g t he pe na lty ph as e were pr ejud ic ia l.

1. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a Rea so nabl y App li edCle arl y Est ab li sh edFed eral Law Whe n i t Ru le d t ha t Po nt ic el li ’s Trial Co un se l Di d No t Ren de r Defi ci en t Pe rfo rm an ce Be fo re an d Du rin g t he Co m pe te nc y Heari ng . Po nt ic el li adva nc es fou r arg um en ts ab ou t wh y th e Supr em e Co urt o f 51Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law wh enitrul edth at Po nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l d idno t re nd er d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce b efo re an d dur in g th e co m pe te nc y he ari ng . Firs t, Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t tria l co un se l s ho ul d n otha ve wait edun ti l a m on th be fo re the tri al to fil e a m ot io n fo r a p sychi atric ev al ua ti on . Seco nd , Pon ti cel li arg ue s t ha t tria l co un se l h ada du ty to al ertth e co urt ab ou t in ci de nt s o f Po nt ic el li ’s stran ge be ha vi or . Thir d, Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t tria l co un se l h ada du ty to i nt erv ie w Pon ti cel li ’s cel lm at es an d fa m il y m em be rs ab ou t hi s m en ta l h eal th . Fourth , Pon ti cel li arg ue s tha t tria l co un se l h ada du ty to p ro vi de Dr. Krop with m at eri al ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s bac kg ro un d. The rul in g o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a—t ha t tria l co un se l d idno t ren de r de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce— is a reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co nc lu de d t ha t tria l co un se l’s t im in g o f th e co m pe te nc y m ot io n was reas on ab le be cau se he fil edth atm ot io n a s s oo n a s h e n ot ic edth at Po nt ic el li co ns is te nt ly hadrefu se d t o a ss is t i n h is de fen se . Andth e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts ha d a de qu at e ti m e to ev al ua te Po nt ic el li . Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 10 2. Ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s ot he r al le ga ti on s o f de fic ie nc ie s, the co urt h el d tha t “ Po nt ic el li ha s n otpre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce to ov erco m e th e st ro ng pre su m pt io n t ha t co un se l’s re pr es en ta ti on was re as on ab le .” Id . It ca nn otbe sai d t ha t the de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a “ was so 52la ck in g i n ju st ifi cat io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d in ex is ti ng law b ey on d a ny po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t,” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 , esp eci al ly becau se “ a p art ic ul ar d eci si on no t t o i nv es ti ga te m us t b e d ire ct ly ass es se d fo r rea so nabl en es s i n a ll th e ci rcu m st an ces , app lying a he av y m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to co un se l’s jud gm en ts ,” Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 91 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 . Eve n i f tr ia l co un se l h adbe ende fic ie nt , itwas re as on ab le to co nc lu de th at Po nt ic el li su ffer edno pre jud ic e. Altho ug h Dr. Kro p t es ti fie d a t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng th athe lat er b el ie ve d t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c on cl ud e Po nt ic el li was in co m

pe te ntto pro ceedat t he ti m e o f tr ia l, Dr. Kro p d idno t b el ie ve th athi s pr etria l ev al ua ti on , inwhi chhe co nc lu de d t ha t Po nt ic el li was c om pe te nt , hadbe en in ad equa te . Pon ti cel li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 9– 11 00 . Dr. Krop was t he on ly exp ert who tes ti fie d a t the po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng who als o t es ti fie d andex am in ed Po nt ic el li forhi s p retria l co m pe te nc y he ari ng . Id. at10 99 –1 10 1. An d Dr. Co ng er te st ifi edth atPo nt ic el li was c om pe te ntto st an d t ria l. Id . at 1 10 0– 01 .
2. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a Rea so nabl y App li edCle arl y Est ab li sh edFed eral Law Whe n i t Ru le d t ha t Tri al Co un se l’s Defi ci en t Perf orm an ce Du rin g t he Pen al ty Phas e Was NotPreju di ci al , andPo nt ic el li ’s

Cl ai m Fai ls Alt ern at iv el y

on De Nov o R ev ie w.

53Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the co nc lu si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a—t ha t

tri al co un se l was de fic ie ntdu rin g t he pe na lt y ph as e, bu t the de fic ie nc ie s wer e n ot pr ejud ic ia l— is anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the de ci si on is ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Seco nd , he a rg ue s t ha t the de ci si on can no t b e sq ua redwith P orte r an d S ears . Bec au se th e St at e o f Fl or id a d oe s n otco nt es t the de ci si onth attri al co un se l was de fic ie nt , th ere i s n o n eedto expr es s an op in io n abo utth atis su e. Bu t Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en ts ab ou t p reju di ce fa il . The de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a to rejectPo nt ic el li ’s Stric kl an d c la im

is ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e. The c ou rt c orrect ly ide nt ifi ed Stric kl an d a s the go ve rn in g S up rem e Co urt p rin ci pl e an d re as on edth atth e ev id en ce wo ul d h av e h ada ne ga ti ve effec t o n P on ti cel li ’s app eal , was cu m ul at iv e of th e te st im on y

pre se nt edat t ria l, an d was to o wea k t o o ve rco m e th e st ro ng ag gr av at or s. Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 5– 98 . Both t he Supr em e Co urt an d th is Co urt h av e co ns is te nt ly hel d t ha t i t i s re as on ab le fora st at e co urt t o c on cl ud e th ata pe ti ti on er s uf

fers no pre

jud ic e whe n t he ev id en ce i s ei th er weakor cu m ul at iv e o f th e te st im on y

pre se nt edat t ria l. See , e.g., Cu ll env. Pi nh ol st er, --- - U.S. ----, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 38 8, 1 40 9– 10 (20 11 ); Won g v . Bel m on te s, 5 58 U.S. ----, 1 30 S. Ct . 38 3, 3 87 (20 09 ); R os e v . McNei l, 6 34 F.3d12 24 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ); 54Rh od e v . Hall , 58 2 F .3d12 73 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Andbo th th e Supr em e

Co urt an d t hi s C ou rt h av e co ns is te nt ly “reject ed[th e] preju di ce ar gu m en t[] wher e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e was a two -ed ge d s wor d o r wou ldha ve op en edth e d oo r to da m ag in g e vi de nc e.” Cu m m in gs v. Se c’y

forth e Dep ’t of Co rr., 58 8 F .3d13 31 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so , e.g., Cu ll en , 13 1 S . Ct. at14 09 –1 0; Bel m on te s, 1 30 S. Ct. at38 7– 88 ; Ro se , 63 4 F .3dat 12 42 –4 6; DeYou ng v. Sc ho fie ld , 60 9 F .3d12 60 , 12 90 –9 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; Su gg s v. M cNei l, 6 09 F.3d12 18 , 12 29 –3 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; Re edv. Se c’y , Fla . Dep’t. o f Co rr., 59 3 F .3d12 17 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); C umm in gs , 58 8 F .3dat 1 36 5– 69 ; Gas ki n v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 49 4 F .3d99 7, 1 00 3– 04 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); Ro bi ns on v. Mo or e, 30 0 F .3d13 20 , 13 45 –5 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ; Gray so n v . Tho m ps on , 25 7 F .3d11 94 , 12 25 –3 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . In the li gh t o f th os e pr eced en ts , itcan no t b e sa idth atth e d eci si on of the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a to rejectPo nt ic el li ’s Stri ck la ndcla im “ was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n t ha t the re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il ity fo r fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t,” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 87 . Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the co nc lu si on of t he st at e co urt tha t the m en ta l h eal th te st im on y was c um ul at iv e to Dr. Mil ls ’s tes ti m on y is ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Po nt ic el li co nt en ds th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a, on di rectap pe al , reject ed 55Dr. Mi ll s’s t es ti m on y be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce ab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne us e o n the ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs . He arg ue s t ha t a ju ry wou ldha ve be enm or e li ke ly to ac cep t Dr. Mi ll s’s co nc lu si on s b as edonth e n ew ev id en ce tha t h e u se d co cai ne on th e n ig htof t he m ur de rs . Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t fa il s fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, the st at e co urt re jecte d Dr. Mi ll s’s co nc lu si on s, n oton ly becau se of t he lac k o f ev id en ce re la te d t o d ru g u se , bu t b ecau se Po nt ic el li ’s act io ns on th e n ig htof t he m ur de r st ro ng ly sug ge st edth at he was i n c on tro l o f hi s ac ti on s. Sec on d, Dr. Mi ll s’s t es ti fie d a t tria l tha t the st atut ory m en ta l h eal thm it ig at or s s ho ul d app ly regar dl es s o f whe th er Po nt ic el li us edco cai ne on th e n ig htof the m ur de rs . Thu s, i t was reas on ab le forth e st at e co urt t o c on cl ud e th atan y ne w m en ta l h eal th tes ti m on y th atth e two st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or s s ho ul d app ly w as cu m ul at iv e to Dr. Mil ls ’s tes ti m on y . Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the co nc lu si on of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a th at hi s m it ig at io n e vi de nc e o f drug us e an d m en ta l h eal th pro bl em s wo ul d h av e h ada ne ga ti ve effe ctis ob

jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le , bu t tha t ar gu m en t fa il s. Dru g abu se

“ ha s l it tl e m it ig at in g v al ue an d c ando as m uc h o r m or e h arm

th ango odin th e eyes of th e jury.” Crawfo rdv. Head , 31 1 F .3d12 88 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ); s ee al so , e.g ., Sug gs , 60 9 F .3dat 1 23 2 (o bs erv in g t ha t “ ev id en ce o f hi st or ic al dru g a nd al co ho l u se ” is “un fav or ab le ”); Gray so n, 2 57 F.3dat 1 22 7 (“ [E]m ph as iz in g 56[p et it io ne r’s] alco ho li c y ou than d i nt ox ic at io n m ay als o h av e b een da m ag in g t o [p et it io ne r] in t he ey es of t he jury. ”). The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a rea so nabl y co nc lu de d t ha t ev id en ce o f Po nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne ab us e wou ldha ve do ne m or e h arm th ango odin th e eyes of

th e jury becaus e “ [i]ns te adof b ei ng a y ou ng m anwho na iv el y expe rimente d wi th dru gs fora sh ort p eri odof t im e,” the jury wou ldha ve he ardth atPo nt ic el li ha d “ es cap edth e il l ef fect s o f drug s fo r a s ub st an ti al pe rio d o f ti m e in Flo rid a an d t he n re tu rn edto a habi t h e kne w was ev il .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 5. Fu rth er, Po nt ic el li ’s m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce “ wou ldha ve in vi te d th e st ro ng es t p os si bl e ev id en ce i n re bu tt al .” Bel m on te s, 1 30 S. Ct. at38 9. Th atis , Dr. Co ng er wo ul d h av e te st ifi edth atPo nt ic el li ha d t he pro fil e o f a s oc io pa th , whi chis “ m or e h arm fu l . . . th anm it ig at in g,” Reed , 59 3 F .3dat 1 24 8. Po nt ic el li adva nc es th ree t he or ie s t o s up po rt h is co nt en ti on th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a u nr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d i n t he li gh t o f Po rte r an d S ears . Fi rs t, Po nt ic el li arg ue s t ha t the st at e co urt d idno t co ns id er h is m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce b ecau se it“ reject edth e m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n p res en te d i n po st co nv ic ti onon th e b as is th atth e lo wer co urt fo un d t he Sta te ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y to be th e m os t cr ed ib le .” Seco nd , Pon ti cel li arg ue s tha t the st at e co urt un reas on ab ly dis co un te d n on st atut ory m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Thi rd , Pon ti cel li arg ue s t ha t the st at e co urt erredin it s an al y si s o f pr ejud ic e b ecau se itco ns id ered 57th e ev id en ce i n m it ig at io n “ in a pi ecemeal fas hi on ag ai ns t the ag gr av at in g

ci rcu m st an ces .” Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en ts fai l. Po rte r de ci de d t ha t i t was un reas on ab le fora st at e co urt t o c on cl ud e th at co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntpo werfu l m it ig at io n e vi de nc e ab ou t h is cli en t’s h ero ic m il it ary se rv ic e an d m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce o f br ai n d am ag e was no t p reju di ci al . Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 3– 55 . A Flo rid a jury con vi ct edPo rte r of two co un ts of f

irs t de gr ee m ur de r aft er h e k il le d h is ex -g irl fri en d a ndhe r bo y fri en d. Id . at 4 48 . The jury at Po rte r’s tri al reco m m en de d asen te nc e o f de ath fo r bo th m ur de rs , bu t the tri al co urt i m

po se d asen te nc e o f de ath fo r th e m ur de r of on ly the ex -g irl fri en d. Id . at 4 49 . Port er fi le d ape ti ti onforpo st co nv ic ti on rel ie f in st at e co urt o n t he gr ou ndth athi s p en al ty-ph as e co un se l h adfai le d t o i nv es ti ga te an d p res en t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. Id . The tria l co urt co nduc te d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng , and Po rte r pr es en te d e xt en si ve m it ig at in g e vi de nc e ab ou t h is “ (1 ) . . . hero ic m il it ary se rv ic e in two of the m os t cr it ic al —an d h orrif ic —b attl es of t he Kore anW ar, (2 ) . . . stru gg le s t o re ga in no rm al it y up on hi s re tu rnfro m

war, (3 ) . . . chi ld ho odhi st ory of ph y si cal ab us e, an d (4 ) . . . brai n abn orm al it y , di ffi cu lt y read in g a ndwrit in g, an d l im it edsch oo li ng .” Id . at 4 54 . W it h re ga rdto th e m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce, Po rte r pr es en te d a n e xp ertin ne ur op sycho lo gy who h adex am in edPo rte r an d a dm in is te redps y ch ol og ic al tes ts 58to hi m . Id. at45 1. Po rte r’s ne ur op sycho lo gi sttes ti fie d t ha t Po rte r “ su ffer edfro m

br ai n d am ag e th atco ul d m an ife st[it se lf] in im pu ls iv e, vi ol en t b eh av io r,” an d t ha t, atth e ti m e o f th e m

ur de rs , Porte r was “ subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d i n h is ab il it y

to co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o the law an d s uf fere d fr om

anex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l di sturba nc e.” Id . Port er’s n eu ro ps y ch ol og is t al so tes ti fie d t ha t Po rte r “ ha d subs ta nt ia l d iff

ic ul ti es with re ad in g, wri ti ng , andm em ory , andth atth es e co gn it iv e de fect s wer e p res en t wh enhe was e va lu at edforco m pe te nc y to st an d t ria l.” Id . Alt ho ug h t he ex pe rts th atth e st at e p res en te d “ reac he d d iff eren t co nc lu si on s reg ard in g t he st atut ory

m it ig at or s,” e ach of t he st at e ex pe rts “ te st ifi edth athe co ul d n otdi ag no se Po rte r orrul e o uta br ai n abn orm al it y .” Id . (fo ot no te om it te d) . W it h re ga rdto th e m il it ary se rv ic e ev id en ce, Po rte r pr ov edth athe en li st ed in th e Uni te d S ta te s Army at a ge 17 an d fo ug htin th e Kor eanW ar. Whi le servi ng hi s co un try in c om

ba t, Po rte r was sh otin th e le g. Id . at 4 49 –5 0. Aft er re cei vi ng

“ li tt le or n o” foo d o r sl eep forfiv e d ay s, h e was for cedto “ en ga ge [] in a f ie rce ha nd -to -h an d fi gh t wi th th e Ch in es e.” Id . at 4 50 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . After a no th er “ ve ry trying , ho rri fy in g” ba tt le , Porte r “ in di vi du al ly rece iv edtwo Purp le Heart s an d the Co m ba t In fan trym anBad ge , alo ng with o th er de co rat io ns .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Port er wen t ab se ntwitho ut le av e o n t wo o ccas io ns whi le in Kore a, bu t h is co m pa ny comm an de r te st ifi edth at 59“ th is was n otun co m m on , as s ol di ers so m et im es be cam e d is or ie nt edan d s ep arat ed fro m th e u ni t.” Id . Port er was ev en tu al ly hon or ab ly dis ch arg ed , and , “ [a]fterhi s di sc ha rg e, he su ffer eddre ad fu l n ig ht m ares an d wo ul d a tt em ptto cli m b h is be dr oo m wall s wi th kn iv es at n ig ht .” Id . The tri al co urt ru le d tha t Po rte r ha d n otbe enpre jud ic edby the fai lure t o in tro du ce an y

of t he m en ta l h eal th or m il it ary se rv ic e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e, an d t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a aff irmed. Id. at45 1. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ex pl ic it ly refus edto co ns id er Po rte r’s pr op os edm en ta l h eal th ev id en ce fo r st atut ory m it ig at io n p ur

po se s b ecau se th e st at e ex pe rt d is ag reedwith t he co nc lu si on s o f Po rte r’s ex pe rt a ndth e tr ia l co urt h adacce pt edth e co nc lu si on s o f th e st at e ex pe rt. Po rte r v. St at e, 78 8 S o. 2 d 9 17 , 92 3 (2 00 1) . Andth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ag reedwith t he tri al co urt tha t “ Po rte r’s pe rio ds of b ei ng AW OL wou ldha ve reduc edth e im pa ctof P orte r’s m il it ary se rv ic e to in co ns eque nt ia l pr op orti on s.” Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . It

“ he ldth e tr ia l co urt was co rrec t t o fi ndth e ad di ti on al no ns ta tu to ry m it ig at io n t o b e la ck in g i n wei gh t b ecau se of t he sp eci fic fact s p res en te d.” Id. The Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s ru le d t ha t the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a h adun reas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law b ecau se it“ ei th er di d n otco ns id er o r un reas on ab ly dis co un te d t he m it ig at io n e vi de nc e [tha t Po rte r] 60ad du cedin th e p os tc on vi ct io n h eari ng .” Id . at 4 54 . The Co urt ru le d tha t i t was

un reas on ab le forth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a to “ di sc ou nten ti rel y ” th e im pa ct th atth e te st im on y

of P orte r’s m en ta l h eal th expe rt m ig htha ve ha d o n t he se nt en ci ng jud ge an d ju ry . Id. at45 5. Th e Co urt al so he ldth atth e st at e co urt un reas on ab ly con si de redth e ev id en ce o f Po rte r’s m il it ary hi st ory in a way th at was co nt rary to “ a lo ng tra di ti on of a cco rd in g l en ie nc y to ve te ran s i n re co gn it io n of th ei r se rv ic e, es pe ci al ly for tho se who fou gh t o n t he fro ntli ne s as Po rte r di d.” Id . The Co urt re as on edth at , “ th e rel ev an ce o f Po rte r’s ex te ns iv e co m ba t ex pe rie nc e is no t o nl y

th athe serve d h on or ab ly und er ex tre m e h ard sh ip an d grue so m e co nd it io ns , bu t al so th atth e jury mig htfin d m it ig at in g t he in te ns e st res s an d m en ta l an d e m ot io na l t ol l tha t co m ba t t oo k o n P orte r.” Id . In o th er wo rd s,

“ [t]he ev id en ce tha t h e was AW OL is co ns is te ntwith t hi s t he ory of m it ig at io n a nd do es no t i m

pe ach or d im in is h t he ev id en ce o f hi s s erv ic e.” Id . Po rte r do es no t co m

pe l the co nc lu si onth atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a, in th is ap pe al , fai le d t o c on si de r th e m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce fo r ei th er s ta tu to ry or no n- st atut ory

m it ig at io n p ur

po se s. To be su re, the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a in Po nt ic el li ’s app eal , as i n P orte r, st at edth atitwou ld“ de fer t o the tri al co urt’s fin di ng of f

actwhen face d wi th co nf li ct in g e xp erttes ti m on y ,” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 8, b utun li ke whatoc cu rredin Po rte r, th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a 61al so co ns id eredth e eff ectof t he co nf

li ct in g t es ti m on y

an d c on cl ud edth atth e m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce was bo thto o wea k t o o ve rco m e th e ag gr av at or s an d cu m ul at iv e o f th athe ardby the jury du rin g the tri al . Id. Inothe r wor ds , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a in th is ap pe al , un li ke inPo rte r, di d n ot“ di sc ou nt en ti rel y ” Po nt ic el li ’s m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Cf. Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at44 5. Th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a “ de te rm in edwhatim pa ct , if an y , th atm it ig at in g ev id en ce . . . wou ldhave ha d o n t he tri al co urt wh enweig he d a ga in stth e ag gr av at in g e vi de nc e” d is ti ng ui sh es th is ap pe al fro m Po rte r. Cf. So ch or

v. Se c’y Dep ’t. of Co rr., no . 10 -1 49 44 , sl ip op . at 3 1– 32 (11 th Cir . Ju ne 27 , 20 12 ). Nordo es Po rte r co m

pe l the co nc lu si on th atst at e co urts m ay no t co ns id er ha rm fu l as pe ct s o f pr op os edmit ig at io n e vi de nc e. Po rte r is anap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d. Po rte r do es no t al te r th e o rd in ary ru le th atco urts “ m us t co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce b efo re the jud ge or ju ry .” Str ic kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 95 , 10 4 S. Ct . at 2 06 9. Po nt ic el li ’s rel ia nc e o n S ears fares no be tt er fo r th ree r eas on s. Fi rs t, u nl ik e th e st at e co urt d eci si onin vo lv edin th is ap pe al , th e d eci si on inSear s was no t subjec t t o d efer en ti al rev ie w un de r se ct io n 2 25 4( d) be cau se th e d efen da ntin Sear s ha d n otfil eda fed eral pe ti ti on for a writof h ab eas co rp us . The d efen dantin st ead ha d p et it io ne d t he Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s t o re vi ew th e d eci si on of 62th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaonst at e co ll at eral rev ie w. 13 0 S . Ct at32 61 & n .1.

Seco nd , un li ke th is ap pe al , th e st at e co urt i n S ears ha d e xp res sl y refu se d t o co ns id er the tes t fo r pr ejud ic e u nd er St ric kl an d b ecau se itha d c on cl ud edth atth e ta skwas “ im

po ss ib le .” Id . at 3 26 4– 65 & n .9. Thi rd , th e Supr em e Co urt i n S ears di d n otho ldth atdo ub le -ed ge d s wor d e vi de nc e, li ke Sear s’s l ife of c rime, w as ne ces sa ril y

ev id en ce i n m it ig at io n. In st ead , th e Co urt re as on edth at“ th e fac t tha t Sear s’ bro th er . . . in tro du cedSear s t o ali fe o f cri m e . . . woul d h av e b een co ns is te ntwith am it ig at io n t he ory po rtr ay in g S ears as a n i nd iv idua l wi th di m in is he d ju dg em en t an d re as on in g s ki ll s . . . .” Id. at32 63 . ThatSear s’s b ro th er in tro du cedhi m

to a li fe o f cri m e wou ldha ve als o b een co ns is te ntwith t he te st im on y of S ears ’s exp ert s tha t h e p erfo rm edat o r be lo w th e b ot to m fir st pe rcen ti le —t he lo wes t fi rs t p erce nt—i n s ev eral m eas ur es of c og ni ti ve fun ct io ni ng an d re as on in g. Id . at 3 26 1. Be cau se th e Co urt co ns id eredSear s’s cl ai m de no vo , itexpr es se d n o o pi ni onab ou t wh ethe r st at e co urts ap pl y cle arl y est ab li sh edlaw un reas on ab ly whe n t he y

co ns id er h ow d oubl e-ed ge d s wor d e vi de nc e co ul d un de rm in e a the ory

of m it ig at io n e it he r ge ne ral ly or in a sp eci fic de ci si on . Nordo Sear s an d P orte r co m pe l the co nc lu si on th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ap pl ie d the pre

jud ic e te stin a m an ne r th atwas c on tra ry to cle arl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law. Po nt ic el li ’s arg um en t tha t the st at e co urt fa il edto 63co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e an d re weig h i t ag ai ns t the

ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n fa il s. Th atth e co urt o rg an iz edit s d is cu ss io n o f th e ev id en ce i n api ecemeal fas hi on is of n o m om en t. As e xp la in edab ov e, “ [t]he ex is te nc e o f it em -b y -it em an al y si s . . . is no t i nc on si st en t wi th a cu m ul at iv e an al y si s.” Al le n, 6 11 F.3dat 7 49 . Pon ti cel li can no t o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a as se ss edpre jud ic e cu m

ul at iv el y . See Vis ci ot ti , 53 7 U.S. at24 , 12 3 S . Ct. at36 0; Green e, 64 4 F .3dat 1 15 9– 60 .

“ Eve n i f [Po nt ic el li ’s] in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m were el ig ib le fo r de no vo rev ie w, itwou ldst il l fa il .” Kno wles v. Mi rzayance , 55 6 U.S. 1 11 , 12 3, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 41 1, 1 42 0 (2 00 9) . “ The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t we are e nt it le d t o a ffi rm

th e d en ia l o f habe as rel ie f in th is m an ne r: ‘a habe as pe ti ti on er wil l n otbe en ti tl edto a writof h ab eas co rp us if h is or h er cl ai m is reject edon de no vo rev ie w.’ ” Ree se v. Se c’y , Fla . Dep’t o f Co rr., 67 5 F .3d12 77 , 12 91 (11 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (quo ti ng Berg hu is v. Th om pk in s, -- -U.S.---, 1 30 S. Ct. 2 25 0, 2 26 5 (2 01 0) ); s ee al so So ch or , no . 10 -1 49 44 , sl ip op . at 3 2. “ [W] e h av e em pl oyed thi s ap pr oa chev enwhen itwas c le ar tha t the de fere nc e aff or de d b y sec ti on 22 54 (d ) ap pl ie d.” Rees e, 67 5 F .3dat 1 29 1; see , e.g., All en , 61 1 F .3dat 7 53 . Po nt ic el li can no t es tabl is h t ha t h e su ffer edpre jud ic e b ecau se th ere i s n ota

“ reas on ab le pro babi li ty” th atth e jury woul d h av e n otreco m m en de d asen te nc e o f 64de ath abs en t an y erro rs . See St ric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 . “ To as se ss th atpro babi li ty, we co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n ev id en ce—

bo th th atad du cedat t ria l, an d t he ev id en ce ad du cedin th e h ab eas pr oc eed in g— an d re weig [h ] itag ai ns t the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n,” Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct . at 4 53 –5 4 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ), an d t he Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edth atwe sh ou ld“ tu rnfir stto th e ag gr av at in g a nd m it ig at in g e vi de nc e th atth e se nt en ci ng jury co ns id ered .” Cu ll en , 13 1 S . Ct. at 14 08 . As i n C ul le n, “ [t]he Sta te pre se nt edex te ns iv e ag gr av at in g e vi de nc e.” Id . The st at e p ro ve d t ha t thr ee s ta tu to ry ag gr av at or s ap pl ie d t o Ni ckGran di ne tt i’s de ath: Po nt ic el li co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r fo r pe cu ni ary ga in , Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(f); Po nt ic el li co m m it te d t he m

ur de r in a “ co ld , cal cu la te d, an d pr em ed it at edm an ne r witho utan y pre te ns e o f m or al or l eg al jus ti fic at io n,” id . § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(i ); a ndth e m

ur de r was “ es pe ci al ly hei no us , atr oc io us , [an d] cru el ,” id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (h ). In F lo rid a, “ th e h ei no us , atr oc io us , or c ru el [an d] th e co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edag gr av at or s . . . are two o f th e m os t s eri ou s ag gr av at or s s etou t i n t he st atut ory sen te nc in g s ch em e.” Lark in s v . Sta te , 73 9 S o. 2d90 , 95 (Fl a. 19 99 ). “ [T]he Supr em e Co urt h as ex pr es sl y cau ti on edag ai ns t co m pa rin g a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ces ba se d o n t he ir s he er num be r, bu t ra th er, h as 65su gg es te d t ha t we fo cu s o n the ir we ig ht .” Bo y d v . All en , 59 2 F .3d12 74 , 13 02 n.7

(1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . The ev id en ce p ro ffer edat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng do es no t u nd erm in e th e ap pl ic at io n o f th es e ag gr av at or s. Alt ho ug h t ria l co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t h e wou ldno t ha ve co nc ed edth e ex is te nc e o f th e co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edag gr av at or , Po nt ic el li ’s ownex pe rt, Dr. Herk ov , tes ti fie d t ha t, ev enif Po nt ic el li ha d s uf fere d anex tre m e an d e m ot io na l d is tu rb an ce atth e ti m e o f th e m ur de rs , Pon ti cel li co ul d ha ve form edth e n eces sary in te ntfor eit he r of th e st atut ory

ag gr av at or s t o app ly. Herk ov als o c on ced edth atth e o pp ortu ni ty for p ecuni ary ga in co ul d h av e m ot iv at edPo nt ic el li to ki ll . Po nt ic el li pre se nt eda th eo ry of c oc ai ne ps y ch os is as m it ig at in g e vi de nc e du rin g t he pe na lty

ph as e o f hi s t ria l. The jury he ardab ou t Po nt ic el li ’s sev ere ad di ct io n t o c oc ai ne th ro ug h t he tes ti m on y of b ot h Tu rn er an d P on ti cel li ’s fathe r. Mea de an d Leo na rdtes ti fie d t ha t Po nt ic el li was arel iabl e p ers on an d ago od fri en d wh enhe di d n otab us e co cai ne . Dr. Mil ls als o t es ti fie d t ha t the two st atut ory m en ta l h eal thm it ig at or s s ho ul d app ly regar dl es s o f whe th er Po nt ic el li us edco cai ne on th e n ig htof the m ur de rs . Desp it e th is ev id en ce, the co urt fo un d on ly two s ta tu to ry

m it ig at or s— Po nt ic el li ha d n o s ig ni fic an t h is to ry of p rev io us cri m in al act iv it y , Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(a) , andPo nt ic el li was 2 0 years o ldat t he 66ti m e o f th e o ffen se , id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (g ). The co urt re jecte d the m en ta l h eal th st atut ory m it ig at or s, s ee i d. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(b ), (f), an d fo un d n o n on st atut ory m it ig at or s. Po nt ic el li rel ie d o n t he same mit ig at io n t he ory du rin g c ol la te ral rev ie w, and itis un li ke ly tha t a ju ry

or s en te nc in g c ou rt wo ul d h av e fo un d h is im pr ov ed ve rs io n o f a co cai ne ps y ch os is m or e p ers ua si ve th e se co ndti m e aro un d fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, the ex pe rt t es ti m on y was c um ul at iv e to Dr. Mil ls ’s tes ti m on y , and itis “ hi gh ly im

pr ob ab le th ata jury, whi chha d ju streject edtes ti m on y ab ou t [Po nt ic el li ’s] m en ta l co nd it io n wh enth e St at e b or e th e b ur de n o f pr oo f, wou ld ha ve reac he d adi ffer en t re su lt ” whe n P on ti cel li carr ie d t he bu rd enof p ro of at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Kno wles , 55 6 U.S. at12 8, 1 29 S. Ct. at14 22 . Seco nd , th e tri al co urt re fu se d t o app ly one of t he m en ta l h eal thm it ig at or s, i n p art , bec au se Po nt ic el li ’s beh av io r on th e n ig htof t he m ur de r su gg es te d t ha t h e was in co nt ro l o f hi s ac ti on s. No ne of t he ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng un de rm in edth atco nc lu si on . If an yth in g, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce u ne arthe d dur in g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng co nt rad ic te d P on ti cel li ’s ps y ch os is th eo ry . Each e xp erttes ti fie d tha t Po nt ic el li ’s be ha vi orwas “ go al ori en te d.” At tr ia l, Po nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l ar gu edth at Po nt ic el li was u ns tabl e b ecau se he ha d a sk edDot so n a ndhi s fr ie nd s fo r he lp ev en 67th ou gh he ha d m etth em on ly fou r ho ur s earli er, b utat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Po nt ic el li pre se nt edev id en ce tha t h e h adm etDot so n a ndhi s fr ie nd s t he day be fo re the m

ur de rs an d h adev ensm ok edco cai ne with t he m . A j ury wou ldha ve be enles s l ik el y

to co nc lu de th atPo nt ic el li was u ns tabl e in th e li gh t o f th is ev id en ce. The pre se nt at io n o f Po nt ic el li ’s ot he r m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—t ha t Po nt ic el li was a po ly-subs ta nc e ab us er wi th bra in da m ag e an d t ha t Po rci ll o b el ie ve d Po nt ic el li was h ig h o n the ni gh t o f th e m ur de rs —was frau gh t wi th pe ril forat l eas t th ree r eas on s. Fi rs t, i n re sp on se to th e ev id en ce ab ou t b rai n d am ag e, th e st at e co ul d h av e el ic it edtes ti m on y fro m Dr. Con ge r th atPo nt ic el li ha d t he pro fil e o f a so ci op ath. As we have he ldco ns is te nt ly, “ [t]hi s ev id en ce i s p ot en ti al ly ag gr av at in g a s i t s ug ge st s t ha t [P on ti cel li ] ha s an ti so ci al pe rs on al it y di so rd er, whi chis a tr ai t m os t juro rs ten d t o l oo k d is fav or ab ly upo n, tha t i s n otm it ig at in g bu t d am ag in g[ .] ” Su gg s, 6 09 F.3dat 1 23 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n om it te d) . Seco nd , Por ci ll o’s t es ti m on y “ wou ldha ve co m e ata st eep pri ce.” Id . The st at e co ul d h av e el ic it edtes ti m on y th atPo nt ic el li ha d ahi st ory of d ru g abu se , bu t h adqu iton on e o ccas io n fo r anex te nd edpe rio d o f ti m e, on ly to “ return[ ] to a habi t h e kne w was ev il .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 5. Th is ev id en ce, al on e an d i n c om

bi na ti on with t he ev id en ce tha t Po nt ic el li sm ok edco cai ne be fo re h e 68m

ur de redth e Gran di ne tt i b ro th ers , li ke ly cou ldha ve cau se d s om e juro rs to vo te in fav orof d eat h. Se e Su gg s, 6 09 F.3dat 1 23 1. Th ird , alt ho ug h P on ti cel li ’s bra in da m ag e is rel ev an t t o t he ex te ntth atitsu gg es ts th athe ha s s om e co gn it iv e de fic ie nc ie s an d i s l es s m or al ly cul pabl e fo r hi s ac ti on s, Po nt ic el li ’s beh av io r be fo re, dur in g, an d a fte r th e m ur de rs su gg es ts th athe was i n c on tro l o f hi s ac ti on s. The ev id en ce o f Po nt ic el li ’s pre m ed it at io n was po werfu l. Bef or e h e co m m it te d t he m

ur de rs , Pon ti cel li bo rro weda gu n; to ldhi s fr ie nd s t ha t h e p la nn ed to ki ll two pe op le forco cai ne an d m on ey ; an d c reat edan d e xe cu te d apl anto lu re th e v ic ti m s fr om

th ei r ho m e. Po nt ic el li dro ve th e v ic ti m s t o b ackroa ds to av oi d de te ct io n, s ho t the m

bo th in th e h ead , andwhen he he ardNickm oa n, b at te red Nickwith the bu ttof h is gu n. Aft er the m ur de r, Po nt ic el li to okco cai ne an d m on ey fro m th e b od ie s; returne d t he gu n a ndto ldhi s fr ie ndto di sp os e o f th e weap on ; ab an do ne d t he car b ecau se of afla t t ire an d c al le d atax i cab; cle an edth e bl oo d o ff h is clo th es an d l at er b urne d t ho se clo th es ; as ke d fo r anali bi ; b rag ge d t o se ve ral fri en ds th athe ha d k il le d t wo m enfor co cai ne an d m on ey ; as ke d B ro wn an d B ur ge ss to dri ve aro un d t he bl oc k afew ti m es aft er the m ur de r be cau se he was afra idof t he po li ce; pl an ne d t o l eav e th e co un try to e va de au th or it ie s; to ldDot so n he pl an ne d t o fi x up a“ ge ta way car” ; an d a sk edFree m anto he lp hi m di sp os e o f th e ev id en ce, an d e ve n d rew a m ap with t he lo cat io n o f th atev id en ce. 69All th atrem ai ns of P on ti cel li ’s m it ig at io n e vi de nc e is th athe ha d s om e

di ffi cu lt ie s atbi rth , th athe was s oc ia ll y -awkward , th athe was a do pt edby fos te r pa ren ts , andth atne ig hb orho odki ds rid ic ul edhi s wei gh t an d g la ss es . In o th er wor ds , Pon ti cel li ex pe rie nc eda ch il dh oo d l ik e th atof tho us an ds of c hi ldren in Am eri ca wh o d o n otgro w up to co m m itpre m ed it at eddo ub le m ur de rs . This ev id en ce o f m it ig at io n i s o f ne gl ig ib le weig ht . Po nt ic el li is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. A rewei gh in g o f th e ev id en ce l ead s t o t he co nc lu si on th at“ [t]he re i s n o re as on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the ad di ti on al ev id en ce [Po nt ic el li ] pr es en te d i n h is st at e h ab eas pro ceed in gs wou ldha ve ch an ge d t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Cu ll en , 13 1 S . Ct. at14 09 . Evenif Po nt ic el li were en ti tl edto de no vo rev ie w of h is Str ic kl an d c la im , he wo ul d n otbe en ti tl edto th e wri t o f habe as co rp us . IV. CONCLUSI ON The de ni al of P on ti cel li ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us is AFFIRMED .

70EDMONDSON, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng in th e res ul t:

I rea ch th e sa m e res ul t as Ju dg e Pryor h as do ne : af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on to de ny hab eas rel ie f. Inm y vi ew, gi ve n t he de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardco m m an de d b y

AEDPA, no r el ie f can be co rrec tl y

gi ve n b y us in th is cas e. The p ert in en t s ta te de ci si on reas on ab ly de te rm in edth e fac ts an d n ei th er co nt rad ic te d n or un reas on ab ly app li edth e th en cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, i n t he li gh t o f th e actua l h ol di ng s m ad e b y th e de ci si on s o f th e Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s— ev enco ns id eri ng lat er de ci si on s (s uc h a s, the de ci si on forpre jud ic e inth e Po rte r cas e). I b el ie ve th e la ck of pre jud ic e, ri gh t thr ou gh , is a pa rti cu la rly str on g p oi ntforFlo rid a—g iv enth e ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se an d t he de fere nc e requi redby A EDPA.

71MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g i n t he jud gm en t i n p artan d d is se nt in g i n p art :

I wou ldrev ers e th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s cla im th athe rece iv edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l dur in g t he sen te nc in g p ha se of h is cap it al tri al . In m

y jud gm en t, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on reject in g t hi s cl ai m was a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e p reju di ce an al y si s re qu ire d b y Stric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . Once t he st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li es Str ic kl an d, i ts an al y si s i s n oten ti tl edto de fere nc e un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Havi ng co nduc te d ade no vo rev ie w, I con cl ud e th at Mr. Po nt ic el li ha s d em on st rat ed“ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, ab se nt [co un se l’s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce], th e se nt en cer . . . wou ldha ve co nc lu de d t ha t the ba la nc e o f ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces di d n otwarran t d eat h.” Stric kl an d, 4 66 U.S. at 6 95 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 69 . Ju dg e Pryor’s op in io n a ccep ts th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng th atMr. Po nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l’s i nv es ti ga ti on for an d p res en ta ti on of t he pe na lt y ph as e of th e tr ia l wer e d efi ci en t. An d i t b ears no ti ng th atth e st at e co urt re co rdful ly and cl earl y supp orts th e co nc lu si on th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fic ie nt . As th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d: [C ]o un se l’s pe na lt y ph as e in ve st ig at io n co ns is te d of in te rv ie win g Po nt ic el li ’s pa ren ts an d as ki ng Dr. Mi ll s to te st ify. Co un se l ap pa ren tl y fai le d to co nt act th e pe rs on s su gg es te d by Po nt ic el li ’s pa ren ts , m ad e no effo rt to ob ta in an y of Po nt ic el li ’s sc ho ol or m ed ic al reco rd s, an d di d no t 72reque st th at Dr. Mi ll s ev al ua te Po nt ic el li ag ai n be fo re te st ifyin g at th e

pe na lt y ph as e. Whi le we reco gn iz e th at a m en ta l he al th ev al ua ti on is no t requi red in ev ery cas e, th e reco rd sh ows th at Dr. Mi ll s’[s] pe na lt y ph as e te st im on y was ba se d on th e fif te en -m in ut e ev al ua ti on he co nduc te d on Po nt ic el li be fo re the co m pe te nc y he ari ng an d h is rev ie w of th e rec or d.

. . . Co un se l’s st at ed reas on fo r no t in ve st ig at in g th i s p ot en ti al m it ig at io n was th at he di d n ot kn ow ho w to co nduc t a pe na lt y ph as e. In ex pe rie nc e is no t an ex cu se fo r de fic ie nt p e r f o rm an ce. . . . Defen se co un se l’s fai lure to co nduc t an ad equa te in ve st ig at io n r e s u l te d in a de fic ie nt pe na lt y ph as e pr es en ta ti on . He pr es en te d on ly on e wit ne ss at th e pe na lt y ph as e an d as ke d th is witne s s t o ba se hi s te st im on y on a hypo th et ic al th at was no t en ti r e l y accu rat e. W e ag ree wit h Po nt ic el li th at co un se l’s pe na lt y ph as e in ve st ig at io n an d pr es en ta ti on were de fic ie nt . Po nt ic el li v. St at e, 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 07 3, 1 09 5– 96 (Fl a. 20 06 ) (Po nt ic el li III) (fo ot no te s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . This co nc lu si on was c om pe ll edby wha t was th en , andco nt in ue s t o b e, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. See W il li am s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 36 8– 70 , 39 5– 96 , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 49 5, 1 50 0– 01 , 15 14 –1 5 (2 00 0) (fi nd in g c ou ns el pe rfo rm edde fic ie nt ly by fai li ng to co nduc t co ns ti tu ti on al ly ad equa te pe na lty

ph as e in ve st ig at io n i n 1 98 6 tria l); see als o P orte r v. M cCo ll um ,

__ _ U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 4 47 , 44 8– 49 , 45 2– 53 (20 09 ) (s am e as to 19 88 tri al ); Ro m pi ll a v . Beard , 54 5 U.S. 3 74 , 38 1– 90 , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 2– 67 (20 05 ) (s am e). Pro ceed in g fr om

th e fi nd in g re ga rd in g t ria l co un se l’s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, Stric kl an d re qu ire s an an al y si s o f whe th er Mr . Pon ti cel li was p reju di cedby thi s 73de fic ie nc y . Andon th e is su e o f whe th er the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s ad jud ic at io n of Str ic kl an d’s p reju di ce p ro ng in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral la w, I hav e arr iv edat aco nc lu si on di ffer en t fr om th atof my

co ll eag ue s. My co nc lu si on is th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d wit hi n t he m ean in g o f § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). The Un it edSta te s Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on s in W il li am s an d P orte r co m pe l m e to th is co nc lu si on in th ree d iff eren t ways. Fi rs t, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s p reju di ce an al y si s und er St ric kl an d was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law fo r th e sa m e rea so n art ic ul at edby the Supr em e Co urt i n Wil li am s: th e st at e co urt “ fai le d t o a cco rd ap pr op ria te weig htto th e [wh ol e] bo dy of m it ig at in g e vi de nc e [tha t wo ul d h av e be en ] av ai labl e to tri al co un se l” in it s re weig hi ng an al y si s. 5 29 U.S. at 3 98 , 12 0 S . Ct . at 1 51 6. Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, in W il li am s t he Supr em e Co urt fo un d t he Virg in ia Supr em e Co urt’s “pr ejud ic e d et erm in at io n was un reas on ab le in so far a s i t fa il edto ev al ua te th e to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—b ot h t ha t ad du cedat tri al , andth e ev id en ce ad du cedin th e h ab eas pro ceed in g i n re weig hi ng itag ai ns t th e ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n.” Id. at39 7– 98 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 15 (ci ti ng Cle m on s v . Mi ss is si pp i , 49 4 U.S. 7 38 , 75 1– 52 , 11 0 S . Ct. 1 44 1, 1 45 0 (1 99 0) ). The Supr em e Co urt s ai d t he erro r was “ ap pa ren t i n [t he Virg in iaSupr em e Co urt’s] con si de rat io n of th e ad di ti on al m it ig at io n e vi de nc e d ev el op edin th e p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in g.” 74Id . at 3 98 , 12 0 S . Ct. at15 15 . Alth ou gh th e Vir gi ni a Supr em e Co urt co rrec tl y

co ns id eredth e n ew ev id en ce ad du cedin th e st at e p os tc on vi ct io n h eari ng an d t he st ren gth o f th e p ro se cu ti on ’s evi de nc e o f ag gr av at io n, i t fa il edto co ns id er the m it ig at io n fr om

th e o rig in al pe na lt y

ph as e an d re weig h i t t og ethe r wit h t he po st co nv ic ti onev id en ce. Id . This be in g t he cas e, th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the Virg in iaSupr em e Co urt unr eas on ab ly app li ed Stric kl an d’s p reju di ce an al y si s wh enit“ fai le d t o a cco rdap pr op ria te weig htto th e [wh ol e] bo dy of m it ig at in g e vi de nc e [tha t wo ul d h av e b een ] av ai labl e to tri al co un se l.” Id . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt co m m it te d t he same error

inMr. Po nt ic el li ’s cas e. The s am e as in W il li am s, the st at e co urt h ere d idno t ev al ua te th e to ta li ty of Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s m it ig at in g e vi de nc e in so far a s i ts pre jud ic e an al y si s d idno t ev en m en ti on th e st atut ory

m it ig at io n t ha t was fou ndto ex is t atth e o rig in al tri al . See Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 2– 99 . Duri ng th e p en al ty pha se of M r. Po nt ic el li ’s jury tria l, the tri al co urt fo un d t wo s ta tu to ry m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces : (1 ) he ha s no si gn ifi can t h is to ry

of p rio r cri m in al act iv it y , see Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(a) ; an d (2 ) he was t wen ty y ears ol d a t the ti m e o f th e o ffen se , see id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (g ). The Fl or id a Leg is la ture’s aff

irmativ e in cl us io n o f ag e an d l ackof c riminal hi st ory am on g i ts eig htst atut ory

m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , see id . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (a)– (h ),

75to ge th er wi th th e se nt en ci ng co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t the se m it ig at or s ap pl ie d, es tabl is h

th atth es e as pe ct s o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s bac kg ro un d a ndch arac te r are m it ig at in g a s a m at te r of st at e la w. Evenif tha t wer e n otth e cas e, th e tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in gs reg ard in g M r. Po nt ic el li ’s age an d l ackof c riminal hi st ory wou ldst il l b e co ns ti tu ti on al ly relev an t m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces whi ch , eit he r al on e o r to ge th er, co ul d s erv e “ as a ba si s fo r a s en te nc e le ss th ande ath.” Lock et t v . Ohi o, 4 38 U.S. 58 6, 6 04 , 98 S. Ct. 2 95 4, 2 96 5 (1 97 8) (pl ur al it y op in io n) ; s ee al so Jac ks on v. St at e, 59 9 S o. 2 d 1 03 , 11 0 (F la . 19 92 ) (rec og ni zi ng de fen dant ’s lac k o f si gn ifi can t hi st ory of p rio r cri m in al act iv it y , coupl edwith o th er m it ig at io n, m ay cle arl y serve as a reas on ab le ba si s fo r a jury’ s l ife reco m m en da ti on ). 1 The sec on d way in wh ic h I b el ie ve th ere was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d i s b ecau se of t he pi ecemeal m an ne r in whi ch th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt weig he d M r. Po nt ic el li ’s po st co nv ic ti on m it ig at io n e vi de nc e. Thi s i s de m on st rat edby the st at e co urt’s o pi ni on whi ch pl ai nl y m eas ur edth e m it ig at in g
It is black letter Constitutional law that states must allow judge s and juries in ca pital 1 case s to hear, c onsider, and g ive full eff ect to all re levant mitigating e vidence . See Roper v. Simm ons, 543 U.S. 551, 568, 125 S. C t. 1183, 1194 (2005) (de fenda nt must be affor ded “w ide latitude” to pre sent mitigatingevidenc e); see also Abdul-Ka bir v. Quar

terman, 550 U .S. 233, 264, 127 S. Ct . 1654, 1675 (2007) ( statutory require ments that jury

consider only

particula r kinds of mitigating e vidence are unconstitutional); Bre wer v. Quar terman, 550 U .S. 286, 289, 127 S. Ct. 1706, 1710 (2007) (sente ncer may not be pre cluded f

rom “g iving mea

ningf ul effe ct to mitigatingevidenc e”) ; L ockett, 438 U.S. at 604, 98 S. Ct. at 2964–65 (plurality opinion) (sentenc er c annot be pr eclude d from conside ringchar acte r or c ircumstance s of def endant’ s rec ord). 76ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng ag ai ns t the ag gr av at in g

ev id en ce i n afrag m en te d fa sh io n. Se e Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 6– 99 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s p reju di ce an al y si s g ro up edth e p os tc on vi ct io n e vi de nc e in to two cat eg or ie s: (1) “ la y witne ss tes ti m on y ,” id . at 1 09 7; an d (2 ) “ m en ta l he al th tes ti m on y ,” id . at 1 09 8. Th e co urt the n wei gh edeach cat eg ory of e vi de nc e se pa rat el y

ag ai ns t the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n. Se e id . at 1 09 7 (“ The lay witn es s te st im on y pre se nt edat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng is cert ai nl y no t s uf fic ie ntto es tabl is h m it ig at or s t ha t o ut weig h t he se ag gr av at or s.”) ; i d. at10 98 (“ [N]eith er Dr. Cro wn’s n orDr. Herk ov ’s tes ti m on y was s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh m en ta l h eal th m it ig at io n wh ic h wo ul d, i n a ll reas on ab le pro babi li ty, ha ve ou twei gh edth e si gn ifi can t ag gr av at or s i n t hi s ca se .”). Wha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt was requi redto do un de r W il li am s was co ns id er the lay witn es s an d m en ta l h eal th ev id en ce t og ethe r, al on g wi thth e or ig in al ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he pe na lty ph as e o f th e jury tria l, the n re weig h al l o f itag ai ns t al l the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n. Ag ai n, t o p ro pe rly eval ua te Stric kl an d p reju di ce, rev ie win g c ou rts m us t “ co ns id er ‘th e to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e—b ot h t ha t ad du cedat t ria l, an d t he ev id en ce ad du cedin th e habe as pro ceed in g’—an d ‘rewei g[ h] itag ai ns t the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n.’” Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 3– 54 (qu ot in g Wil li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 97 –9 8, 1 20 S. Ct. at 7715 15 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . By

“ to ta li ty of th e av ai labl e m it ig at io n e vi de nc e,” the Supr em e Co urt m ean t the ev id en ce as a who le . See Will ia m s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 98 –9 9, 12 0 S . Ct. at15 16 (“ Inou r jud gm en t, the st at e tr ia l ju dg e was co rrec t . . . inhi s co nc lu si on th atth e en ti re p os tc on vi ct io n re co rd , vi ewedas awho le an d cu m ul at iv e o f m it ig at io n e vi de nc e p res en te d o rig in al ly, rai se d areas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th atth e res ul t o f th e se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t . . . .” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (em ph as is ad de d) ). Thu s, b y us in g atru nc at ed rewei gh in g a na lysis ev enforth e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e itdi d c on si de r, th e st at e co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. See id . at 3 97 –9 8, 1 20 S. Ct . at 1 51 5. Thi rd , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d wh enit rep eat edth e sa m e err or s i n M r. Po nt ic el li ’s cas e th atth e Supr em e Co urt co nd em ne d i n P orte r. The Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d i ts reas on in g a s fo ll ows : The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt's de ci si on th at Po rte r was no t pr ejud ic ed by h i s c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o c o n d u c t a t h o r o u g h

— o r e v e n cu rs ory —i nv es ti ga ti on is un reas on ab le . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ei th er di d no t co ns id er or un reas on ab ly di sc ou nt ed th e m it i g a t i on ev id en ce ad du ced in th e p o s t co nv ic ti on he ari ng . Und er Fl or id a la w, m en ta l he al th ev id en ce th a t d o e s n o t ris e to th e le ve l of es tabl is hi ng a st atut ory m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce m ay no ne th el es s be co ns id ered by th e se nt en ci ng jud ge an d jury as m it ig at in g. In de ed , th e Co ns t i tu t io n r equi res th at “ th e se nt en cer in cap it al cas es m us t be pe rm it te d t o co ns id er an y rel ev an t m it ig at in g fact or .” Yet ne ithe r th e po st co nv ic ti on tri al co urt no r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ga ve an y co ns id erat io n fo r th e pu rp os e of no ns ta tu to ry m it ig a t i o n to [th e de fen se ex pe rt’s] t es ti m on y 78reg ard in g th e ex is te nc e o f a br ai n ab no rm al it y an d co gn it iv e de fect s.

Wh i le th e St at e’s ex pe rts id en ti fie d pe rcei ve d pr ob le m s with th e te s t s th at [th e de fen se ex pe rt] us ed an d th e co nc lu si o n s t h a t he dr ew fro m th em , it was no t reas on ab le to di sc ou nt en ti rel y t h e e f f e c t th at hi s te st im on y m ig htha ve ha d o n t he jury or th e se nt en ci ng jud ge . 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4– 55 (em

ph as is ad de d) (fo ot no te s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Here, li ke in Po rte r, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ei th er “ di d n otco ns id er o r un reas on ab ly di sc ou nt ed ” Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s con st itut io na ll y rel ev an t m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. Id . at 45 4. Th is is tru e fo r bo th th e st atut ory an d t he no n- st atut ory

m it ig at io n M r. Po nt ic el li pre se nt eddu rin g t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng , in cl ud in g: hi s b rai n da m ag e; co gn it iv e d efi ci ts ; dru g u se at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se ; an d s ta tu to ry m en ta l h eal th m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . See Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 7– 99 . By refu si ng to co nc lu de th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s p reju di ce an al y si s was no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Stric kl an d, t hi s C ou rt r ep eat s t he same errorit co m m it te d i n P orte r v. At to rn ey Gene ral , 55 2 F .3d12 60 , 12 72 –7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ), whe n i t d idno t fi ndan yth in g u nr eas on ab le ab ou t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Po rte r v. St at e, 78 8 S o. 2 d 9 17 (Fl a. 20 01 ). Bec au se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt cl earl y fai le d t o p utall of t he m it ig at in g ev id en ce fr om

th e jury tria l p en al ty pha se in to th e “ ho pp er” wi th all th e m it ig at io n th atcam e to li gh t af

te r Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s tri al an d t he n re weig h i t ag ai ns t the ev id en ce i n a gg rav at io n, i t unr eas on ab ly app li edStr ic kl an d’s p reju di ce an al y si s. 79Thu s, i ts ad

jud ic at io n o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s cla im of S tri ck la ndpre

jud ic e atth e pe na lty ph as e is no t en ti tl edto an y de fere nc e und er AEDPA. See Pa ne tt i v . Qua rte rm an , 55 1 U.S. 9 30 , 95 3, 1 27 S. Ct. 2 84 2, 2 85 8 (2 00 7) (“ Whe n ast at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f a cl ai m

is de pe nd en t o n a n a nt eced en t u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law, the requi rem en t s etforthin § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) is sat is fie d. A fed eral co urt m

us t the n re so lv e th e cl ai m witho utth e d efer en ce AEDPA ot he rwis e requi res .”). Inli gh t o f th e st at e co urt’s u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law, Mr . Po nt ic el li is en ti tl edto de no vo rev ie w of t he reco rdwith re sp ectto pre jud ic e un de r Stric kl an d. Se e Mc Gah ee v . Ala. Dep ’t of Co rr., 56 0 F .3d12 52 , 12 66 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). On thi s i ss ue , I do no t ag ree wi thJu dg e Pryor’s co nc lu si on th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d dur in g t he st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng was c um ul at iv e to th e sc an t ev id en ce tha t was pre se nt edat t ria l. My revi ew of th e rec or d t el ls m e th at th e jud ge an d ju ry

du rin g t he sen te nc in g o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s tri al he ardve ry li tt le ev id en ce s up po rti ng hi s t ria l co un se l’s ef fo rts to hu m an iz e h im

or t ha t wo ul d al lo w th em

to m or e acc ur at el y

gaug e h is m or al cu lp ab il it y . Thu s, the pi ctur e th at th e jud ge an d t he jury wou ldha ve see n h adco un se l n otbe ende fic ie ntis ve ry di ffer en t.

80Dur in g t he pe na lt y ph as e, Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s tri al co un se l p res en te d o nl y th e te st im on y of Dr. M il ls , gi ve n i n t he form of ahypo th et ic al . Dr. Mil ls tes ti fie d t ha t (1 ) Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s beh av io r an d t he ch an ge s i n h is pe rs on al it y sh ortl y be fo re, du rin g, an d a fte r th e o ffen se were co ns is te ntwith c oc ai ne ad di ct io n; (2) Mr. Po nt ic el li was s uf

feri ng fro m

anex tre m e m en ta l o r em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce b ecau se of hi s re pe at edco cai ne us e aro un d t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , see Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(b ); a nd(3) Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s cap aci ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of h is co nduc t was subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d, s ee i d. § 92 1.1 41 (6 )(f). The for ce o f th is tes ti m on y was s ig ni fic an tl y

li m it ed , ho wev er, b ecau se of th e cu rs ory

na ture o f Dr. Mi ll s’s ev al ua ti on . Dr. Mil ls on ly int erv ie wedMr. Po nt ic el li on e ti m e fo r fi fte enm in ut es , andth atwas b efo re tria l an d fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e o f a co urt-o rd eredco m pe te nc y an d s an ity

ev al ua ti on . Trial co un se l d id no t re qu es t tha t Dr. Mi ll s ev al ua te Mr. Po nt ic el li ag ai n b efo re h is pe na lt y ph as e te st im on y . Ind eed , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt em ph as iz edth es e fac ts in supp ort of it s co nc lu si on th attri al co un se l was de fic ie nt . See Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2d 10 95 –9 6 & n.2 4 (c it in g Arb el aez v . Sta te , 89 8 S o. 2 d 2 5, 3 4– 35 (Fl a. 20 05 ), fo r th e p ro po si ti on th attri al co un se l s ho ul d n otha ve co ns id eredDr. Mil ls ’s fift een m in ut e in te rv ie w “ a rel iabl e subs ti tu te for a th or ou gh m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti on ”).

81Fu rth er, wh il e tr ia l co un se l at te m pt edto in te gr at e so m e o f th e ev id en ce pr es en te d dur in g t he tri al in to th e h y po th et ic al po se d t o Dr. M il ls , bec au se of co un se l’s co ns ti tu ti on al ly ina de qu at e in ve st ig at io n i nt o M r. Po nt ic el li ’s ba ck gr ou nd , Dr. Mil ls tes ti fie d t o ahypo th et ic al th atwas n otfactua ll y accu rat e. As the st at e co urt n ot ed , “ [tr ia l co un se l] ask edDr. Mil ls to ass um e th atPo nt ic el li ha d n o h is to ry

of c oc ai ne ab us e u nt il Po nt ic el li returne d fr om hi s v is itto New York i n Oct ob er 1 98 7. [B ut ] th e u nr efu te d t es ti m on y at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng rev eal edth atPo nt ic el li was h eav il y ab us in g c oc ai ne by the ag e o f si xt een .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 6 n .25 . The h y po th et ic al was und oubt ab ly wro ng ab ou t the len gth a ndsev eri ty of Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s dru g a dd ic ti on . Of m or e p res si ng co nc ern , ho wev er, i s t ha t the hypo th et ic al di d n otrefe ren ce M r. Po nt ic el li ’s dru g us e as witne ss edon th e d ay of t he off

en se by T im

Kees ee, an d a s al so reco gn iz ed th atda y by FrankPo rci ll o. As a res ul t, dur in g p en al ty pha se clo si ng arg um en ts , th e p ro se cu to r to ldth e jury tha t wh il e Mr. Po nt ic el li us ed“ a lo t” of c oc ai ne , “ th ere was no ev id en ce atall du rin g the tri al th athe ha d u se d c oc ai ne [th e d ay of the of fen se ]; no ne what so ev er.” 2 There was no e vidence of Mr. Ponticelli’s drug use at the time of the offe nse in part due 2 to the state’s suppre ssion of this evidence. While I agreethat Mr. Ponticelli has not demonstrated a

Br ady or Gig lio violation wit h respe ct to his convictions, Iarrive at my conclusion by

a diffe rent route than J udg e Pryor. In my view, Mr. Ponticelli’s B rady and Gig lio claims should be denied w ith reg ard to his convictions not bec ause hehas fa iled to establish that evidenc e of his intox ication was suppr essed, but bec ause hehas not demonstrate d prejudice as to 82At the co nc lu si on of t he sen te nc in g p ha se of t he jury tri al , “ th e tr ia l co urt

di d n otfin d e it he r st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or [s ] be cau se itfou ndth at , gi ve n th e la ckof e vi de nc e supp orti ng Po nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne us e wit hi n t wen ty-four ho ur s of th e cri m e, [Dr.] Mil ls [’s] test im on y was s pe cu la ti ve .” Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2d at10 93 . The l ackof e vi de nc e o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s coc ai ne us e is no t s ur pr is in g i n
his convictions. Reg ardle ss of the state tria l court’s c redibility finding s as to the def

ense counsel’s a

nd the prosec utor’s conf

licting testimony

about the prose cutor’s note s, Tim Keese e testified in the postconviction hea ringthat his trial testimony was fa lse; that he had se en Mr. Ponticelli use coca ine at the Gr andinettis’ trailer on the eve ning of

the homicides; and that he told the state’s investig ator B ruce Munster this. See Ponticelli I I I , 941 So.2d at 1089. Detec tive Munster cor

roborated Kee see’ s testimony on this pointduringhis postconviction testim ony . Thus, reg ardle ss of the prose cutor’s note s and testimony , ignoring this unre butted evidenc e that Detec tive Munster, whose know ledg e is cha rg ed to the prose cution, knew that Ke esee ’s testimony was fa lse rende rs the state’ s fac tual deter mination unreasona

ble. See id. at 1090. Whil e I concludethat Mr. Ponticelli was not prejudice d by this suppression of evidenc e on the question of his guilt or innocence , I cannot sa y the same w ith reg ard to the se ntence of death. F or me, the materiality of the B rady

and Gig lio violations with respec t to Mr. Ponti celli’s death se ntence is plain beca use the e vidence relates to his druguse on the da y of the off ense. This is consistent with what the Supreme Court has re cognized: thi s kind of evidenc e may be materia l to a capital jury ’s pena lty phase de liberations. See Cone v. B ell, 556 U.S. 449, 470–75, 129 S. Ct . 1769, 1783–86 (2009). He re, Mr . Ponticelli’s druguse on the da y of the off ense w as disputed by

the state duringthe pena lty phase. A lthough the de fense attempted to elicit testimony and argue that Mr. Ponticelli’s par anoid behavior demonstrate d he wa s impaired by druguse nea

r the time of the of

fense , the state implored the jur y to infer that Mr. Ponticelli’s behavior was attributable to his criminal activity . Indeed, the materia lity of this evidence is further established by

the Florida Supreme Court’s dire ct appe al opinion affir ming the trial court’s de termination that Mr. Ponticelli failed to prove the exist ence of statutory mitigating circ umstances in par

t beca use there was no e vidence prese nted at Mr. Ponticelli’s jury trial that he wa s using c ocaineon the eve ning of the murder s. See Ponticelli v. St ate, 593 So. 2d 483, 490–491 (F la. 1991) (Ponticelli I ), vac ated a nd rema nded sub nom. Ponticelli v. Florida, 506 U.S. 802, 113 S. C t. 32 (1992) (r emandingfor r econside ration in light of E spinosa v. Florida , 505 U.S. 1079, 112 S. C t. 2926 (1992)), r emande d to Ponti celli v. State, 618 So. 2d 154 (Fla . 1993) (Ponticelli I I ) (a ffirmingconvictions and sente nce) . 83th atDr. Mil ls ha d n otin te rv ie wedMr. Po nt ic el li forth e p ur po se of i nv es ti ga ti ng orde ve lo pi ng po te nt ia l m it ig at io n a ndne it he r ha d Dr. M il ls be enex po se d t o ev id en ce s uc h a s Ti m

Kees ee’s an d F ran k P or ci ll o’s eyewitne ss acco un ts of, res pe ct iv el y , Pon ti cel li ’s dru g u se an d i nt ox ic at io n a ro un d t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Giv enth e u ns ub st an ti at edan d i nc om pl et e n atur e o f Dr. Mi ll s’s h y po th et ic al te st im on y , nei th er the jury no r th e jud ge ha d aba si s fo r fi nd in g t he st atut ory m en ta l s ta te m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . By co nt ras t, the po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ce p ai nt eda st ark ly diff eren t p ortra it of Mr. Po nt ic el li th anth atpre se nt eddu rin g h is jury tri al . The p os tc on vi ct io n ev id en ce i nc lu de d M r. Po nt ic el li ’s earl y ch il dh oo d d iff

ic ul ti es , to ge th er wi th th e factth athe ha d b eenbo rna “bl ue baby” whi ch li ke ly resu lt edin bra in da m ag e. Mr. Po nt ic el li was p la cedin fos te r car e whe n h e was on ly j us t m on th s o ld . Mr. Po nt ic el li be ga n abu si ng dru gs as ay ou th . Thes e ear ly chi ld ho oddi ffi cu lt ie s, 3 whi chth e jury nev er h eardan yth in g abo ut , rep res en t the “ ki ndof t ro ub le d h is to ry [th e Supr em e Co urt h as ] de cl aredrel ev an t t o a ss es si ng a de fen da nt ’s m or al cu lp ab il it y .” See Wig gi ns v. Sm it h, 5 39 U.S. 51 0, 5 35 , 12 3 S . Ct. 2 52 7, 2 54 2 (2 00 3) . At the state c ourt postconviction hearing, w itnesses testified that Mr. Ponticelli beg an 3 using ma rijuana a nd alcohol in junior hig h school, sometime betwee n the ag es of thirtee n, fourtee n, and fifte en year s old, and then continued a nd incre ased his druguse in hig h school to more serious drug s, such as blac k beauties, me scaline, ha shish, Valium, and coca ine. 84Thi s p os tc on vi ct io n m it ig at in g e vi de nc e h as parti cu la r si gn ifi can ce h ere,

fir stbe cau se itis co ns ti tu ti on al ly relev an t ev id en ce. See Ro pe r v. Si m m on s, 5 43 U.S. 55 1, 5 68 , 12 5 S . Ct. 1 18 3, 1 19 4 (2 00 5) (“ Inany cap it al cas e a d efen da ntha s wid e la ti tu de to rai se as am it ig at in g fa ct oran y asp ectof h is or h er ch arac te r or reco rd. . . .” (quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) ). Seco nd , itis si gn ifi can t be cau se itsupp orts th e ex is te nc e o f two m en ta l s ta te st atut ory m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces un de r Fl or id a law. See Fl a. St at . § 9 21 .14 1( 6) (b ), (f). Inhi s po st co nv ic ti onpro ceed in gs , Mr. Po nt ic el li pre se nt edth e te st im on y of t hr ee ex pe rts who ag reedth athi s co cai ne us e o n t he day of t he off

en se , coupl edwith h is le ng th y an d s ev ere h is to ry

of c oc ai ne ad di ct io n, s up po rte d aco nc lu si on th athe was un de r anex tre m e em ot io na l d is tu rb an ce atth e ti m e o f th e cri m e. See Po nt ic el li III, 9 41 So . 2dat 1 09 3. Th e th ree e xp ert s al so ag reedth atth is ev id en ce sh owe d M r. Po nt ic el li ’s abi li ty to ap pr eci at e th e cri m in al it y of h is co nduc t o r co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o the requi rem en ts of l aw was subs ta nt ia ll y im pa ire d. Se e id . Whi le itis cert ai nl y tru e th atth e st at e’s m en ta l h eal th ex pe rt Dr. Co ng er di sa gr eed , itis no t the job of t hi s C ou rt t o re so lv e d is pu te s i n the ev id en ce. Our

4 Dr. Cong er opine d that Mr. Ponticelli’s mental state at the time of the offe nse did not 4 rise to the leve l to support statutory mitigators. Ne verthe less, Dr. Cong er a gree d on crossexamination that the “rec ord would ce rtainly sug g est” that Mr. Ponticelli “wa s not a coldblooded murder er, a

nd he wa s highly

stressed during a

nd afte r the homicides.” 85job is to de te rm in e whe th er the re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the tes ti m on y of Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s exp ert s wo ul d h av e affe ct edth e juro rs ’ ap pr ai sa l o f hi s m or al cu lp ab il it y . In m

y vi ew th ere i s. Fo r on e th in g, t he op in io ns of M r. Po nt ic el li ’s ex pe rts do no t s uf

fer fr om th e sa m e in firm it ie s as Dr. Mil ls ’s tes ti m on y . Unl ik e Dr. Mi ll s, wh o t es ti fie d t o afactua ll y in accu rat e h y

po th et ic al ba se d upo n a co ns ti tu ti on al ly ina de qu at e b ack gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n, t he op in io ns of t he ex pe rts who tes ti fie d i n p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs were s ub st an ti at edan d c orro bo rat ed by ext en si ve ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng ev id en ce o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s dru g u se on th e d ay of th e o ffen se . I am cert ai nl y aware t ha t n otall of t he po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ce p res en te d was fav or ab le to Mr. Po nt ic el li . For e xa m pl e, as Ju dg e Pryor s ug ge st s, tria l co un se l’s p ortra y al of M r. Po nt ic el li as ana iv e dru g u se r du rin g t he pe na lty ph as e m ay be m or e sym

pa th et ic th anth e rea li ty tha t h e h ada lo ng st an di ng dru g ad di ct io n a ndrel ap se d o nl y week s p rio r to th e o ffen se . Altho ug h I r eco gn iz e th e 5 fo rce o f th is arg um en t, the po si ti ve s an d n eg at iv es of t hi s as pe ctof M r. Dr. Cong er sug g ested that Mr. Ponticelli may have a n antisocial per sonality

disorder 5 based upon one persona lity test administered by

him, but he did not diagnoseMr. Ponticelli with this disorder. Even if w e we re to a ssume that Dr. Cong er ha d deter mined that Mr. Ponticelli met all of the diagnostic criteria for a ntisocial persona lity

disorder, suc h a diagnosis, although harmful, doe s not preclude a conc lusion of prejudice . See Cooper v. Sec ’y , Dep’ t of Corr., 646 F.3d 1328, 1340, 1253–56 ( 11th Cir. 2011) (grantinghabea s corpus re lief base d upon ineffe ctive assistance of counse l at penalty phase e ven though defe ndant’s own psycholog ist diagnose d the defe ndant with antisocial per sonality disorder) .

86Po nt ic el li ’s bac kg ro un d d o n otfor ecl os e a fi nd in g o f Stric kl an d p reju di ce. The

Supr em e Co urt h as fou ndpre jud ic e in sev eral cas es wher e th e ev id en ce h adbo th go odan d b adpro pe rti es . See Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 5 (h ol di ng th atth e h ab eas pe ti ti on er was pre

jud ic edby his co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntev id en ce o f hi s m il it ary se rv ic e ev enth ou gh su ch ev id en ce wo ul d h av e al so sh own th athe “ wen t AW OL onm or e th anon e o ccas io n” ); Wil li am s, 5 29 U.S. at 3 96 , 12 0 S . Ct. at 15 14 (ho ld in g t ha t d efen se co un se l’s fa il ur e to pre se ntjuv en il e rec or ds in vo lv in g ch il d abu se , m en ta l capa ci ty, an d i nc arce rat io n was de fic ie nt , eve n t ho ug h “ no t al l th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce was fav or ab le to ” th e p et it io ne r); id . at 3 98 –9 9, 1 20 S. Ct. at15 15 –1 6 (h ol di ng th atth e st at e tr ia l ju dg e h adco rrec tl y fou ndpre

jud ic e fro m th e fai lure t o i nt ro du ce the juv en il e rec or ds ); c f. Sear s v . Upt on , __ _ U.S. _

__ ,

__ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 3 25 9, 3 26 4 (2 01 0) (st at in g “ th e fac t tha t al on g wi th th is ne w m it ig at io n e vi de nc e th ere was als o s om e ad ve rs e ev id en ce i s u ns ur pr is in g . . . gi ve n t ha t co un se l’s i ni ti al m it ig at io n i nv es ti ga ti onwas c on st itut io na ll y in ad equa te . Com

pe te ntco un se l s ho ul d h av e b een ab le to turnso m e o f th e ad ve rs e ev id en ce i nt o apo si ti ve . . . .”); Ro m pi ll a, 54 5 U.S. at39 0– 93 , 12 5 S . Ct. at 24 67 –6 9 (h ol di ng th athabe as pe ti ti on er was pre jud ic edby the fai lu re o f hi s de fen se co un se l t o e xa m in e an d p res en t ev id en ce fr om th e rec or ds of h is pri or

87co nv ic ti on ). W it h t hi s i n m in d, I s ay Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s rel ap se do es no t v it ia te th e co nc lu si on th athe ha s s ho wn p reju di ce b as edup onth e rec or d i n h is cas e. Fo r ex am pl e, th e fac t o f a rel ap se an d p reju di ce ar e n otm utua ll y ex cl us iv e in li gh t o f th e ear ly ons etof M r. Po nt ic el li ’s dru g a dd ic ti on , as wel l as th e rea li ty th atpe op le who su fferfro m dru g a dd ic ti onso m et im es su ccu m b t o t he ir a dd ic ti on an d re laps e. See, e.g , Coo pe r v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 55 n.2 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (“ W e ackno wled ge th atev id en ce o f al co ho li sm an d d ru g abu se is of te n atwo -ed ge d s wor d wh ic h c anha rm a cap it al de fen dantas e as il y as i t ca n he lp hi m at s en te nc in g. Ho wev er, we cre di t [t he de fen da nt ’s] ev id en ce o f al co ho l ab us e b eg in ni ng at a ge 11 as m it ig at io n, as itwas u se d a s a wa y to esc ap e h is ho rri bl e b ack gr ou nd .” (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ); c f. Ro pe r, 54 3 U.S. at56 9– 70 , 12 5 S . Ct. at11 95 –9 6 (r eco gn iz in g, g en eral ly, th e d iff eren ces be twee n juv en il e an d a du ltoff

en de rs in term s o f m or al cu lp ab il it y ); i d. at57 0, 1 25 S. Ct. at 11 95 (“ The su sc ep ti bi li ty of juv en il es to imm atur e an d i rres po ns ib le be ha vi or m ean s ‘th ei r irres po ns ib le co nduc t i s n otas m or al ly repre he ns ib le as t ha t o f an adul t.’” (qu ot in g Th om

ps onv. Ok la ho m a, 48 7 U.S. 8 15 , 83 5, 1 08 S. Ct. 2 68 7, 26 99 (19 88 ) (p lu ral it y

op in io n) )). On t he ag gr av at io n s id e o f th e le dg er, the jury reco m m en de d d eat h b y

a vo te of ni ne to th ree f

orth e m ur de rs of b oth Ni ckan d R al ph Gran di ne tt i. The tri al

88co urt fo un d t wo ag gr av at in g fa ct or s ap pl ie d t o t he m ur de r of each m an : (1 ) th e ho m ic id es were co m

m it te d fo r pe cu ni ary ga in , see Fla . Sta t. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(f); an d (2 ) th e h om ic id es were “ co m m it te d i n aco ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edm an ne r wit ho utan y

pre te ns e o f m or al or l eg al jus ti fic at io n,” whi ch is refe rredto as t he CCP a gg rav at or , see id . § 9 21 .14 1( 5) (i) . The tria l co urt al so fou ndth atNick Gran di ne tt i’s m

ur de r was “ es pe ci al ly hei no us , atr oc io us , or c ru el ,” a fac to r of te n refe rredto as t he HAC ag gr av at or . Id. § 92 1.1 41 (5 )(h ). The C CP an d HAC ag gr av at or s h av e b een reco gn iz edas “ two of t he m os t s eri ou s ag gr av at or s s etou t in [Fl or id a’s] statut ory

sen te nc in g s ch em e.” Lark in s v . Sta te , 73 9 S o. 2 d 9 0, 9 5 (Fl a. 19 99 ). Bu t t og ethe r wit h t he m it ig at in g e vi de nc e n ev er h eardby the m , th e jud ge an d jury

m ay have ev al ua te d t he CCP fa ct ordi ffer en tl y . They m ay ha ve gi ve n i t d iff

eren t wei gh t t o t he ex te ntth atth e ad di ti on al mit ig at in g e vi de nc e subs ta nt ia te d M r. Po nt ic el li ’s cla im th athe m etth e cri te riaforFlo rid a’s st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or s. Insu m , I co nc lu de th atha d t he jud ge an d jury be enab le to co ns id er Mr . Po nt ic el li ’s li fe h is to ry

an d d ru g u se at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , to ge th er wi th hi s y ou ng ag e an d l ackof c riminal hi st ory , on th e m it ig at in g s id e o f th e sc al e, an d reduc e th e st ren gth o f th e CCP ag gr av at in g fa ct oron th e o th er s id e o f th e sc al e, th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the sen te nc in g ju dg e an d ju ry “wou ldha ve 89st ru cka di ffer en t b al an ce.” Wig gi ns , 53 9 U.S. at53 7, 1 23 S. Ct. at25 43 ; s ee al so

Po rte r, 13 0 S . Ct. at45 4. Ev enwitho utth e n ew an d c om pe ll in g e vi de nc e pr es en te d a t the po st co nv ic ti onhe ari ng , th ree o f Mr. Po nt ic el li ’s ori gi na l juro rs vo te d fo r li fe b as edup onno th in g m or e th antwo st atut ory m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces , hi s youth a ndlac k o f cri m in al hi st ory . Had h is jury be enpre se nt ed wit h t he co ns id erab le m it ig at in g e vi de nc e ad du ceddu rin g the po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs —i nc lu di ng th e co rro bo rat edop in io ns of t hr ee m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts as to th e ex is te nc e o f Fl or id a’s st atut ory m en ta l h eal th m it ig at or s, co up le d wi th th e two stro ng st atut ory

mit ig at in g c irc um st an ces alr eady fou ndby the sen te nc in g co urt— “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t i t wo ul d h av e returne d wi th a di ffer en t s en te nc e.” Wigg in s, 5 39 U.S. at 5 36 , 12 3 S . Ct. at25 43 . Alth ou gh we can no t b e co m

pl et el y cert ai n t ha t the ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t, Stric kl an d d oe s n otrequi re tha t o f us . See 4 66 U.S. at 6 93 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 (s ta ti ng th at , to sh ow p reju di ce, “ a d efen da ntne edno t s ho w th atco un se l’s de fic ie ntco nduc t m or e li ke ly tha n n otalt eredth e o ut co m e inth e cas e”). Ra th er, a de fen da ntne edon ly dem on st rat e a rea so nabl e p ro babi li ty of a d iff eren t o ut co m e. Id . at 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 . For the se reas on s, I wo ul d g ran t M r. Po nt ic el li habe as rel ie f as to hi s cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l atth e p en al ty ph as e o f hi s t ria l, an d I r es pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fr om

th e d en ia l o f th is rel ie f. 90